South Africa sugar tax will cost 60,000 jobs

[ellyally]

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



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



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

No, could be shown as it became more expensive and 6% of the already poor could no longer afford it

Even better, the biggest reductions have occurred among the poor,

Well, no ****

 

[Hush9300]

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

Fair enough.

I agree with LazyLion though, because for the most part sugar consumption, singularly, is not responsible for the health problems.

 

[Kosmik]

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.

The problem in my opinion is "added sugar", hence the drives around the world for product manufacturers to state it.

 

[Lupus]

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



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



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

Success... Oh wait no

http://www.wsj.com/articles/soda-sales-in-mexico-rise-despite-tax-1462267808

Purchases, however, are rising in Mexico after an initial drop, making the country a key-growth market again for soda giants Coca-Cola Co. andPepsiCo*Inc.

http://health.spectator.co.uk/mexic...ax-worked-new-figures-tell-a-different-story/

 

[Hush9300]

The problem in my opinion is "added sugar", hence the drives around the world for product manufacturers to state it.

Like I said. Sugar or added sugar as you've put it has been made the scapegoat to collect additional revenue. The problem is a lot more complicated than just sugar and the solution is even more complicated.

 

[Gnarls]

Success... Oh wait no

http://www.wsj.com/articles/soda-sales-in-mexico-rise-despite-tax-1462267808



http://health.spectator.co.uk/mexic...ax-worked-new-figures-tell-a-different-story/

As was asked of me earlier, "How does this prove that taxing the excess sugar content to combat obesity is a failure?"

Objections, Industry Reaction, Public Support and Framing
One objection to a SSB tax is that it would be regressive. This argument arose with tobacco taxes but eroded with several realities: the poor face a disproportionate burden of smoking-related illnesses and nearly all smokers begin as teenagers; both groups are sensitive to price changes.7 In addition, some of the tobacco revenue has been used for programs developed specifically for the poor and for youth. The poor are most affected by illnesses related to unhealthy diets, and brand loyalties for beverages tend to be set by the teenage years. In addition, SSBs are not necessary for survival and an alternative (water) is available at little or no cost, hence a tax that shifts intake from SSBs to water would benefit the poor by improving health and lowering beverage expenditures. Designating revenues for programs on child nutrition, obesity prevention, or health care for the uninsured would preferentially help those most in need.

A second objection is that taxing SSBs will not solve the obesity crisis and is a blunt instrument that affects even those who consume low amounts. Seat belt legislation and tobacco taxation do not eliminate traffic accidents and heart disease but are sound policies. Similarly, obesity is unlikely to yield to any single policy intervention, so it is important to pursue multiple opportunities to create incremental gains. Reducing caloric intake by 1–2 per cent per year will make a marked impact on health of all age groups, and the financial impact on those who consume small amounts would be minimal.

Opposition to a tax by the beverage industry is to be expected given the possible impact on sales, has been seen in jurisdictions which have considered such taxes, and can be predicted from behavior of the tobacco industry under similar circumstances.37 PepsiCo threatened to move its corporate headquarters from New York when the state considered implementing an 18% sales tax on SSBs.38 The tobacco industry fought policy changes by creating front groups with names suggesting community involvement. The beverage industry has created Americans Against FoodTaxes.39 These reactions suggest that the beverage industry believes a tax would have a substantial impact on consumption.

Public support for food and beverage taxes to address obesity has increased steadily. Polls have asked about taxes in different ways and hence are not directly comparable from year to year, but overall trends are clear. Support for food taxes rose from 33% in 2001, to 41% in 2003, and then to 54% in 2004.40 More recent polling shows higher support for beverage taxes. A 2008 poll of New York State residents found that 52% support a soda tax, rising to 72% when the revenue would be dedicated to programs to prevent obesity in children and adults. How the issue is framed is essential, with highest support when the tax is introduced in the context of promoting health and the revenues earmarked for child nutrition or obesity prevention programs.

Go to:
Conclusions
The federal government, a number of states and cities, and some countries (e.g., Mexico8) are considering taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages. The reasons to proceed are compelling. The science base linking sugar-sweetened beverage consumption with risk for chronic diseases is clear. Escalating health care costs and the rising burden of diseases related to poor diet create an urgent need for solutions, thus justifying government’s right to recoup costs.

As with any public health intervention, the precise impact of a tax cannot be known until it is implemented and studied, but research to date suggests strong positive effects on reducing consumption.5, 33, 34 In addition, the tax has the potential to generate substantial revenue to prevent obesity and address other external costs resulting from SSB consumption, as well as fund other health-related programs. Much as tobacco taxes are routine at both state and federal levels because of revenue generation and the public health benefit on smoking rates, we believe taxes on beverages that help drive the obesity epidemic should and will become routine.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3140416/

 

[Arthur]

Whatever the good/bad effects of sugar, etc, what is at issue for me is something else entirely.

Behind these arguments are two fundamentally different and opposed points of view about the role of government in society.

I am decidedly not of the school that looks to Caesar as nursemaid, care-giver, educator, housing-provider, jobs-provider, and so on. Caesar exists in my view for one thing: the defence and vindication of every single individual's right to contract freely with others without force of fraud. In others words, police, courts, prisons, and defence force. That's it. Period.

 

[Lupus]

As was asked of me earlier, "How does this prove that taxing the excess sugar content to combat obesity is a failure?"



http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3140416/

Firstly they never indicate the obesity rate after, secondly sales went down for a very short period of time so not really an indicator

 

[LazyLion]

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?

Because as bad as Mexico is in some areas, I trust them more to implement this better than our beloved ANC government....

 

[Gnarls]

^So your issue is with who implements it and not the policy itself?

Firstly they never indicate the obesity rate after, secondly sales went down for a very short period of time so not really an indicator

Yes but....

As with any public health intervention, the precise impact of a tax cannot be known until it is implemented and studied, but research to date suggests strong positive effects on reducing consumption

Once again how can you definitively say that it will have no effect on obesity which was my original point of contention?

 

[Lupus]

^So your issue is with who implements it and not the policy itself?



Yes but....



Once again how can you definitively say that it will have no effect on obesity which was my original point of contention?

Because sugar isn't the cause of obesity, especially in sodas only. If they are going to tax sugar, it should be regulated in everything.

 

[Gnarls]

Because sugar isn't the cause of obesity, especially in sodas only. If they are going to tax sugar, it should be regulated in everything.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27273733

CONCLUSIONS:
The majority of SRs, especially the most recent ones, with the highest quality and without any disclosed conflict of interest, suggested that the consumption of SSBs is a risk factor for obesity. The effect of fructose-containing caloric sweeteners, on weight gain is mediated by overconsumption of beverages with these sweeteners, leading to an extra provision of energy intake. The tax tool alone on added sugars appears insufficient to curb the obesity epidemic, but it needs to be included in a multicomponent structural strategy.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23763695

Taken together, the evidence that decreasing SSBs will decrease the risk of obesity and related diseases such as T2D is compelling. Several additional issues warrant further discussion. First, prevention of long-term weight gain through dietary changes such as limiting consumption of SSBs is more important than short-term weight loss in reducing the prevalence of obesity in the population. This is due to the fact that once an individual becomes obese, it is difficult to lose weight and keep it off. Second, we should consider the totality of evidence rather than selective pieces of evidence (e.g. from short-term RCTs only). Finally, while recognizing that the evidence of harm on health against SSBs is strong, we should avoid the trap of waiting for absolute proof before allowing public health action to be taken.

 

[mazi76er]

Once again being held captive by big business and their threats. yay!