The anti-sugar thing is now mainstream (check Twitter for #sugarrush).
Replies
-
darrensurrey wrote: »WRT taxes and reducing use, taxes do not discourage use.
I think it helps. When a product gets unaffordable, people may try to stop a bad habit (addiction). I know a few epode who quit smoking when the cost became prohibitive. $5 for a chocolate bar, rather than $1, might stop some people from buying it. It would have slowed me down, but I might have just bought a bag of chocolate chips instead.
0 -
The proposed tax (20%) is smaller than the variability of the price, I sometimes buy Pepsi Max at 25p/can (never more than 30p) but often it's sold at 50p or more. Pricing only works if the customer is price sensitive.0
-
-
Whilst am not in the sugar is bad camp, too much sugar leads to overconsumption and obesity. Its very easy to over consume on products which are high in sugar, cheap, appealingly moresome and low in nutrition.
Obesity is a major problem for most western countries. Having a healthy balanced diet is one way of reducing consumption of excess calories. Stuffing your face full of processed sugar rich products is unlikely to be good imo, even if you stay at maintenance. I'd go education rather than taxes.0 -
Education is definitely a HUGE part of changing behaviours. Very few people smoke in my city, especially when you look at the population with higher education levels. It is almost to the point where we are surprised to see smoking in public paces (plus it is banned indoors and in public gathering places).
A combination of education, prohibitive cost, and asking a behaviour difficult or socially unacceptable probably works best. JMO0 -
RuNaRoUnDaFiEld wrote: »I don't want a tax on my Mars icecream bars, I pay enough tax!
Yum!
Indeed, I enjoy sugary snacks just fine.
0 -
darrensurrey wrote: »WRT taxes and reducing use, taxes do not discourage use.
I think it helps. When a product gets unaffordable, people may try to stop a bad habit (addiction). I know a few epode who quit smoking when the cost became prohibitive. $5 for a chocolate bar, rather than $1, might stop some people from buying it. It would have slowed me down, but I might have just bought a bag of chocolate chips instead.
- Protein bars are $5 here so I never buy them because unless they are made of the tears of unicorns, there is no reason for it to be more expensive than actual meat.
- Up to last month before I quit smoking, I would buy no matter how expensive it got, puffing while cursing the government like our grumpy 90 year old neighbor.
- Recently I couldn't find my favourite pudding anywhere and I offered to pay twice the price if the shopkeeper dug around his distribution circle for more stock.
- I like my once in a very long while twix bar, but not enough to pay $5 for it.
While price may deter some people, it tends to deter those who don't consume something enough for it to be a problem. Those who overconsume will continue overconsuming and those who eat nutritionally poor foods only occasionally will be the ones most affected by these taxes. People are creatures of habit, and if they feel their habit is being forcefully changed for them they will resist the change even if they have to be irrational.
0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »darrensurrey wrote: »WRT taxes and reducing use, taxes do not discourage use.
I think it helps. When a product gets unaffordable, people may try to stop a bad habit (addiction). I know a few epode who quit smoking when the cost became prohibitive. $5 for a chocolate bar, rather than $1, might stop some people from buying it. It would have slowed me down, but I might have just bought a bag of chocolate chips instead.
- Protein bars are $5 here so I never buy them because unless they are made of the tears of unicorns, there is no reason for it to be more expensive than actual meat.
- Up to last month before I quit smoking, I would buy no matter how expensive it got, puffing while cursing the government like our grumpy 90 year old neighbor.
- Recently I couldn't find my favourite pudding anywhere and I offered to pay twice the price if the shopkeeper dug around his distribution circle for more stock.
- I like my once in a very long while twix bar, but not enough to pay $5 for it.
While price may deter some people, it tends to deter those who don't consume something enough for it to be a problem. Those who overconsume will continue overconsuming and those who eat nutritionally poor foods only occasionally will be the ones most affected by these taxes. People are creatures of habit, and if they feel their habit is being forcefully changed for them they will resist the change even if they have to be irrational.
I agree that price will only deter some. About 20 years ago, my mother quit a 35 year, pack a day habit when the cost became too high. I have a couple of other family members who also quit for that reason. (Of course there were also health reasons but cost was their tipping point.)0 -
And to think, there could have been a time when taxing fats and meats to deter consumption (vice tax) might have been a noble idea. For the sake of the children and everyone's heart health and blah blah blah blech. Is it a simple process to remove vice taxes once imposed in the UK?
