"I don't see how anyone would go with attacking the beverage industry and taxing a single food, and I don't think the evidence is there to support taxing a soft drink," said Theresa Nicklas, an epidemiologist at the Baylor College of Medicine. "Why are we targeting sweetened beverages? What about Twinkies, what about happy meals, what about chocolate candy?"
How about a cash for clunkers type program. Turn in Twinkies and pop for Subway sammiches and sweet tea :bow
Nanny state?
Nanny state?
No because it would suggest you live with a woman
How about a tax credit for my gym membership while we're at it.:bow
REAL TALK:Because if such a tax is imposed it'll be done so under the pretense that legislators actually give a shit about the average fatty's eating habits, instead of the fact that this is just an easy excuse to cash in on the cows.
Why does this make everyone so mad?
What pisses you off is a 5 cent tax on your too-sweet soda? Gimmie a fucking break. Get real.
Doesn't it piss you off that companies have been jacking their drinks full of corn syrup for decades? Doesnt it piss you off that enormo food corps have been exploiting the human diet and drive to consume to make mega profits while making Americans less healthy than ever?But that's the thing. Soda is just a fraction of the problem with the American diet, and the people that are consuming unhealthy amounts of it on a daily basis are more often than not going to be the same lardasses that gorge on Ding Dongs and fast food because it's a cheaper alternative to shopping at Whole Foods. The studies being cited simply indicate a correlation between heavy soda consumption and health issues, and for some reason I doubt that people walking around 100+ lbs overweight like this guy (http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=374463) got that way solely because of soft drinks.
There's a place in India where Coke fucking DRAINED THE WATER TABLE DRY. A lawsuit means they now have to supply that town with water forever. Because they fucking used it all to make soft drinks. That doesn't piss you off?Big corporate exploitation in other countries has nothing to do with the inherent unhealthiness of soda itself, and it has nothing to do with why this tax is being proposed; that is an entirely different issue.
End the corn subsidy. This will jack up the prices of shit drinks to be in line with healthier alternatives. problem fixed. Money saved.
REAL TALK:Because if such a tax is imposed it'll be done so under the pretense that legislators actually give a shit about the average fatty's eating habits, instead of the fact that this is just an easy excuse to cash in on the cows.
Why does this make everyone so mad?
What pisses you off is a 5 cent tax on your too-sweet soda? Gimmie a fucking break. Get real.Doesn't it piss you off that companies have been jacking their drinks full of corn syrup for decades? Doesnt it piss you off that enormo food corps have been exploiting the human diet and drive to consume to make mega profits while making Americans less healthy than ever?But that's the thing. Soda is just a fraction of the problem with the American diet, and the people that are consuming unhealthy amounts of it on a daily basis are more often than not going to be the same lardasses that gorge on Ding Dongs and fast food because it's a cheaper alternative to shopping at Whole Foods. The studies being cited simply indicate a correlation between heavy soda consumption and health issues, and for some reason I doubt that people walking around 100+ lbs overweight like this guy (http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=374463) got that way solely because of soft drinks.
Like you said, a much bigger part of the problem is the pervasiveness in food of HFCS, so why not suggest a tax on all corporations using the stuff instead of just a handful of them?There's a place in India where Coke fucking DRAINED THE WATER TABLE DRY. A lawsuit means they now have to supply that town with water forever. Because they fucking used it all to make soft drinks. That doesn't piss you off?Big corporate exploitation in other countries has nothing to do with the inherent unhealthiness of soda itself, and it has nothing to do with why this tax is being proposed; that is an entirely different issue.
Like I said, I don't even drink soda anymore, but the idea that this is going to change anything is risible
California soda survey gives weight to health concerns
atong@sacbee.com
Published Thursday, Sep. 17, 2009
A sweeping statewide study released today points to soda and other sugar-sweetened beverages as one of the main reasons why we are fat.
"For the first time, we have strong scientific evidence that soda is one of the – if not the largest – contributors to the obesity epidemic," Dr. Harold Goldstein, executive director of the California Center for Public Health Advocacy, said Wednesday.
