War on Sugar?

sabrinathecat · Feb 9, 2014

San Francisco was (maybe already have) planning on adding a tax to "sugary drinks". Medical studies are claiming that too much sugar can kill. No kidding: too much of anything can kill.

This seems like some attempt to legislate morality.

Honestly, if sugar can kill, then they should hall me into a lab. Based on what I ate as a teenager and in college, I should be dead.
I find this study that is being quoted and touted as the basis for this law highly suspect. Somehow, call me suspicious, but I suspect it will be found to be on par with the poisonous immunization and EM Fields cause Cancer panics.

Sorry if this borders on political, but I am actually only interested in whether this is Science, or "Science" distorted by a corrupting agenda.
What do you all think?

Joker · Feb 9, 2014

As far as I understand it, and I am by no means learned on the subject, too much sugar greatly increases the risk of developing some forms of diabetes and heart disease.
So unless you actually overdose on sugar it won't directly kill you but it can decrease your life expectancy greatly.

As far as taxing it concerns, I don't know. Has taxing cigarettes stopped people from smoking? Or smoking less. Perhaps there have been studies showing that.

If people are to change their eating habits it's going to take a more encompassing approach that just making it a tad more expensive.

Morrus · Feb 9, 2014

There was a documentary on TV a couple of weeks ago. Two doctors, twins, tested out the war on sugar (common in the US) and the war on fat (common in the UK) on strictly controlled diets for one month.

I need to track that down and watch it to find out what happened!

Kramodlog · Feb 9, 2014

sabrinathecat said:
This seems like some attempt to legislate morality.

Ain't this what laws are about? At least in part? Murder is immoral so we legislate, thievery is immoral so we legislate, etc.

Ahnehnois · Feb 9, 2014

It's simple: eating sugar leads to increased healthcare costs, some of which are invariably borne by the state. Taxes offset the costs. It's not legislating morality; people can still eat as much of it as they want, they just have to pay more.

It's a public health issue, just like smoking. Not everyone that smokes gets lung cancer; some don't even get any particular smoking-related disease. Nonetheless, the effects averaged out over millions of people are pretty substantial. Likewise, some people can eat tons of sugar are fine, but type ii diabetes is nonetheless a clear problem.

Really, this ought to be the approach to a lot of things: create an honest price that reflects not only supply and demand and production costs, but also the broader societal costs.

Janx · Feb 9, 2014

goldomark said:
Ain't this what laws are about? At least in part? Murder is immoral so we legislate, thievery is immoral so we legislate, etc.

I'm not sure murder and thievery are immoral so much as harmful for society.

If you steal my diamongs, I now don't have diamonds and am hurt.

If you kill me, I am now not able to mine diamonds. Which hurts my family.

These 2 things are actual harm from one person to another. And since the victim isn't a consenting adult, it is wrong/bad.

Legislation on other issues that aren't about a hostile force acting against an unwilling victim may very well be "morality" laws.

At least as how I sort these things

Janx · Feb 9, 2014

Ahnehnois said:
It's simple: eating sugar leads to increased healthcare costs, some of which are invariably borne by the state. Taxes offset the costs. It's not legislating morality; people can still eat as much of it as they want, they just have to pay more.

It's a public health issue, just like smoking. Not everyone that smokes gets lung cancer; some don't even get any particular smoking-related disease. Nonetheless, the effects averaged out over millions of people are pretty substantial. Likewise, some people can eat tons of sugar are fine, but type ii diabetes is nonetheless a clear problem.

Really, this ought to be the approach to a lot of things: create an honest price that reflects not only supply and demand and production costs, but also the broader societal costs.

Keep in mind, health insurance (as run by a Health Insurance Carrier) is functionally performing the same mechanism of spreading the cost of healing you to everybody else. So it's not just taxes where the money impact hits. (nor am I intending a political statement on healthcare, taxes, etc)

In any event. The value to encourage the public to be more healthful might be worth the intrusion (via laws) into individual freedom.

With smoking, it really does impact other people as their smoke gets into my lungs and makes my clothes smell. That alone makes me want to kill every smoker (not gonna happen, relax). So I don't care about the cost to healthcare that eventually causes prices to be higher due to smokers. I care about the immediate impact that their actions have on me, the unwilling victim.

Whereas with sugar-eaters, there's not the same directly harmful impact to me from them eating sugar now. Nobody popping a Hershey's into their mouth in front of me is impacting me in any direct way.

Kramodlog · Feb 9, 2014

Janx said:
I'm not sure murder and thievery are immoral so much as harmful for society.

I'm pretty sure killing someone is harmful to that person too.

If you steal my diamongs, I now don't have diamonds and am hurt.

If you kill me, I am now not able to mine diamonds. Which hurts my family.

These 2 things are actual harm from one person to another. And since the victim isn't a consenting adult, it is wrong/bad.

Ain't wrong/bad generally synonymous with immoral?

Legislation on other issues that aren't about a hostile force acting against an unwilling victim may very well be "morality" laws.

Doesn't protecting against hostile force encompasse health risk and security laws? Like legislating the number of bacterias in ground beef, ban shoe sole chemicals from bread, or not letting people smoke cigarettes in restaurants to protect people from harmful second hand smoke. Legislating sugar is pretty much in that same vein.

Ahnehnois · Feb 9, 2014

Janx said:
Keep in mind, health insurance (as run by a Health Insurance Carrier) is functionally performing the same mechanism of spreading the cost of healing you to everybody else. So it's not just taxes where the money impact hits.

True, however, the reality is that taxes do contribute to the costs of other people's medical care in various ways no matter where you live.

Whereas with sugar-eaters, there's not the same directly harmful impact to me from them eating sugar now. Nobody popping a Hershey's into their mouth in front of me is impacting me in any direct way.

One of those people who complains about trying to fit into a plane seat next to an obese person might disagree with you. That said, you're generally right that the connection is much less direct. I suspect the amount of money being attached to sugar is also much less than on cigarettes; those things are taxed quite a bit.

However, an individual's health does have consequences for other people.

Janx · Feb 9, 2014

Ahnehnois said:
True, however, the reality is that taxes do contribute to the costs of other people's medical care in various ways no matter where you live.

as a chunk of my work is with carriers, higher taxes aren't the major place your wallet is hit on health costs. Let's just say, I see numbers. I am saddened by the dumber expenditures that happen.

Ahnehnois said:
One of those people who complains about trying to fit into a plane seat next to an obese person might disagree with you. That said, you're generally right that the connection is much less direct. I suspect the amount of money being attached to sugar is also much less than on cigarettes; those things are taxed quite a bit.

However, an individual's health does have consequences for other people.

I don't disagree that fat people can have an impact on me as an individual. But those times are less intrusive that smoking (usually). There was the case where my neighbor's kid got his leg broke when a fat kid got shoved and he fell on him. Thus heavy person's weight did indeed hurt somebody else.

I'd rather see efforts to educate people to use moderation etc, than laws to outlaw sugar. The issue doesn't seem strong enough to warrant making laws for it. I have no idea what that threshold is, but I like outlawing smoking (at least wherever I am).

War on Sugar?

sabrinathecat

Explorer

Joker

First Post

Morrus

Well, that was fun

Kramodlog

Naked and living in a barrel

Ahnehnois

First Post

Janx

Hero

Janx

Hero

Kramodlog

Naked and living in a barrel

Ahnehnois

First Post

Janx

Hero

Similar Threads