5 ms·

I'm not sure if there should be a tax on sugar. But I definitely think that products should have a large visible colorful graphic on the front showing the amou

by mpg33 10y ago

I'm not sure if there should be a tax on sugar. But I definitely think that products should have a large visible colorful graphic on the front showing the amount of sugar content.. separate from the basic black and white nutritional info label.

noir_lord 10y ago
We have that in the UK. http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/06/18/article-2344177-1A6404A6000005DC-529_634x543.jpg http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/06/18/article-2344177-1A... Also have a standard more detailed breakdown on the back. It works well.
- Brakenshire 10y ago
  I think the UK 'traffic light' labeling is still voluntary.
superswordfish 10y ago
In the US sugar is listed without a DV% as well. People might reconsider a Milky Way if they knew it had 70% of your daily recommended added sugar intake (per the article's 45g). I LOLed at https://www.milkywaybar.com/nutrition https://www.milkywaybar.com/nutrition > MILKY WAY® is a delicious and indulgent treat that can be enjoyed as part of a balanced diet and healthy lifestyle. Why lie? It's heavily-processed, high-fat, high-sugar candy. Of course it's unhealthy, there's nothing inherently wrong with that.
- wyldfire 10y ago
  No one would reconsider a Milky Way if they knew it had 70% of the recommended daily sugar intake. The people who care about sugar intake avoid Milky Ways and similar candies already. IMO one great labeling victory has been restaurants that put calorie info on menus. Some of that has been by regulation, but regardless it's a good move.
  - chiefofgxbxl 10y ago
    > The people who care about sugar intake avoid Milky Ways and similar candies already. This may be true, but this statement is also missing the (possibly large?) group of people that simply have no benchmark in their mind for how much sugar is acceptable. I've read several competing articles about daily limits to added sugar, and the number I have in my mind is 80g/day max. Given that a teaspoon of sugar is roughly 4g, this amounts to 20 teaspoons of sugar per day! I've wondered if nutrition labels listing sugar in terms of teaspoons instead of grams would help people visualize exactly how much sugar they are consuming. I would agree that those who care about sugar intake probably will avoid Milky Ways, but I'm also concerned that if we don't have a % DV on sugar, people will perhaps assume that there is no ceiling. Why do we have % DV for fat, carbs, etc., but not sugar? Hmm, well maybe it's that no amount of sugar you eat today will harm you. As a curious experiment, walk down the street and randomly survey people for how many grams of sugar they think they should limit themselves to.
- tormeh 10y ago
  They don't exactly lie. This is the tricky thing with candy: it's damn hard to eat just one. Everyone (except possilby diabetics, I don't know) would be fine with eating a milky way every 2-3 days, but that's not how the brain works on sugar. I can and do rarely eat 300g of chocolate inside an hour. I'm pretty sure that's a little bit dangerous, but the only way to avoid it is to not buy the chocolate in the first place. Once I've given myself permission to start eating it's all gone real quick.
- forgetsusername 10y ago
  >Why lie? It's heavily-processed, high-fat, high-sugar candy What part of claiming to be able to enjoy a chocolate bar if you eat otherwise healthy is a "lie"? It's only "unhealthy" in the context of your overall diet.
  - superswordfish 10y ago
    Would you say marmalade is healthy? It's certainly tasty. It has calories so in the context of starvation, it's absolutely healthy. What's so tacky about this is that there are only cynical reasons to discuss manifestly unhealthy candy in the context of a balanced diet. A candy bar has zero value in a balanced diet, like marmalade.
mrfusion 10y ago
Or pictures of graphic obesity and diabetes complications like cigarette packs have. Or at least a surgeon generals warning.
bhouston 10y ago
>I'm not sure if there should be a tax on sugar. I think there should be in Canada because we have a public health care system and the effects of sugar intake puts stresses on public health care, and those that who binge on sugar should be forced to pay for their higher costs on public health - I should not be subsiding their preventable issues.
- mpg33 10y ago
  I agree very much with that. But what if food manufacturers come up with new ingredients that escape the tax legally and those ingredients are actual worse for you?
  - erikrothoff 10y ago
    That seems like a pretty minor "what if" to a pretty concrete solution.
- forgetsusername 10y ago
  Right. You're free to choose your diet, but any costs of said diet should not be imposed on the rest of society.
- dominotw 10y ago
  what about athletes and body builders who do carb/sugar loading? What about ppl who eat greasy food and don't exercise? Als, Wouldn't this merely penalize poor people with long hours and long commutes, poor people who are forced to live in food desserts, poor people who only have enough cash to buy bad food, poor people who have to feed a family of 5 on minimum wage.
  - toasterlovin 10y ago
    A few things: 1. I think most athletes who purposely ingest a lot of carbs are probably not using sugar to accomplish this. 2. Greasy food is not actually bad for you. Grease is essentially fat, which is about as healthy as you can get. In a typical fast food meal, the greasy burger is the healthy part (minus the bun). It's the fries and soft drink which are the unhealthy part. 3. Grains are an incredibly affordable source of calories (it depends on the grain, but for the most part they are all upwards of 2,000 calories for $1). I don't think anybody's in danger of starving if sugar is more expensive.

by mpg33 10y ago

noir_lord 10y ago

We have that in the UK. http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/06/18/article-2344177-1A6404A6000005DC-529_634x543.jpg http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/06/18/article-2344177-1A... Also have a standard more detailed breakdown on the back. It works well.

