Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
The Sugar Conspiracy
Replies
-
I agree with labeling added sugars. I don't live in USA. I can taste the sweetness of sugar though. So to me anyway its pretty evident when something is sweetened vs unsweetened.
I'd definitely be interested in seeing if any of our MFPers who have problems with added sugars are surprised by foods with labels that indicate added sugars where they thought none existed. I don't know if any will exist, but I'm actually quite interested in seeing if there are foods that have added sugars that no one really would have guessed contain them. Of course, all that depends on exactly how they are going to define added sugars (milk solids?).Are we going around and around in circles over sugar on this thread?
Of course, it's MPF.
I will not be surprised as the calorie count will stay the same. And the grams of sugar will be the same.
Yep, that info was already available - in the ingredient list, as one of the forms of sugar listed separately. But I guess so many people complained about "hidden" sugar, that now they have to spell it out in the box.5 -
How will you feel, you all who are in the USA if they start taxing sugar like they have done in the UK?
Seems they are kinda maybe setting it up to do that with the new labeling.0 -
-
There is a tax on sugar in UK recently. Its to help the obesity problem, so they say.
Now that would be a sugar conspiracy if they bring that into the USA.0 -
There is a tax on sugar in UK recently. Its to help the obesity problem, so they say.
Now that would be a sugar conspiracy if they bring that into the USA.
The UK tax is on "sugary drinks" only, and it is charged to the producing company, not on the end-user purchase.
The infrastructure and record keeping necessary to tax each individual item based on the "Added sugar" number on the label would be impossibly complicated and expensive I would think.1 -
There is a tax on sugar in UK recently. Its to help the obesity problem, so they say.
Now that would be a sugar conspiracy if they bring that into the USA.
The UK tax is on "sugary drinks" only, and it is charged to the producing company, not on the end-user purchase.
The infrastructure and record keeping necessary to tax each individual item based on the "Added sugar" number on the label would be impossibly complicated and expensive I would think.
I soooooo agree with that.
0 -
Some places in the US already do this. Boulder, Colorado has had a "Fat tax" on products that contain sugar but no flour or leavener since at least 2010... longer I think.0
-
Now you're really getting into the politics, but I am generally against government regulation of almost any sort. I don't care about added sugar at all, but I do like the fact that we have nutrition labels. That being said, I'm not sure I agree that government should be the entity to enforce that requirement on the producers. I feel the same way about the "added sugar" thing.1
-
BecomingBane wrote: »Some places in the US already do this. Boulder, Colorado has had a "Fat tax" on products that contain sugar but no flour or leavener since at least 2010... longer I think.
Whoa there, I had no idea. I grew up there, whats to come next.
1 -
BecomingBane wrote: »Some places in the US already do this. Boulder, Colorado has had a "Fat tax" on products that contain sugar but no flour or leavener since at least 2010... longer I think.
Whoa there, I had no idea. I grew up there, whats to come next.
I wonder if I was the only one who saw the irony of a horse avatar saying "Whoa".11 -
There is a tax on sugar in UK recently. Its to help the obesity problem, so they say.
Now that would be a sugar conspiracy if they bring that into the USA.
The UK tax is on "sugary drinks" only, and it is charged to the producing company, not on the end-user purchase.
The infrastructure and record keeping necessary to tax each individual item based on the "Added sugar" number on the label would be impossibly complicated and expensive I would think.
I agree that it would be very difficult and costly to implement a tax of all food containing over a certain amount of added sugars.Now you're really getting into the politics, but I am generally against government regulation of almost any sort. I don't care about added sugar at all, but I do like the fact that we have nutrition labels. That being said, I'm not sure I agree that government should be the entity to enforce that requirement on the producers. I feel the same way about the "added sugar" thing.
I also agree with this very much.BecomingBane wrote: »Some places in the US already do this. Boulder, Colorado has had a "Fat tax" on products that contain sugar but no flour or leavener since at least 2010... longer I think.
I don't this is true because a group is hoping to put a measure on the November Boulder ballot a proposition that would allow them to put a tax on sugary drinks very much in line with the tax in the UK. (see: http://www.denverpost.com/2016/05/06/who-will-pay-for-boulder-soda-tax/)1 -
BecomingBane wrote: »Some places in the US already do this. Boulder, Colorado has had a "Fat tax" on products that contain sugar but no flour or leavener since at least 2010... longer I think.
Whoa there, I had no idea. I grew up there, whats to come next.
I wonder if I was the only one who saw the irony of a horse avatar saying "Whoa".
2 -
There is a tax on sugar in UK recently. Its to help the obesity problem, so they say.
Now that would be a sugar conspiracy if they bring that into the USA.
