The anti-sugar thing is now mainstream (check Twitter for #sugarrush).

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...

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...

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.

But then I've always loved kale, and don't shop at Walmart.

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...

yarwell wrote: »

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.

andrikosDE wrote: »

yarwell wrote: »

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.

Compared to a kg of flour or wheat it's an expensive ingredient, which is where HFCS and artificials originated - cost savers.

I'm a fence sitter on one hand I see how when you introduce a product like coco-cola into a country there seems to be an interesting trend towards obesity. Not saying you could actually prove that, but I think about Mexico and other developing countries who are seeing an epidemic of obesity and childhood diabeties.

On the other, it's sugar its glucose and fructose. We've been eating some type of sucrose for eons. Maybe not in the same quantities, but we can pretty much handle any macronutrient that is thrown at us.

Taxes is also a poop poop thing how does one define what is "junk food" and it is taxing the poorest citizens. If the government is concerned then start with the manufacturing process and introduce more subsidies for food production.

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...

Nope "walmart scooter people" aka poor people of America will just end up buying smaller vats, and sending their scooter children to bed hungry because kale and sprouted grains is cost prohibitive much like many proteins. Many of the scooter people live in areas that have poor access to fresh, keep in the refrigerator sprouted grains. Not to mention, lets pray to God they can still afford to pay the electricity, after paying for their vat of over taxed sugar gruel, to keep that kale and sprouted grain from going bad in their refrigerator.

Or we could just teach the walmart scooter people that food is not bad or good, healthy or sickly, and when they know that their electricity isn't going to go off and have access to wholesome food maybe they'll be able to walk away from the scooter.