Brakenshire 10y ago
I think the UK 'traffic light' labeling is still voluntary.

superswordfish 10y ago

In the US sugar is listed without a DV% as well. People might reconsider a Milky Way if they knew it had 70% of your daily recommended added sugar intake (per the article's 45g). I LOLed at https://www.milkywaybar.com/nutrition https://www.milkywaybar.com/nutrition > MILKY WAY® is a delicious and indulgent treat that can be enjoyed as part of a balanced diet and healthy lifestyle. Why lie? It's heavily-processed, high-fat, high-sugar candy. Of course it's unhealthy, there's nothing inherently wrong with that.

wyldfire 10y ago
No one would reconsider a Milky Way if they knew it had 70% of the recommended daily sugar intake. The people who care about sugar intake avoid Milky Ways and similar candies already. IMO one great labeling victory has been restaurants that put calorie info on menus. Some of that has been by regulation, but regardless it's a good move.
- chiefofgxbxl 10y ago
  > The people who care about sugar intake avoid Milky Ways and similar candies already. This may be true, but this statement is also missing the (possibly large?) group of people that simply have no benchmark in their mind for how much sugar is acceptable. I've read several competing articles about daily limits to added sugar, and the number I have in my mind is 80g/day max. Given that a teaspoon of sugar is roughly 4g, this amounts to 20 teaspoons of sugar per day! I've wondered if nutrition labels listing sugar in terms of teaspoons instead of grams would help people visualize exactly how much sugar they are consuming. I would agree that those who care about sugar intake probably will avoid Milky Ways, but I'm also concerned that if we don't have a % DV on sugar, people will perhaps assume that there is no ceiling. Why do we have % DV for fat, carbs, etc., but not sugar? Hmm, well maybe it's that no amount of sugar you eat today will harm you. As a curious experiment, walk down the street and randomly survey people for how many grams of sugar they think they should limit themselves to.
tormeh 10y ago
They don't exactly lie. This is the tricky thing with candy: it's damn hard to eat just one. Everyone (except possilby diabetics, I don't know) would be fine with eating a milky way every 2-3 days, but that's not how the brain works on sugar. I can and do rarely eat 300g of chocolate inside an hour. I'm pretty sure that's a little bit dangerous, but the only way to avoid it is to not buy the chocolate in the first place. Once I've given myself permission to start eating it's all gone real quick.
forgetsusername 10y ago
>Why lie? It's heavily-processed, high-fat, high-sugar candy What part of claiming to be able to enjoy a chocolate bar if you eat otherwise healthy is a "lie"? It's only "unhealthy" in the context of your overall diet.
- superswordfish 10y ago
  Would you say marmalade is healthy? It's certainly tasty. It has calories so in the context of starvation, it's absolutely healthy. What's so tacky about this is that there are only cynical reasons to discuss manifestly unhealthy candy in the context of a balanced diet. A candy bar has zero value in a balanced diet, like marmalade.

mrfusion 10y ago

Or pictures of graphic obesity and diabetes complications like cigarette packs have. Or at least a surgeon generals warning.

bhouston 10y ago

>I'm not sure if there should be a tax on sugar. I think there should be in Canada because we have a public health care system and the effects of sugar intake puts stresses on public health care, and those that who binge on sugar should be forced to pay for their higher costs on public health - I should not be subsiding their preventable issues.

mpg33 10y ago
I agree very much with that. But what if food manufacturers come up with new ingredients that escape the tax legally and those ingredients are actual worse for you?
- erikrothoff 10y ago
  That seems like a pretty minor "what if" to a pretty concrete solution.
forgetsusername 10y ago
Right. You're free to choose your diet, but any costs of said diet should not be imposed on the rest of society.
dominotw 10y ago
what about athletes and body builders who do carb/sugar loading? What about ppl who eat greasy food and don't exercise? Als, Wouldn't this merely penalize poor people with long hours and long commutes, poor people who are forced to live in food desserts, poor people who only have enough cash to buy bad food, poor people who have to feed a family of 5 on minimum wage.
- toasterlovin 10y ago
  A few things: 1. I think most athletes who purposely ingest a lot of carbs are probably not using sugar to accomplish this. 2. Greasy food is not actually bad for you. Grease is essentially fat, which is about as healthy as you can get. In a typical fast food meal, the greasy burger is the healthy part (minus the bun). It's the fries and soft drink which are the unhealthy part. 3. Grains are an incredibly affordable source of calories (it depends on the grain, but for the most part they are all upwards of 2,000 calories for $1). I don't think anybody's in danger of starving if sugar is more expensive.