The UK tax is on "sugary drinks" only, and it is charged to the producing company, not on the end-user purchase.
The infrastructure and record keeping necessary to tax each individual item based on the "Added sugar" number on the label would be impossibly complicated and expensive I would think.
I agree that it would be very difficult and costly to implement a tax of all food containing over a certain amount of added sugars.Now you're really getting into the politics, but I am generally against government regulation of almost any sort. I don't care about added sugar at all, but I do like the fact that we have nutrition labels. That being said, I'm not sure I agree that government should be the entity to enforce that requirement on the producers. I feel the same way about the "added sugar" thing.
I also agree with this very much.BecomingBane wrote: »Some places in the US already do this. Boulder, Colorado has had a "Fat tax" on products that contain sugar but no flour or leavener since at least 2010... longer I think.
I don't this is true because Boulder has on their November ballot a proposition that would allow them to put a tax on sugary drinks very much in line with the tax in the UK. (see: http://www.dailycamera.com/local-election-news/ci_29797655/excise-tax-soda-sugary-drinks-could-make-it)
I've lived here since 2008 and it was my job at the time to apply this tax to items for sale. The new ballot shifts the burden from the consumer, who paid the tax previously, to the distributor. So, it will apply at time of lading, as opposed to at the register as it currently does. But currently it doesn't apply only to sugary drinks, but all products that contain sugar but no flour and/or leavener. It's a pita to implement at a point of sale level because current rules are actually pretty vague regarding what counts as sugar. Many local companies tried to switch to honey or agave instead only to fall under the same tax.
*shrug*
1 -
0 -
BecomingBane wrote: »There is a tax on sugar in UK recently. Its to help the obesity problem, so they say.
Now that would be a sugar conspiracy if they bring that into the USA.
The UK tax is on "sugary drinks" only, and it is charged to the producing company, not on the end-user purchase.
The infrastructure and record keeping necessary to tax each individual item based on the "Added sugar" number on the label would be impossibly complicated and expensive I would think.
I agree that it would be very difficult and costly to implement a tax of all food containing over a certain amount of added sugars.Now you're really getting into the politics, but I am generally against government regulation of almost any sort. I don't care about added sugar at all, but I do like the fact that we have nutrition labels. That being said, I'm not sure I agree that government should be the entity to enforce that requirement on the producers. I feel the same way about the "added sugar" thing.
I also agree with this very much.BecomingBane wrote: »Some places in the US already do this. Boulder, Colorado has had a "Fat tax" on products that contain sugar but no flour or leavener since at least 2010... longer I think.
I don't this is true because Boulder has on their November ballot a proposition that would allow them to put a tax on sugary drinks very much in line with the tax in the UK. (see: http://www.dailycamera.com/local-election-news/ci_29797655/excise-tax-soda-sugary-drinks-could-make-it)
I've lived here since 2008 and it was my job at the time to apply this tax to items for sale. The new ballot shifts the burden from the consumer, who paid the tax previously, to the distributor. So, it will apply at time of lading, as opposed to at the register as it currently does. But currently it doesn't apply only to sugary drinks, but all products that contain sugar but no flour and/or leavener. It's a pita to implement at a point of sale level because current rules are actually pretty vague regarding what counts as sugar. Many local companies tried to switch to honey or agave instead only to fall under the same tax.
*shrug*
Ooh, that's interesting, thanks. I would think the tax would be applied based on the sugar content listed on the nutrition label. Sugar being sugar, I'm not surprised shifting from a refined sugar to a more "natural" sugar like honey would keep them under the same tax.
I haven't read enough about it to know... is the point of the additional taxation on sugar (whether be in the UK or US) in order to provide funding for nutritional education/promotion or is it in the hope that people will be less likely to purchase the items because they're more expensive?0 -
In Colorado, at least, it's to discourage the purchase or was in the past. I'm not currently sure what the new ballot initiative will do since it's no longer my district and not on my ballot.
In the past, it was lumped the general use/city tax paid for by my employers. That money, at the time, was generally used for city projects, murals, clean-up, etc.0 -
I agree with labeling added sugars. I don't live in USA. I can taste the sweetness of sugar though. So to me anyway its pretty evident when something is sweetened vs unsweetened.
I'd definitely be interested in seeing if any of our MFPers who have problems with added sugars are surprised by foods with labels that indicate added sugars where they thought none existed. I don't know if any will exist, but I'm actually quite interested in seeing if there are foods that have added sugars that no one really would have guessed contain them. Of course, all that depends on exactly how they are going to define added sugars (milk solids?).
Current labels tell you sugar and ingredients, so I doubt anyone who was genuinely interested could have been unaware. (I do favor the new label, though.)
