BleepingComputer.com: Can You Believe It? A "fat" Tax...

Jump to content

Disclaimer:

PLEASE READ

This section is for polite and thoughtful debate on potentially controversial topics. There will be no flaming, swearing, or cursing. Anyone not following these simple rules will, without notice, have their posts immediately removed.

The opinions expressed in these forums in no way reflect the opinions of BleepingComputer.com
  • 3 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Can You Believe It? A "fat" Tax...

#31 User is offline   Orange Blossom 

  • OBleepin Investigator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Find Topics
  • Group: Moderator
  • Posts: 29,818
  • Joined: 14-July 06
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Bloomington, IN

Posted 15 October 2008 - 04:55 PM

A Prime example of hidden sugar - leading to issues of overweight.

I was in the grocery store today and saw a box of cereal touted as Healthy, low in fat, and high in antioxidants. I looked at the ingredients list.

Ingredient #3 - Sugar

Ingredient #4 is a combo further broken down so:

Ingredient 4-a - sugar

Ingredient 4-b-2 - sugar

Ingredient 4-b-4 molasses - a type of sugar

Ingredient 4-b-5 honey - another type of sugar

Ingredient 6 - another combo so:

Ingredient 6-b - sugar

Ingredient 6-c - barley malt - another type of sugar

Ingredient 7 - High Fructose Corn syrup - yet another type of sugar and one I've read has bad effects on the liver.

So, in that box of cereal, sugar of one kind or another is listed 7 times. Healthy? I think not. Yet, it is advertised as healthy. In contrast, a box of shredded wheat with nothing but whole wheat and small amounts of a preservative is not advertised as healthy. Go figure.

~ OB
Help us help you. If HelpBot replies, you MUST follow step 1 in its reply so we know you need help.

Orange Blossom
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure
SuperAntiSpyware, SpywareBlaster, WinPatrol Plus, ESET Smart Security, Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware, NoScript Firefox ext., Norton noscript

#32 User is offline   KingOfIdiocy 

  • Distinguished Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Find Topics
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 600
  • Joined: 15-April 08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Foostralia

Posted 15 October 2008 - 05:49 PM

Using the height-to-weight ratio, muscular people could be charged this 'fat tax'.

Share this topic:


  • 3 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users