A Parliamentary Committee on Sugar Taxes

My heading is not quite accurate, although it amounts to the same thing. The Health Committee was concerned with the recommendations of Public Health England about what to do about fat kids. First up before the committee was the CEO of PHE.

It seems that there is a debate scheduled in the House of Commons about fat kids imminently. PHE has recommended a strategy to the Health Minister. The system is odd. For some reason that I do not understand, the strategy recommendations are ‘private’ and are secret, but the evidence upon which the recommendations are based is not supposed to be held secret. Members of the committee were upset that MPs could not see the evidence, even if they were not permitted to see the recommendations. Here is a link to the committee meeting video:


The CEO said that he decided not to publish the evidence separately from his advice to Government because doing so might cause problems relating to ‘strategy’ for dealing with the problem of fat kids. He was asked, again and again, why that should be so, but he waffled. We can see why he waffled. The fact is that he did not take that decision alone.

Here is the Board of PHE:

Non-executive PHE Board members:
Poppy Jaman, Chief Executive of Mental Health First Aid England and a founding member of the City Mental Health Alliance
Rosie Glazebrook, chair of a Research Ethics Committee, and Board member of the Human Tissue Authority
George Griffin, recently retired as a consultant physician and Professor of Infectious Diseases and Medicine at St George’s, University of London
Martin Hindle, Chair of the East Midlands Academic Health Science Network and a Non-Executive Director at the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency
Sir Derek Myers, Chair of the Board of Trustees of Shelter, recently retired joint Chief Executive at the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham
Professor Richard Parish, formerly Chief Executive of the Royal Society for Public Health and Chairman of the Pharmacy and Public Health Forum
Associate non-executive PHE Board members:
Sian Griffiths, independent health consultant, Emeritus Professor at the Chinese University of Hong Kong and Visiting Professor at the Institute for Global Health Innovation, Imperial College, London
Paul Lincoln, Chief Executive of the UK Health Forum

You do not need a microscope to see that almost all the members of the Board are medics.THEY are the people who approved the CEO’s plan to keep the evidence secret, even though they had the authority to publish the evidence. The committee complained that MPs were not able to see the evidence in advance of the debate.

It is clear beyond doubt that every dirty trick in the book is being used by the Public Health Industry to obfuscate reality. No one is to have access to THE FACTS prior to the debate.

Next up was Jamie Oliver. He seems to have been the originator of a petition to Parliament about fat kids which gained 130,000 signatures. I am not sure about that. I wonder how that petition got 130,000 signatures? I originated a petition a couple of years ago. It demanded that the Government should pass a law which forbade the payment of interest on people’s savings which was less than the rate of inflation. The reasoning is pretty simple. If the rate of inflation is above interest rates, then the value of people’s savings falls. However, Banks use people’s savings to make loans, upon which they invariably charge interest well above the rate of inflation. Thus, the value of people’s savings is being transferred to the owners of the banks, and, possibly, to some extent, to those who take out the loans. For example, a person who takes out a mortgage to buy a property can expect to see the property gain in value more than the cost of the interest he is paying on the mortgage loan. The Bank gains interest on the loan greater than the rate of inflation. Only the saver suffers.

I think that my petition got about 50 signatures.

So how did the Oliver petition get 130,000 signatures? Trickery of some sort must have been involved.

If you watch Oliver’s appearance, you will see that his views are altogether in line with ‘received wisdom’. I doubt that he realises that what he advocates means that fat kids must be eliminated. He does not understand that what he advocates, to eliminate the ‘fat kids’ problem, is fascist dictatorship. He actually advocates entering into schools and indoctrinating pupils. He does not understand how indoctrination has worked to cause things like the holocaust. It is hard not to assume that people like Hitler had not themselves been previously indoctrinated. How is it possible for an ordinary, decent person to come up with the idea that it is OK to murder hundreds of thousands of people merely because of their religious and ethnic origin?

A member of the committee asked Oliver about the ‘recessive’ affect of the sugar tax. I’m not sure that Oliver knew what ‘recessive affect’ means. (It means that the poorest people are worst affected) He vaguely suggested that those were the people who needed most to be bullied, but he did not really answer the question.

But he also suggested that a sugar tax would bring in a billion pounds per an, to be spent on ‘health education’. Erm…. Does that mean paying the salaries of thousands of useless, unproductive  jobsworths?


