3 ms·

> Cynical solution - make laws to make food more bland Ultra processed food is not really tasty but a combination of sugar and fats make it easy to overeat wit

> Cynical solution - make laws to make food more bland Ultra processed food is not really tasty but a combination of sugar and fats make it easy to overeat without enjoying it. French, Mediterranean and Japanese cuisines on other hand have a lot of delicious dishes but in these regions obesity is much less of a problem in the US. Generally I don't like a nanny state but IMHO sugar tax is something to be considered.

yetihehe 4y ago
Sugar tax doesn't work, just like cigarettes and alcohol tax, which in my country is 105% already, yet people still smoke, we also have sugar tax for sweet drinks and it changed nothing. When something is addictive (meaning it becomes a necessity), people will just pay more or search for "illegal" alternatives.
- taeric 4y ago
  This feels hard to justify. Does it eliminate usage? Of course not, bans are the closest you can get to that. Seems somewhat safe to say it does reduce it, though. https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/article/explainer/sugar-tax https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/article/explainer/... and most of the other links I'm seeing all point roughly to decent results. No panacea, but that is rather unfair for any policy.
- sasas 4y ago
  This is not the case in Australia who has some of the highest costs ciggies [1]. FMC = factory made ciggies. RYO = Roll your own. > The 25% tax increases was associated with immediate (−0·745 percentage points; 95% CI −1·378 to −0·112) and sustained reductions in prevalence (monthly trend −0·023 percentage points; −0·044 to −0·003), which were driven by reductions in the prevalence of smoking of FMC. The prevalence of smoking of RYO increased between May, 2010, and November, 2013, after the 25% tax increase. At the start of the pre-announced annual 12·5% increases, we observed an immediate reduction in smoking (−0·997 percentage points; −1·632 to −0·362), followed by decreasing overall prevalence (monthly trend −0·044 percentage points; −0·063 to −0·026) due to ongoing decreases in the prevalence of FMC smoking and a cessation of increases in the prevalence of smoking of RYO. I’m not sure what the price is now, something like $40 a box of 20? These days you hardly see anyone smoke normal cigarettes. [1] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2667(19)30203-8/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2...
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- mattejade 4y ago
  The smoking and sugar consumption rate have both been declining in your country (Poland).[1][2] So your statement that the tax is ineffective seems at best unfounded, and at worst, entirely false. It’s possible that there are other causes for the decrease, but you simply can’t say nothing has changed. [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1038507/poland-share-of-smokers-by-gender/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1038507/poland-share-of-... [2] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1197501/poland-monthly-consumption-of-sugar/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1197501/poland-monthly-c...

yetihehe 4y ago

Sugar tax doesn't work, just like cigarettes and alcohol tax, which in my country is 105% already, yet people still smoke, we also have sugar tax for sweet drinks and it changed nothing. When something is addictive (meaning it becomes a necessity), people will just pay more or search for "illegal" alternatives.

taeric 4y ago
This feels hard to justify. Does it eliminate usage? Of course not, bans are the closest you can get to that. Seems somewhat safe to say it does reduce it, though. https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/article/explainer/sugar-tax https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/article/explainer/... and most of the other links I'm seeing all point roughly to decent results. No panacea, but that is rather unfair for any policy.
sasas 4y ago
This is not the case in Australia who has some of the highest costs ciggies [1]. FMC = factory made ciggies. RYO = Roll your own. > The 25% tax increases was associated with immediate (−0·745 percentage points; 95% CI −1·378 to −0·112) and sustained reductions in prevalence (monthly trend −0·023 percentage points; −0·044 to −0·003), which were driven by reductions in the prevalence of smoking of FMC. The prevalence of smoking of RYO increased between May, 2010, and November, 2013, after the 25% tax increase. At the start of the pre-announced annual 12·5% increases, we observed an immediate reduction in smoking (−0·997 percentage points; −1·632 to −0·362), followed by decreasing overall prevalence (monthly trend −0·044 percentage points; −0·063 to −0·026) due to ongoing decreases in the prevalence of FMC smoking and a cessation of increases in the prevalence of smoking of RYO. I’m not sure what the price is now, something like $40 a box of 20? These days you hardly see anyone smoke normal cigarettes. [1] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2667(19)30203-8/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2...
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
mattejade 4y ago
The smoking and sugar consumption rate have both been declining in your country (Poland).[1][2] So your statement that the tax is ineffective seems at best unfounded, and at worst, entirely false. It’s possible that there are other causes for the decrease, but you simply can’t say nothing has changed. [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1038507/poland-share-of-smokers-by-gender/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1038507/poland-share-of-... [2] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1197501/poland-monthly-consumption-of-sugar/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1197501/poland-monthly-c...