Who can endorse sugary drinks as a healthy option?
Rows of drinks in supermarkets and dairies scream their popularity. I doubt that the users of these products are thinking of their health when they buy 2 or 4 litres.
Or they may say, there is no evidence that this is bad for me. It is unlikely they will admit there may well be consequences in later years.
It's the present they are thinking of — the instant sugary hit. Fifteen teaspoons of sugar in a 600ml bottle is a huge amount — almost three times the recommended daily allowance for an adult.
I cannot see why these products are on the market.
A recent article in your paper about Countdown's restriction on sales of caffeinated energy drinks (News, July 30) will ensure the drinks are not accessible to those under 16. Will this be less harmful to those over 16? It was suggested in the article that there were many more acceptable and alternate drinks available.
Is it a sad reflection of how the market dictates and encourages another bad habit which our society as a whole does not need?
The long-term effect of sugar on our health has been well documented. Like the graphic advertising of a diseased lung on a cigarette packet, familiarity breeds contempt.
Bring back the traffic police
I would be grateful if anyone can explain to me how people wearing a "hoodie" with sometimes a baseball cap underneath and often using a cellphone are allowed to drive a motor vehicle.
I have had several unfortunate occasions of having to take extreme evasive tactics to avoid being smashed into by such a person while negotiating a roundabout. The said person was completely oblivious to anyone else as that person was effectively "blinkered" like a horse.
If only there was someone around to prosecute these people. I think ex-politician Jenny Shipley made a grave error by taking our traffic police off the roads and merging them with the regular police force.
Our roads were a lot safer when they used to be patrolled by the traffic police.
The Bay of Plenty Times welcomes letters from readers. Please note the following:
• Letters should not exceed 200 words.
• They should be opinion based on facts or current events.
• If possible, please email.
• No noms-de-plume.
• Letters will be published with names and suburb/city.
• Please include full name, address and contact details for our records only.
• Local letter writers given preference.
• Rejected letters are not normally acknowledged.
• Letters may be edited, abridged, or rejected at the Editor's discretion.
• The Editor's decision on publication is final.