I think often people assume all sugars are added or more than actually are (as with the weird claims that sugar is added to plain lowfat dairy).2 -
WinoGelato wrote: »
You will know who is on which side of the debate when you see what concession stand everyone lines up in front of... cotton candy vs corn dogs! Or better yet - deep fried butter!
I'm looking for donuts for Lemurcat, so far all I can find is funnel cakes and fried oreos.
I'm not a big donut fan, but in the donut thread I did get some recommendations for local donuts I need to try. (Apparently this old German bakery near my place is known for their donuts.)
I was thinking about this thread a little when I went to the green market on Saturday morning and got a crepe (with ham, egg, asparagus, and goat cheese -- yes, it fits the generalization earlier today that someone made about Americans putting lots of stuff on everything). There were savory and sweet crepe options and I was surprised that just about everyone in line around me was getting savory. I approve -- I am a savory breakfast person -- but I would have guess that it would be closer to half and half, and from this thread I'd bet a number of people would have assumed even more would go for sweet.
Just musing.0 -
How will you feel, you all who are in the USA if they start taxing sugar like they have done in the UK?
Seems they are kinda maybe setting it up to do that with the new labeling.
They are trying to do that in Philadelphia (which apparently has more to do with the PA taxing process according to my friend who lives there). There was a minor argument between the candidates for the Dem nomination for president about it.
I actually don't have a problem with it, although I think the money should be used for health-related stuff and I get the arguments that it incorrectly singles out sugar/sugary drinks. But that taxes aren't perfectly consistent isn't something new. My state and city have ridiculously confusing sales taxes anyway, and lots of products get taxed higher than other things.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I agree with labeling added sugars. I don't live in USA. I can taste the sweetness of sugar though. So to me anyway its pretty evident when something is sweetened vs unsweetened.
I'd definitely be interested in seeing if any of our MFPers who have problems with added sugars are surprised by foods with labels that indicate added sugars where they thought none existed. I don't know if any will exist, but I'm actually quite interested in seeing if there are foods that have added sugars that no one really would have guessed contain them. Of course, all that depends on exactly how they are going to define added sugars (milk solids?).
Current labels tell you sugar and ingredients, so I doubt anyone who was genuinely interested could have been unaware. (I do favor the new label, though.)
I think often people assume all sugars are added or more than actually are (as with the weird claims that sugar is added to plain lowfat dairy).
Oh, I agree that anyone who currently reads and understands nutrition labels would already know if there are added sugars in products they eat, although there is a difference between knowing there are added sugars and being able to say exactly how many grams of added sugars there are. I honestly wonder how many people (even on MFP) don't truly read/understand nutrition labels though.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »
You will know who is on which side of the debate when you see what concession stand everyone lines up in front of... cotton candy vs corn dogs! Or better yet - deep fried butter!
I'm looking for donuts for Lemurcat, so far all I can find is funnel cakes and fried oreos.
I'm not a big donut fan, but in the donut thread I did get some recommendations for local donuts I need to try. (Apparently this old German bakery near my place is known for their donuts.)
I was thinking about this thread a little when I went to the green market on Saturday morning and got a crepe (with ham, egg, asparagus, and goat cheese -- yes, it fits the generalization earlier today that someone made about Americans putting lots of stuff on everything). There were savory and sweet crepe options and I was surprised that just about everyone in line around me was getting savory. I approve -- I am a savory breakfast person -- but I would have guess that it would be closer to half and half, and from this thread I'd bet a number of people would have assumed even more would go for sweet.
Just musing.
https://youtu.be/ZDqXbk_ThH0
1 -
WinoGelato wrote: »
You will know who is on which side of the debate when you see what concession stand everyone lines up in front of... cotton candy vs corn dogs! Or better yet - deep fried butter!
I'm looking for donuts for Lemurcat, so far all I can find is funnel cakes and fried oreos.
Let me know if you find any cauliflower donuts.2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »How will you feel, you all who are in the USA if they start taxing sugar like they have done in the UK?
Seems they are kinda maybe setting it up to do that with the new labeling.
They are trying to do that in Philadelphia (which apparently has more to do with the PA taxing process according to my friend who lives there). There was a minor argument between the candidates for the Dem nomination for president about it.
I actually don't have a problem with it, although I think the money should be used for health-related stuff and I get the arguments that it incorrectly singles out sugar/sugary drinks. But that taxes aren't perfectly consistent isn't something new. My state and city have ridiculously confusing sales taxes anywhere, and lots of products get taxed higher than other things.
