Sugar Tax

michaels

N1AK wrote: »

Why should he have to he hasn't made any claims that would require that analysis, I'm sure there are figures available and if you want to refute them you are free to find them and try to do so.

Whilst it is true that in Antrobus' post he states that negative externalities are an economic justification for a sugar tax it does not add the detail that there might also be positive externalities that are also not currently priced by the market. Thus a casual reader might get the impression that economic theory is exclusively supportive of the tax, which I was pointing out whilst probable on balance is not entirely proven.

Malthusian

mwpt wrote: »

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/mar/29/irn-bru-ag-barr-soft-drinks-financial-impact-sugar-tax
A good outcome then.

Unless people drink two cans instead of one to satisfy their sugar craving

I'm fairly ambivalent about the sugar tax (if people want to drink this rubbish it's a free country) but the danger is that people read these stories and think "Oh good, thanks to the sugar tax they've reduced the sugar to a healthier level, I can keep drinking Irn-Bru." If you don't want to die early you need to stop drinking this rubbish entirely.

Shrimply

I'm sure this has already been said but this really annoys me. Not because it will have a huge effect on me in terms on money. I don't drink that many sugary drinks.

But when I do choose a sweet drink I would much much rather have a drink that is full of sugar that one that has a whole load of extra random chemicals.

In my eyes the "full fat" drinks are actually the healthier option. And all the "sugar tax" will do is result in more drinks using artificial sweeteners.

antrobus

michaels wrote: »

Whilst it is true that in Antrobus' post he states that negative externalities are an economic justification for a sugar tax it does not add the detail that there might also be positive externalities that are also not currently priced by the market. Thus a casual reader might get the impression that economic theory is exclusively supportive of the tax, which I was pointing out whilst probable on balance is not entirely proven.

I was simply explaining the economics on the basis that there was an identified negative externality. You can dispute whether or not there is one if you like.

antrobus

Shrimply wrote: »

I'm sure this has already been said but this really annoys me. Not because it will have a huge effect on me in terms on money. I don't drink that many sugary drinks.

But when I do choose a sweet drink I would much much rather have a drink that is full of sugar that one that has a whole load of extra random chemicals.

In my eyes the "full fat" drinks are actually the healthier option. And all the "sugar tax" will do is result in more drinks using artificial sweeteners.

Sugar is a chemical. According to Google its formula is C12H22O11.

At least that's the one for sucrose. Other sugars are available.:)

Shrimply

antrobus wrote: »

Sugar is a chemical. According to Google its formula is C12H22O11.

At least that's the one for sucrose. Other sugars are available.:)

It's a naturally occurring chemical my body knows how to handle, and that the human body has evolved along side. Not one that is manufactured in the lab, or purified to much higher concentrations than would be naturally experienced.

I'm not saying it's harmless, I don't know what other effects it has other than obesity. But I know I'd choose it over artificial sweeteners.

mwpt

Shrimply wrote: »

It's a naturally occurring chemical my body knows how to handle, and that the human body has evolved along side. Not one that is manufactured in the lab, or purified to much higher concentrations than would be naturally experienced.

I'm not saying it's harmless, I don't know what other effects it has other than obesity. But I know I'd choose it over artificial sweeteners.

And you are welcome to do so, but hand over the extra tax at the same time please.

Btw, what you are proclaiming above is known as pseudo-science, the enemy of real science. Nothing is ever as simple as natural vs artificial.

I hope you take no modern medicine because almost all of them are artificially manufactured "chemicals" after lots and lots of that mumbo-jumbo sciency type stuff known as research.

(I don't mean to be harsh, I'm sure you mean well, but this type of thinking is wrong)

Shrimply

mwpt wrote: »

And you are welcome to do so, but hand over the extra tax at the same time please.

Btw, what you are proclaiming above is known as pseudo-science, the enemy of real science. Nothing is ever as simple as natural vs artificial.

I hope you take no modern medicine because almost all of them are artificially manufactured "chemicals" after lots and lots of that mumbo-jumbo sciency type stuff known as research.

(I don't mean to be harsh, I'm sure you mean well, but this type of thinking is wrong)

To be completely honest I have taken offence. And I don't think it's fair either, nothing I said could be called pseudo-science. Can you point out what I said that wasn't factually accurate?

Sucrose has been in our diets for a long time evolutionarily speaking. Whereas the alternatives generally haven't. Now whether what we replace sugar with is "safe" is something that we can only test to a certain extent. What I can say with certainty is that genetically speaking our bodies haven't had the chance to adapt to any hidden negative effects that such compounds, at the levels they are now present in our food, may impose on us.

I avoid, as a rule, as many unnecessary medicines as possible. Because it's a medication, and the body is a very complex thing, especially at the cellular level. And there huge gaps in knowledge about cellular processes. If we don't know how these things happen normally how can we possible know what effects, negative or otherwise, any particular chemical has on them.

I'm not against medication and I'm not against preservatives and additives used in moderation. However, why would you replace something that you can just burn off with a bit of exercise?

And for the amount of sugary drinks I drink I'll be quite prepared to pay more to get the full-fat versions. What worries me is that they won't be available due to this increased cost.

Mistermeaner

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-35933691

We're too rich and lazy

Or 'gunty' as I like to call it

ThemeOne

I don't buy many sweet drinks but when I do, always get the sugar version - I simply don't trust artificial sweeteners not to be harmful. Many of them were only discovered in the last 50 years, and have only come into widespread use more recently, so there simply hasn't been time to judge the effects.