5 ms·

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugary_drinks_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugary_drinks_tax

by based2 10y ago

alecco 10y ago
Yes, and not just that. All the industries raking billions every year while leaving the health system overwhelmed should be taxed. Just like tobacco.
- osidfjsodifj 10y ago
  Meat eating diets(especially red meat) show increased risk of heart disease in so many studies it's a definite fact. Should we tax that as well? The reality is that obesity is the cause of all of these food related diseases. Playing politics with which foods get taxed and which do not doesn't strike me as a winning game and will likely evolve into a battleground of special interest groups attempting to get their competition taxed.
  - reflexive 10y ago
    Meat eating diets(especially red meat) show increased risk of heart disease in so many studies it's a definite fact. You have a rather naive definition of "fact" my friend.
    - jonwachob91 10y ago
      Cleveland Clinic seems to think that red meat diets lead to increased risk of heart disease [1]... And in a prior post someone else shared with you the Mayo Clinic article that also says red meats lead to increased risk of heart disease... If two of the top hospitals in the world for cardiac care say it I'm willing to bet it's fact. [1]https://health.clevelandclinic.org/2015/05/your-diet-and-heart-disease-rethinking-butter-beef-and-bacon/ https://health.clevelandclinic.org/2015/05/your-diet-and-hea...
      - reflexive 10y ago
        Studies indicating fat contributes to heart disease have been discredited because the effect actually comes from excess sugar intake. http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/1819573 http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullart...
      - LifeQuestioner 10y ago
        sigh FACT does not mean that it is 100% true - you do not publish one piece of research and all of a sudden, it's FACT. In science, nothing is ever 100%.
    - DanBC 10y ago
      We know that processed red meat causes cancer. The causal effect is weak. The quality of evidence for this is now very strong.
      - LifeQuestioner 10y ago
        where? Last I checked speaking to scientists(few months back) the headlines were sensationalised. It showed correlation, not causation? I.e it could just be that people who eat red meat are generally more unhealthy. p.s not trying to advocate its bs aand we can eat all the meat we like, im a vegetarian.
        DanBC 10y ago
        The headlines were terrible. They were linking cancer and red meat and smoking. Here's one example of terrible reporting: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/oct/26/bacon-ham-sausages-processed-meats-cancer-risk-smoking-says-who https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/oct/26/bacon-ham-sa... > Processed meats rank alongside smoking as cancer causes – WHO > UN health body says bacon, sausages and ham among most carcinogenic substances along with cigarettes, alcohol, asbestos and arsenic This headline is mixing up 2 things: the quality of the evidence (which is now as good as the evidence we have that smoking etc cause cancer) and the strength of the effect (smoking is very much more harmful than eating red meat). It's frustrating that the news reporting was so bad, because it's caused people to reject the science: we know, with a high level of confidence, that processed red meat can cause cancer, although it probably doesn't cause very many cases of cancer.
        reflexive 10y ago
        High confidence of a low correlation suggests other factors at work.. maybe variations in genetics, or in the particular type of processed meat. Not worth giving up bacon and sausage :-D
  - gmac 10y ago
    Should we tax that as well? Yes. https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/07/tax-meat-and-dairy-to-cut-emissions-and-save-lives-study-urges?client=safari https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/environme...
  - flashman 10y ago
    Yes, meat should be more heavily taxed to reflect its environmental and public health system externalities. Most people should consume less meat, or at least meat produced with less deforestation and fewer carbon emissions. We would probably be just as healthy, if not more so, with two or three meat-free days a week.
- SilasX 10y ago
  No argument there, so long as: 1) The taxed items are based on solid, reconciled science rather than best-guess over-extrapolation like we did to fat and cholesterol. 2) Similarly, if and when the consensus shifts, there is a processs to ensure that thes taxes are promptly adjusted. 3) The taxes are diverted, auditably, to the specific maladies the products cause, and rebates against future tax increases if and when they turn out to be too much. 4) People are allowed to be credited the value of the tax paid if they can demonstrate their use of the good is responsible -- e.g. You collect your receipts, you demonstrate you're a healthy athlete, you get the sugar tax back. Show a health liver and clean record, get your alcohol tax back. 3b) (Implication of 3 above) If it turns out e.g. tobacco is saving on health care costs, by causing death before really expensive treatments are given, it starts getting a subsidy from health care revenues. Measures that don't meet the above tend to come off as "stuff we wanted to do for other reasons and this is an easy target".
  - Ericson2314 10y ago
    So California propositions often earmark punativie taxes to some feel-good opposite thing, but I don't buy the moral imperative to do that. If we collectively approve some some expenditures and taxes, we should we care which goes to which?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugary_drinks_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugary_drinks_tax

by based2 10y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugary_drinks_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugary_drinks_tax

