Taxing sugar

southsiderosie · 16-01-2011 1:42pm

Why are everyone's knickers in such a twist today? Many of these replies seem unnecessarily harsh.

While I understand the sentiment behind the OP, I don't think that taxing sugar is the way to go. What I would support, however, is the complete removal of sugar subsidies and tariffs in the EU and especially in the United States. Cheap corn allows for cheap production of high fructose corn syrup, which is in EVERYTHING. It also allows for relatively cheap production of grain-fed animals, which are less healthy than grass-fed animals.

Corn and sugar subsidies distort the food supply, making it unhealthier, but they also distort land prices, contributing to the often prohibitive cost of fresh fruit and vegetable production.

whiteonion · 16-01-2011 1:47pm

southsiderosie wrote: »

Why are everyone's knickers in such a twist today? Many of these replies seem unnecessarily harsh.

While I understand the sentiment behind the OP, I don't think that taxing sugar is the way to go. What I would support, however, is the complete removal of sugar subsidies and tariffs in the EU and especially in the United States. Cheap corn allows for cheap production of high fructose corn syrup, which is in EVERYTHING. It also allows for relatively cheap production of grain-fed animals, which are less healthy than grass-fed animals.

Corn and sugar subsidies distort the food supply, making it unhealthier, but they also distort land prices, contributing to the often prohibitive cost of fresh fruit and vegetable production.

I agree that we should remove these agricultural subsidies towards corn and sugar everywhere since government is promoting obesity through these policies.

There should also be more public spaces where people can grow there own vegs. In Vancouver they have community gardens open for the public where they can grow their own veg.

Bottle_of_Smoke · 16-01-2011 1:59pm

southsiderosie wrote: »

Why are everyone's knickers in such a twist today? Many of these replies seem unnecessarily harsh.

While I understand the sentiment behind the OP, I don't think that taxing sugar is the way to go. What I would support, however, is the complete removal of sugar subsidies and tariffs in the EU and especially in the United States. Cheap corn allows for cheap production of high fructose corn syrup, which is in EVERYTHING. It also allows for relatively cheap production of grain-fed animals, which are less healthy than grass-fed animals.

Corn and sugar subsidies distort the food supply, making it unhealthier, but they also distort land prices, contributing to the often prohibitive cost of fresh fruit and vegetable production.

Would be interested in reading more about this. Do you know of any good sources online to get an overview of the subsidy issue?

mgmt · 16-01-2011 5:57pm

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Would be interested in reading more about this. Do you know of any good sources online to get an overview of the subsidy issue?

NSFW

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyZ5hzEWj4w

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8av4unUxeE

southsiderosie · 16-01-2011 6:13pm

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Would be interested in reading more about this. Do you know of any good sources online to get an overview of the subsidy issue?

It's a highly politicized issue, and I've asked a few food policy buddies for some semi-neutral references.

In the meantime, I think Michael Pollan gives a good overview of the general situation in the US (the school lunch policy thing is a HUGE issue), but I think he grossly underplays how politically contentious the Farm Bills and agricultural policies are.

Corsendonk · 16-01-2011 7:31pm

whiteonion wrote: »

I agree that we should remove these agricultural subsidies towards corn and sugar everywhere since government is promoting obesity through these policies.

There should also be more public spaces where people can grow there own vegs. In Vancouver they have community gardens open for the public where they can grow their own veg.

We have allotments both public and private in Dublin too but the main concern of most is how close the parking spotting is to their allotment because it would be too much exercise to walk any distance! People are actually hiring rotovators to do what half a day with a fork would do. Its not just the process of growing your own but the exercise generated by digging, caring and harvesting.

Its not just about diet and taxing sugar but also changing peoples attitude to exercise and unfortunately that like diet starts young. You only have to witness the traffic chaos outside schools were parents drive the kids to the school door and pick them up. Gone are the days of kids walking/cycling to school in groups.

bryanw · 16-01-2011 7:33pm

whiteonion wrote: »

You don't need to add sugar in basic foodstuffs.
The obesity epidemic in the United States can be blamed on the High Fructose Corn Syrup which is added into a very wide variety of staple foods, sauces, drinks etc.

whiteonion wrote:

I agree that we should remove these agricultural subsidies towards corn and sugar everywhere since government is promoting obesity through these policies.