The whole thing is an absolute mess, even though the medics on the Board of PHE think that punishing people and prodding them will work wonders to stem the non-existent epidemic of fat kids.

One thing is absolutely clear, and it has been proven to be true again and again. It involves a bit of thinking.

A couple of year ago, I asked the question, “How does a 7 % risk of lung cancer among smokers crystallise into some individual smokers getting LC? ” That is a difficult question, in real life, to answer, and the Zealots totally ignore it. The reality must be that not all humans have the same physiognomy. There is no ‘standard human being’.

A ‘standard human being’ is required for a sugar tax to have any affect. I cannot imagine any intelligent person believing that such a tax will affect the vast majority. It is therefore aimed at the poorest people. But it is bound to fail, because those people are in a minority and don’t care anyway because their minds are focussed upon other things.

So we come back to my original argument. How would a general increase in the cost sugar crystallise into a reduction of sugar consumption in those most affected by sugar consumption? There is no answer to that question, and no one in authority asks it.

What I see is Government corruption. I do not mean deliberate malfeasance. I mean ‘taking the easy way’. That means ‘control by experts’, which is not what ‘The People’ intend when they elect representatives.




4 Responses to “A Parliamentary Committee on Sugar Taxes”

  1. Samuel Says:

    Perhaps something else is going on here. After all, it is the nature of the governing class to lie and hide what they do. They practice their own form of magic and misdirection. In the United States it is illegal for the federal government to prevent the movement of goods and services between States. All it can do is stand as arbiter over the States when there is a dispute between two or more over their own restrictions. It has used this position to forbid the trade in seal fur and walrus ivory originating in Alaska and has raised the price (tariffs) of sugar produced in Hawaii to price it out of the market of the rest of the States. It raised the price of cane sugar, initially, to act as a price support for the far less efficient sugar beet industry and it maintains a uniquely high sugar tax, today, to support the production of corn to make High Fructose Corn Syrup cheaper (in the US) than cane sugar as a prop for soft drink makers and “sustainable” fuel “additives” (alcohol added to gasoline which reduces the efficiency of the motors and destabilizes the petrol so further additives have to be wasted to preserve stored fuel and remove the varnish that is left in the engines). Probably any sugar tax, especially one to “save the children”, is nothing more than a lie to hide some obscene profit and power grab elsewhere.

  2. garyk30 Says:

    ” “How does a 7 % risk of lung cancer among smokers”

    Never mentioned; but, that % includes the ex-smokers that account for 60% of lung cancer deaths.

    You know, the people whose risk for lung cancer is supposed to be reduced by quitting.

    Lung cancer deaths per year always include the ex-smokers deaths whose risk is the same as never-smokers.

    Everyone ‘knows’ that smoking causes lung cancer; but,if a smoker smoked for 50 years, would they have a 50% chance/risk of lung cancer or is it a 25% chance/risk or is it a 10% chance/risk of lung cancer?

    A current smoker,aged 65, with about 50 years of smoking has about 6/10ths of a 1% chance/risk of getting lung cancer sometime during the rest of their life.

    A current smoker over the age of 65, that has smoked for about 50 years, has a 1 in 156 chance/risk of lung cancer during the rest of their lifetime.

    If you have 156 current smokers,aged 65, that had smoked for about 50 years, only ONE of them would get lung cancer during the rest of their lives.

    That is about 6/10ths of a 1% chance/risk.

    There are about 305 million people in this country and about 13% or 40 million are over the age of 65.

    Current smokers are about 9% of those 40 million or about 3.6 million.

    70% of the 157,000 lung cancer deaths occur over the age of 65 and that is about 110,000.

    Smokers will have about 21% of those 110,000 deaths and that is about 23,000 lung cancer deaths.

    3.6 million current smokers divided by 23,000 deaths is 1 death per 156 current smokers over the age of 65.

    • junican Says:

      What your figures seem to be suggesting is that if a person has smoked for 50 years and has attained the age of 65, then it is very unlikely that he will get LC before he dies from something else. To me, that suggests that other things play an important part in LC, such as genetics. It may be that a person who is genetically susceptible to LC should not smoke, but how would he know that he is susceptible? I suspect that very few people would know about the family history beyond their own parents, and perhaps not even that.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: