In October 2011, Denmark chose to tax foods high in saturated fat, despite the fact that most medical professionals no longer believe that fat is the primary culprit. But now, the country is considering taxing sugar as well — a more plausible and defensible step. Indeed, rather than focusing on fat and salt — the current dietary 'bogeymen' of the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the European Food Safety Authority — we believe that attention should be turned to 'added sugar', defined as any sweetener containing the molecule fructose that is added to food in processing.
...
No ordinary commodity
In 2003, social psychologist Thomas Babor and his colleagues published a landmark book called Alcohol: No Ordinary Commodity, in which they established four criteria, now largely accepted by the public-health community, that justify the regulation of alcohol — unavoidability (or pervasiveness throughout society), toxicity, potential for abuse and negative impact on society2. Sugar meets the same criteria, and we believe that it similarly warrants some form of societal intervention.
First, consider unavoidability. Evolutionarily, sugar was available to our ancestors as fruit for only a few months a year (at harvest time), or as honey, which was guarded by bees. But in recent years, sugar has been added to nearly all processed foods, limiting consumer choice3. Nature made sugar hard to get; man made it easy. In many parts of the world, people are consuming an average of more than 500 calories per day from added sugar alone (see 'The global sugar glut').
...
Now, let's consider toxicity. A growing body of epidemiological and mechanistic evidence argues that excessive sugar consumption affects human health beyond simply adding calories4. Importantly, sugar induces all of the diseases associated with metabolic syndrome1, 5. This includes: hypertension (fructose increases uric acid, which raises blood pressure); high triglycerides and insulin resistance through synthesis of fat in the liver; diabetes from increased liver glucose production combined with insulin resistance; and the ageing process, caused by damage to lipids, proteins and DNA through non-enzymatic binding of fructose to these molecules. It can also be argued that fructose exerts toxic effects on the liver that are similar to those of alcohol1. This is no surprise, because alcohol is derived from the fermentation of sugar. Some early studies have also linked sugar consumption to human cancer and cognitive decline.
Sugar also has clear potential for abuse. Like tobacco and alcohol, it acts on the brain to encourage subsequent intake. There are now numerous studies examining the dependence-producing properties of sugar in humans6. Specifically, sugar dampens the suppression of the hormone ghrelin, which signals hunger to the brain. It also interferes with the normal transport and signalling of the hormone leptin, which helps to produce the feeling of satiety. And it reduces dopamine signalling in the brain's reward centre, thereby decreasing the pleasure derived from food and compelling the individual to consume more1, 6.
Finally, consider the negative effects of sugar on society. Passive smoking and drink-driving fatalities provided strong arguments for tobacco and alcohol control, respectively. The long-term economic, health-care and human costs of metabolic syndrome place sugar overconsumption in the same category7. The United States spends $65 billion in lost productivity and $150 billion on health-care resources annually for morbidities associated with metabolic syndrome. Seventy-five per cent of all US health-care dollars are now spent on treating these diseases and their resultant disabilities. Because about 25% of military applicants are now rejected for obesity-related reasons, the past three US surgeons general and the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff have declared obesity a “threat to national security”.
...
Consequently, we propose adding taxes to processed foods that contain any form of added sugars. This would include sweetened fizzy drinks (soda), other sugar-sweetened beverages (for example, juice, sports drinks and chocolate milk) and sugared cereal. Already, Canada and some European countries impose small additional taxes on some sweetened foods. The United States is currently considering a penny-per-ounce soda tax (about 34 cents per litre), which would raise the price of a can by 10–12 cents. Currently, a US citizen consumes an average of 216 litres of soda per year, of which 58% contains sugar. Taxing at a penny an ounce could provide annual revenue in excess of $45 per capita (roughly $14 billion per year); however, this would be unlikely to reduce total consumption. Statistical modelling suggests that the price would have to double to significantly reduce soda consumption — so a $1 can should cost $2 (ref. 10).
Other successful tobacco- and alcohol-control strategies limit availability, such as reducing the hours that retailers are open, controlling the location and density of retail markets and limiting who can legally purchase the products2, 9. A reasonable parallel for sugar would tighten licensing requirements on vending machines and snack bars that sell sugary products in schools and workplaces. Many schools have removed unhealthy fizzy drinks and candy from vending machines, but often replaced them with juice and sports drinks, which also contain added sugar.