The US government impose tariffs on imported sugar and have quotas for domestically produced sugar, as well as huge subsidies to corn producers. The result is that sugar prices are artificially high and corn prices artificially low. That is why HFCS is used in everything, and why, I suspect, American confectionery tastes sh**e.

Removal of these subsidies would make sugar cheaper and corn more expensive. I do agree that removal of both the quotas and the subsidies is the most sound move.

Soldie · 16-01-2011 7:43pm

For what it's worth, the U.S. corn subsidies are also very much tied in with ethanol fuel and the significant lobby groups associated with it, as the fuel is made from corn.

Corsendonk · 16-01-2011 8:08pm

If you do tax sugar you just price certain high sugar food products out of the market. So no more Jam, Marmalade etc Imagine all those artisan Jam Makers that will have to go on the black market to sell their granny recipe raspberry jam!

Also what are you defining as sugar? Syrups? Glucose? Fructose? etc

recedite · 16-01-2011 9:59pm

PaintDoctor wrote: »

Stupid idea for 2 reasons. One - taxing things has never stopped people taking them to excess, examples being alcohol, cigarettes, plastic bags ... and on and on and on. Two - why should people who don't have dental/obesity/diabetes problems pay a surcharge for those that do as a result of potential sugar related problems?.

Stupid response because;
1. taxing one thing more than another does modify peoples behaviour; alcohol & cigs consumption would rise if the govt. duty disappeared.
The trees and streets are now clear of plastic bags blowing around in the wind.

2. Healthy people do subsidise unhealthy people's self imposed health problems; through high PRSI/ VHI costs.
Sugar/tobacco/alcohol taxes might help those who refuse to educate or help themselves.

grindelwald wrote: »

Sugar is a life saver for my daughter, she is diabetic and needs sugar (or something that contains sugar) to bring her blood sugar levels up so she wont go into a coma.

Sugar does not cause diabetes........

The more common type 2 diabetes that fat middle aged people develop is caused by their sugary diet.

Excessive consumption of anything may be bad for you, but the point is there is already too much hidden sugar in most peoples diet, so the only question remaining is how much excess is dangerous.

Bottle_of_Smoke · 16-01-2011 10:56pm

recedite wrote: »

The more common type 2 diabetes that fat middle aged people develop is caused by their sugary diet.

There isn't evidence to show that. There's a big anti-sugar agenda in the newspapers and magazines. I personally think its down to people eating meal portions bigger than they need - These meals often have no sugar added to them. However I wouldn't say this as a fact as I don't have evidence to prove it. So you shouldn't be saying it about sugar

also the high level of carbohydrates in Irish and British people's meals. Think eating loadsa spuds/chips/bread/white rice/white pasta. In Europe its quite normal to just have salad and meat for lunch.

There's also genetics and psychological issues at play.

Bottom line taxing sugar won't have much impact on overweight/obesity. Its a very complex multi-factorial issue

whiteonion · 16-01-2011 11:28pm

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

There isn't evidence to show that. There's a big anti-sugar agenda in the newspapers and magazines. I personally think its down to people eating meal portions bigger than they need - These meals often have no sugar added to them. However I wouldn't say this as a fact as I don't have evidence to prove it. So you shouldn't be saying it about sugar

also the high level of carbohydrates in Irish and British people's meals. Think eating loadsa spuds/chips/bread/white rice/white pasta. In Europe its quite normal to just have salad and meat for lunch.

There's also genetics and psychological issues at play.

Bottom line taxing sugar won't have much impact on overweight/obesity. Its a very complex multi-factorial issue

An excessive consumption of carbohydrates over time will lead to type 2 diabetes. Table sugar is a refined form of carbohydrate that does not exist in nature, refined carbs are easier to overconsume than for example potatoes. "Type 2 diabetes is a chronic (lifelong) disease marked by high levels of sugar (glucose) in the blood. Type 2 diabetes is the most common form of diabetes." and you are saying there is no evidence that sugar consumption causes diabetes... *DOUBLE FACEPALM*

Bottle_of_Smoke · 16-01-2011 11:45pm

whiteonion wrote: »

An excessive consumption of carbohydrates over time will lead to type 2 diabetes. Table sugar is a refined form of carbohydrate that does not exist in nature, refined carbs are easier to overconsume than for example potatoes. "Type 2 diabetes is a chronic (lifelong) disease marked by high levels of sugar (glucose) in the blood. Type 2 diabetes is the most common form of diabetes." and you are saying there is no evidence that sugar consumption causes diabetes... *DOUBLE FACEPALM*

I don't think you realise the meaning of the language you're using. When you say sugar consumption causes diabetes it implies it is the only cause.

Sure it can contribute to diabetes 2 but I don't believe it is ever the main cause. People add a spoon of sugar to their tea but they have a plate of potatoes. The potatoes are gonna be causing most of the excess carbs there. being natural or not has no effect on how many calories either foodtype contains - it depends how much you consume or more particularly overconsume

Sure potatoes have nutritional benefits but Jesus Christ you wouldnt recommend them to someone on a weight loss diet.

You just completely ignored the last post I put to you so not sure you're gonna bother with this one either.

sligopark · 17-01-2011 12:07am

This thread is still alive on politics?

Politically taxing sugar is laughable.

Bottle_of_Smoke · 17-01-2011 12:16am

sligopark wrote: »

This thread is still alive on politics?

Politically taxing sugar is laughable.

I agree but i think the cause for concern is valid ie the cost of obesity

recedite · 17-01-2011 12:26am

Carbs / big meals = slow release calories, convert to sugars slowly during digestion.

Sucrose= sugar rush = wild swings in Insulin levels = Insulin Resistance =
prone to type 2 diabetes.

Eating too often may be a factor too; you should allow yourself to get hungry now and again so that insulin levels fall, and you are metabolising stored fat.

sligopark · 17-01-2011 12:28am

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I agree but i think the cause for concern is valid ie the cost of obesity

and so a matter most probably for another forum - sugar? taxing? Given whats going on politically right now?

For me its a red herring that someone after hanging out for ages got the muster to post up in politics, with most discussion being around nutrition and health - wrong forum for me.

recedite · 17-01-2011 12:29am

sligopark wrote: »

This thread is still alive on politics?

Politically taxing sugar is laughable.

In that case, so is taxing tobacco or alcohol.

sligopark · 17-01-2011 12:32am

recedite wrote: »

In that case, so is taxing tobacco or alcohol.

what about salt then?

Bottle_of_Smoke · 17-01-2011 12:40am

recedite wrote: »

Carbs / big meals = slow release calories, convert to sugars slowly during digestion.

Carbs such as potatoes pasta white rice are anything but slow release. Surprised you would suggest otherwise.

Sucrose= sugar rush = wild swings in Insulin levels = Insulin Resistance =
prone to type 2 diabetes.

For the most part it is only overweight people who get diabetes 2 in middle age. So whilst swings in insulin levels aren't good for you it is the amount of calories you consume that really matter. teaspoon of sugar = 24 calories. Serving of mashed potatoes = 200-300 calories on average. So you see how taxing sugar would make sweet FA difference to the obesity epidemic.

Eating too often may be a factor too; you should allow yourself to get hungry now and again so that insulin levels fall, and you are metabolising stored fat.

To be honest there's no point getting that complicated about it. Reduce your calories whatever way you like you will lose weight

Do you mind if I ask where you're getting your information from?

Bottle_of_Smoke · 17-01-2011 12:44am

sligopark wrote: »

and so a matter most probably for another forum - sugar? taxing? Given whats going on politically right now?

As I said obesity is costing the state a fortune - it is therefore a political issue.

For me its a red herring that someone after hanging out for ages got the muster to post up in politics, with most discussion being around nutrition and health - wrong forum for me.

