5 ms·

This is, to put it bluntly, bollox. A prime example of a "health tax" such as this is the Scottish Nationalist Party's tax on alcohol - in a bid to increase he

This is, to put it bluntly, bollox. A prime example of a "health tax" such as this is the Scottish Nationalist Party's tax on alcohol - in a bid to increase health by putting a minimum pricing on alcoholic beverages. The result? Nothing has changed, there is still the same amount of health problems in Scotland caused by alcohol. Sugar taxes have also been proposed in the UK, and heavily combated. It just will not work. The best you can do is to highlight how bad sugar is to health in general, and hope it influences people to change their habits - I for one try to reduce my sugar intake whenever possible.

joncrocks 3y ago
There is already a sugary drinks levy in the UK - https://www.gov.uk/government/news/soft-drinks-industry-levy-comes-into-effect https://www.gov.uk/government/news/soft-drinks-industry-levy...
kjkjadksj 3y ago
Do you have data? I have some showing sugar taxes do work: https://today.uic.edu/research-reveals-new-evidence-that-sugary-beverage-tax-impacts-are-sustainable-effective/ https://today.uic.edu/research-reveals-new-evidence-that-sug...
meinmissoula 3y ago
> The best you can do is to highlight how bad sugar is to health in general, and hope it influences people to change their habits We've been trying that for years and it's clearly not working. Obesity, diabetes, pre-diabetes, heart disease, diseases of chronic inflammation, etc are all at epidemic levels. Humans aren't perfect automatons that will make perfect choices if given information. We develop addictions, we prioritize the short-term over the long-term, we get tired and choose what's easy and available. We should align incentives to better outcomes. We restrict alcohol and nicotine and opioids. Taking steps to reduce the societal harm of sugar is a good thing for society.
- Philorandroid 3y ago
  > Humans aren't perfect automatons that will make perfect choices if given information. And yet, somehow, they will rationally conclude the best financial course to take is to realign to making healthier choices instead of switching to dollar-store sodas or making their own sugary drinks.
- scarygliders 3y ago
  I think that most people wish to just carry on their lives without interference from nanny-state lovers who just LOVE to dictate to others how they should live their lives. Seriously, fuck that nonsense. If I choose to lead an unhealthy lifestyle, that' should be my choice - not to be dictated to by "those who know better". Note that I personally choose to minimise the amount of sugar I take. I may also even tut-tut at those whom choose to take all the sugar they want - but what I won't do is waggle fingers at them, nor do I want to utilise taxation - a very, very overused excuse by govts. to rake in more dosh - to discourage people from what "those who know better" want them to be like. No. real solutions lie in getting manufacturers to reduce sugar and especially HFCS as ingredients in their products. Quite possibly not much can be done about cakes and confectionary in terms of sugar, but there sure is an awful lot of sugar in a lot of other food products. I absolutely despise authoritarians, everywhere.
Rygian 3y ago
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9161017/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9161017/ Abstract: "The[] findings suggest that SSB [sugar-sweetened beverage] taxes may work as intended in reducing demand for SSBs through higher prices, yet further research is needed to understand their associations with diet and health outcomes and heterogeneity of consumer responses." I am ready to believe that drinking less SSB has a positive impact on my health. Looking forward to solid results proving or disproving that.
- scarygliders 3y ago
  "suggest" "further research is needed"
Goronmon 3y ago
Sugar taxes have also been proposed in the UK, and heavily combated. Something being fought by lobbyists seems like a sign it might be a good idea rather than the other way around.
seanwilson 3y ago
> A prime example of a "health tax" such as this is the Scottish Nationalist Party's tax on alcohol - in a bid to increase health by putting a minimum pricing on alcoholic beverages. > The result? Nothing has changed, there is still the same amount of health problems in Scotland caused by alcohol. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/mar/21/scotlands-minimum-pricing-linked-to-13-drop-in-alcohol-related-deaths-study-finds https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/mar/21/scotlands-mi... "Scotland’s minimum pricing linked to 13% drop in alcohol-related deaths, study finds Experts say research provides clear evidence minimum unit pricing has reduced harm caused by alcohol Scotland’s pioneering policy of minimum pricing for alcohol has been linked to a 13% drop in the number of deaths from alcohol consumption, and hundreds fewer hospitalisations, according to a study. The research was observational, so cannot prove conclusively that the significant fall in deaths was due to the minimum unit pricing policy. However, experts said the study provided the clearest signal to date that the policy had reduced the harm caused by alcohol in Scotland, and added to a large and consistent evidence base on the effectiveness of alcohol pricing action."