Yes, and not just that. All the industries raking billions every year while leaving the health system overwhelmed should be taxed. Just like tobacco.

osidfjsodifj 10y ago
Meat eating diets(especially red meat) show increased risk of heart disease in so many studies it's a definite fact. Should we tax that as well? The reality is that obesity is the cause of all of these food related diseases. Playing politics with which foods get taxed and which do not doesn't strike me as a winning game and will likely evolve into a battleground of special interest groups attempting to get their competition taxed.
- reflexive 10y ago
  Meat eating diets(especially red meat) show increased risk of heart disease in so many studies it's a definite fact. You have a rather naive definition of "fact" my friend.
  - jonwachob91 10y ago
    Cleveland Clinic seems to think that red meat diets lead to increased risk of heart disease [1]... And in a prior post someone else shared with you the Mayo Clinic article that also says red meats lead to increased risk of heart disease... If two of the top hospitals in the world for cardiac care say it I'm willing to bet it's fact. [1]https://health.clevelandclinic.org/2015/05/your-diet-and-heart-disease-rethinking-butter-beef-and-bacon/ https://health.clevelandclinic.org/2015/05/your-diet-and-hea...
    - reflexive 10y ago
      Studies indicating fat contributes to heart disease have been discredited because the effect actually comes from excess sugar intake. http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/1819573 http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullart...
    - LifeQuestioner 10y ago
      sigh FACT does not mean that it is 100% true - you do not publish one piece of research and all of a sudden, it's FACT. In science, nothing is ever 100%.
  - DanBC 10y ago
    We know that processed red meat causes cancer. The causal effect is weak. The quality of evidence for this is now very strong.
    - LifeQuestioner 10y ago
      where? Last I checked speaking to scientists(few months back) the headlines were sensationalised. It showed correlation, not causation? I.e it could just be that people who eat red meat are generally more unhealthy. p.s not trying to advocate its bs aand we can eat all the meat we like, im a vegetarian.
      - DanBC 10y ago
        The headlines were terrible. They were linking cancer and red meat and smoking. Here's one example of terrible reporting: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/oct/26/bacon-ham-sausages-processed-meats-cancer-risk-smoking-says-who https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/oct/26/bacon-ham-sa... > Processed meats rank alongside smoking as cancer causes – WHO > UN health body says bacon, sausages and ham among most carcinogenic substances along with cigarettes, alcohol, asbestos and arsenic This headline is mixing up 2 things: the quality of the evidence (which is now as good as the evidence we have that smoking etc cause cancer) and the strength of the effect (smoking is very much more harmful than eating red meat). It's frustrating that the news reporting was so bad, because it's caused people to reject the science: we know, with a high level of confidence, that processed red meat can cause cancer, although it probably doesn't cause very many cases of cancer.
        reflexive 10y ago
        High confidence of a low correlation suggests other factors at work.. maybe variations in genetics, or in the particular type of processed meat. Not worth giving up bacon and sausage :-D
- gmac 10y ago
  Should we tax that as well? Yes. https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/07/tax-meat-and-dairy-to-cut-emissions-and-save-lives-study-urges?client=safari https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/environme...
- flashman 10y ago
  Yes, meat should be more heavily taxed to reflect its environmental and public health system externalities. Most people should consume less meat, or at least meat produced with less deforestation and fewer carbon emissions. We would probably be just as healthy, if not more so, with two or three meat-free days a week.
SilasX 10y ago
No argument there, so long as: 1) The taxed items are based on solid, reconciled science rather than best-guess over-extrapolation like we did to fat and cholesterol. 2) Similarly, if and when the consensus shifts, there is a processs to ensure that thes taxes are promptly adjusted. 3) The taxes are diverted, auditably, to the specific maladies the products cause, and rebates against future tax increases if and when they turn out to be too much. 4) People are allowed to be credited the value of the tax paid if they can demonstrate their use of the good is responsible -- e.g. You collect your receipts, you demonstrate you're a healthy athlete, you get the sugar tax back. Show a health liver and clean record, get your alcohol tax back. 3b) (Implication of 3 above) If it turns out e.g. tobacco is saving on health care costs, by causing death before really expensive treatments are given, it starts getting a subsidy from health care revenues. Measures that don't meet the above tend to come off as "stuff we wanted to do for other reasons and this is an easy target".
- Ericson2314 10y ago
  So California propositions often earmark punativie taxes to some feel-good opposite thing, but I don't buy the moral imperative to do that. If we collectively approve some some expenditures and taxes, we should we care which goes to which?