Sugar Tax

mwpt

cells wrote: »

Legislation decides what the human body can and can not digest in a healthy way?

Why are you being obtuse about this? The science is pretty clear, large consumption of certain types of sugar in children and adults is bad for you.

If you don't believe the science, your choice, but you can't expect people to engage in a rational debate about it based on your whims.

Generali

cells wrote: »

Legislation decides what the human body can and can not digest in a healthy way?

No. Legislation is being put forward because people are making poor choices which impact negatively on their health.

You can argue about whether it's the state's place to do that but it seems self-evident that people do pretty badly on a high sugar diet after a very young age.

Are you sure about breast milk being 40% sugar BTW? It seems a bit unlikely as it would be pretty hard to get out of the breast. These people don't think so either:

http://archive.unu.edu/unupress/food/8F174e/8F174E04.htm

kinger101

Shrimply wrote: »

I have to laugh. It's not pseudoscience and I'm pretty sure I'm more qualified to talk about evolution and adaptation than you are.

Yes if you rely on new mutations evolution will take a long time to occur. However, you are overlooking the key point that selection mainly happens on genetic variation that is already present. We already have a whole load of genetic diversity (a lot of these may of originally been neutral mutations) that have accumulated over these huge time scales you think are so important.

The changes seen in average human height over the last century or so is a prime example. We haven't mutated to be large, the genetic variation for taller people has just been selected for.

In your, very over simplistic fox, example, imagine if we killed off, in a single generation, the 50% slowest rabbits. The next generation would, on average, be considerably faster. Providing that the differences in speed are genetic and heritable.

Human height is a bad example. There isn't really any selective advantage to it, and the fact people are taller now is almost certainly due to environmental influences. In fact, the genetic components to height is so complex that not a single height gene (or QTL) on the human genome has yet been discovered as far as I'm aware.

The main problem with you're evolutionary adaption to drinking lots of coca-cola is that there isn't any selective pressure, positive or negative. People who drink only water reproduce as well as those who drink too much sugar. The detrimental effects of poor diet tend to kick in too late for evolution to act.

So it's quite different from what we think of recent human evolutionary events, such as capability to digest lactose in adulthood, or diminished skin pigmentation in northern Europe.

But you're right that for diploids at least, sexual recombination (inheriting DNA from two parents) is the primary driver of evolution. Though of course, this is in part because it allows diploids to carry mutated alleles that might only be positive under certain conditions. And of course, there's an epigenetic element to consider as well (switching of genes on and off).

wotsthat

The sugar tax on fizzy pop might make a difference to kids dental health but I can't see much benefits in the way of health outcomes. It's a tiny part of a much bigger problem.

Here's where it's at - the wonderful combination of sugar, fat and salt. £2 (£1.50 if you buy three) for 2200 calories worth of snacking opportunity.

http://groceries.asda.com/product/sweet-treats/asda-flapjack-bites/910000266004

Maybe a better solution would be to reduce the hours/ days food retailers can open. I suspect crap like these flapjacks aren't on anyone's shopping list and are impulse buys related to the frequency of shop.

In terms of palatability I could do a pack of these flapjacks (or the chocolate covered shortbread) in half an hour with a couple of cups of coffee. I doubt I could consume the equivalent 5 litres of Coke in a single day.

antrobus

Shrimply wrote: »

I have to laugh. It's not pseudoscience and I'm pretty sure I'm more qualified to talk about evolution and adaptation than you are. ....

That's odd. Because I'm laughing at you.:)

Particularly since your entire argument is completely irrelevant to the point at hand. Even if it were the case that human beings could 'evolve' a tolerance to high-sugar coke over the next few centuries or so, it would not change the fact that in the intervening millenium they would (so the science currently says) suffer from increased levels of type 2 diabetes, which involves costs being incurred, which somebody has to pay for.

Nothing you have said so far is of any relevance to the economics of the sugar levy.

Shrimply

There isn't any selective advantage that we know about as such. I agree probably a large part is environmental, but if females prefer taller men for example then there is definitely an advantage to being taller. And height is definitely a heritable trait to some extent.

I think they have identified several large(ish) effect QTLs that relate to height, but really that argument doesn't matter much anyway. Lots of small effect QTLs are equally as important.

And the same goes for my adaptation argument to sugar. We don't know what the selection pressures are but, if you argue that sugar has negative health benefits, you are also arguing there is a negative selection pressure. The two go hand in hand, however subtle they are. I'm not saying that people that drink a lot of coke won't reproduce. But they may produce less offspring, or less fertile offspring. If some people are more likely to get fat from drinking coke they may be less attractive. It's not something science can really quantify BUT I don't think any evolutionary biologist would argue that after 10000 (for example) years of exposure to something we wouldn't expect there to be some degree of evolutionary adaptation.

Generali

wotsthat wrote: »

The sugar tax on fizzy pop might make a difference to kids dental health but I can't see much benefits in the way of health outcomes. It's a tiny part of a much bigger problem.

Here's where it's at - the wonderful combination of sugar, fat and salt. £2 (£1.50 if you buy three) for 2200 calories worth of snacking opportunity.

http://groceries.asda.com/product/sweet-treats/asda-flapjack-bites/910000266004

Maybe a better solution would be to reduce the hours/ days food retailers can open. I suspect crap like these flapjacks aren't on anyone's shopping list and are impulse buys related to the frequency of shop.

In terms of palatability I could do a pack of these flapjacks (or the chocolate covered shortbread) in half an hour with a couple of cups of coffee. I doubt I could consume the equivalent 5 litres of Coke in a single day.

For me this the first step along a very long road; the GWR express to Paddington introducing a No Smoking carriage. To address a problem we have to recognise there is a problem in the first place. This is the start of a very long road.

Soda companies are even responding to what they clearly fear is an existential threat in the same way tobacco companies did:

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/sep/22/coca-cola-discloses-health-research-funding

Coca-Cola disclosed on Tuesday that it spent $118.6m on health research and partnerships in the US over the past five years, including funding for a group that was criticized for downplaying the role of sugary drinks in fueling obesity.

antrobus

Generali wrote: »

...Are you sure about breast milk being 40% sugar BTW? It seems a bit unlikely as it would be pretty hard to get out of the breast....

I agree. For one thing breast milk is a fluid, and fluids are mostly water. (I'd have thought that was bl00dy obvious, but perhaps not.)

I find one academic source that states that breast mil contains "6.9%--7.2% carbohydrate calculated as lactose"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/392766

So 7% would be a more accurate number.

antrobus

Shrimply wrote: »

...And the same goes for my adaptation argument to sugar.

Maybe we'll adapt to aaspartame in exactly the same way.:)

Generali

antrobus wrote: »

I agree. For one thing breast milk is a fluid, and fluids are mostly water. (I'd have thought that was bl00dy obvious, but perhaps not.)

I find one academic source that states that breast mil contains "6.9%--7.2% carbohydrate calculated as lactose"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/392766

So 7% would be a more accurate number.

I've made stock syrup which is 50:50 sugar to water but doesn't contain any fat and I'd hate to try and push that through a small hole in my nipple, especially a pint of the stuff a day:eek: