3 ms·

Doctors' plan for war on sugar

85 points by okket 9y ago

brucephillips 9y ago
To avoid a nanny state, I'd prefer to see taxation and education be the sole solutions. People should be allowed to eat whatever they want, but they need to pay their own healthcare costs somehow.
- fisherjeff 9y ago
  Well it sure seems like that’s exactly what they’re proposing, with the fairly narrow (and, IMO, reasonable) exception of banning sugary snacks from hospitals.
- hartror 9y ago
  > It also says a tax on sweetened drinks should be introduced as a "matter of priority".
  - QAPereo 9y ago
    Taking a page from the UK on that... https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/oct/11/big-soda-small-steps-philip-hammond-must-extend-pop-tax-to-sweets https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/oct/11/big-soda-sma...
- pan69 9y ago
  I agree with you in regards to a nanny state. However, the human mind is a complex beast and saying that "People should be allowed to eat whatever they want" isn't really that simple. A lot of people don't eat what they want, they eat what they're being told/advertised to eat. We're all susceptible to this in one way or another.
- wasx 9y ago
  > I'd prefer to see taxation and education be the sole solutions The market is incapable of self-regulation, that much has shown itself to be true. Removal of marketing towards children and easy access to vending machines will go a long way in improving public health in Australia. The days of avoiding a nanny state in Australia are pretty much gone, the government regulates everything, and for the most part it hasn't actually been bad at all. > but they need to pay their own healthcare costs somehow. Terrible idea, Medicare is one of Australia's shining institutions (even with all it's bureaucratic flaws). The American healthcare model has literally 0 chance of ever being adopted in Australia. The simple fact is we live in a socialised society, and so when burdens are placed on the public infrastructure from profit hungry corporations, the natural response is to regulate and deal with it. We saw it with cigarettes, hopefully we see it with sugar, and one day with alcohol too.
  - Zalastax 9y ago
    > but they need to pay their own healthcare costs somehow. I think you should read this as arguing for Tax on Negative Externality, also called a Pigovian tax. Such taxation aims to solve the problem that the social cost of a market activity is not covered by the private cost of the activity.
- tim333 9y ago
  Stopping advertising sugary junk to kids would be a positive move without becoming a nanny state. I believe the UK government tried at on point but gave in to massive lobbying from Kellogs. But really obesity can lead to massive suffering an early death that should outweigh making a few bucks selling frosties.
kesor 9y ago
About time.
wasx 9y ago
Good. Sugar is a horribly addictive substance, and the outcomes of it's consumption and abuse are a massive drain on Australia's public health infrastructure. Hopefully however the sugar tax is coupled with some form of subsidy or relief from high prices of healthier alternatives (the groundwork exists with a GST exemption for fruit & veg) because obesity has a disproportionate affect on people in lower income brackets due to how cheap and easy it is to buy some processed garbage.
- PostOnce 9y ago
  The outcomes of going outside without a hat and sunscreen are a drain too; in Australia, skin cancer kills thousands of people per year and requires hundreds of thousands of people per year to be treated. Should going outside without a hat on be ticketable? And what about people over 70, falls cause many bone and brain injuries, and many deaths in the elderly, and it's expensive and dangerous. Should we require a helmet and kneepads for anyone over 70 to be work at all times when walking? And what about salt? Heart problems come from more places than obesity, and it's heart problems that are a huge drain on the healthcare system; will we also ban salt? How about a sedentary office lifestyle, this is also bad for your health, will we tax sitting? Will the gym, like voting, become compulsory in Australia?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - cycrutchfield 9y ago
    None of these things are equivalent, so I’m not sure what you are trying to demonstrate with the hyperbolic whataboutisms.
  - wasx 9y ago
    You can make up all these outrageous examples which don't correlate to what I said in any way shape or form at all as much as you like, but just know you aren't convincing anyone or making a compelling argument. Skin cancer and heart disease are major issues as is the elderly falling over, and if there were predatory organisations which were peddling products that abused human weakness to capitalize on addiction, or running around pushing old people over, I think we should look into handling those organizations. However salt and sunshine are absolutely vital to the proper functioning of the human body, whereas eating a bag of skittles and downing six bottles of coke is not. And corporations are out there peddling sugar because it sells, and that is predatory behaviour and the bill is footed by the Australian public for the profit seeking of a tiny minority. That is what this recommendation seeks to stop.
jdavis703 9y ago
Sugar is not the primary problem. I eat copious amounts of sugar (probably too much). This ranges from refined sugar in sweets, lots of fruits, juices and even soda. I've been vegetarian for over a decade now, and my BMI Is 23.5, my body fat percentage is 14.5% and my blood sugar level is still considered in the good range for preventing diabetes. I don't think the problem is sugar, the problem is living a sedentary life style, and perhaps even eating lots of processed red meats. My point being, a war on sugar is the wrong way to battle the obesity crisis. Get people to eat more fruits and veggies and to spend more active time outdoors.
- hannob 9y ago
  Do you know the difference between anecdotes and science?
  - jdavis703 9y ago
    Here's some science then. Based on analyzing food groups controlled with total calorie consumption, it was found that meat availability is most highly correlated with obesity: https://bmcnutr.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40795-016-0063-9 https://bmcnutr.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40795-01...
    - okket 9y ago
      So you are saying that when you eat the same amount of calories, meat is better at getting you fat? How does this debunk the problems with sugar in your view?
      - DrScump 9y ago
        Note that it studies meat availability, not meat consumption.
        okket 9y ago
