You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
-Signs, Portents, and the Weather-
‘Sugar taxes’ could finally get people to eat less junk food
2019-06-01
[NYPOST] Policy interventions could help consumers sour on sugary sodas and fruit juices.

So-called “sugar taxes” and front-of-package nutrition labels may have a real impact, according to experimental research published in the International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity: They result in consumers buying products with fewer calories and less sugar, sodium and saturated fat.
Oh lord, they’re playing with nudging again, because they know better than us stupid deplorables...
What’s more, applying the tax to 100 percent fruit juice
...which is full of healthy natural vitamins and even some roughage, and therefore has historically been considered a healthy choice compared to the empty calories of soda pop...
— whose naturally occurring sugars can rival the sugar content in sweetened drinks — leads to the greatest reductions in calories and sugar purchased, the study found.

“Many people don’t realize that fruit juice can have just as much sugar, or more, as regular pop and these types of drinks aren’t always included in a tax when evidence shows that maybe they should be,” lead study author Rachel Acton, a Ph.D student at the University of Waterloo, said in a statement.

Acton and her co-authors designed an experimental study involving 3,584 Canadians aged 13 and up. Armed with a $5 budget, study participants went about buying beverages and snack foods with various front-of-package labels and with varying taxes (for example, a 20 percent tax on sugar-sweetened drinks). Some labels said the product was “high in” sugar, while others listed a nutrition grade from “A” through “E.”
Posted by:Fred

#7  Your body has to get sugar directly or extract it from food to make adenosine triphosphate, the basic fuel of all cells. Like sodium, there's an optimal amount. Trying to get by on too little is often more immediately catastrophic than consuming more than the body needs. Neither extreme is good.
Posted by: M. Murcek   2019-06-01 15:36  

#6  Actually, sugar is better for one than corn syrup.
Tastes better to. Compare Mexican Coke made with sugar to US Coke made with corn syrup.

Posted by: 3dc   2019-06-01 15:26  

#5  We could just stop giving sugar farms subsidies. No new taxes but still hitting sugar makers in the pocketbook and helping balance the federal deficit seems like a win for all concerned. Except the nanny state socialists.
Posted by: Vernal Hatrick   2019-06-01 14:32  

#4  Sugar import programs
Posted by: Skidmark   2019-06-01 11:42  

#3  BTW, if you are serious about the 'evils of sugar' end the subsidies.

"In the United States, fewer than 4,500 farm businesses produce sugar. Yet they cost taxpayers up to $4 billion a year in subsidies."
Posted by: Procopius2k   2019-06-01 08:50  

#2  Hypoglycemia actually left me in seizures after a 14 hour flight from Boston to Shanghai, with no substantial food. People need to leave sugar alone. Some people really need it. I was okay after a bottle of juice at the airport (beer on the plane was useless).
Posted by: Beau   2019-06-01 08:15  

#1  They already implemented a 'sugar tax' in some cities on soda. It's all about the tax, not the sugar. They tax diet drinks, zero calories, the same as regular drinks.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2019-06-01 08:07  

00:00