Obesity costs California $41 billion a year, an earlier report from the same organization found.
Suspicion of a link between soda and obesity isn't fresh news, but authors said the study is unprecedented in its scope.
"Bubbling Over: Soda Consumption and Its Link to Obesity in California" – a joint effort by the California Center for Public Health Advocacy and the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research – interviewed 42,000 Californians of all ages.
The study found that 24 percent of adults drink one or more non-diet sodas a day, and these adults are 27 percent more likely to be overweight.
The results for children were worse, researchers said. Sixty-two percent of adolescents ages 12 to 17 and 41 percent of children ages 2 to 11 imbibe at least one sugar-sweetened drink a day.
These kids, Goldstein said, will end up costing the state in future health care bills.
"This could be the first generation in modern history that will have a shorter life expectancy than their parents," he said.
The main culprit in soft drinks is sugar – lots of it. Soda racks up 17 teaspoons of sugar and about 250 calories per 20-ounce serving, and many add caffeine.
"A bottle of soda is nothing more than a sugar delivery device," said Goldstein. "We have a lot of very sweet kids."
He says the key to fixing the obesity epidemic is eliminating soda consumption, because many soft drinks are high-calorie and do little to curb hunger.
"When you eat food, it makes you full," said Judith Stern, a professor at the University of California, Davis' nutrition department. "When you drink a soda, it doesn't make you feel full, so it's wasted calories."
American soda consumption has been steadily rising: Compared with 30 years ago, we consume an average 278 more calories per day, almost half of it from soda, according to the California Center for Public Health Advocacy.
In the mid-1990s, children's intake of sugared beverages surpassed milk. And for each glass of soda consumed per day, a child's likelihood of becoming obese increases 60 percent.
Beverage makers say soda is unfairly demonized. In promoting healthy lifestyles, some soda companies – including Coca-Cola and PepsiCo – have introduced vitamin- enhanced zero-calorie sodas in the past several years, marketed as "sparkling beverages."
"The fact remains you can be a healthy person and enjoy a soft drink," Dr. Maureen Storey, an American Beverage Association spokeswoman, wrote in a statement.
Experts on childhood obesity say a sweet tooth for soda develops early in life.
"I have seen a number of children who come into the doctor's office with soda in their baby bottle," said Dr. Ulfat Shaikh, a pediatrician who works at UC Davis Children Hospital's weight management clinic. "That, frankly, is frightening."
Some parents say banning soda from the start is the only way to go.
Debi Ravenscroft of Loomis has never allowed her 10-year-old daughter to drink soda, even though her husband, Bob, drinks six to eight sodas a day.
Because her daughter never started drinking soda, she doesn't crave it.
"If she is at her friend's house and they offer soda to her, she says, 'Can I have a water, please?' " Ravenscroft said.
Ravenscroft sees other positive effects of keeping soft drinks away from her daughter.
"I have seen other kids who are allowed to drink Pepsi, and I honestly believe that's the reason why they can't sit still," she said.
The study also rekindled talk of a "soda tax" among California policymakers.
California limits school sales of sodas, candy and other junk food. Sodas, unlike most other foods, are subject to sales tax.
A 1 cent tax per ounce of soda would generate $1.8 billion per year in California.
Six states – Arkansas, Missouri, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia – have soda taxes.
"It's time to revisit the soda tax debate, now that we have ever-more convincing evidence of its role in obesity," said state Sen. Alex Padilla, D-San Fernando Valley, who chairs a committee on obesity and diabetes.
On a weekday afternoon, middle-schoolers on the way home from California Middle School stopped by a Marie's Do-Nut Shop on Freeport Boulevard in Sacramento. Several purchased soft drinks.
"It's just so … sugary," said 13-year-old Duy Ngo, as he snapped open a can of 7-Up.
what will this do to things like soda machines?
what will this do to things like soda machines?Soda machines are already cost prohibitive imo.
how about a tax on stupid fat cunts who dont exercise?
how hard is it to move more and eat less
smh america
how about a tax on stupid fat cunts who dont exercise?
how hard is it to move more and eat less
smh america
Of course, that money would be better suited for UHC.End the corn subsidy. This will jack up the prices of shit drinks to be in line with healthier alternatives. problem fixed. Money saved.
