21 hours ago, Jingthing said:

They may be "mostly" thin but there is a strong trend towards increased obesity, especially in youth, and sadly obesity in youth generally carries forward to obesity in adulthood. It's wise to try to address this before Thailand becomes another Mexico. 

Mexico? More like the USA!

Mass consumption of sugary drinks in Thailand? Look on the bright side...Soi dog problem solved...

Only the poor will be affected; those without the means to pay more. This tax will increase jealousy and envy; I'm waiting for the first 11 year old murdered for his cola.

 

This law is going to accomplish what restricting alcohol buying hours did for alcoholism in Thailand.

 

 

14 hours ago, Luckysilk said:

Yep and Americans are the first to call it a disease and somehow that is supposed to guilt us. I’m American and the last time I was in the US I was disgusted

 

Just got back from taking the kids for a long bike ride - not many Thais and not many fatties out there, sad.

Calling it a 'disease' is an attempt too put the Government on the hook for the cost of the cure via more taxes. Lets the Government fix things for the citizen.

12 minutes ago, IAMHERE said:

Calling it a 'disease' is an attempt too put the Government on the hook for the cost of the cure via more taxes. Lets the Government fix things for the citizen.

 

Nope.  Any product advertised to treat a disease has to have FDA approval as a drug.  Eventually limiting weight loss treatments to Big Pharma who can afford the $$ millions to get that FDA approval.

 

Sorry if someone already mentioned this, but what about the myriad of cakes, sweet bread, doughnuts  loaded to the hilt with not only sugar, but preservatives, colourings, etc that I see Thais shoving relentlessly down their throats every day.......It is simply another stealth tax to glean money. The hi so government does not give a hoot about the people's health. 

13 hours ago, Grumpy Duck said:

I was going to comment about Chinas "Buy 2 submarines get one free" deal. 5555

Do you want sugar/fries with that?

Sugar and salt tax great...go look at foodcourts how much they throw in  of that crap with each dish!

Thaifood taste much better more natural imho.

A move designed only at filling their own coffers....how about investing in alternative sweetener r&d?

 

Stevia sucks balls...but products like Erythritol show great promise.....0 cal, 0 carb, 0 GL.....I have used it in baking and whatnot...and you cant tell the difference from sugar.....but it is priced beyond what people will pay for everyday use. They should work to make stuff like this cheaper.

very good idea. Look once to USA how many obese people there. They are aware of "low fat" and cholesterol but enjoy the sugary drinks.

Now it's very obvious: Thailand moves forward. Hail to Prayut.

next we will have a clean "facebook" in Thailand because he talked turkey to Mr. Zuckerberg.

They need to make more low sugar or no sugar foods and drink more available, then follow up with health campaigns.

 

Otherwise all the little fat kids will end up with diabetes and sleep apnoea.

On 10/21/2017 at 8:00 AM, rooster59 said:

Thailand enters 'War on Sugar' with tax on sweetened beverages

What's a military government without a war victory? Here an artist's impression for phase 2:

Diabetes in Asia make some of the people slim or skinny  not obese like it does to people in

Europe and North America,  Something to think about.

Geezer

6 hours ago, SpicyMeatball said:

Mexico? More like the USA!

No, you and others don't get it.

Mexico is a much more relevant country to compare Thailand to than the USA.

Mexico and Thailand are both larger (but not massive like the USA) land area and population nations at similar wealth levels. 

Mexico is among the most obese larger nations in the world. Thailand isn't yet but is trending in that direction, in the direction of Mexico.

Some years Mexico has been listed as the most obese larger population nation in the world. Right now, it's probably the USA. UK and Australia are always competitive.

But the most obese nations in the world by far are very SMALL south Pacific island nations. 

19 hours ago, peterb17 said:

The problem here is high fructose corn syrup- it is metabolised differently than sucrose- it is a poison.

 

Absolutely false, unless you can provide the MSDS and LD₅₀ data to back up your claim.

 

 

18 hours ago, Grumpy Duck said:

I understand most US soft drink manufacturers have switched from expensive sugar to cheaper and more unhealthy corn syrups as sweeteners.

 

Not exactly.  The switch to HFCS was driven in part by cost and caloric content.  Its fructose/glucose ratio is higher than that of cane sugar, allowing manufacturers to use less and not lose any sweetness.  Switching to HFCS is a cost-saving and calorie-reducing decision.  Using cane sugar or beet sugar would require 20% more sugar (and calories) to achieve the same sweetness.

 

 

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

No, you and others don't get it.

Mexico is a much more relevant country to compare Thailand to than the USA.

Mexico and Thailand are both larger (but not massive like the USA) land area and population nations at similar wealth levels. 

Mexico is among the most obese larger nations in the world. Thailand isn't yet but is trending in that direction, in the direction of Mexico.

Some years Mexico has been listed as the most obese larger population nation in the world. Right now, it's probably the USA. UK and Australia are always competitive.

But the most obese nations in the world by far are very SMALL south Pacific island nations. 

Yeah well perhaps Mexico is obese because of their native delicious food like burritos, tacos, enchiladas & guacamole dip, not super size me sugary drinks & 1500 calorie BigMacs. Americans have the option to abstain from over indulgence but do they? I've seen block after block of fast food outlets one after the other with the drive throughs lined up. 

SuperSize Me should not be an option. How can people continue to eat that crap? I know it's fast & cheap but might want to read the ingredients. At least get some exercise afterwards.

