The executive of British supermarket chain Tesco interviewed on the news agreed that something must be done about this impending sugar disaster, as if the supermarkets have played no part in causing it.
Maybe someone sneaks into branches of Tesco at night, and every morning the manager arrives and says: "Oh not again. There are three aisles of extra-sugary-super-sweet flagons of Coke. When I left yesterday they were full of fresh fish."
Asked whether he thought there should be legislation to resolve the issue, the Tesco executive said they were already dealing with it voluntarily. Of course they are. They might make billions out of promoting food packed with unnecessary sugar but for Tesco the priority is keeping children healthy.
Then at the shareholders' AGM the chief executive will announce: "I have excellent news. This year we've sold hardly any biscuits or fizzy drinks, so there are no dividends to any of you, but now kids can jump around in sandpits instead of collapsing in a wheezy diabetic fit because their body is 60 per cent cream soda" and everyone will cheer.
Tomorrow there will be an item on the news in which a crack dealer assures us he's doing all he can to reduce the crack content of crack, as his main concern is the health and well-being of his customers.
Some experts dispute the concerns altogether.
In particular, a research body called Sugar Nutrition UK claims there's no evidence that added sugar does us harm or is linked to obesity, and it must be a coincidence that this group is funded by the manufacturers of sugar.
Their impartial opinion is that if added sugar in food such as pasta sauce is reduced, "the sugar will need to be replaced by another ingredient that may contain more calories than the sugar". This is clearly true, if the item you replace the sugar with is a bucket of beef dripping.
The same goes for ready-made chicken kievs. It may contain six spoons of sugar, but if you took that out and stuffed it with a tray of used oil from a chip shop's deep fat frier it could be even more unhealthy, so it's best to leave it as it is.
One possibility could be to replace the added sugar with nothing, with a similar technique to that used by people who give up having sugar in tea. Usually, when someone does this, they cope with nothing in their tea, and don't feel the need to replace the sugar with something else such as a bucket of chicken nuggets.
Sugar Nutrition UK may object that insufficient research has been carried out on the effects of nothing, with philosophers still uncertain as to what nothing actually is, which means there could be harmful side effects worse than the relatively benign epidemic of heart disease their product is responsible for.
The free market being what it is, they'll probably get their way, though you might wonder if it's a coincidence that these bodies with scientific-sounding names that are funded by companies that make things always conclude that the things they make are excellent and safe and don't need to be curtailed at all.
There's probably an organisation called Breaking and Entering Research UK, funded by the nation's burglars, that will produce a report that goes: "There is no evidence that having your belongings stolen makes you any poorer, or reduces the number of belongings you have in any way, as long as you get robbed as part of an overall balanced diet, which of course we fully recommend."