- tomjen3 3y ago
  Thats assuming that the higher alcohol prices have not caused people to spend more on alcohol and less on things like food or necessities for their families or turned to other sources of alcohol (homebrewed and therefore more dangerous).
- scarygliders 3y ago
  A different study finds otherwise. "The study found that, since MUP was introduced in May 2018, there has been no change in the proportion of harmful drinkers. A small drop of 3.2 units per week in their consumption was “not robust” and disappeared when adjusted for the introduction of Universal Credit, which changed the regularity of benefit payments." https://www.sundaypost.com/fp/minimum-pricing/ https://www.sundaypost.com/fp/minimum-pricing/
  - seanwilson 3y ago
    That quote sounds misleading when the study itself (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0033350623001427 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S003335062...) differentiates between harmful and hazardous drinking: "Results: There was no significant change in the proportion of drinkers consuming at harmful levels (β = +0.6 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI] = −1.1, +2.3) or moderate levels (β = +1.4 percentage points; 95% confidence interval = −1.1, +3.8) after the introduction of MUP. The proportion consuming at hazardous levels fell significantly by 3.5 percentage points (95% CI = −5.4, −1.7). There were no significant changes in other secondary outcomes or in the subgroup analyses after correction for multiple testing. Conclusions: Introducing MUP in Scotland was not associated with reductions in the proportion of drinkers consuming at harmful levels but did reduce the prevalence of hazardous drinking. This adds to previous evidence that MUP reduced overall alcohol consumption in Scotland and consumption among those drinking above moderate levels." The study above also comments that the previous study (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2823%2900497-X/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...) is the "most direct evidence on the public health impact of MUP to date": "Further research that would strengthen understanding of the impact of MUP on people drinking at harmful levels include studies of alcohol-related harm. Such analyses have recently been published, showing a 13.4% reduction in alcohol-attributable deaths and a 4.1% reduction in alcohol-attributable hospitalisations in Scotland. This provides the most direct evidence on the public health impact of MUP to date."
Gordonjcp 3y ago
> The result? Nothing has changed, there is still the same amount of health problems in Scotland caused by alcohol. Actually, no. The price of alcoholic drinks that you and I would buy hasn't changed a bit. Pub prices haven't changed, because they weren't affected by this law. Retail prices in supermarkets haven't changed a bit. Well, that's not quite true, they've gone up but only at the same rate as everything else. Pikey cider and various "vodka-style spirit drinks" made from food-grade industrial ethanol and synthetic flavourings have pretty much disappeared from sale. Before Minimum Unit Pricing - which sets the minimum price that retail outlets can sell alcoholic drinks at to 50p per unit of alcohol - it was possible to buy a 3 litre bottle of 8% "cider flavour alcoholic drink" for about three quid. That's essentially been priced out of the market, because no-one wants to pay nearly a tenner for a bottle of windscreen washer fluid without the detergent in. MUP has not affected the price of "normal" drinks, because let's face it, £1 minimum for a can of beer or £5 for a bottle of wine is already on the cheap end of things. Since MUP came in, deaths from alcohol-related illness has dropped by about 15%, and in the first year alone alcohol-related deaths (that's illness, accidents, fires, misadventure, etc) dropped by 10%. More people with alcohol problems are seeking help. Fewer young people - the people who the pound-a-litre pikey cider is marketed to - are drinking underage, and those who are, are drinking less. While there were fanciful tales in the newspapers that alcoholic drinks would be so expensive in Scotland that people would drive to England to load up with cheaper booze and drive back with it, it turns out that no-one really cares that much. Anyone who has the resources for the "booze cruises" that the trashy tabloids describe probably isn't buying anything affected by Minimum Unit Pricing anyway. In general, MUP has been a resounding success. It's worked so well that Ireland are now doing it too.
bamfly 3y ago
In the US, I think making soda expensive enough that bundling 32oz of it for an extra $0.75 with fast-food combo meals stopped happening, and free refills became uncommon again (they were rare as recently as the early 90s! You paid per cup, or you bought a pitcher, like beer!) would probably do some good.

joncrocks 3y ago

There is already a sugary drinks levy in the UK - https://www.gov.uk/government/news/soft-drinks-industry-levy-comes-into-effect https://www.gov.uk/government/news/soft-drinks-industry-levy...

kjkjadksj 3y ago

Do you have data? I have some showing sugar taxes do work: https://today.uic.edu/research-reveals-new-evidence-that-sugary-beverage-tax-impacts-are-sustainable-effective/ https://today.uic.edu/research-reveals-new-evidence-that-sug...

meinmissoula 3y ago

> The best you can do is to highlight how bad sugar is to health in general, and hope it influences people to change their habits We've been trying that for years and it's clearly not working. Obesity, diabetes, pre-diabetes, heart disease, diseases of chronic inflammation, etc are all at epidemic levels. Humans aren't perfect automatons that will make perfect choices if given information. We develop addictions, we prioritize the short-term over the long-term, we get tired and choose what's easy and available. We should align incentives to better outcomes. We restrict alcohol and nicotine and opioids. Taking steps to reduce the societal harm of sugar is a good thing for society.

Philorandroid 3y ago
> Humans aren't perfect automatons that will make perfect choices if given information. And yet, somehow, they will rationally conclude the best financial course to take is to realign to making healthier choices instead of switching to dollar-store sodas or making their own sugary drinks.
scarygliders 3y ago
I think that most people wish to just carry on their lives without interference from nanny-state lovers who just LOVE to dictate to others how they should live their lives. Seriously, fuck that nonsense. If I choose to lead an unhealthy lifestyle, that' should be my choice - not to be dictated to by "those who know better". Note that I personally choose to minimise the amount of sugar I take. I may also even tut-tut at those whom choose to take all the sugar they want - but what I won't do is waggle fingers at them, nor do I want to utilise taxation - a very, very overused excuse by govts. to rake in more dosh - to discourage people from what "those who know better" want them to be like. No. real solutions lie in getting manufacturers to reduce sugar and especially HFCS as ingredients in their products. Quite possibly not much can be done about cakes and confectionary in terms of sugar, but there sure is an awful lot of sugar in a lot of other food products. I absolutely despise authoritarians, everywhere.

Rygian 3y ago

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9161017/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9161017/ Abstract: "The[] findings suggest that SSB [sugar-sweetened beverage] taxes may work as intended in reducing demand for SSBs through higher prices, yet further research is needed to understand their associations with diet and health outcomes and heterogeneity of consumer responses." I am ready to believe that drinking less SSB has a positive impact on my health. Looking forward to solid results proving or disproving that.

scarygliders 3y ago
"suggest" "further research is needed"

Goronmon 3y ago

Sugar taxes have also been proposed in the UK, and heavily combated. Something being fought by lobbyists seems like a sign it might be a good idea rather than the other way around.

seanwilson 3y ago

> A prime example of a "health tax" such as this is the Scottish Nationalist Party's tax on alcohol - in a bid to increase health by putting a minimum pricing on alcoholic beverages. > The result? Nothing has changed, there is still the same amount of health problems in Scotland caused by alcohol. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/mar/21/scotlands-minimum-pricing-linked-to-13-drop-in-alcohol-related-deaths-study-finds https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/mar/21/scotlands-mi... "Scotland’s minimum pricing linked to 13% drop in alcohol-related deaths, study finds Experts say research provides clear evidence minimum unit pricing has reduced harm caused by alcohol Scotland’s pioneering policy of minimum pricing for alcohol has been linked to a 13% drop in the number of deaths from alcohol consumption, and hundreds fewer hospitalisations, according to a study. The research was observational, so cannot prove conclusively that the significant fall in deaths was due to the minimum unit pricing policy. However, experts said the study provided the clearest signal to date that the policy had reduced the harm caused by alcohol in Scotland, and added to a large and consistent evidence base on the effectiveness of alcohol pricing action."