Another option would be to limit sales during school operation, or to designate an age limit (such as 17) for the purchase of drinks with added sugar, particularly soda.
...
Ultimately, food producers and distributors must reduce the amount of sugar added to foods. But sugar is cheap, sugar tastes good and sugar sells, so companies have little incentive to change. Although one institution alone can't turn this juggernaut around, the US Food and Drug Administration could “set the table” for change8. To start, it should consider removing fructose from the Generally Regarded as Safe (GRAS) list, which allows food manufacturers to add unlimited amounts to any food.
This seems entirely reasonable to me, even though I can't judge some of the more complicated health claims. 600+ added sugar calories per day in the US, and that's in the average diet. Much of this kind of legislation is silly but this seems sensible.
It's just dumb. Its nanny-state stuff. A better solution would be better and more accurate health classes. Instead of memorizing body parts in grade school, maybe kids should be taught the fundamentals of a healthy diet. The Food Pyramid is a pretty sad and insufficient level of instruction.
I doubt health classes are effective (I think the article said they weren't though I didn't quote that bit). And they are much more nanny state than a tax.
I don't think the justification is even about looking after individuals--the billions in health care and the army rejections seem like enough.
Granted I'm a guy who wants health care from the gummint
There, but for the grace of God, goes John Bradford
My aim, then, was to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their inmost recesses, and make them fear and dread us. Fear is the beginning of wisdom.
I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation.
It's just dumb. Its nanny-state stuff. A better solution would be better and more accurate health classes. Instead of memorizing body parts in grade school, maybe kids should be taught the fundamentals of a healthy diet. The Food Pyramid is a pretty sad and insufficient level of instruction.
You can't have a double standard of teaching them a healthy diet while simultaneously making readily and cheaply available junk food that goes against everything you just taught them. It makes no sense.
Rest in Peace TosaInu, the Org will be your legacy
Originally Posted by Leon Blum - For All Mankind
Nothing established by violence and maintained by force, nothing that degrades humanity and is based on contempt for human personality, can endure.
You can't have a double standard of teaching them a healthy diet while simultaneously making readily and cheaply available junk food that goes against everything you just taught them. It makes no sense.
It's called freedom.
CR
Ja Mata, Tosa.
The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail; its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storm may enter; the rain may enter; but the King of England cannot enter – all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement! - William Pitt the Elder
So we should allow children who don't know any better to continue to eat foods that are doing them harm for a vague notion of what constitutes freedom? By the exact same argument we could do away with a legal drinking age.
Rest in Peace TosaInu, the Org will be your legacy
Originally Posted by Leon Blum - For All Mankind
Nothing established by violence and maintained by force, nothing that degrades humanity and is based on contempt for human personality, can endure.
Err, we're talking about public schools for children CR. Where they have to ask permission to go to the bathroom and get sent to detention if they don't.
So we should allow children who don't know any better to continue to eat foods that are doing them harm for a vague notion of what constitutes freedom? By the exact same argument we could do away with a legal drinking age.
Ah, it seems we might not be on the same page regarding the plan of action we're each talking about. The article mentions changing federal regulations and adding taxes. If public schools decide not to sell high-sugar food for lunch or in snack machines that's fine by me.
CR
Ja Mata, Tosa.
The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail; its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storm may enter; the rain may enter; but the King of England cannot enter – all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement! - William Pitt the Elder
Ah, it seems we might not be on the same page regarding the plan of action we're each talking about. The article mentions changing federal regulations and adding taxes. If public schools decide not to sell high-sugar food for lunch or in snack machines that's fine by me.
CR
Alright I understand and that sounds more in line with what I thought you'd be saying. I disagree in regards to the taxation and federal regulation, but I don't think that is an immense shock to either of us.
Rest in Peace TosaInu, the Org will be your legacy
Originally Posted by Leon Blum - For All Mankind
Nothing established by violence and maintained by force, nothing that degrades humanity and is based on contempt for human personality, can endure.
Excessive cigarette and alcohol taxes are just as dumb--they harm the industry and hurt the consumers who are going to buy the stuff anyway just so that self-righteous types can feel better about themselves.
Tax revenue. I hear there's a hole in the UK's coffers because people are smoking and drinking much less.
Vitiate Man.
History repeats the old conceits
The glib replies, the same defeats
Rather, I think its just feel-good-measures gone horribly, horribly wrong. The cigarette companies don't suffer for this, because we're going to buy our damned smokes anyway. It just hurts people who smoke. Aren't all the freaking public smoking laws enough? Aargh. Gah.
As an asthmatic who struggles to breath if I so much as walk past someone smoking, no they aren't enough.
Excessive cigarette and alcohol taxes are just as dumb--they harm the industry and hurt the consumers who are going to buy the stuff anyway just so that self-righteous types can feel better about themselves.
The industry might care, but you're probably still going to buy the products that get price-jacked. The only person that gets hurt by measures like these are the consumers.
Can you please reconcile these two statements?
Rest in Peace TosaInu, the Org will be your legacy
Originally Posted by Leon Blum - For All Mankind
Nothing established by violence and maintained by force, nothing that degrades humanity and is based on contempt for human personality, can endure.
Ah, it seems we might not be on the same page regarding the plan of action we're each talking about. The article mentions changing federal regulations and adding taxes. If public schools decide not to sell high-sugar food for lunch or in snack machines that's fine by me.
Some piously affirm: "The truth is such and such. I know! I see!"
And hold that everything depends upon having the “right” religion.
But when one really knows, one has no need of religion. - Mahavyuha Sutra
Since the price of sugars fats an salts is relitively low taxing the consumer wont stop manufacturers using same, and since the largest ammounts are used in cheaper foodstuffs it will inevitably fall on the poorer members of society.
Adding tax to the cake mix (pun intended) will not reduce the level of sugar in food unless we put it back down the line onto the producer.
Like charging for excess baggage the manufacturer then has a choice to use sugar, fat and salt in there products or not.
By forcing the producer to pay more for sending it out the door the price will inevitably rise or the producer will reduce his sugar use.(in theory)
Personaly I would prefer setting actual amounts of sugars, salts etc in foodstuff rather than taxing them.
Were just allowing manufacturers to just pay a tax and bung in a much as they like, the profit motive will encourage them to find methods that allow them to afford the tax through lower production cost.
Last edited by gaelic cowboy; 02-07-2012 at 13:37.
They slew him with poison afaid to meet him with the steel
a gallant son of eireann was Owen Roe o'Neill.
This is an issue that should be solved through social awareness, not taxation. Such taxation schemes disproportionately hurt the poor.
To create the social awarness you will have to spend money on various programmes in school and in society at large to get the message out.
Unfortunately in most countries these will be immediately attacked as evidence of "Big Guvmint go mad" the temptation will be to row back eventually and lose the gains.
Setting actual targets for producers to fulfill will be more likely to sort this problem.
They slew him with poison afaid to meet him with the steel
a gallant son of eireann was Owen Roe o'Neill.
If there exists public healthcare and everybody can benefit from it regardless of lifestyle, then it seems pretty normal to me that living unhealthy is taxed.
Indeed, living unhealthy and then let society pay for your treatments is pretty selfish. Taxing sounds perfectly reasonable.
However, if there doesn't exist something like public healthcare worthy of the name public healthcare, then why taxing? If everybody pays for his own healthcare, then the guy eating 10 hamburgers a day and smoking 2 packs a day, will have to pay a lot more for his personal healthcare (or he'll die young) and, assuming public healthcare is non existant, he'll pay for it himself. So the healthy guy doesn't feel any negative consequences of his neighbours' unhealthy lifestyle.
How good is your public healthcare? If you tax the unhealthy lifestyle, then you need to get better public healthcare in return. If there's no such thing as public healthcare, then why should you have to pay taxes on a unhealthy lifestyle, since you'll take care yourself of the funding of the treatment your lifestyle will one day force you to get.
Last edited by Andres; 02-07-2012 at 14:03.
Andres is our Lord and Master and could strike us down with thunderbolts or beer cans at any time. ~Askthepizzaguy Ja mata, TosaInu
To create the social awarness you will have to spend money on various programmes in school and in society at large to get the message out.
Unfortunately in most countries these will be immediately attacked as evidence of "Big Guvmint go mad" the temptation will be to row back eventually and lose the gains.