Its just one thread. And as I've said it has political implications

yermanoffthetv · 17-01-2011 12:46am

recedite wrote: »

Stupid response because;
1. taxing one thing more than another does modify peoples behaviour; alcohol & cigs consumption would rise if the govt. duty disappeared.
The trees and streets are now clear of plastic bags blowing around in the wind.

2. Healthy people do subsidise unhealthy people's self imposed health problems; through high PRSI/ VHI costs.
Sugar/tobacco/alcohol taxes might help those who refuse to educate or help themselves.

1 thats actually wrong. Number of smokers has actually increased in recent years with the smoking ban and tax increases(+2% 2002-07). Alcohol in Ireland isnt exactly cheap compared to the rest of Europe yet 3rd highest consumption per capita in the world. Why is this? Addictive/dependance goods (fags and booze) dont follow the ususal rules of economics. Im sure youve seen the recent Primetime on counterfeit cigarettes, people will turn to the black market for these goods if the legal price is too high. Plastic bag issue is different, before they were free. people will take anything thats free weather they want it or not.

2 Dont fully agree with that either. Ballparking here but if a pack of fags has €6 duty and the average smoker has a pack a day thats almost €2200 per year duty paid to the government. I could ream off the stats for alcohol aswell but you get the point. Reality is poorly managed hospitals and exorbitant GP bills are whats driving up your health care costs. If some people refuse to educate/help themselves then thats their problem, you cant force someone to be healthy just provide clear information and let them choose.

sligopark · 17-01-2011 12:57am

yermanoffthetv wrote: »

you cant force someone to be healthy just provide clear information and let them choose.

you can however provide incentives rather than taxation ...

incentives toward fresh veggies, gym membership, sports involvement, animal ownership all of which have been proven to benefit health

taxing sugar - again a red herring to provide more money for governmental coffers with no proven community health gain

southsiderosie · 17-01-2011 2:53am

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I don't think you realise the meaning of the language you're using. When you say sugar consumption causes diabetes it implies it is the only cause.

Sure it can contribute to diabetes 2 but I don't believe it is ever the main cause. People add a spoon of sugar to their tea but they have a plate of potatoes. The potatoes are gonna be causing most of the excess carbs there. being natural or not has no effect on how many calories either foodtype contains - it depends how much you consume or more particularly overconsume.

I would agree that it is complicated, but the bigger problem (literally) in places like the US is that those potatoes will be processed and they will have corn syrup in them. It really is in everything.

I gave up processed sugar for Lent one year and so started reading labels more closely. I pretty much had to buy staple items and make all of my own food. I also lost about 10lb. People don't realize how pervasive added sweeteners are, even in so-called healthy foods like yogurt, and it completely distorts your sense of taste.

sligopark wrote: »

This thread is still alive on politics?

Politically taxing sugar is laughable.

It's a perfectly valid thread for politics - should government intervene to change what it sees as bad/costly consumption behavior? We could be having the same conversation about gasoline or, as others have pointed out alcohol and cigarettes. Not to mention the fact that sugar already is effectively taxed in many places via tariffs.

BlaasForRafa · 17-01-2011 3:17am

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

As I said obesity is costing the state a fortune - it is therefore a political issue.

Is it costing the state more than nursing home provision for OAPs though? It might actually be more cost effective for the state to have people die earlier. Not exactly a nice thing to point out.

Fitzerb · 17-01-2011 3:24am

whiteonion wrote: »

I have been hanging out on boards for a bit but now I decided to get myself an account and post threads.

I think we should put punitive taxes on sugar for health reasons. Sugar promotes bad teeth, obesity, diabetes(with all associated problems that comes with this illness).

Human beings don't need a single gram of sugar and because it is so unhealthy it should be heavily taxed. It is absurd that good food like meat and veg should be expensive while soft drinks and candy bars cost next to nothing.

