15 comments

  1. bill
    Be careful what you wish for. Today
    it's a tax on sugar. Tomorrow it's a
    tax on saturated fat.

    That said, at least stop the government
    subsidies of growing grains.

  2. Martha
    The issue how much tax for how much public health benefit. What we learned from tobacco in the USA is that it wasn't until the tax increased the overall price of the product by 200-300% did we see the most drastic reduction in sales & thus smoking.

    This means for example, the price of a can of soda would have to increase in the US from about $1.50 to $4.00. To enact a small and therefore ineffective tax would be of little benefit. The tax has to really discourage consumption with a price shock. A Mexican-sized soda tax in the US wouldn't change behavior enough to be truly useful towards improving public health.

    Reply: #3
  3. Pierre
    A sugar tax should cover the cost of obesity.

    In USA the estimated annual medical cost of obesity in the U.S. was $147 billion in 2008 U.S

    The population in US is 325 millions.

    That gives around $460 /year

    In average people consume 160 pounds of added sugar a year.

    $460/160 = $2,88 /pound for the tax or 0,63 cents/gr

    For a Coca Cola of 12 oz (355 ml) Can = 39g of sugar

    The sugar tax ( 39 gr x 0,63 cents/gr) = 24,7 cents

    The cost for a can of soda would increase by 25 cents. This not a a big deal.

    All junk "food" loaded with added sugar would also be tax by 0,6 cents / gr.

  4. Elizabeth
    The tax should be in the form of a very high tariff or penalty payable by the processed food manufacturers that would increase their cost to produce toxic products to a point where they make no profit at all unless they double or triple their prices and they should be required to label their products like the cigarette manufacturers were.
    The manufacturers should also have to run negative commercials and be subject to public investigations along with our FDA, USDA, CDC, AMA and ALL others including scientists, doctors, dieticians and politicians who sell out to the corporations that profit from killing people with sugar which is a proven toxin.
    They should be subject to class action lawsuits and also have to pay annual penalties for each increase in health care costs attributed to obesity, diabetes and heart disease.
    I think a tax on the consumer is inappropriate because they are penalized with illness, death, increased health care costs and shame already when in fact most of what they consume that causes their problem is hidden from them and huge profits are made by the people who lie to them and benefit from destroying them.
    Consumers should be informed and supported and not shamed, condemned and ridiculed for relying on so-called authorities who are lying to them for fun and profit.
  5. Fred
    How about we leave health concerns and costs up to the individual and forget about engaging in social engineering altogether?
    Replies: #6, #15
  6. Martha
    The problem Fred is that under the current US health system, where folks have insurance with private companies under the Obamacare program, these insurers pool everyone together. So when other people make bad decisions, your insurance cost goes up! The whole pool gets stuck together to cover the insurer's cost. If you think your Obamacare premium is high now, wait until the diabetes epidemic REALLY starts kicking in. You are already paying for other people's lifestyles. It will only get much much more expensive for you.

    It's in your immediate financial interest to discourage soda consumption ASAP via a mandated solution. I'm committed to liberty, but also to my own pocketbook. :D Best wishes.

    Replies: #10, #13
  7. Eric
    Why or why not tax sugar?
    How much? And what do we do with the money?

    From the 147 billion health cost ??? A 25 cent tax in usa seem about right for soda and maybe ten cents for any and all artificial sweeteners.

    BUT do not let the elected crime or political hacks spend the tax.
    Put it in a stock market trust for all children born the year collected?
    147 billion divided by say 5 million births should be a good retirement in70 years.

    Let each country decide what works for them!

  8. Devlin
    Well said, Fred! The constant push to tax on this site is disturbing. I hope I am never able to understand the need to try to force others to "comply" to my version of a healthy lifestyle.
    Reply: #11
  9. Eric
    Tax may be the same as stopping ag subsidize to the sugar industry.
    Believe in one or the other but in the end higher consumer price means less consumption and net government revenue and cost could be the same either way of eliminating sugar subsidies
    Or taxing sugar and HFCs
  10. Fred
    Martha, you have just described a problem with the current health care system. The problem isn't that people continue to make poor dietary choices, it's that everyone else if forced to pay for other people's lifestyle choices. Clearly, you don't think this fair, however your go to solution (sugar tax) is just more of the same... forcing people who do make good health choices to pay more for a product when they choose to use it. I'll say it again... just because you are willing to pick up the tab for other people's lifestyle choices does not grant you the right to dictate how they live. If you don't want to pay, then work to change the current healthcare law and tax code.
  11. Fred
    Devlin, I suspect the socialist theme of this website is partly due to Dr. Eenfeldt's Swedish upbringing. I used to recommend this site to anyone expressing an interest in changing their diet. However, I can no longer do so in good conscience. The elitist," I-know-better-than-you" attitude that seems so prevalent here has sullied the good science that built Dietdoctor.com's viewership. I'm done.
  12. Murray
    I personally consume no added sugar, or at least try not to. I read that often restaurants add sugar to vegetable dishes, so I doubt one can avoid added sugar entirely.

    My sense is that people react strongly to credible nutrition advice. Tell them oats reduce heart disease and next year there will be a shortage of oats. (I recall this in the 1980s.)

    Already I see people who a few years ago thought I was nuts, are converting to no sugar themselves, just because Jamie Oliver is big on it.

    if the health authorities would come clean and state the facts on sugar, without the spin sought by sponsors and lobbyists supporting sugar, there would be no need for a tax.

  13. Chris D
    Martha,

    How well has the mandated fortification of white four work? How about prohibition? The war on drugs? Not so well I'm guessing. Forcing people to do things has never worked, it builds resentment and opens black markets. Taxing cigarettes? Please, when I was a kid people smoked because they thought it was cool, now kids don't think smoking is cool, so they don't smoke. They don't care how much it costs. People consume sugar because they are ignorant of it's effects, not because of it's lack of taxation. Personal liberties are far more important than your pocketbook because without them, you have nothing.

    Good day.

  14. Chris D
    We will never get a sugar tax in the States anyway. Most of our ag infrastructure is dedicated to rotational corn / soybean planting. A large fraction of the corn is grown for HFCS, since the corn it self does not have to be suitable for human/animal consumption, just suitable for HFCS production. Unless ethanol production can be improved, there will be no markets for this corn and thus a sugar tax would collapse the market. The USDA or Big Ag would never allow that to happen. Some local municipalities may start a sugar tax, but eventually the Feds will ban sugar taxes nationally, just like they did with GMO labeling laws.
  15. Devlin
    Fred - Unfortunately, you're analysis is spot on. For some reason, socialists just can't help themselves. They want the government to exercise force to "encourage" the ignorant masses to be healthy - even though that's what they've been doing for half a century with less than stellar results. Nobody seems to realize that it was the heavy hand of the government that got us into the mess we're in in the first place!

    Many people I know have recently kicked sugar and are restricting their carbs and processed foods. This, despite our all-knowing governmental policies to the contrary. Our movement grows ever day! This is a revolution AGAINST governmental dietary guidelines which started WITHOUT governmental prodding and does not need governmental influence to continue.

    Let's stay a little longer to see if we can influence Andreas and his kind in a positive way since he has been so helpful to us with LCHF.

Leave a reply

Reply to comment #0 by

Older posts