Not at all. America was very successful in greatly reducing smoking habits through public awareness campaigns - many of them privately funded. Today, those who choose to smoke are educated as to the risks. Taxes and fees, whether on manufacturers or consumers, have had more questionable results.
Today, most parents don't know the extent of health issues associated with sugar intake. Educate them, and most will act in the best interests of their children.
Setting actual targets for producers to fulfill will be more likely to sort this problem.
Or they will simply push higher prices on to the consumer as is common when new fees are levied by the government for whatever reason.
It's just dumb. Its nanny-state stuff. A better solution would be better and more accurate health classes. Instead of memorizing body parts in grade school, maybe kids should be taught the fundamentals of a healthy diet. The Food Pyramid is a pretty sad and insufficient level of instruction.
It's a public health issue, that makes it the concern of the government, ergo you regulate.
It's a simple sum, and one that every Western country outside the US does regularly without issue.
The US also produces some wierd food, from orange "chedder" cheese to "fruit cups". Fruit Juice is on the list as having added sugar there, but fruit juices are already mostly sugar.
I'm not against outright bans, generally speaking, but in some cases the problem is so severe that you need draconian corrective action - and diet is a worse problem in the US than any other developed country.
"If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."
Andres if you take a Darwinian view of this you problem then you will not solve it EVER.
Even people who think there are engaging in healthy eating are actually ingesting far too much sugars, fats an salts etc.
The profit motive to use them is too high so you need to curb it somehow, limits on amounts put in food seems fairer to me.
Initially the poor would suffer due to higher production costs but the motive of manufacturers to reduce there own costs while not incurring sanctions would eventually bring back down the cost for healthier alternatives.
They slew him with poison afaid to meet him with the steel
a gallant son of eireann was Owen Roe o'Neill.
Or they will simply push higher prices on to the consumer as is common when new fees are levied by the government for whatever reason.
Possibly
but we know for sure that poor people only buy what eat cos they can afford it, the reason there is cos sugar an salt are cheap and help bulk up the foods.
producers must be incentivised to reduce there reliance on these particular ingredients, eventually the costs would come down as manufacturers compete for the poor mans belly.
At least thats the theory anyway
Of course it could all backfire with higher costs but thats hardly worse than the status quo.
Last edited by gaelic cowboy; 02-07-2012 at 14:24.
They slew him with poison afaid to meet him with the steel
a gallant son of eireann was Owen Roe o'Neill.
Simply placing a heavier tax on sugary/unhealthy foods is unlikely to actually change peoples eating habits, and just like the taxes on cigarettes, will end up placing an unfair burden on poorer people (since they tend to have less healthy lifestyles).
If you make unhealthy foods more expensive the people that already eat them will continue to do so, they will just eat less of them. Which isn't really a healthier option. We always talk about obesity but I remember reading somewhere (sorry for being vague) that the number of children in the UK being treated for malnutrition and even diseases like scurvy is skyrocketing.
Why? IMO it is because eating habits are something that are very hard to change. People that are used to junk food will crave it. Junk food is so easy to prepare and people tend to have busier lifestyles these days. Plus the fact that cooking skills haven't been passed down to the current parenting generation. Not to mention that its much easier to go to the supermarket and do one big shopping trip and store lots of junk away in the freezer than it is to make daily trips to the local fruit & veg store/butcher/fishmonger (and such places often don't exist in many towns).
We have a whole culture that makes eating unhealthy 100x easier than eating healthy. Heavier tax isn't going to change that and it would be a really unfair burden to put on people at a time like this.
Now of course I know something still needs to be done because it is a real problem. I'm not sure I have any good suggestions but providing healthier school meals seems like it would be a good start. Lunch is one of the two big meals a day so that would mean that right away all children would be getting 50% healthy meals five days out of every seven.
At the end of the day politics is just trash compared to the Gospel.
Would be nice if some of that extra revenue from taxing sugar would go to subsidizing healthier food.
That would be ideal. If you raise taxes on these foods and then spend the revenue on awareness campaigns then the problem will slowly solve itself.
Are we going to argue semantics or are we going to argue my point that these measures are vindictive and counter-productive?
The problem with the comparison you are drawing (cigarettes) is that cigarettes are actually addictive, whereas fast food (as an example, and except in extreme cases) is not. Taxation here acts as more of a disincentive for continuing eating habits than it does in continuing to smoke because there is no addictive element. If you show people that they can save money and eat healthier at the same time, without a great deal of effort in terms of cooking or buying different products, then the higher taxation has done its job. A far more apt comparison would be starting smoking and eating junk food, where the disincentivising aspect of higher taxation on cigarettes can more fully come into effect. Of course cigarettes have other social issues in terms of beginning so any comparison there is tenuous at best, but the point stands.
Last edited by CountArach; 02-09-2012 at 10:46.
Reason: Hideous typos.
Rest in Peace TosaInu, the Org will be your legacy
Originally Posted by Leon Blum - For All Mankind
Nothing established by violence and maintained by force, nothing that degrades humanity and is based on contempt for human personality, can endure.
Not at all. America was very successful in greatly reducing smoking habits through public awareness campaigns - many of them privately funded. Today, those who choose to smoke are educated as to the risks. Taxes and fees, whether on manufacturers or consumers, have had more questionable results.
Today, most parents don't know the extent of health issues associated with sugar intake. Educate them, and most will act in the best interests of their children.
One thing that struck me is it was probably easier to educate people to the danger of smoking as they could just push the idea of quitting to increase lifespan.
But unhealthy eating is more complicated and requires a broader approach than simply quiting etc.
There can be more factors in the calculation and as a result more outcomes, you might not be obese but you could be eating unhealthily just the same.
Since we are the majority of us separated from the means of producing our own food we rely on the manufacturer to a massive degree, unfortunately thats where the problems starts. We both of us have different motives I want cheap food to eat but the manufacturer want to sell more produce, sugar and salt reduce cost and increase sales.
We have to be seen as serious that we want less of this stuff in our food, they wont change the recipe until we force them too.
They slew him with poison afaid to meet him with the steel
a gallant son of eireann was Owen Roe o'Neill.
We already have a makeisvero aka "sweet´s tax". It started last year and is pointed towards, sweet´s, chocolate, ice cream and soda´s. Its too early to say what the effect will be, but if it has negative impact for consumption of sugary products, thats just fine.
bad food is cheap and most Americans don't know what real food is.
Portion size is another problem
There, but for the grace of God, goes John Bradford
My aim, then, was to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their inmost recesses, and make them fear and dread us. Fear is the beginning of wisdom.
I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation.
bad food is cheap and most Americans don't know what real food is.
Portion size is another problem
When I holidayed in America a while back I nearly died from the hunger the food really put me off the place.
It was the same idea of meat and two veg just like home so it was, but it was all just far too sweet or too fatty or too big to be honest.
Once some lunatic got me to try a Country Fried Steak in Iowa I still wake at night from the horror of that plate.
I started in Illinois, Iowa, South Dakota and lastly back through Minnesota an Wisconsin, I figure I got a good picture of the culinary delights of the American heartland
If that was any indication of the nation as a whole then the heart and belly size are in serious danger in the US of A.
You know things are bad when your food is considered fattening by people who eat breakfast rolls and swamp pints.
Last edited by gaelic cowboy; 02-07-2012 at 17:45.
They slew him with poison afaid to meet him with the steel
a gallant son of eireann was Owen Roe o'Neill.
Simply placing a heavier tax on sugary/unhealthy foods is unlikely to actually change peoples eating habits, and just like the taxes on cigarettes, will end up placing an unfair burden on poorer people (since they tend to have less healthy lifestyles).
If you make unhealthy foods more expensive the people that already eat them will continue to do so, they will just eat less of them.
That's not remotely unfair. And you know...people eating less unhealthy food...eating too much is what leads to health problems...
And ideally, the producers drop the sugar content to lower their prices back to normal.
With sugary food, the level of sweetness that tastes good depends on what you are accustomed too. Possibly it would even taste just as good once we got used to the lower level...
There are other sweeteners that can be used instead of fructose, most have different advantages and disadvantages. Usually ta disadvantage is cost, but an initial cross subsidy would help nudge this change along.
An enemy that wishes to die for their country is the best sort to face - you both have the same aim in mind. Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings.
"If you can't trust the local kleptocrat whom you installed by force and prop up with billions of annual dollars, who can you trust?" Lemur
If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain.
The best argument against democracy is a five minute talk with the average voter. Winston Churchill
Chronic Fructose Exposure
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
#Hillary4prism 
Bookmarks