The argument between Sanders and Clinton on this was mildly amusing. I tend to think our US taxes are overly complicated at every level, but that's straying toward politics.... I do agree that proceeds from any taxation implemented in regards to a food product because it contains a certain ingredient should go toward health programs - particularly nutrition education. I'm just generally against any additional taxation of people or businesses, regardless of the supposed purpose. This particular type of tax somewhat rubs me the wrong way because it's singling out sugar as THE problem, which, btw, seems to fly in the face of any kind of conspiracy theory about the "dangers" of sugar being suppressed.2 -
WinoGelato wrote: »
You will know who is on which side of the debate when you see what concession stand everyone lines up in front of... cotton candy vs corn dogs! Or better yet - deep fried butter!
I'm looking for donuts for Lemurcat, so far all I can find is funnel cakes and fried oreos.
Let me know if you find any cauliflower donuts.
Found some kale ones.
Something about green donuts (unless it's green icing for St. Paddy's day) is just wrong.
5 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »
You will know who is on which side of the debate when you see what concession stand everyone lines up in front of... cotton candy vs corn dogs! Or better yet - deep fried butter!
I'm looking for donuts for Lemurcat, so far all I can find is funnel cakes and fried oreos.
Let me know if you find any cauliflower donuts.
Found some kale ones.
Something about green donuts (unless it's green icing for St. Paddy's day) is just wrong.
This is terrible. Just terrible. Even though I know mold doesn't look like that, it's the first thing that comes to mind when I look at those. 2 -
Um.snickerscharlie wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »
You will know who is on which side of the debate when you see what concession stand everyone lines up in front of... cotton candy vs corn dogs! Or better yet - deep fried butter!
I'm looking for donuts for Lemurcat, so far all I can find is funnel cakes and fried oreos.
Let me know if you find any cauliflower donuts.
Found some kale ones.
Something about green donuts (unless it's green icing for St. Paddy's day) is just wrong.
I think I just simultaneously cried and threw up.
5 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »
You will know who is on which side of the debate when you see what concession stand everyone lines up in front of... cotton candy vs corn dogs! Or better yet - deep fried butter!
I'm looking for donuts for Lemurcat, so far all I can find is funnel cakes and fried oreos.
Let me know if you find any cauliflower donuts.
Found some kale ones.
Something about green donuts (unless it's green icing for St. Paddy's day) is just wrong.
This is one of the sickest *babysloth* things I've seen on these forums and I was around the night the porn thread was up for several hours. :sick: Proud to know you, my friend! :laugh:1 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »
You will know who is on which side of the debate when you see what concession stand everyone lines up in front of... cotton candy vs corn dogs! Or better yet - deep fried butter!
I'm looking for donuts for Lemurcat, so far all I can find is funnel cakes and fried oreos.
Let me know if you find any cauliflower donuts.
Found some kale ones.
Something about green donuts (unless it's green icing for St. Paddy's day) is just wrong.
This is one of the sickest *babysloth* things I've seen on these forums and I was around the night the porn thread was up for several hours. :sick: Proud to know you, my friend! :laugh:
What was the title of that thread?? Lemme guess: How "sugar" burns calories
:laugh:0 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »
You will know who is on which side of the debate when you see what concession stand everyone lines up in front of... cotton candy vs corn dogs! Or better yet - deep fried butter!
I'm looking for donuts for Lemurcat, so far all I can find is funnel cakes and fried oreos.
Let me know if you find any cauliflower donuts.
Found some kale ones.
Something about green donuts (unless it's green icing for St. Paddy's day) is just wrong.
This is one of the sickest *babysloth* things I've seen on these forums and I was around the night the porn thread was up for several hours. :sick: Proud to know you, my friend! :laugh:
What was the title of that thread?? Lemme guess: How "sugar" burns calories
:laugh:
Edited: It was bad, really, really, bad.
The kale donuts pull in at a close second... :bigsmile:0 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »
You will know who is on which side of the debate when you see what concession stand everyone lines up in front of... cotton candy vs corn dogs! Or better yet - deep fried butter!
I'm looking for donuts for Lemurcat, so far all I can find is funnel cakes and fried oreos.
Let me know if you find any cauliflower donuts.
Found some kale ones.
Something about green donuts (unless it's green icing for St. Paddy's day) is just wrong.
This is one of the sickest *babysloth* things I've seen on these forums and I was around the night the porn thread was up for several hours. :sick: Proud to know you, my friend! :laugh:
What was the title of that thread?? Lemme guess: How "sugar" burns calories
:laugh:
Edited: It was bad, really, really, bad.
The kale donuts pull in at a close second... :bigsmile:
That's ok, I really don't want to know!
0
This discussion has been closed.
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
- 426 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