        You get more likely fat by looking at meat? Besides that, I agree that meat is a superior food compared to sugar and it will get you more easily fat, if compared on calorie by calorie base. But this does not say anything about the addictiveness of sugar or the health problems that come from overconsumption (diabetes, etc). Will say, most people can control their meat intake (some not), but most can not control how much sugar they consume. Especially if it is omnipresent and hidden in many foods you might not suspect.
bamboozled 9y ago
I don't get why as humans we like to have "wars on things", can't we just educate people about things and use some self control to tackle these kind of issues. I mean look what happened to "the war on fat", the sugar war will be no different. I feel that excess consumption of artificial sweeteners, salts or fats will be the next problem.
- wybiral 9y ago
  There are industry giants who profit from you over-consuming certain things. So that side of the "war" is just built into our markets. Getting people to change their behavior takes active counter-balancing.
  - bamboozled 9y ago
    I don't know if I believe this narrative much any more, it's like we blame markets for our own lack of personal responsibility and consciousness. It's the same for climate change. People constantly think it's governments that need to fix climate change without making any of their own lifestyle changes to help address the issue. Maybe you're right, but these markets exist because people buy these products. Coca-cola got to where it was today because people drank it by the kilolitre.
    - vezycash 9y ago
      >it's like we blame markets for our own lack of personal responsibility and consciousness. I've read that new research say, "Sugar is more addictive than cocaine." So does personal responsibility still apply?
    - someabount138 9y ago
      This is exactly why personal responsibility is a terrible argument. Individual lifestyle choices are responsible for a tiny part of climate change, compared to industrial ones. Likewise, it’s silly to ignore the major impact corn subsidies have on the sugar crisis.
b3b0p 9y ago
I'm surprised no one has mentioned the Seattle Sugar Tax [0]. Forgive me I don't know much about it and I don't live in Seattle, but I saw this on the /r/seattle subreddit and was surprised. (I am entertaining the idea of relocating to Seattle from Austin. Thus, that's why I was browsing that subreddit.) [0] https://i.redd.it/0sfewnke5h801.jpg https://i.redd.it/0sfewnke5h801.jpg
- nitemice 9y ago
  It looks like such a tax has been introduced in quite a few places now, with results ranging from okay to good. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugary_drink_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugary_drink_tax
- 2-4-Flinching 9y ago
  Since you brought up Seattle, Washington. I think its crazy that there is a city tax on a substance that also receives a taxpayer-funded government subsidy. It like how much does the tax payer need to bleed itself to the government, all in the name of his\her health I'm sure. Also I'm sure they will see less soda being bought inside the city, that is a win right? Except people are just shopping outside city limits. Kinda like dry counties were you just pick up your booze on the way home.
maxxxxx 9y ago
I would prefer a war on processed foods if you absolutely need the the war metaphor. The sugar issue would resolve itself if people ate mainly real foods. For example: don't drink fruit juice but eat fruit.
- tstactplsignore 9y ago
  This is an incoherent standard, though. Fruits are better than fruit juice because they retain the fruit's fiber, not because they were "processed". What does "processed" even mean? Nothing coherent. We can and should and honestly must be processing foods in ways that are conducive to health and environmental friendliness (think Soylent, Beyond Meat, the Impossible Burger as the earliest attempts at this) - and not making some ridiculously arbitrary decision.
  - maxxxxx 9y ago
    Fruit juice you buy in the store goes through a lot of processing. Do you know how many oranges you need to make a glass of juice? You would never eat that many in one sitting. So a glass of store bought fruit juice gives you much more sugar than you would get eating real fruit. Things like veggie burgers are probably a little better but when I look at the ingredient list it's still scary long. I can make burgers myself from around 5 ingredients or less.
    - lkbm 9y ago
      > Things like veggie burgers are probably a little better but when I look at the ingredient list it's still scary long. I can make burgers myself from around 5 ingredients or less. Sure, but why is 5 ingredients better? That's the question you haven't offered any defense of. I just ate a sandwich. I put three kinds of peppers on it. Would it have been better for me if I'd only put two? It had soy-based meant on it. Would it have been better for me if it'd had regular ham instead? "Less processed" might be a useful heuristic for health, and "fewer ingredients" is likely a useful heuristic for "less processed", but you've presented no evidence for that claim, and it's definitely very far from universally true.
    - 9y ago
lamename 9y ago
Seeing a few comments about "personal responsibility" here. I used to feel this way, but only toward behavior that came naturally to me. For things I have to work toward, it's always a work in progress. There are a good amount of productivity hacks and emphasis on time management skills on HN; should I dismiss those articles with a complaint about personal responsibility? No. 'Just try harder' rarely works. If it was that easy, you wouldn't have to try harder in the first place. Personal responsibility exists, but the human brain is lazy and impulsive, and it takes a ton of outside intervention to get it aligned with modern society (parents, schooling, socialization, etc.). It's no wonder we have appetite control problems since we're dealing with human hardware that's hundreds of thousands of years old.
- tstrimple 9y ago
  Completely agree. Personal responsibility is what you teach your kids, not how you design effective systems.
  - lamename 9y ago
    Heh, I could interpret your comment in 2 opposing ways, not sure which one you meant. To be clear, I have mixed feelings on the "war on sugar". It's just that the "Whatever happened to personal responsibility" cliche others have brought up is shortsighted.
aceoflulu 9y ago
Watch: "That Sugar Film", "Sugar Coated", "Fed Up".
dnprock 9y ago
How about making nutrition facts label to tell me how much added sugar per serving. Yesterday, I had to search the internet to find added sugar in Chobani yogurt. Then we make law to print warning labels about the danger of sugar on every product that has added sugar. These would be more effective than tax.

85 points by okket 9y ago

To avoid a nanny state, I'd prefer to see taxation and education be the sole solutions. People should be allowed to eat whatever they want, but they need to pay their own healthcare costs somehow.

fisherjeff 9y ago
Well it sure seems like that’s exactly what they’re proposing, with the fairly narrow (and, IMO, reasonable) exception of banning sugary snacks from hospitals.
hartror 9y ago
> It also says a tax on sweetened drinks should be introduced as a "matter of priority".
- QAPereo 9y ago
  Taking a page from the UK on that... https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/oct/11/big-soda-small-steps-philip-hammond-must-extend-pop-tax-to-sweets https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/oct/11/big-soda-sma...
pan69 9y ago
I agree with you in regards to a nanny state. However, the human mind is a complex beast and saying that "People should be allowed to eat whatever they want" isn't really that simple. A lot of people don't eat what they want, they eat what they're being told/advertised to eat. We're all susceptible to this in one way or another.
wasx 9y ago
> I'd prefer to see taxation and education be the sole solutions The market is incapable of self-regulation, that much has shown itself to be true. Removal of marketing towards children and easy access to vending machines will go a long way in improving public health in Australia. The days of avoiding a nanny state in Australia are pretty much gone, the government regulates everything, and for the most part it hasn't actually been bad at all. > but they need to pay their own healthcare costs somehow. Terrible idea, Medicare is one of Australia's shining institutions (even with all it's bureaucratic flaws). The American healthcare model has literally 0 chance of ever being adopted in Australia. The simple fact is we live in a socialised society, and so when burdens are placed on the public infrastructure from profit hungry corporations, the natural response is to regulate and deal with it. We saw it with cigarettes, hopefully we see it with sugar, and one day with alcohol too.
- Zalastax 9y ago
  > but they need to pay their own healthcare costs somehow. I think you should read this as arguing for Tax on Negative Externality, also called a Pigovian tax. Such taxation aims to solve the problem that the social cost of a market activity is not covered by the private cost of the activity.
tim333 9y ago
Stopping advertising sugary junk to kids would be a positive move without becoming a nanny state. I believe the UK government tried at on point but gave in to massive lobbying from Kellogs. But really obesity can lead to massive suffering an early death that should outweigh making a few bucks selling frosties.

kesor 9y ago

About time.

wasx 9y ago

Good. Sugar is a horribly addictive substance, and the outcomes of it's consumption and abuse are a massive drain on Australia's public health infrastructure. Hopefully however the sugar tax is coupled with some form of subsidy or relief from high prices of healthier alternatives (the groundwork exists with a GST exemption for fruit & veg) because obesity has a disproportionate affect on people in lower income brackets due to how cheap and easy it is to buy some processed garbage.