0 -
You see for me, I don't care about sugar in sweets etc. it's the hidden sugars in so-called healthy foods/ jars etc. that I think are wrong,
Rather than taxing the consumers, there should be pressure on manufacturers to refuse the amount of sugar they hide in foods. Especially in foods where it has no right being...0 -
Carbs are necessary - like those from fruit, veggies, and so fourth but added sugar does absolutely nothing for us. I'll never say sugar is single handily causing obesity but when you start reading labels, the amount of things you would never call 'sweets' that have tons of added sugar is disturbing. Granted I know I'm extra sensitive these days as I just stood in the ICU of the local hospital two weeks ago watching my mother moments from her death declining faster than I could yell at the nurses that she wasn't okay, all from diabetes complications. We are beyond fortunate that a doctor arrived and put her on a respirator and correctly diagnosed the complications but after living through that, forgive me if I am armament about anti-sugar. I've always been concerned about sugar, even when I was 70 pounds heavier but it has always been from a diabetes prevention state of mind. Sure, there are people out there whose body will always process sugar properly but based on my family history even family members who others look at and say how could you be diabetic, you're skinny live with this life threatening disease. You could say I'm anti sure but I'm mostly anti diabetes and living my life in such a way to keep the disease from my life. I depends why people are avoiding sugar, some are bandwagoners sure but for me, its about living a long healthy life and that's not possible if I am not concerned with sugar. Its tough because I am very conscious about not filling up on fat or calories or other empty fillers.0
-
Lourdesong wrote: »And to think, there could have been a time when taxing fats and meats to deter consumption (vice tax) might have been a noble idea. For the sake of the children and everyone's heart health and blah blah blah blech. Is it a simple process to remove vice taxes once imposed in the UK?
Income tax was introduced as a temporary measure (to fund a foreign war) a couple of centuries or more ago and is still with us. Once a tax or rule is in place we aren't good at getting shot of it - people move in and build empires on it which they then defend vigorously.0 -
-
Tesco banned Ribena a few months back due to the high sugar content and that had a bit of a backlash. Is it still banned? Didn't seem right they kept cola etc. on the shelves.0
-
darrensurrey wrote: »WRT taxes and reducing use, taxes do not discourage use.
I think it helps. When a product gets unaffordable, people may try to stop a bad habit (addiction). I know a few epode who quit smoking when the cost became prohibitive. $5 for a chocolate bar, rather than $1, might stop some people from buying it. It would have slowed me down, but I might have just bought a bag of chocolate chips instead.
The difference is that smoking is always bad for you. Chocolate is only bad in excess.0 -
And you had better go do some research other than books written by people who have no idea what they're talking about and only aim to make money by writing a book that claims to have all the answers.0 -
Tesco banned Ribena a few months back due to the high sugar content and that had a bit of a backlash. Is it still banned? Didn't seem right they kept cola etc. on the shelves.
http://www.tesco.com/groceries/product/details/?id=255658833 still there, it was a ceretain pack format aimed at kids I think that they targetted.
0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Collobrieres wrote: »I watched the show on catchup. I think a sugar tax might make people switch to diet versions, but I don't think it will make people give up soda. There will be left-wing political types saying it will hit the poor disproportionately, but it has to be said that the upper classes are mostly not necking litres of the stuff and stuffing burgers all day long.
That sugar is bad isn't controversial surely ?
Sugar isn't bad. Too much sugar is. Just like too much protein, too much fat, too much vitamin A, etc.
But for most people (who overeat) it's a lot easier to have too much sugar than too much protein
This became abundantly clear the first time I visited a food bank for work.0 -
well, maybe it is a fad, but I switched to packing my child a reusable water bottle in his lunch box instead of a juice box. I think between the peanut butter sandwich and the cookie or apple he has in there, additional sugar is probably overkill.0
-
Wildstorms wrote: »You see for me, I don't care about sugar in sweets etc. it's the hidden sugars in so-called healthy foods/ jars etc. that I think are wrong,
Rather than taxing the consumers, there should be pressure on manufacturers to refuse the amount of sugar they hide in foods. Especially in foods where it has no right being...
yeah, when I found out that sugar is cereals, breads,condiments, fruit, etc... I felt like I should probably drop the sugar sweetened beverages, because I clearly get enough sugar in my diet
0 -
darrensurrey wrote: »WRT taxes and reducing use, taxes do not discourage use. CF binge drinking culture in the UK and ongoing tobacco use especially with children and young adults.
Taxes do reduce use of a good UNLESS the good is inelastic.