tomjen3 3y ago
Thats assuming that the higher alcohol prices have not caused people to spend more on alcohol and less on things like food or necessities for their families or turned to other sources of alcohol (homebrewed and therefore more dangerous).
scarygliders 3y ago
A different study finds otherwise. "The study found that, since MUP was introduced in May 2018, there has been no change in the proportion of harmful drinkers. A small drop of 3.2 units per week in their consumption was “not robust” and disappeared when adjusted for the introduction of Universal Credit, which changed the regularity of benefit payments." https://www.sundaypost.com/fp/minimum-pricing/ https://www.sundaypost.com/fp/minimum-pricing/
- seanwilson 3y ago
  That quote sounds misleading when the study itself (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0033350623001427 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S003335062...) differentiates between harmful and hazardous drinking: "Results: There was no significant change in the proportion of drinkers consuming at harmful levels (β = +0.6 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI] = −1.1, +2.3) or moderate levels (β = +1.4 percentage points; 95% confidence interval = −1.1, +3.8) after the introduction of MUP. The proportion consuming at hazardous levels fell significantly by 3.5 percentage points (95% CI = −5.4, −1.7). There were no significant changes in other secondary outcomes or in the subgroup analyses after correction for multiple testing. Conclusions: Introducing MUP in Scotland was not associated with reductions in the proportion of drinkers consuming at harmful levels but did reduce the prevalence of hazardous drinking. This adds to previous evidence that MUP reduced overall alcohol consumption in Scotland and consumption among those drinking above moderate levels." The study above also comments that the previous study (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2823%2900497-X/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...) is the "most direct evidence on the public health impact of MUP to date": "Further research that would strengthen understanding of the impact of MUP on people drinking at harmful levels include studies of alcohol-related harm. Such analyses have recently been published, showing a 13.4% reduction in alcohol-attributable deaths and a 4.1% reduction in alcohol-attributable hospitalisations in Scotland. This provides the most direct evidence on the public health impact of MUP to date."

Gordonjcp 3y ago

> The result? Nothing has changed, there is still the same amount of health problems in Scotland caused by alcohol. Actually, no. The price of alcoholic drinks that you and I would buy hasn't changed a bit. Pub prices haven't changed, because they weren't affected by this law. Retail prices in supermarkets haven't changed a bit. Well, that's not quite true, they've gone up but only at the same rate as everything else. Pikey cider and various "vodka-style spirit drinks" made from food-grade industrial ethanol and synthetic flavourings have pretty much disappeared from sale. Before Minimum Unit Pricing - which sets the minimum price that retail outlets can sell alcoholic drinks at to 50p per unit of alcohol - it was possible to buy a 3 litre bottle of 8% "cider flavour alcoholic drink" for about three quid. That's essentially been priced out of the market, because no-one wants to pay nearly a tenner for a bottle of windscreen washer fluid without the detergent in. MUP has not affected the price of "normal" drinks, because let's face it, £1 minimum for a can of beer or £5 for a bottle of wine is already on the cheap end of things. Since MUP came in, deaths from alcohol-related illness has dropped by about 15%, and in the first year alone alcohol-related deaths (that's illness, accidents, fires, misadventure, etc) dropped by 10%. More people with alcohol problems are seeking help. Fewer young people - the people who the pound-a-litre pikey cider is marketed to - are drinking underage, and those who are, are drinking less. While there were fanciful tales in the newspapers that alcoholic drinks would be so expensive in Scotland that people would drive to England to load up with cheaper booze and drive back with it, it turns out that no-one really cares that much. Anyone who has the resources for the "booze cruises" that the trashy tabloids describe probably isn't buying anything affected by Minimum Unit Pricing anyway. In general, MUP has been a resounding success. It's worked so well that Ireland are now doing it too.

bamfly 3y ago

In the US, I think making soda expensive enough that bundling 32oz of it for an extra $0.75 with fast-food combo meals stopped happening, and free refills became uncommon again (they were rare as recently as the early 90s! You paid per cup, or you bought a pitcher, like beer!) would probably do some good.