PostOnce 9y ago
The outcomes of going outside without a hat and sunscreen are a drain too; in Australia, skin cancer kills thousands of people per year and requires hundreds of thousands of people per year to be treated. Should going outside without a hat on be ticketable? And what about people over 70, falls cause many bone and brain injuries, and many deaths in the elderly, and it's expensive and dangerous. Should we require a helmet and kneepads for anyone over 70 to be work at all times when walking? And what about salt? Heart problems come from more places than obesity, and it's heart problems that are a huge drain on the healthcare system; will we also ban salt? How about a sedentary office lifestyle, this is also bad for your health, will we tax sitting? Will the gym, like voting, become compulsory in Australia?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- cycrutchfield 9y ago
  None of these things are equivalent, so I’m not sure what you are trying to demonstrate with the hyperbolic whataboutisms.
- wasx 9y ago
  You can make up all these outrageous examples which don't correlate to what I said in any way shape or form at all as much as you like, but just know you aren't convincing anyone or making a compelling argument. Skin cancer and heart disease are major issues as is the elderly falling over, and if there were predatory organisations which were peddling products that abused human weakness to capitalize on addiction, or running around pushing old people over, I think we should look into handling those organizations. However salt and sunshine are absolutely vital to the proper functioning of the human body, whereas eating a bag of skittles and downing six bottles of coke is not. And corporations are out there peddling sugar because it sells, and that is predatory behaviour and the bill is footed by the Australian public for the profit seeking of a tiny minority. That is what this recommendation seeks to stop.

jdavis703 9y ago

Sugar is not the primary problem. I eat copious amounts of sugar (probably too much). This ranges from refined sugar in sweets, lots of fruits, juices and even soda. I've been vegetarian for over a decade now, and my BMI Is 23.5, my body fat percentage is 14.5% and my blood sugar level is still considered in the good range for preventing diabetes. I don't think the problem is sugar, the problem is living a sedentary life style, and perhaps even eating lots of processed red meats. My point being, a war on sugar is the wrong way to battle the obesity crisis. Get people to eat more fruits and veggies and to spend more active time outdoors.

hannob 9y ago
Do you know the difference between anecdotes and science?
- jdavis703 9y ago
  Here's some science then. Based on analyzing food groups controlled with total calorie consumption, it was found that meat availability is most highly correlated with obesity: https://bmcnutr.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40795-016-0063-9 https://bmcnutr.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40795-01...
  - okket 9y ago
    So you are saying that when you eat the same amount of calories, meat is better at getting you fat? How does this debunk the problems with sugar in your view?
    - DrScump 9y ago
      Note that it studies meat availability, not meat consumption.
      - okket 9y ago
        You get more likely fat by looking at meat? Besides that, I agree that meat is a superior food compared to sugar and it will get you more easily fat, if compared on calorie by calorie base. But this does not say anything about the addictiveness of sugar or the health problems that come from overconsumption (diabetes, etc). Will say, most people can control their meat intake (some not), but most can not control how much sugar they consume. Especially if it is omnipresent and hidden in many foods you might not suspect.

bamboozled 9y ago

I don't get why as humans we like to have "wars on things", can't we just educate people about things and use some self control to tackle these kind of issues. I mean look what happened to "the war on fat", the sugar war will be no different. I feel that excess consumption of artificial sweeteners, salts or fats will be the next problem.

wybiral 9y ago
There are industry giants who profit from you over-consuming certain things. So that side of the "war" is just built into our markets. Getting people to change their behavior takes active counter-balancing.
- bamboozled 9y ago
  I don't know if I believe this narrative much any more, it's like we blame markets for our own lack of personal responsibility and consciousness. It's the same for climate change. People constantly think it's governments that need to fix climate change without making any of their own lifestyle changes to help address the issue. Maybe you're right, but these markets exist because people buy these products. Coca-cola got to where it was today because people drank it by the kilolitre.
  - vezycash 9y ago
    >it's like we blame markets for our own lack of personal responsibility and consciousness. I've read that new research say, "Sugar is more addictive than cocaine." So does personal responsibility still apply?
  - someabount138 9y ago
    This is exactly why personal responsibility is a terrible argument. Individual lifestyle choices are responsible for a tiny part of climate change, compared to industrial ones. Likewise, it’s silly to ignore the major impact corn subsidies have on the sugar crisis.

