Weight loss from soda tax may be minimal

[mrjarrell]

Soda taxes are a waste and an unnecessary burden on people who just want a little enjoyment out of life. Now a researcher is backing that up. If the health nannies want people to lose weight then don't tax sodas. Get rid of the government subsidies on corn and high fructose corn syrups. A large number of people are already speaking to the market about HFCS and manufacturers are dropping it in some of their products, in favour of good old fashioned sugar. I happen to love a good soda, now and then that's been sweetened with sugar. They taste a lot better.

Weight loss from soda tax may be minimal - UPI.com

 

[malern28us]

Soda taxes are a waste and an unnecessary burden on people who just want a little enjoyment out of life. Now a researcher is backing that up. If the health nannies want people to lose weight then don't tax sodas. Get rid of the government subsidies on corn and high fructose corn syrups. A large number of people are already speaking to the market about HFCS and manufacturers are dropping it in some of their products, in favour of good old fashioned sugar. I happen to love a good soda, now and then that's been sweetened with sugar. They taste a lot better.

Weight loss from soda tax may be minimal - UPI.com

The same question I ask of all studies...
Who writes the paycheck for this researcher. I would bet money that it is the sugar industry. You come across the same thing with Pharmaceutical companies also. I wouldnt put any truth to it.

 

[mrjarrell]

The same question I ask of all studies...
Who writes the paycheck for this researcher. I would bet money that it is the sugar industry. You come across the same thing with Pharmaceutical companies also. I wouldnt put any truth to it.

Considering that all the research I've seen touting HFCS as a good alternative to sugar has come from the corn sugar industry, I'll take this guy at his word. Funding doesn't usually mean much in research, if the researchers are honest and ethical. The answer is what it is. In this case the research doesn't say sugar is better. It says that taxing sodas isn't the answer, getting rid of corn subsidies is. So...using your yard stick...I'd have to say the guys is biased against taxation and against government subsidies. Where's the loss here?

 

[indykid]

The only weight loss from a sugar tax would be in the wallet.

I seem to remember another tax that led to the birth of a nation a long time ago.

 

[mrjarrell]

Hmm...managed to find an affiliation for the project.

[FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif] Author Affiliations: Health Services and Systems Research Program, Duke-National University of Singapore Graduate Medical School, Singapore (Dr Finkelstein); RTI International, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina (Drs Zhen and Nonnemaker); and Economic Research Service, US Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC (Dr Todd). [/FONT]

So, one of the affiliates in the research was from the government, the very entity that would benefit from taxation, which the study calls into question. They're also from the Do Agriculture, which doles out subsidies to farmers and industry. I'm liking this study more and more. It's looking unbiased. Still not sure where their money came from, but I'd not be surprised if it came from the NSF or another government agency.

 

[mrjarrell]

The only weight loss from a sugar tax would be in the wallet.

I seem to remember another tax that led to the birth of a nation a long time ago.

Bingo! And it had to do with a beverage, too. Who says history never repeats?

 

[rambone]

I would love to see the market forces push out High Fructose Corn Syrup & Aspartame in favor of natural sweeteners. We are currently bombarded with HFCS. It is in everything; bread, ketchup, relish, salad dressing, maple syrup, jelly, soda, cereal, mayonnaise, cookies, candies, cough syrup elixir, steak sauce, ice cream, cookies, pastries, snack bars, candy, meats, et cetera. People are consuming so much HFCS that it is in literally every meal and every snack that some people consume.

HFCS is known to speed up cancer growth and cause obesity. Combine their horrible diets with the rest of their unhealthy habits that people have, and you begin to realize why Americans have so many chronic illnesses and are overweight.

What sense does it make to subsidize a product on one end and tax it on the other? Why does the government claim to care about our health when it subsidizes harmful products?

No subsidies, no bans. Just leave us alone.

 

[mrjarrell]

Actually, many segments of the market are moving away from HFCS. Here in Indiana Aunt Millie's Breads are HFCS free, (and they proudly advertise it). Dr Pepper now makes a sugar sweetened version of their soda, Sierra Mist is sugar sweetened and many other products are going the same route. Premium beverages are enjoying a resurgence because they use sugar and not HFCS...just look at the retro Pepsi and Mt. Dew. Slowly, but surely the market is moving where the consumers want. And that looks to be away from HFCS.

 

[malern28us]

I would love to see the market forces push out High Fructose Corn Syrup & Aspartame in favor of natural sweeteners. We are currently bombarded with HFCS. It is in everything; bread, ketchup, relish, salad dressing, maple syrup, jelly, soda, cereal, mayonnaise, cookies, candies, cough syrup elixir, steak sauce, ice cream, cookies, pastries, snack bars, candy, meats, et cetera. People are consuming so much HFCS that it is in literally every meal and every snack that some people consume.

HFCS is known to speed up cancer growth and cause obesity. Combine their horrible diets with the rest of their unhealthy habits that people have, and you begin to realize why Americans have so many chronic illnesses and are overweight.