Holy fuck, Zero Hero said something agreeable.
itt we see a terrific example of people not giving a shit about things which don't affect them
when they slap down a game tax (for "education funding") or an extra coffee tax (because, you know, caffeine is pretty horrible for you when you think about it, and why should the rest of america pay for your jitters?), then you fucks will splutter with outrage, guaranteed
itt we see a terrific example of people not giving a shit about things which don't affect them
when they slap down a game tax (for "education funding") or an extra coffee tax (because, you know, caffeine is pretty horrible for you when you think about it, and why should the rest of america pay for your jitters?), then you fucks will splutter with outrage, guaranteed
fuck you, i'm no libertarian, i despise you all equally
if you can't see where this type of bullshit adds up over time, then you're either blinded by idealism or just plain stupid
forgive me, forgot where i was posting for a moment
REAL TALK:
Why does this make everyone so mad?
Doesn't it piss you off that companies have been jacking their drinks full of corn syrup for decades? Doesnt it piss you off that enormo food corps have been exploiting the human diet and drive to consume to make mega profits while making Americans less healthy than ever? There's a place in India where Coke fucking DRAINED THE WATER TABLE DRY. A lawsuit means they now have to supply that town with water forever. Because they fucking used it all to make soft drinks. That doesn't piss you off?
What pisses you off is a 5 cent tax on your too-sweet soda? Gimmie a fucking break. Get real.
American drinks don't have raw sugar, am nintenho.
They have high fructose corn syrup, arguably worse than sugar, and is relatively cheap thanks to corn subsidies (you can link that to starch on your own, right?).
There's no "arguably" about it, that shit is bad news.
Anyway, I thought they ended corn subsidies years ago, but I kinda live with my head in the sand, so yeah
REAL TALK:
Why does this make everyone so mad?
Doesn't it piss you off that companies have been jacking their drinks full of corn syrup for decades? Doesnt it piss you off that enormo food corps have been exploiting the human diet and drive to consume to make mega profits while making Americans less healthy than ever? There's a place in India where Coke fucking DRAINED THE WATER TABLE DRY. A lawsuit means they now have to supply that town with water forever. Because they fucking used it all to make soft drinks. That doesn't piss you off?
What pisses you off is a 5 cent tax on your too-sweet soda? Gimmie a fucking break. Get real.American drinks don't have raw sugar, am nintenho.
They have high fructose corn syrup, arguably worse than sugar, and is relatively cheap thanks to corn subsidies (you can link that to starch on your own, right?).There's no "arguably" about it, that shit is bad news.
Anyway, I thought they ended corn subsidies years ago, but I kinda live with my head in the sand, so yeah
Is it even "arguable" at this point? Unless we're talking about studies funded by Coca-Cola, I thought it was pretty much proven that the crap is extra bad. At this point the companies should cease manufacturing with it, but their production process relies on HFCS to such a degree that producing questionable counter-studies and lobbying for the continuation of the corn subsidy in the age of corporate megafarming is more financially feasible. That, and no large group ever likes "change."
American drinks don't have raw sugar, am nintenho.I would argue against subsidizing corn to make biofuels but I'm not convinced of taking away all subsidies for it just yet. It's probably the most important food crop in the world.
They have high fructose corn syrup, arguably worse than sugar, and is relatively cheap thanks to corn subsidies (you can link that to starch on your own, right?).
- it's inedible to humans without a crazy degree of processing to turn it into syrup (sweet corn is relatively rare these days)I'm confused by this point. What do you mean by inedible?
Let me just add that I understand the sentiment (boiling up under the surface of am nintenho's posts here) that folks just need to get off their asses and stop eating so goddamn much. There is a great amount of truth in it. But it's still an oversimplification. You need to be concerned with quantity AND quality to eat in a way that won't slowly kill you, these days.