b3b0p 9y ago

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the Seattle Sugar Tax [0]. Forgive me I don't know much about it and I don't live in Seattle, but I saw this on the /r/seattle subreddit and was surprised. (I am entertaining the idea of relocating to Seattle from Austin. Thus, that's why I was browsing that subreddit.) [0] https://i.redd.it/0sfewnke5h801.jpg https://i.redd.it/0sfewnke5h801.jpg

nitemice 9y ago
It looks like such a tax has been introduced in quite a few places now, with results ranging from okay to good. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugary_drink_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugary_drink_tax
2-4-Flinching 9y ago
Since you brought up Seattle, Washington. I think its crazy that there is a city tax on a substance that also receives a taxpayer-funded government subsidy. It like how much does the tax payer need to bleed itself to the government, all in the name of his\her health I'm sure. Also I'm sure they will see less soda being bought inside the city, that is a win right? Except people are just shopping outside city limits. Kinda like dry counties were you just pick up your booze on the way home.

maxxxxx 9y ago

I would prefer a war on processed foods if you absolutely need the the war metaphor. The sugar issue would resolve itself if people ate mainly real foods. For example: don't drink fruit juice but eat fruit.

tstactplsignore 9y ago
This is an incoherent standard, though. Fruits are better than fruit juice because they retain the fruit's fiber, not because they were "processed". What does "processed" even mean? Nothing coherent. We can and should and honestly must be processing foods in ways that are conducive to health and environmental friendliness (think Soylent, Beyond Meat, the Impossible Burger as the earliest attempts at this) - and not making some ridiculously arbitrary decision.
- maxxxxx 9y ago
  Fruit juice you buy in the store goes through a lot of processing. Do you know how many oranges you need to make a glass of juice? You would never eat that many in one sitting. So a glass of store bought fruit juice gives you much more sugar than you would get eating real fruit. Things like veggie burgers are probably a little better but when I look at the ingredient list it's still scary long. I can make burgers myself from around 5 ingredients or less.
  - lkbm 9y ago
    > Things like veggie burgers are probably a little better but when I look at the ingredient list it's still scary long. I can make burgers myself from around 5 ingredients or less. Sure, but why is 5 ingredients better? That's the question you haven't offered any defense of. I just ate a sandwich. I put three kinds of peppers on it. Would it have been better for me if I'd only put two? It had soy-based meant on it. Would it have been better for me if it'd had regular ham instead? "Less processed" might be a useful heuristic for health, and "fewer ingredients" is likely a useful heuristic for "less processed", but you've presented no evidence for that claim, and it's definitely very far from universally true.
  - 9y ago

lamename 9y ago

Seeing a few comments about "personal responsibility" here. I used to feel this way, but only toward behavior that came naturally to me. For things I have to work toward, it's always a work in progress. There are a good amount of productivity hacks and emphasis on time management skills on HN; should I dismiss those articles with a complaint about personal responsibility? No. 'Just try harder' rarely works. If it was that easy, you wouldn't have to try harder in the first place. Personal responsibility exists, but the human brain is lazy and impulsive, and it takes a ton of outside intervention to get it aligned with modern society (parents, schooling, socialization, etc.). It's no wonder we have appetite control problems since we're dealing with human hardware that's hundreds of thousands of years old.

tstrimple 9y ago
Completely agree. Personal responsibility is what you teach your kids, not how you design effective systems.
- lamename 9y ago
  Heh, I could interpret your comment in 2 opposing ways, not sure which one you meant. To be clear, I have mixed feelings on the "war on sugar". It's just that the "Whatever happened to personal responsibility" cliche others have brought up is shortsighted.

aceoflulu 9y ago

Watch: "That Sugar Film", "Sugar Coated", "Fed Up".

dnprock 9y ago

How about making nutrition facts label to tell me how much added sugar per serving. Yesterday, I had to search the internet to find added sugar in Chobani yogurt. Then we make law to print warning labels about the danger of sugar on every product that has added sugar. These would be more effective than tax.