3 ms·
While I agree in principle, I have my trouble with politicians deciding what's healthy and what's not. With sugar it seems to be a clear cut case by now. But ju
by carlmr 9y ago
While I agree in principle, I have my trouble with politicians deciding what's healthy and what's not. With sugar it seems to be a clear cut case by now. But just imagine your policy implemented in the 90s. They would have heavily taxed fat and eggs. The obesity epidemic would have been even worse, because poor people would have substituted with carbs.
Nutritional "science" is less science than advice. And it's often wrong.
Just look at the number of bs studies on chocolate is healthy, wine is healthy etc. They're famous because everybody likes chocolate and wine. My best guess is that having a glass of wine in the evening is correlated with people who are a) more well-off, b) cook at home and c) have enough moderation not to drink a whole bottle of wine. Having moderation is generally good for you. People who eat dark chocolate? Well they probably aren't people with such a sweet tooth (otherwise they'd eat milk chocolate), and that is in general a healthy thing to have.
Nutritional science is 99% bunk, and filtering through that noise is nigh impossible. I'm wary of politicians calling shots on this basis.
- zb 9y agoOr we could just stop massively subsidising sugar (in the form of HFCS). Crazy, I know. Why does everyone think that politicians are clueless numpties when they're deciding what to tax, but omniscient geniuses whenever they're deciding what to subsidise?
- Mountain_Skies 9y agoEarmarks and subsidies are some of the most criticized aspects of the legislative process. Those who benefit directly from the subsidies of course are in favor of them, others simply feel powerless to do anything about them.
- carlmr 9y ago>Why does everyone think that politicians are clueless numpties when they're deciding what to tax, but omniscient geniuses whenever they're deciding what to subsidise? I don't agree that everyone thinks that way. Most people like me are wary of both taxation and subsidies. IMHO there shouldn't be any subsidies on food for the same reason. We don't know enough about food to make smart decisions. So I'm all for a complete cut of subsidies. But not for taxation to control buying behavior.
- dvfjsdhgfv 9y ago> With sugar it seems to be a clear cut case by now. I'm not sure. It was quite recently, in 2014-2015, that Coca-Cola spent millions on the Global Energy Balance Network convincing people sugar isn't bad and doesn't cause obesity. There is so much money at stake I'm convinced we will never have 100% objective scientific research here.