Soda Tax

[poser765]

Look at the ingredients of the food you buy. If it is full of shit you can't pronounce, then it isn't organic. Therefore most fast food, can food, soda, pre packaged stuff isn't what you should be buying. Buy from the Farmer! Buy everything fresh from the produce and meat department and get cooking.

Not sure if you read my link. My point is, that there isn't any conclusive evidence that organic label foods are any healthier than non organic...or that they are better for the environment or the local farmer, for that matter.

The simple fact that the names of ingredients are long and scary doesn't make something unhealthy. Hell "ascorbic acid" sounds terrifying to me.

Something else to add. I think it has been said, but needs to be said again. Sugar, or even HFCS does not in of itself make you fat. Over use of it does. I see skinny people in droves whom appear to be healthy drinking Dr Pepper.

[belfpala]

The simple fact that the names of ingredients are long and scary doesn't make something unhealthy. Hell "ascorbic acid" sounds terrifying to me.

How about niacinamide, D-pantothenate, and pyrodine hydrochloride? All B vitamins.

[Foosha]

Why is it wrong? They tax cigarettes and alcohol more heavily than other things because *gasp* they are harmful.

No, the first reason they tax it is *gasp* they realized they can make money taxing it. Placing that tax on cigarettes probably didn't deter any addict from quitting.

And it's proven that a lot of the food we eat today is less nutritious. Thats not to say organic or w/e is any better, it's just that we selectively mated plants with desired traits like insect repellent, famine resistant, output, size of fruit etc. instead of nutritional ingredients. That's why almost anything in the wild will be 100% better for you, game, wild berries...

And I only buy organic for fruit mainly, stuff like grapes, grapefruit and nectarines in non-organic use a lot of chemicals and they easily penetrate the fruit so you ingest that crap.

[Prokne]

Why is it wrong? They tax cigarettes and alcohol more heavily than other things because *gasp* they are harmful.

Cigarettes also have no nutritional value and alcohol only provides some carbohydrates along with alcohol calories. They both also have a more concrete relation to the problems they create. Cigarette do cause cancer and it costs x amount of dollars to provide healthcare to people who have smoking related illnesses. Alcohol contributes to car accidents and over drinking illnesses. This can happen no matter what else you do. You can run 50 miles a week and still get lung cancer from smoking. Fatty foods may possibly lead to obesity or diabetes but if you also eat healthy food and work out it probably wont.

Another thought, I usually see people who are overweight drinking diet drinks which contain no sugar and therefor would not be taxed by a sugar tax. And if the intent of the tax is to support corn farmers it would be a better idea to tax something that competes with corn since taxing corn products will increase price and lower demand resulting in less profit for corn and in the end less money for corn farmers.

[Foosha]

Another thought, I usually see people who are overweight drinking diet drinks which contain no sugar and therefor would not be taxed by a sugar tax. And if the intent of the tax is to support corn farmers it would be a better idea to tax something that competes with corn since taxing corn products will increase price and lower demand resulting in less profit for corn and in the end less money for corn farmers.

No no no you got it backwards. We already pay taxes to subsidize the corn farmers, they then want to tax HFCS/sugary drinks which is the complete opposite logic, we pay taxes to keep something low, then pay a tax on that same thing when we want to buy it. THE FUCK.

[smelltheglove]

Just because something makes you fat doesn't make it poison. That's like saying bacon is poisonous.

mmm, crispy delicious poison

[belfpala]

No no no you got it backwards. We already pay taxes to subsidize the corn farmers, they then want to tax HFCS/sugary drinks which is the complete opposite logic, we pay taxes to keep something low, then pay a tax on that same thing when we want to buy it. THE FUCK.

First, the thing linked in the OP does not single out HFCS. It just says "sweetened" drinks. That could even include "diet" drinks, as they are sweetened. The conversation just went that way in this thread because HFCS is a controversial boogeyman.

Second, as I've pointed out twice and no one has acknowledged, corn does a lot of things other than making HFCS. Removing subsidies on it would have far reaching impact in the economy (everything from your cat or dog's food, to the price of meat at market, to the price of gas).

Focusing a tax on one particular corn product is one solution, assuming you want to reduce use of that product. There are other solutions, I'm sure. Just saying it's not as illogical as the OP and others have made it out to be.

[Prokne]

No no no you got it backwards. We already pay taxes to subsidize the corn farmers, they then want to tax HFCS/sugary drinks which is the complete opposite logic, we pay taxes to keep something low, then pay a tax on that same thing when we want to buy it. THE FUCK.

Right but what Im saying is that by taxing the product you want to sell more of you end up selling less and making less profit. So a tax on corn products for corn farmers is counterproductive.

You want to encourage people to consume corn products so the price of these products should be low(or low in comparison to alternatives). People will buy more of them and farmers will make more money and need to be subsidized less.

[CJack14dt]

I would like to point out that all those stupid commercials on TV that are pro-HFCS are all sponsored by the corn growers of america so its not even close to being objective testimonials. I really wish they would make a SNL parody of it where you have two people be like,

P1 "Oh you shouldn't drink formaldehyde."
P2 "Why not?"
P1 "Oh well you know...."
P2 "What?"
P1 "Causes..."
P2 "Cancer? A substance commonly developed in the human body, isn't always life threatening and if we live long enough is guaranteed to kill us at some age due to the nature of our cells?"
P1 "Well when you put it that way, bottoms up!"

