So the long awaited report about the damage sugar is doing to the nation's health has finally been published, albeit under duress. Cameron doesn't seem keen on taking its recommendations on board, despite not being a medical expert himself. Maybe he has a sweet tooth and finds the notion of paying more tax than he can get away with abhorrent? Who knows? In any event, if there's proof that it's sugar that's making the nation obese, what are the options to deal with it? In view of the fact that the link between sugar and obesity was first identified in the late 50s and has been both denied by the food industry and controls on sugar consumption vehemently opposed ever since by the food lobby, is it something that the industry should be allowed to have any say in? Is the suggestion that sugar be taxed to reduce consumption, the best way forward? Why would that be preferable to banning it outright? Has tax on tobacco prevented people smoking? If the decision the government makes is to ignore the evidence in the report on the basis that we should be free to make our own choices about what kills us, will the government then remove the restrictions on the sale of drugs? Is it possible that pressure groups might change public attitudes by suggesting that the sickly-sweet odour which sugarists exude makes them feel sick and they are concerned about dying of passive inhalation of sugar odours? Can we expect lawyers acting for grandmothers who are diagnosed with diabetes after kissing their sticky grandchild's lips, minutes after a fast food chain topped up the bucket of Coca Cola the kid had been drinking for free, will be able to sue the restaurant? So many questions for the PM to fret over this weekend. I hope whichever pub he leaves his daughter in on Sunday, has the wisdom not to offer her a sugary drink while they await his return, or at least if they do, don't let the press know or we might end up with an emotional, rather than rational decision being made.