See U.S. prohibition as an example of an inelastic good being banned, not reducing use (probably increased it) and gave birth to Mafia.
Sugar is not inelastic. If it is taxed enough (in its megaprocessed form) its use will surely go down.
Now walmart scooter people might be discouraged from buying their vats of sugared gruel and venture into the kale and sprouted grain isles... probably not...0 -
MarziPanda95 wrote: »darrensurrey wrote: »WRT taxes and reducing use, taxes do not discourage use.
I think it helps. When a product gets unaffordable, people may try to stop a bad habit (addiction). I know a few epode who quit smoking when the cost became prohibitive. $5 for a chocolate bar, rather than $1, might stop some people from buying it. It would have slowed me down, but I might have just bought a bag of chocolate chips instead.
The difference is that smoking is always bad for you. Chocolate is only bad in excess.
I know that....andrikosDE wrote: »darrensurrey wrote: »WRT taxes and reducing use, taxes do not discourage use. CF binge drinking culture in the UK and ongoing tobacco use especially with children and young adults.
Taxes do reduce use of a good UNLESS the good is inelastic.
See U.S. prohibition as an example of an inelastic good being banned, not reducing use (probably increased it) and gave birth to Mafia.
Sugar is not inelastic. If it is taxed enough (in its megaprocessed form) its use will surely go down.
Now walmart scooter people might be discouraged from buying their vats of sugared gruel and venture into the kale and sprouted grain isles... probably not...
You are probably right.0 -
Now, don't lump all scooter users together. I'm here because I've had a couple of hip surgeries in the last couple years (congenital bone issues) so I use a scooter when grocery shopping if it's available.andrikosDE wrote: »Now walmart scooter people might be discouraged from buying their vats of sugared gruel and venture into the kale and sprouted grain isles... probably not...
But then I've always loved kale, and don't shop at Walmart.
0 -
andrikosDE wrote: »darrensurrey wrote: »WRT taxes and reducing use, taxes do not discourage use. CF binge drinking culture in the UK and ongoing tobacco use especially with children and young adults.
Taxes do reduce use of a good UNLESS the good is inelastic.
See U.S. prohibition as an example of an inelastic good being banned, not reducing use (probably increased it) and gave birth to Mafia.
Sugar is not inelastic. If it is taxed enough (in its megaprocessed form) its use will surely go down.
Now walmart scooter people might be discouraged from buying their vats of sugared gruel and venture into the kale and sprouted grain isles... probably not...
And mega processed vats of sugared gruel will be a luxury the upper classes get the right to indulge in. And they can condescendingly pat the poor on their stupid heads and say "Not for you."
0 -
Lourdesong wrote: »andrikosDE wrote: »darrensurrey wrote: »WRT taxes and reducing use, taxes do not discourage use. CF binge drinking culture in the UK and ongoing tobacco use especially with children and young adults.
Taxes do reduce use of a good UNLESS the good is inelastic.
See U.S. prohibition as an example of an inelastic good being banned, not reducing use (probably increased it) and gave birth to Mafia.
Sugar is not inelastic. If it is taxed enough (in its megaprocessed form) its use will surely go down.
Now walmart scooter people might be discouraged from buying their vats of sugared gruel and venture into the kale and sprouted grain isles... probably not...
And mega processed vats of sugared gruel will be a luxury the upper classes get the right to indulge in. And they can condescendingly pat the poor on their stupid heads and say "Not for you."
Ironically, it was just a couple of centuries ago when the aristocrats were the fat ones and the plebes were the skeletal ones.
Nowadays it's quite the opposite where the poor and the nutritionally unfortunate are malnourished and fat and you have to pay money (i.e. gym memberships) to stay trim and thin...
0 -
andrikosDE wrote: »
Sugar is not inelastic. If it is taxed enough (in its megaprocessed form) its use will surely go down.
Not sure, the world price of sugar has gone from 4 to 25 and all stations in between without noticeable effect on consumption. It is generally an expensive ingredient but even so a 30c can of soda only contains 2 or 3c worth of sugar.0 -
andrikosDE wrote: »
Sugar is not inelastic. If it is taxed enough (in its megaprocessed form) its use will surely go down.
Not sure, the world price of sugar has gone from 4 to 25 and all stations in between without noticeable effect on consumption. It is generally an expensive ingredient but even so a 30c can of soda only contains 2 or 3c worth of sugar.
As a consumer you can buy a kilo of ultra refined sugar for less than 99c. I wouldn't call it expensive by any means.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions