Not content with removing the salt from our food, the nanny state have recently been in a sugar-removal frenzy. Thanks partly to Jamie Oliver‘s suggestion of a “sugar tax” back in 2015, this daft proposal, like most of Oliver’s ideas will soon come into fruition (his cunty-crusading sugar tax will be implemented in April this year). This in of itself is to be expected, after all, every year the money-grabbing government raise the tax on alcoholic products so a similar sugar tax was only a matter of time. Unlike alcohol however, instead of people deciding for themselves whether to consume sugary foodstuffs such as soft drinks and therefore paying a levy, drink-makers have elected to remove the sugar and replace it with artificial sweeteners thus bypassing the sugar tax altogether.
Strangely, soft drinks such as Tango, Fanta, and Sprite changed their ingredients a while back. Way before the sugar tax was even suggested, they began adding artificial sweeteners and personally, I stopped consuming them because there is no viable replacement for natural sugar. Once you start to add sham sweeteners, the drink begins to taste as revolting as its ingredients.
Brands such as Lucozade and 7Up recently changed their ingredients directly because of the upcoming sugar tax, and Irn Bru plans on following in their footsteps. It’s only Coca Cola and Pepsi that haven’t changed, at least for now. News stories about panic-buying Irn Bru before the change and consumers tweeting their dismay over the new taste of Lucozade only goes to show that people who aren’t easily-led can tell the difference when ingredients are changed. All this is reminiscent of the High-Fructose Corn Syrup debacle in the United States, where you have to wait for Passover or cross the border into Mexico to get soft drinks with real cane sugar!
Why we use extremes to dictate policy I’ll never know. Just because some numpty who drinks umpteen cans of Coke a day has rotten teeth or some shut-in who has to wash their arse with a rag on a stick because of junk-food, do these instances of overindulgence mean that everybody else has to be penalised? Well, according to our celeb-chef-sucking government, yes it does.
Normal folk like you and I, look at something that has a large amount of say, salt or sugar, note that it also tastes good, and decide to have it occasionally, you know, as a treat. Pricks on the other hand, like the taste of something, can plainly see the high level of salt and sugar it contains, but proceed to consume masses amounts of it without any regard for their health. In no time, they begin to see the health effects of their overconsumption, but that’s the reason for the effects; over-consumption.
Let’s not forget here, that natural cane or natural beet sugar is perfectly fine to eat, artificial sweeteners on the other hand (which have more in common with poison than sugar) are not. Just like periodic news stories about the dangers of salt and fat, we later realise that every single food group is okay in moderation. And surely that’s the key; moder-frigging-ation. If you eat 20 eggs in one sitting or 20 bananas in one go, you’ll feel a bit off. Does that mean we replace eggs and bananas with counterfeit versions so idiot consumers don’t overdose on natural food? Hell no! So why do this with sugar?
In a normal society we allow people to make decisions of what to consume, in what quantity, and when, but it seems that in our twisted contemporary society we let politicians, celebrities, and so-called experts force-feed us garbage on the pretence that it will make us healthy. In truth however, it’s all to do with profit, public perception, and possibly even population control. Take away natural foods and slowly move us toward artificial crap and it may “thin the heard” as it were, and I’m certain that this concept isn’t lost with the powers that be.
Artificial sweeteners include, but are not limited to; Aspartame, Acesulfame K, Saccharin, Sucralose, Steviol Glycosides, Sorbitol, and Xylitol. Just hearing these names makes me want to gip, it’s like GCSE Chemistry all over again. Go online and you’ll see that some of these sweeteners are linked with horrid side effects such as diarrhoea, headaches, depression, dizziness, various gastrointestinal problems, ironically weight gain, and even cancer. But forget all that, Jamie Oliver said we should pay a tax on sugar and so now we all need to consume chemical-crap so that the corporations can stay profitable.
Aside from the f’d-up side-effects, is it just me or does every single artificial sweetener have some sort of foul after-taste? If the manufacturer’s only concern is “sweetness” rather than an appealing taste, they may as well add cyanide to their soft drinks, because, you know, it’s pretty sweet-tasting.
So what would you prefer; ingredients you recognise or some crap you have to Google or go down into the “side effects” tab of WebMD to check out? I’d rather visit the dentist than make an appointment with a gastroenterologist, neurologist, or oncologist.