[Sound911]

wow, what next? :/

[Deleted]

wow, what next? :/

Breathing tax.

[Zaios]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

This doctor has proved that there is a huge difference between sucrose and HFCS in how it is processed and metabolized in the liver. He uses actual studies to support his claims, and he also goes into how HFCS negatively affects our bodies.

One example: Go to 65 minutes in (1:05:00) and listen to how he shows that HFCS doubles triglycerides in a human in just one week.

Next step, go find out what Triglycerides do. They control fat storage among other things.

[Zequill]

wow, what next? :/

Sex tax, cause you know, having sex give you aids so it's bad for the health system

[Fojos]

It does, in fact, do this. It's been proven in this thread already.

Now why don't YOU stop making OTHER people defend MY words and do something to disprove them.

Why is this NOT worthy of a "sin tax"??? Why is this NOT a dangerous thing?? The studies show HFCS has poisonous qualities, much like cigarettes and alcohol. Problem??

"any substance that impairs health or destroys life when ingested, inhaled, or absorbed by the body in relatively small amounts"

Stop talking about poisons, you're embarassing yourself.

Depends on the amounts of it consumed, and the conditions under which it is consumed.

Hyper-hydration does kill you, so consumed in vast enough amounts it is hazardous to your health and by that definition would qualify as a poison.

No, again, that's not the definition of a poison.

[FattyXP]

http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/fe...s-organic-food
That's just one. I don't think anything conclusive has been shown one way or another if organic is healthier. It sure is trendier to show at hole foods than Wal-Mart, though.

I just don't see how people can't/don't understand that pesticides aren't good for you to eat. Or how growth hormones in your beef could not be good for you. I mean come to think about it people have just been getting bigger and bigger since the invention of such drugs.

Organic is just without the poisons we've been spraying and injecting our food with, because I don't care what anyone says it cannot be healthy for humans to ingest this garbage.

---------- Post added 2012-04-10 at 12:13 AM ----------

"any substance that impairs health or destroys life when ingested, inhaled, or absorbed by the body in relatively small amounts"

Stop talking about poisons, you're embarassing yourself.



No, again, that's not the definition of a poison.

Then why is it called poisoning when you feed someone dish soap over a long period of time and they eventually die from it?

[belfpala]

Then why is it called poisoning when you feed someone dish soap over a long period of time and they eventually die from it?

It's also poisoning if you take an excessive dose of Tylenol (which, btw, has a relatively low LD50).

I would suggest: stop arguing about definitions and get back to the actual topic. Do sweetened beverages cause health problems? Would a tax help? Is a tax good or bad? Does a tax make sense when corn is subsidized? It doesn't matter whether you call it poisoning or not.

[BetaIntro]

If we can say soda can make you obese, then we can tax a lot of other things.

[FattyXP]

It's also poisoning if you take an excessive dose of Tylenol (which, btw, has a relatively low LD50).

I would suggest: stop arguing about definitions and get back to the actual topic. Do sweetened beverages cause health problems? Would a tax help? Is a tax good or bad? Does a tax make sense when corn is subsidized? It doesn't matter whether you call it poisoning or not.

I think that the tax for unhealthy beverages is unjustly being associated with the subsidization of corn. Corn is subsidized not just for the production of HFCS. There are a multitude of products manufactured from corn. The reason any agriculture is subsidized is because the small farms can't make money after the costs of supplies and help, and to provide incentive to make farms want to grow corn over something they could make more money on. One big reason for corn being subsidized is the production of ethanol to add to our gasoline supply to reduce emissions, and I don't know if you pay attention at the pump but every gas station I go to has 10% ethanol. US consumption of gas is between 300 and 400 million gallons per day. That would be roughly 35 million gallons of ethanol per day, using 350 million gallons as a median. It takes 26.1 pounds of corn to make 1 gallon of ethanol. So the US consumes 913.5 million pounds of corn PER DAY. That is a lot of corn, and that is just on fuel, not counting HFCS and other corn products such as starch and meal.

[belfpala]

I think that the tax for unhealthy beverages is unjustly being associated with the subsidization of corn. Corn is subsidized not just for the production of HFCS. There are a multitude of products manufactured from corn.

Yeah I've made that point a couple times. You provided more facts than I did, though. The article linked by the OP just says "sweetened" beverages, which could even include diet versions.

What I'd like to see is data on how effective deterrence taxes are. I personally don't drink soda very often anymore, but I do occasionally. And I would just drop it from my diet completely if it got too expensive. But I know other people who wouldn't.

Basically... say a 20 oz bottle of soda is $1.50 and (hypothetically) you drink 2-3 of those per day. How much more would it have to cost before you'd remove one from your diet? Before you'd eliminate it from your diet? Essentially asking how high the tax would have to be for it to have any influence on consumption.

[Foosha]

I know all about the corn subsidies, but this is about soda tax, and whats the primary sweetener used in sodas/sugary drinks in America?

And just so we are clear on this, corn is an absolute shit of a plant to overproduce. If it were true a free market, it would get dumped for a better yield/less water guzzling plant, but since we subsidize it, the farmers get a ton of money for planting corn.

Anyways, this tax is obviously not for the public health, its a money grab scheme poorly thought out, I mean how else can you explain the logic?

Oh and for those people that missed it, you know what's next? Yoga tax, you heard me, yoga tax. http://www.observer.com/2012/03/new-...x-coming-2012/