39 minutes ago, SpicyMeatball said:

Yeah well perhaps Mexico is obese because of their native delicious food like burritos, tacos, enchiladas & guacamole dip, not super size me sugary drinks & 1500 calorie BigMacs. Americans have the option to abstain from over indulgence but do they? I've seen block after block of fast food outlets one after the other with the drive throughs lined up. 

SuperSize Me should not be an option. How can people continue to eat that crap? I know it's fast & cheap but might want to read the ingredients. At least get some exercise afterwards.

Burritos are rarely found in Mexico, except in Northern Mexico and traditional ones have no cheese or sour cream.

 

Avocados are a healthy fat.

 

The Mexican government determined the main reason for the huge spike in Mexico in modern times has been greater wealth, urbanization, and increased SUGAR consumption. Like Thailand. 

 

Next ... 

Edited October 22, 20178 yr by Jingthing

31 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Burritos are rarely found in Mexico, except in Northern Mexico and traditional ones have no cheese or sour cream.

 

Avocados are a healthy fat.

 

The Mexican government determined the main reason for the huge spike in Mexico in modern times has been greater wealth, urbanization, and increased SUGAR consumption. Like Thailand. 

 

Next ... 

Other than avocados being a healthy fat (already known), you care to back your statements up with facts?

You've been up & down, across Mexico? Seen it all have you?

 

Next...

1 minute ago, SpicyMeatball said:

Other than avocados being a healthy fat (already known), you care to back your statements up with facts?

You've been up & down, across Mexico? Seen it all have you?

 

Next...

Yes, it's basic knowledge. 

Outside of Northern Mexico where the traditional very basic burritos originated, American style "super" burritos can sometimes be found in tourist trap restaurants in resorts largely catering to Americans.

Edited October 22, 20178 yr by Jingthing

Well I guess I'll have to believe that, cuz you said so. 

Edited October 22, 20178 yr by SpicyMeatball
Double worded

i hope they start taxing plastic bags next

Sugar is simply one of the most toxic things you can consume.

9 hours ago, AboutThaim said:

Do you want sugar/fries with that?

No fries

4 hours ago, attrayant said:

 

Absolutely false, unless you can provide the MSDS and LD₅₀ data to back up your claim.

 

 

 

Not exactly.  The switch to HFCS was driven in part by cost and caloric content.  Its fructose/glucose ratio is higher than that of cane sugar, allowing manufacturers to use less and not lose any sweetness.  Switching to HFCS is a cost-saving and calorie-reducing decision.  Using cane sugar or beet sugar would require 20% more sugar (and calories) to achieve the same sweetness.

 

 

Like peterb, I also recall hearing that hfcs was not good for people. I think it was some PBS program on TV in California 

26 minutes ago, Grumpy Duck said:

No fries

But green curry laced with sugar goes down well with the wife as it tastes better so she says, thankfully none on mine, but salt on apples and strawberry's is another hit with her.

1 hour ago, Chip Allen said:

Sugar is simply one of the most toxic things you can consume.

 

No, it's not.  Botulism is the most toxic thing you can consume.

How many times have you seen a vaguely healthy pice of salad on a Thai plate totally ruined by the addition of sweet mayonnaise. Mayonnaise with so much sugar should either be taxed heavily or banned altogether!

41 minutes ago, Grumpy Duck said:

Like peterb, I also recall hearing that hfcs was not good for people. I think it was some PBS program on TV in California 

 

No doubt people have heard this.  The media does an absolute crap job of science reporting.  There is a slight difference in how fructose and glucose are metabolized, which may possibly be of interest to diabetics.  However it's still worth noting that HFCS is much sweeter than cane sugar, which means processed food can contain fewer total calories from sugar while keeping the same sweetness.

 

A cursory search turns up the usual junk science sites and internet doctors with their online shops full of supplements.  If we instead turn to sites that have an actual job of reporting what the science shows (instead of trying to sell us something), we find that HFCS is bad only because one of its components (fructose) has been shown to cause — or at least contribute to — hyperlipidemia, obesity, insulin resistance and cardiac disease.  But HFCS is not the only sweetener that has fructose in it.  Some of the so-called "healthy" alternatives like agave syrup have a much higher fructose content than HFCS (more on this below).

 

While looking for studies that reported on fructose in a negative light, I found this one that looks more like a questionnaire than a study: Fructose Increases Cravings for High-Calorie Foods.  Sample size: 24 volunteers in Southern CA.  Color me unimpressed.  Another study I looked at seems to have ignored the fact that people don't consume pure fructose; they eat it in combination with sucrose or glucose in foods such as honey.  Here's a breakdown of the sugars in honey:

 

fructose 38%

glucose 31%

maltose 7%

sucrose 1.3%

other sugars 1.5%

 

Looking at that, I'd say honey qualifies as a type of high-fructose sweetener.  HFCS is about 40-55% fructose, depending on the formulation.  Agave syrup, often touted as a "natural" substitute for HFCS, is a whopping 87% fructose.  That sounds like a high-fructose sweetener to me.  Maple syrup, on the other hand, is quite low in fructose at about 1%.

 

If there is a health problem associated with sugar, it's that we consume too much of any kind of sugar.

 

 

Cites for my posts:

 

Science-based medicine: High Fructose Corn Syrup: Tasty Toxin or Slandered Sweetener?

High fructose corn syrup – don’t be afraid, it’s just sugar

Must admit it's getting crazy with the sugar here. I struggle to find stuff now without it. 

Good to hear, about sugar tax.   How 'bout outlawing MSG?  It only poisons some % (my guess; 18%) of the population, so those who don't get adversely affected say, "what's the big deal? It doesn't bother me."