What sense does it make to subsidize a product on one end and tax it on the other? Why does the government claim to care about our health when it subsidizes harmful products?

No subsidies, no bans. Just leave us alone.

I sure hope you dont believe this crap you are spreading about cancer growth and obesity.

 

[malern28us]

Considering that all the research I've seen touting HFCS as a good alternative to sugar has come from the corn sugar industry, I'll take this guy at his word. Funding doesn't usually mean much in research, if the researchers are honest and ethical. The answer is what it is. In this case the research doesn't say sugar is better. It says that taxing sodas isn't the answer, getting rid of corn subsidies is. So...using your yard stick...I'd have to say the guys is biased against taxation and against government subsidies. Where's the loss here?

FUNDING is EVERYTHING in research. Ask the American Cancer Society, Breast Cancer research, Stem Cell research...etc.

 

[ghostinthewood]

This was a bad idea from the start. u_u

 

[firehawk1]

IMO the whole reason we are seeing sugar replacing HFCS especially in soda is because the companies are marketing to the latino population. ALOT of Mexican people I have worked with will shop only at Mexican markets/stores because they import Coke from Mexico. It is still made with cane sugar.

As far as aspartame, I drink Diet Coke not because I have a weight problem, it's because I have had problems with low blood sugar. Coke would have to lay people off if I quit drinking it. Personally I don't believe the stuff out there talking about how "BAD" aspartame is. I believe it's the sugar industry behind it.

 

[mrjarrell]

IMO the whole reason we are seeing sugar replacing HFCS especially in soda is because the companies are marketing to the latino population. ALOT of Mexican people I have worked with will shop only at Mexican markets/stores because they import Coke from Mexico. It is still made with cane sugar.

As far as aspartame, I drink Diet Coke not because I have a weight problem, it's because I have had problems with low blood sugar. Coke would have to lay people off if I quit drinking it. Personally I don't believe the stuff out there talking about how "BAD" aspartame is. I believe it's the sugar industry behind it.

It's not the sugar industry, that's for sure. Maybe the corn growers, since most soda (including Coke) has HFCS. I don't drink aspartame (or eat it) because it tastes like ass.

 

[jeremy]

Personally I am getting pretty tired of Taxes...

 

[firehawk1]

It's not the sugar industry, that's for sure. Maybe the corn growers, since most soda (including Coke) has HFCS. I don't drink aspartame (or eat it) because it tastes like ass.

I guess it's all what your used to. If I get a regular Coke served to me by mistake all I taste is the sugar/HFCS. It's like pouring Karo syrup in my mouth.

After they replaced Sweet 'N Low with aspartame it was a MAJOR improvement! IMO if anything tastes like ass, it's Sweet 'N Low. That stuff is/was bitter and nasty!

I guess we'd ALL be better off if we used plain old honey to sweeten stuff. MUCH better for you but, obviously can't use it in sodas though.

I've got an idea, since the government uses taxes to attempt to change behavior, let's tax how much underwear is showing over the top of the punks pants. THAT would raise one hell of alot of money!! GAWD I hate that.

 

[Leadeye]

There is a pretty hefty tariff on sugar if I'm not mistaken.

Trying to clear all the muddy water in issues involving subsidys, research and taxes is going to be tough. The government loves taxes and dispensing funds to favorite groups, so I don't expect anything to change.

 

[rambone]

I sure hope you dont believe this crap you are spreading about cancer growth and obesity.

I sure hope you are joking. Do refute the 2 studies I posted in those articles? Is there really any doubt in your mind? America is so cancer-ridden and obese that its not even funny.

I'm not trying to ban your beverage of choice if that's what you are worried about. But there is absolutely nothing healthy about the stuff.

I've got an idea, since the government uses taxes to attempt to change behavior, let's tax how much underwear is showing over the top of the punks pants. THAT would raise one hell of alot of money!! GAWD I hate that.

No clothing police, please.

 

[firehawk1]

No clothing police, please.

WoW... lighten up! It was SARCHASM!

From what I read in the report you cite, HFCS does not CAUSE cancer. The cancer cells just seem to metablize is easier.

Besides this same crap has been tried on cigarettes. The government has tried to raise taxes on tobacco products and people still smoke. IF smoking is/was as bad as everyone says it is, just BAN tobacco. But Nooooo..... too much money to be made in collecting taxes. It's a wonder ANY of us who grew up in the late '50's and '60's survived if you listen to the Anti Smoking Nazi's.

The MAIN problem lies with government attempting to regulate your life by taxing you and being able to claim it is to "offset" costs in supposed medical care. "They" pay the bills, and "they" get to make the rules. People that want cradle to grave government handouts just don't get it.

 

[gunowner930]

It's just another excuse to tax, for the public good of course. One would think that over-eating and inactivity would contribute more to obesity than a can of Coke. One can of coke has 140 calories and 0% fat.

 

[indykid]

The next step in the war on obesity is to tax people by their weight versus height.

That would stir things up!!!! Tall skinny people won't pay anything, short overweight (by government decree) people would be taxed heavily.

Yep, that sure would stir some people up!