Not sure how you worked this out but did you consider the following. If we tax sugar the impact on employment I see is as follows

2800 in the soft drinks industry in Ireland
At least 1000 people in the larger industry. (High Sugar Content)
Mc Donald's could close. Their "chips" are not chips as we know them but extrudued from potatoe power with a sugar content.
Snacks Food Industry 900 people working in it. Potatoes have a high sugar content.
The restaurant game will have to charge more for the apple tart and cream, another couple of hundred jobs at risk. I reckon another couple of hundred jobs gone in distribution of chocolate and biscuits
I reckon the idea could cost us up a couple of thousand jobs, so we would have to increase taxes to pay the social welfare of the people who lost their jobs. The dentist profession would close.

But at least everyone would be dead skinny with a great smile.
I am not in favour of the proposals but it sounds like something the Greens might be interested in.

southsiderosie · 17-01-2011 4:50am

Fitzerb wrote: »

Not sure how you worked this out but did you consider the following. If we tax sugar the impact on employment I see is as follows

2800 in the soft drinks industry in Ireland
At least 1000 people in the larger industry. (High Sugar Content)
Mc Donald's could close. Their "chips" are not chips as we know them but extrudued from potatoe power with a sugar content.
Snacks Food Industry 900 people working in it. Potatoes have a high sugar content.
The restaurant game will have to charge more for the apple tart and cream, another couple of hundred jobs at risk. I reckon another couple of hundred jobs gone in distribution of chocolate and biscuits
I reckon the idea could cost us up a couple of thousand jobs, so we would have to increase taxes to pay the social welfare of the people who lost their jobs. The dentist profession would close.

But at least everyone would be dead skinny with a great smile.
I am not in favour of the proposals but it sounds like something the Greens might be interested in.

This is beyond overly dramatic.

Bottle_of_Smoke · 17-01-2011 10:58am

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Is it costing the state more than nursing home provision for OAPs though? It might actually be more cost effective for the state to have people die earlier. Not exactly a nice thing to point out.

That is actually a very important point. If we did somehow reduce obesity it may come back to bite us in a few decades when there are much more people around. I suppose like donating to the third world we aim to save life in the hopes we will be better able to deal with it in the future. Perhaps just as naive of course.

There are other things to obesity though. I feel embarrassed we are such an unfit nation. When you think of continental europe where obesity is much lower ourselves and Britain stick out like a sore thumb. And we're not the greatest looking nation in the world to begin with. Plus people who are obese/overweight tend to be more likely to be prone to depression. So it would be a happier nation too.

Fitzerb wrote: »

Not sure how you worked this out but did you consider the following. If we tax sugar the impact on employment I see is as follows

2800 in the soft drinks industry in Ireland
At least 1000 people in the larger industry. (High Sugar Content)
Mc Donald's could close. Their "chips" are not chips as we know them but extrudued from potatoe power with a sugar content.
Snacks Food Industry 900 people working in it. Potatoes have a high sugar content.
The restaurant game will have to charge more for the apple tart and cream, another couple of hundred jobs at risk. I reckon another couple of hundred jobs gone in distribution of chocolate and biscuits
I reckon the idea could cost us up a couple of thousand jobs, so we would have to increase taxes to pay the social welfare of the people who lost their jobs. The dentist profession would close.

But at least everyone would be dead skinny with a great smile.
I am not in favour of the proposals but it sounds like something the Greens might be interested in.

The only ones I can see here really taking a hit are the dentists. Sweeteners/emulsifiers are becoming huge. For example Coca-Cola releasing their Coke Zero product *cough* diet coke for men *cough cough*

The industries you mentioned will easily transfer to sweeteners so I wouldn't worry about that.

Lapin · 17-01-2011 11:17am

I only eat two thirds of a Mars Bar everyday so I can just rest and play.

maggy_thatcher · 17-01-2011 11:32am

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

The only ones I can see here really taking a hit are the dentists. Sweeteners/emulsifiers are becoming huge. For example Coca-Cola releasing their Coke Zero product *cough* diet coke for men *cough cough*

The industries you mentioned will easily transfer to sweeteners so I wouldn't worry about that.

So lets replace a natural product that if consumed to excess may lead to obesity with an artificial compound that if consumed to excess has a laxative effect? Look at the label for pure aspartame - is this really a better option than sugar?

Not to mention it tastes rotten

Taxing sugar

Comments