LetsRun.com is Officially Against the Soda (ang Gatorade and Tea) Tax: Join With Us

Both wejo and then rojo are comparing this tax to prohibition or 'the government deciding what religion to believe in'. Bad analogies both, considering nothing is being outlawed or prohibited. They are legislating a cost increase to affect negative outcomes. It is no different than current liquor laws, tobacco laws, etc. All readily available though with an age limit for purchase and use.

Neither has wejo addressed the tax incentive provided to producers that reduces the cost of both sugar and corn syrup. The easiest way to improve the current problem is to rescind the current subsidies and for markets to reflect the proper price of sugar. The price of soda increases and/or producers use less sweetener in their product, and sugar-linked obesity decreases. Why rail on a place like Berkeley when the source of the problem lies in the Congressional Farm Bill?

wejo wrote:

55% of my saturated fat for the day, 22% of my cholesterol, and 35% of my sodium... Time to start taxing salads I think.

.

When salad companies begin spending millions each year lobbying gov't officials to not recognize and publicize the epic Diabetes onslaught brought on by by the incredible growth of eating salads -- yes.

might be a CPA wrote:

Both wejo and then rojo are comparing this tax to prohibition or 'the government deciding what religion to believe in'. Bad analogies both, considering nothing is being outlawed or prohibited. ...

I paraphrased rojo fairly badly. The analogy he was arguing was 'Imagine if you have some obscure belief and are forced to give it up by the govt.' Didn't mean to mis-charactize that in the way that it read.

The best way to reduce obesity is to put a tax on potatoes. The tax on potatoes will reduce the number of potatoes consumed, the total number of calories consumed, the number of people with type 2 diabetes, and the amount of obesity.

The fact that liberals are not proposing to tax potatoes shows they have no interest in reducing obesity and have no interest in helping the poor over weight people of this country. This is why the Democrats lost the last election.

Well, NYC tried the soda tax as well. The courts tossed the tax out. I am sure the lawsuit will be filed by the end of the week. Government nanny state. Remember, the politicians know better than all of us:)

might be a CPA wrote:

Both wejo and then rojo are comparing this tax to prohibition or 'the government deciding what religion to believe in'. Bad analogies both, considering nothing is being outlawed or prohibited. They are legislating a cost increase to affect negative outcomes. It is no different than current liquor laws, tobacco laws, etc. All readily available though with an age limit for purchase and use.

Neither has wejo addressed the tax incentive provided to producers that reduces the cost of both sugar and corn syrup. The easiest way to improve the current problem is to rescind the current subsidies and for markets to reflect the proper price of sugar. The price of soda increases and/or producers use less sweetener in their product, and sugar-linked obesity decreases. Why rail on a place like Berkeley when the source of the problem lies in the Congressional Farm Bill?

I never said this was equivalent to Prohibition.

And you need to do some math. I am against sugar and corn subsidies. If they were eliminated tomorrow the price of a 12 ounce coke would not go up 12 cents.

This article

says HFCS cost 30 cents a lb which is enough for 11 Cokes. So say 3 cents a Coke. Even if subsidies were cutting the price in half, highly doubtful, the price of a coke would only go up 3 cents not 12 with the subsidy eliminated. I'm assuming the subsidy is much, much less likely under a penny.

HFCS consumption is actually DOWN in the US the last 15 years. America however is fatter.

Recently concerns have been raised about potential health consequences of high-fructose corn syrup. But there’s insufficient science to vilify it. “Human studies, though short-term and small, consistently show no different impact on measures of health compared with other sugars. Though it’d be nice to have more research, we can confidently say people’s health will benefit most from limiting all sources of calorie-containing sweeteners,” says Cindy Fitch, a nutrition professor at West Virginia University and co-author of an Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics position paper on the topic.

Reduce all farm subsidies and I think a bag of chips per calorie is still going to be cheaper than a bag of carrots.

The Harvard School of Public Health says that 100% fruit juices are no better than soda. So why don't we tax Orange Juice the same amount?

Likely because people like yourself drink orange juice but don't drink soda. If this is about obesity and fruit juice is just as harmful as soda then it should be taxed at the same rate right?

Let's say in 5 years its feasible with a fitbit or something to measure calories in and calories out and calories burned, should the government measure that and tax those who eat too much? Is that the roll you want for government? Or should they just pick people eating too many undesirable foods.

And to the poster who said that the soda companies lobby the government to deny the obesity epidemic in america I don't think they do that. I think they probably do lobby saying soda is not the main reason Americans are fat.

This Bloomberg article confirms that: "Blaming obesity on sugary soft drinks misses the real cause of the problem -- too many calories of any type going in, and not enough going out, they say. In a paper titled “Our Position on Obesity,” Coca-Cola cites 45 scientific studies, reviews, and reports to contradict claims that sugar-sweetened beverages are the primary cause of obesity."

