South Africa sugar tax will cost 60,000 jobs

[freddster]

Actually no, it is a world wide issue. Sugar has impregnated nearly everything we eat and it is hidden quite well. Try this, take a product, look at the sugar portion on the nutrition label and see if there is a figure for daily RDA%. It's one of the only ingredients that doesn't state it anywhere.

Understand that medical costs have skyrocketed with illness related to sugar and excessive consumption of sugar. Not excessive consumption of food, sugar. There is as big a fight now between international companies and folks like the WHO over sugar as there was over Tabacco. Also what I meant by penalizing the companies, is forcing them to reduce the sugar load in their products.

And taxes are going to solve this how? We've seen the /s huge difference it made to smoking and drinking /s
And what about processed foods with all kinds of preservatives, colourants, flavourants, shape keeping agents, anti foaming agents, rising agents? Sugar at least is still natural. NOne of beforementioned stuff is natural.

 

[Kosmik]

And taxes are going to solve this how? We've seen the /s huge difference it made to smoking and drinking /s
And what about processed foods with all kinds of preservatives, colourants, flavourants, shape keeping agents, anti foaming agents, rising agents? Sugar at least is still natural. NOne of beforementioned stuff is natural.

Sugar tax is not just against natural sugars. I don't agree with the tax, rather regulate the manufacturer and ensure larger, detailed labels to promote consumer education/choice.

 

[konfab]

Sugar tax is not just against natural sugars. I don't agree with the tax, rather regulate the manufacturer and ensure larger, detailed labels to promote consumer education/choice.

So who do you want to regulate? The tannie that sells cakes to raise money for charity?

 

[Lupus]

Is it just to allow companies to disguise or effectively poison people with regards to health without regulation?

Poisoning us with sugar? Sugar isn't a poison, neither is it addictive or has very little to do with any form of diabetes. This tax is just a stupid tax that won't solve the problem. The biggest problem is good healthy food is expensive, cheap food high in calories is the reason for the obesity problem not sugar.
Adding a tax to soda isn't going to help one bit, and knowing shops they'll charge just as much for the sugar free versions.

Diabetes info

http://www.diabetes.org/food-and-fi...anding-carbohydrates/sugar-and-desserts.html?

 

[Nod]

Poisoning us with sugar? Sugar isn't a poison, neither is it addictive or has very little to do with any form of diabetes. This tax is just a stupid tax that won't solve the problem. The biggest problem is good healthy food is expensive, cheap food high in calories is the reason for the obesity problem not sugar.
Adding a tax to soda isn't going to help one bit, and knowing shops they'll charge just as much for the sugar free versions.

Diabetes info

http://www.diabetes.org/food-and-fi...anding-carbohydrates/sugar-and-desserts.html?

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160407111828.htm
http://foodaddictioninstitute.org/s...aving-and-food-addiction-a-scientific-review/
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/23/opinion/sugar-season-its-everywhere-and-addictive.html?_r=0
http://news.mit.edu/2015/decoding-sugar-addiction-0129
http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/why-sugar-is-so-addictive.html

 

[Gnarls]

Lol, this argument again. I expect and Ivo Vegter link shortly.

 

[Lupus]

You know what I love about the internet, you can find any link you want to prove your argument.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-29126872
https://www.thrillist.com/health/nation/sugar-addiction-is-not-real

These articles are a little newer than yours. But I'll say this, if sugar is addictive, go drink a coke and go snort some coke tell me which one you end up getting addicted to.
I've pretty much stopped sugar in my coffee, I'll have a glass of coke once in awhile, I don't have sweets that often. Mysteriously I am still overweight... Also stopping sugar was far easier than smoking and sugar is far more available.

 

[Hush9300]

Sugar is a serious problem. Not sure if a tax is the right way to do it, rather penalize companies accordingly.

Sugar is not a problem, people consuming too much of the stuff is the problem.

 

[Kosmik]

Sugar is not a problem, people consuming too much of the stuff is the problem.

Agree fully but the problem with a lot of the products is also marketing. If I eat chocolates or sweets, yes I expect there to be a "sugar" penalty. If I add simple sauce or even something basic like tomato sauce, I would not be expecting to increase my sugar load. The hidden or disguised sugars are an issue. Products people think are healthy and low in sugar, are anything but in a lot of cases. That, personally, is why I think the correct way is to force changes in the packaging and the manufacturers having to disclose the contents properly. Have a look at articles around the net regarding hidden sugars.

 

[Nerfherder]

Poisoning us with sugar? Sugar isn't a poison, neither is it addictive or has very little to do with any form of diabetes. This tax is just a stupid tax that won't solve the problem. The biggest problem is good healthy food is expensive, cheap food high in calories is the reason for the obesity problem not sugar.
Adding a tax to soda isn't going to help one bit, and knowing shops they'll charge just as much for the sugar free versions.

Diabetes info

http://www.diabetes.org/food-and-fi...anding-carbohydrates/sugar-and-desserts.html?

Rather educate yourself before making posts like this. Perhaps delete and then go do the research

 

[ellyally]

Nothing changes, **** will just get more expensive. Even if less sugar is used to make it, **** will still cost more to buy. Only people that gain anything are those with a ticket on the gravy train. Quite frankly, I don't see why I must pay more for **** cos others are incapable of managing their consumption

 

[konfab]

Rather educate yourself before making posts like this. Perhaps delete and then go do the research

Nothing wrong with the stuff that was posted:

The myth that sugar causes diabetes is commonly accepted by many people. This is a complicated issue. Eating sugar has nothing to do with developing type 1 diabetes. Type 1 is caused by genetics and other unknown factors that trigger the disease.

