On Oct 2, 7:41*pm, Arri London > wrote:
> An advert is running locally complaining about proposed taxes on junk
> food. All well and good; it's probably sponsored by the companies who
> make soft drinks/sports drinks/flavoured waters.
>
> Unfortunately it starts with a woman whining that it's hard enough to
> feed a family these days. Of course it is. However, buying
> sugary-artificially-flavoured-coloured drinks must cost her hard-driven
> family quite a lot of money. If her food budget is that tight, wouldn't
> it make more sense *not* to buy those things, taxed or otherwise?

I want to know who gets to decide what is junk food and what isn't.

" wrote:
>
> On Oct 2, 7:41 pm, Arri London > wrote:
> > An advert is running locally complaining about proposed taxes on junk
> > food. All well and good; it's probably sponsored by the companies who
> > make soft drinks/sports drinks/flavoured waters.
> >
> > Unfortunately it starts with a woman whining that it's hard enough to
> > feed a family these days. Of course it is. However, buying
> > sugary-artificially-flavoured-coloured drinks must cost her hard-driven
> > family quite a lot of money. If her food budget is that tight, wouldn't
> > it make more sense *not* to buy those things, taxed or otherwise?
>
> I want to know who gets to decide what is junk food and what isn't.

Typically the people proposing the tax(es).

wrote:
>
> I want to know who gets to decide what is junk food and what isn't.

And why. If they are going to continue pushing the 40 year failed low
fat thing I oppose it.