Too many calories is the cause of obesity. What about this study:

I'm going to go enjoy a Dr. Pepper. I went "healthy" at lunch and had a fresh squeezed lemonade.

wejo, let me just say, you do raise some good points, and seem engaged in this topic, have done some research, and don't seem to have any crazy, fad nutrition ideas (as many on here do). So kudos to you for all that. I want to just point out a few things:On HFCS: I agree, reducing subsidies on corn would still allow sodas be to quite cheap, and therefore might not cut into the cost that much. Mexico doesn't use much HFCS, and uses sucrose instead as their top sweetener (in fact, "Mexican Coke" is made with cane sugar). People are poor there, but...they have at least as large, if not a larger, obesity problem as we do. HFCS ain't the problem. Too many calories in, and too few out (too sedentary) is (but yes, the too many calories DEFINITELY includes too much added sugars in soda, desserts, etc This is why reducing sodas can help many people reduce calories, and reduce obesity. More on that later). There are some studies that show a slight metabolic difference between consumption of HFCS and sucrose, but very little to probably matter much.

I disagree with that statement of theirs. They offer ZERO evidence to back it up, despite referencing many studies in their article to show the harms of excess ADDED sugar beverages (100% fruit juice does not add sugar. Interestingly they only reference "fruit juice" and not "100% fruit juice". Many "fruit juices" are like 5-15% fruit juice. Those are useless). I've looked at several studies that find no link between 100% fruit juice consumption and obesity. Here's one.

100% fruit juice, with its literally dozens of nutrients and natural phytochemicals that sodas don't have, is metabolized quite differently than soda, fructose, or pure glucose. Now yes, for someone with a weight problem it is still not the best choice (does not fill them up). But just to clarify, there absolutely is a difference between drinking a coke and drinking a glass of 100% OJ or other 100% juice. (again, for an overweight person, the effect on weight is similar {if consumed for the same calories as a soda), but the effect on blood glucose/insulin and other factors will be different, which does matter). And while mega-gulp sodas are the norm, I've rarely seen anyone consume a mega OJ. That's just the reality.

I agree that calories in/out is the main reason for obesity/T2D crisis in our country. (not a specific food or macronutrient)

I also agree that "that sugar-sweetened beverages are not the *primary* cause of obesity". But...BUT....they are a *big part* of the "obesity cause". This is where a lot of people get their excess, nutrient-barren calories, and these calories do little to nothing to reduce people's hunger. Yes, they "wash" their sodas down (what's the opposite of wash? ;-) ) with a double-bacon cheeseburger, mega -fries, and ice cream sundae, while SITTING ON THEIR BUTTS afterwards for 6 hours in front of the TV. So YES, soda is only *one part* of the problem/equation. However, it's a fairly big part. SO....

Why not try to take on a big part of the problem? It seems your concept is: if you can't solve the whole problem at once, or with one action, or with one action that is "100% FAIR!", why bother? Getting our population to reduce smoking (through taxes, information/education, reducing places where they can be "consumed", etc) didn't solve everyone's health problems all at once, did it? But it certainly HELPED our population reduce many of its health problems. It was one part of the equation towards a healthier population. Drinking soda might not equal smoking, but getting people to reduce their soda intake would certainly be a step in the right direction, and a tax might help ( I will reference some studies in that regard in a bit). Yes, it seems unfair to single it out compared to other high sugar, or high sugar/high fat/high calories foods, like desserts. Fine, so maybe, instead of being against the tax as you are, you should be for expanding it? Put it on ALL "High added (not natural) sugar, or high Added fats (usually sat fat or trans fat) foods" ?? (That would hit a lot of desserts along with sodas). And use that $ to reduce the cost of fruits, veggies, and other whole, natural, healthy foods? What's wrong with that if it does indeed help our population be healthier? And guess what: you will certainly STILL be able to afford your Dr Peppper under such circumstances. No offense, but it's a bit offensive for someone of your means to be so upset that you might have to spend a few extra dollars to drink you sodas, when you visit an area with such a tax. I really don't think it's going to hurt your bottom line much. If a poor person can't afford it? All the better.

Ok, done.

wejo wrote:

[quote]Letscensor wrote:

For freedom? Like basing marriage rights on a book of fairy tales?

I personally support gay marriage if that is what you are talking about, but thanks for assuming what I think.

***

Your famous mod who has been deleting posts on this thread doesn't.

LetsRun.com is for this tax. Therefore, all things being equal Letsrun.com is for taxing everyone's hard earned income a little bit more. That's just a fact.

Yes its a stupid tax. But taxing soda is a hell of a lot more sensible that taxing jobs. So I hope the tax passed.

wejo wrote:

I'm going to go enjoy a Dr. Pepper. I went "healthy" at lunch and had a fresh squeezed lemonade.

And you should...if you enjoy something, no need to feel guilty about it. As for the "fresh" squeezed lemonade, did you add 'artificial' or 'natural' sugar to it?....😉