Senate Sugar in food

You fat ****.

 

But rather than tax, I think they'd be better off restricting the food makers. But I'm sure it's easier to punish the little man.

 

I get free soda at work, but I exercise frequently to keep the weight off.

 

I love that avatar...one dog goes one way the other dog goes the other way...and this guy's like "whaddya want from me?"

 

Piling on taxes is an effective way to reduce consumption though. It worked with tobacco in the U.S. But I'd also like to see a major public health consumer education campaign. Britain is actually one of the best countries in the world, if not the very best, in creating and running those kinds of campaigns. It's a great tool in the public health arsenal along with, of course, socialized medicine. It's relatively easy to test and measure outcomes.

 

That's the point of this law. People have a major financial incentive to prefer cheaper, processed foods to healthier but more expensive alternatives. A tax helps level the playing field.

 

Was it taxes though, or was it successful negative advertising and a ban on positive advertising, and smarter younger generations that has seen cigarette consumption lower? As a smoker, it would take a serious increase in taxes for it to be a reason for me to quit. Like..prices triple- or quadrupling.

 

I agree, I don't think taxes alone do much in cases like this. They can help in conjunction with a public health consumer education campaign, though, like Rylo Ken said.

 

right. I agree that lowering the prevalence rate of smoking in the U.S. was the result of a multi-pronged approach.

 

Yes, and I've just heard that it is the companies being taxed rather than the end user, so that's good.

 

Oh for sure.

 

Yeah, they've got to do something. Type II diabetes treatment accounts for about 10% of the NHS pharmaceutical budget.

Without wanting to get too tin foil hat, the food and pharma lobbies are ridiculously strong and have plenty of government ministers in their pockets. I'm sure this is only happening because they've found another way to beat baby seals to death with lead pipes for money.

 

What would work better is honest labeling on the actual sugar content, thus:

This bar contains 50% of your daily sugar.

Not the current style:

20g of this product provides 0.2 of your daily allowance (or some such opaque rubbish).

Of course, that might actually see sales of sugary crap fall and loss of tax revenue. As to who gets the tax money - well, they need to fund all those academies somehow....

 

Don't hold the manufacturers responsible, instead tax the populace for being addicted to it. Hooray capitalism!

 

Today I had a coke, Madagascan Vanilla icecream, two Milkyways, and a Galaxy Ripple. Screw this health thing.

 

Lightweight - Chai Latte is what the real sugar fiends hit.

(Ever since that 25 teaspoons of sugar to a latte report came out, I've felt far better about my bad habits!)

 

Lets just go back to blaming carbs for making people fat and leave sugar alone.

 

Not true. No state has a sugary drink tax. NYC has a soda tax, but it's far less broad the the UK's.

To look for an example of a soda tax similar to the one in Britain, look at Mexico. They instituted a sugary drink tax and it's been successful in reducing the amount consumed by people. No, a small tax will not significantly reduce obesity rates, but sugary drinks account for a large chunk of the added sugar consumed by people.

I hope you're joking.

 

Sales taxes do exist in most states (hooray for putting the burden on people who are less able to bear it), but they don't target soda specifically AFAIK.

 

i think we should tax posts on this board.