Sugar Tax

arbtrader

Although you suggest it will impact cheaper products more proportionately, the same amount of tax will be paid on the same amount of sugar consumed.

antrobus

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.

Ricin is a naturally occuring chemical.

antrobus

Shrimply wrote: »

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? ....

This.:)

Shrimply wrote: »

..Sucrose has been in our diets for a long time evolutionarily speaking... .

Evolutionarily speaking, sucrose has not been a feature in our diets at all. For one thing we only invented agriculture about 10,000 years ago; we evolved long before then.

There is nothing 'natural' about humans eating processed sugar cane in the form of suagr crystals, any more than there is something 'natural' about humans eating processed wheat in the form of baked bread. They are all the product of human technology.

All you are doing is pedalling the fallacy that somehow the products of old technolgy are somehow more 'natural' than the products of new technology. But it's all the same; it's all stuff that we made.

antrobus

ThemeOne wrote: »

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.

As opposed to the effects of sugar you mean? Makes you fat, rots your teeth, and gives you type 2 diabetes?:)

mwpt

antrobus wrote: »

Evolutionarily speaking, sucrose has not been a feature in our diets at all. For one thing we only invented agriculture about 10,000 years ago; we evolved long before then.

There is nothing 'natural' about humans eating processed sugar cane in the form of suagr crystals, any more than there is something 'natural' about humans eating processed wheat in the form of baked bread. They are all the product of human technology.

All you are doing is pedalling the fallacy that somehow the products of old technolgy are somehow more 'natural' than the products of new technology. But it's all the same; it's all stuff that we made.

Antrobus has said it more politely and better than I did.

I am not a food scientist or medical researcher but I believe the conclusion most reach is that our bodies did not evolve consuming as much sugar as we do these days.

I take the op point about putting unknown chemicals in our body though. I hardly drink soft drinks anyway, but of course I go ahead and drink loads of full fat milk (I love the stuff) which is full of lactose sugars...

kinger101

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.

Many of the non-calorific sweeteners are natural. Stevia. Xylitol. And many of the artificial ones are composed of subunits found in our diet already. Aspartame for example breaks down into two amino acids and methanol (which is present in esterified form at higher amounts in many fruits).

But natural and good are not synonymous. Ricin, cholera toxin and snake venom are are natural).

What is unnatural for humans is drinking large amounts of liquid containing high concentrations of fructose.

Mistermeaner

We're still evolving. Into big fat lazy pigs apparently but evolving none the less.

Perhaps diabeties is natures way of keeping the population down

wotsthat

mwpt wrote: »

I am not a food scientist or medical researcher but I believe the conclusion most reach is that our bodies did not evolve consuming as much sugar as we do these days.

We didn't evolve picking up a latte and croissant on the way to work either. Why not ban Starbucks?

We didn't evolve eating 3 square meals a day. Why not ban lunch?

I fear the sugar tax is a salve to allow people to feel good about their other bad habits. i.e. gluttony and sloth.

mwpt wrote: »

I take the op point about putting unknown chemicals in our body though. I hardly drink soft drinks anyway, but of course I go ahead and drink loads of full fat milk (I love the stuff) which is full of lactose sugars...

I'd tax the hell out of the stuff. You need to be saved from yourself.

mwpt

wotsthat wrote: »

We didn't evolve picking up a latte and croissant on the way to work either. Why not ban Starbucks?

We didn't evolve eating 3 square meals a day. Why not ban lunch?

I fear the sugar tax is a salve to allow people to feel good about their other bad habits. i.e. gluttony and sloth.

No, negative externality tax has already been explained in this thread.

wotsthat

mwpt wrote: »

No, negative externality tax has already been explained in this thread.

Probably no need to worry about whether cavemen were drinking fizzy pop then.