To be fair to Oliver, when he suggested a sugar tax, having less sugar didn’t mean adding “poisons” to our drinks but that’s how a reactionary government and capitalism works. The worst and cheapest solution to a problem is implemented and health, well-being, common sense, and rational thinking goes out of the window.
Not thinking anybody would notice, some of these manufacturers have slyly added their sugar replacements. Without any fanfare at all, 7Up clandestinely added stevia to its drink. Read 7Up’s current list of ingredients and it all looks fine until you get to the end: Carbonated Water, Sugar, Acids (Citric Acid, Malic Acid), Natural Lemon and Lime Flavouring, Acidity Regulator (Sodium Citrate), Sweetener (Steviol Glycosides). That explains the new unappealing taste I guess.
And take a gander at Lucozade’s Frankenstein-esque ingredients: Carbonated Water, Glucose Syrup (13%), Acids (Citric Acid, Lactic Acid), Acidity Regulator (Sodium Citrate), Preservative (Potassium Sorbate), Caffeine, Sweeteners (Acesulfame-K, Aspartame), Antioxidant (Ascorbic Acid), Colours (Sunset Yellow, Ponceau 4R), Flavourings. It sounds as bad as it now tastes.
I read somewhere that Lucozade’s “taste testers” or “samplers” or whatever they want to call them, couldn’t tell the difference and some even preferred the new taste. Sure, that’s believable. Who did they use – tongue amputees?
And what’s the point in still selling the diet equivalent now that they all contain artificial sweeteners? If the “regular” and “diet” both contain shit-sugars, what’s the pissing point in having both? What’s a few calories between enemies?
Some people’s defence of this new tax and subsequent ingredient overhaul is that soft drinks are unhealthy and something must be done! But that’s a falsity. Judging all soft drinks by the worst is the reason we’re in this mess, I mean San Pellegrino Sparkling Limonata contains: Water, Lemon Juice from Concentrate (16%), Sugar, Carbon Dioxide, Natural Lemon Flavouring. That’s it! And it tastes great, like a soft drink supposed to, you know, refreshing and sweet with no forged sugar anywhere.
Of course San Pellegrino is described as “The perfect premium sparkling fruit drink for casual dining”. “Premium” drinks from now on, will mean just that, natural ingredients will cost extra. If you can’t afford to drink premium, natural ingredients, you’ll have to drink something that’s engineered in a fucking lab.
Update: Unfortunately, since writing this article, San Pellegrino have decided to add stevia to their drinks.
On a side note, it’s nice to see that alcohol, which receives a similar duty because of so-called health issues, is allowed to keep its original ingredients but soft drinks which are far less detrimental to your health are having their ingredients fiddled with on the assumption that consumers would prefer ghastly sugar-replacements over paying a small fee to consume real sugar. Every time the Chancellor Of The Exchequer whips out his red suitcase and alcohol prices go up, it’s left up to the consumer to choose whether they’ll continue to buy drinks which are more expensive, there’s never a reduction of alcohol in the drink itself. In addition, if we use the tax on alcohol as a model, can’t we see that there’s been no real change to the alcoholism rate, therefore why would a similar tax on sugar positively effect obesity?
Introducing more unnatural crap into our diet will most likely have a knock-on or snowball effect on people’s health and the NHS in a decade or so will have to foot the bill for some new, unforeseen epidemic. Instead of rotting teeth it’ll be stomach problems or tumours or some other shite. But by then it’ll be too late, we’ll have a nation of depressed, cancerous zombies who kept drinking these cunt-cocktails despite their tastebuds warning them of the contents. And when we have a nation of morose, headache sufferers what will be the solution? To bring the “classic” recipe back at some increased price. Give it a few decades and the people will be rejoicing; the government is helping us, they brought back natural cane sugar, whoopee! This will be another example of a “problem, reaction, solution product”, unneeded goods to distract the public whilst increasing corporations’ profits.
Surely the solution to over-eating sugar is to leave everything as it is and let all the tits with black teeth and Michelin-Man fat deposits deal with their own consequences of over-eating and over-drinking. Changing our eating habits because of a few gluttons is madness. What’s next, making everybody wear chastity belts because a few dicks can’t pull out? Or better yet, put a tax on sex. I bet some do-gooder is working on that right now, they won’t stop until they take away all the remaining pleasures from life, all because someone’s having too much of a good thing.
Attax On Your Health.