Not to mention that they'll buy all the cheap, easy-to-make foods at the market and none of it is good for you.
itt we see a terrific example of people not giving a shit about things which don't affect them
when they slap down a game tax (for "education funding") or an extra coffee tax (because, you know, caffeine is pretty horrible for you when you think about it, and why should the rest of america pay for your jitters?), then you fucks will splutter with outrage, guaranteed
This is the real problem IMO. You've got companies that are making products that are really terrible for you to eat.
Personally, I think we should have a new label-a huge fat person on a rascal scooter-that gets put on the box or bag of the shit food out there. Let people KNOW that what they are buying is crap and they'll pick something that's less crappy-there's a huge education issue made worse by decades of bad-and now ingrained-food policy. Also, programs to provide local fresh food co-ops and markets to inner cities and other under served areas so they can actually buy fresh produce at reasonable prices.
and most only care about going from Point A to B.
???
As opposed to?
It's not the only cause of health problems, no. Smaller food portions are absolutely necessary for most folks these days. But if they're still eating junk instead of nutritious perishable real food, they will still be diseased even if not obese.There are artificial sources for vitamins and minerals so I would say that at the moment, lowering caloric intake is a bigger priority. Even if you go to a supermarket in an urban area, you can find affordable and healthy food. It might not be the best tasting food in the store and eating a reasonable amount of it probably won't make the average person full, but those are the things that make diets work.
Prep time doesn't depend on change based on whether you buy your food from safeway or a fruit stand. You realistically need like 40 minutes to make anything.
My point was that the basic ingredients for a healthy meal can still be bought at any supermarket. People may not have the time/energy to make those foods or maybe they just don't care, but that's just a different issue that hopefully can be fixed by people caring more about their diet in the future.
You realistically need like 40 minutes to make anything.
I should make it clear that I don't know much about the lifestyle of people who live below the poverty line and of single-parent households where these problems are most extreme. What I'm just saying is that the average person should be able to get the amount of calories and nutrients that they need using an equal or lower food budget. This will of course mean that they're eating less though.Prep time doesn't depend on change based on whether you buy your food from safeway or a fruit stand. You realistically need like 40 minutes to make anything.If you're a family of 4 living below the poverty line, you can't AFFORD healthy food. From a purely caloric standpoint, a dollar worth of junky shitty food will feed your family far more effectively than a dollar worth of apples. In some places an apple is MORE than a dollar. Have a peek here: http://www.mymoneyblog.com/archives/2007/01/what-does-200-calories-cost-the-economics-of-obesity.html
My point was that the basic ingredients for a healthy meal can still be bought at any supermarket. People may not have the time/energy to make those foods or maybe they just don't care, but that's just a different issue that hopefully can be fixed by people caring more about their diet in the future.
This is, in part, because of a broken subsidy system that makes it economically viable to make shitty bad for you food while making good for you stuff more expensive.
We should find a new transportation system and nuke all the roads, replace them with farms and stuff. We're gonna make America healthy again.
Well, using corn lowers the cost of food, or rather raises the caloric value for money of crappy processed food, but of course the subsidies aren't actually FREE so ultimately it ends up costing you all anyway. Not to mention the lunatic healthcare costs that it contributes hugely to.Fun fact, corn and broccoli have actually both been cultivated extensively by farmers to fit our food needs. Broccoli is actually from the species Brassica oleracea or Wild Mustard, but it just was cultivated to have a very high amount of flower heads. cauliflower, cabbage, brussel sprouts and some other stuff all come from Wild Mustard but they are just different lineages with designed to have some parts larger or smaller. Same thing with corn where now it's actually unable to grow in the wild.
Why not subsidize something unequivocally good for you, like broccoli? God knows if we put our mind to it we could find ways to turn broccoli into as versatile a food as corn. Seriously. I mean, if you told your great grandfather that we'd be turning that shitty corn into syrup and pumping it into bacon and sausage, they'd never have believed you. Humans have a great track record of taking what's in surplus in the natural world and finding ways to consume it. If we had mountains of surplus cheap broccoli, you can bet your ass we'd all be eating it and not even knowing we were doing so.