One of the biggest risk factors for type 2 diabetes is being overweight, and a diet high in calories from any source contributes to weight gain. However, research has shown that drinking sugary drinks is linked to type 2 diabetes, and the American Diabetes Association recommends that people limit their intake of sugar-sweetened beverages to help prevent diabetes.

I disagree with the healthy food= expensive though. Fruit and veg are the cheapest things in my grocery basket.

 

[Kosmik]

Nothing changes, **** will just get more expensive. Even if less sugar is used to make it, **** will still cost more to buy. Only people that gain anything are those with a ticket on the gravy train. Quite frankly, I don't see why I must pay more for **** cos others are incapable of managing their consumption

You are missing the point. Firstly, it has become everyone's issue because of the impact on the health care system, public or private. Secondly, a big part of the problem is hidden sugars in "normal" food. Regarding people incapable of managing consumption, you do know that for the first time we have folks dying of obesity who live in abject poverty? As in can't afford or eat large amounts of "sugar" foods?

 

[ellyally]

You are missing the point. Firstly, it has become everyone's issue because of the impact on the health care system, public or private. Secondly, a big part of the problem is hidden sugars in "normal" food. Regarding people incapable of managing consumption, you do know that for the first time we have folks dying of obesity who live in abject poverty? As in can't afford or eat large amounts of "sugar" foods?

But none of that will change, its just going to cost more. So, they stick a label on the product saying x amount of sugar, to 'regulate' it.. and then?... its now just going to be more expensive for everyone, and those in abject poverty.

 

[LazyLion]

Let's be under no illusions here, this will do absolutely nothing to reduce health problems associated with sugar consumption and the taxes earned from this will never go to health care in any meaningful form.
This is just another tax on an already over burdened tax base... just like the plastic bag tax, the tyre tax, and other "sin" taxes.

 

[Hush9300]

Agree fully but the problem with a lot of the products is also marketing. If I eat chocolates or sweets, yes I expect there to be a "sugar" penalty. If I add simple sauce or even something basic like tomato sauce, I would not be expecting to increase my sugar load. The hidden or disguised sugars are an issue. Products people think are healthy and low in sugar, are anything but in a lot of cases. That, personally, is why I think the correct way is to force changes in the packaging and the manufacturers having to disclose the contents properly. Have a look at articles around the net regarding hidden sugars.

I disagree. People should be free to eat what they want when they want without incurring an unnecessary tax because someone out there is on a simple carb overload. This is largely because people are not educated when it comes to dietary requirements.

There also seems to be a misunderstanding about sugar. Sugar in various forms sucrose, dextrose, fructose are indeed found everywhere. Even in fruit... Are we going to apply the tax to fruit sales too? The problem here in terms of health is that most high GI carbs are quickly metabolised into glucose which results in an insulin spike long before the very tomato sauce you're referring to or even a sip of that soda has even been taken.

Instead of taxing people, they need to be educated on dietary requirements and exercise.

 

[konfab]

You are missing the point. Firstly, it has become everyone's issue because of the impact on the health care system, public or private. Secondly, a big part of the problem is hidden sugars in "normal" food. Regarding people incapable of managing consumption, you do know that for the first time we have folks dying of obesity who live in abject poverty? As in can't afford or eat large amounts of "sugar" foods?

If the problem is the impact on the healthcare system, then there is a criminally easy solution:

Taxes for people who are over their BMI :twisted:

 

[Gnarls]

Let's be under no illusions here, this will do absolutely nothing to reduce health problems associated with sugar consumption and the taxes earned from this will never go to health care in any meaningful form.
This is just another tax on an already over burdened tax base... just like the plastic bag tax, the tyre tax, and other "sin" taxes.

How can you say this definitively when the data from the most recent case study in Mexico indicates that it may be a tentative success?

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-01-08/mexico-s-soda-tax-success

One of the world’s highest soda taxes appears to be working. After just one year, purchases of sugary drinks in Mexico are down 12 percent, a new study shows. Even better, the biggest reductions have occurred among the poor, who can least afford health care.

http://www.wired.com/2015/07/mexicos-soda-tax-working-us-learn/

At the very least, soda taxes and the education campaigns around them could change how Mexicans—and other people around the world—view sugar sweetened beverages. Programs like Mexico’s and Berkeley’s can have what Wang calls “a lighthouse effect,” drawing attention to soda’s role in chronic health problems. “A soda tax alone is not going to solve the entire obesity and diabetes epidemic,” she says. Still, it might help “shift people’s mindset about these beverages. They’re not innocent.” Mexico’s soda tax was ahead of its time. But with data like this, it probably won’t take the US long to catch up.

http://time.com/4168356/mexico-sugar-drink-soda-tax/

The researchers reported an average 6% decline in purchases of sugar-sweetened beverages and a 4% average increase in untaxed beverages over 2014, compared to what would have been expected if the tax was not in place. The decline in sugary drink purchases grew over time, reaching a 12% drop in December 2014.

 

[Hush9300]

How can you say this definitively when the data from the most recent case study in Mexico indicates that it may be a success?

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-01-08/mexico-s-soda-tax-success



http://www.wired.com/2015/07/mexicos-soda-tax-working-us-learn/



http://time.com/4168356/mexico-sugar-drink-soda-tax/

Useless information without a corresponding study on the taxes effect on obesity.

 

[Gnarls]

Useless information without a corresponding study on the taxes effect on obesity.

That may be so but I was countering this claim by Lazylion.

Let's be under no illusions here, this will do absolutely nothing to reduce health problems associated with sugar consumption and the taxes earned from this will never go to health care in any meaningful form.