War on Sugar?

[Grehnhewe]

Forgive me as I have not read through the whole thread, but I think this is an interesting discussion.

A comparison between taxation on smoking and sugar. Smoking is declining. Only 10% of Americans smoke, according to an article I read this morning. They predict this will drop down to 5% over the next 30 years. Why is this so? Is it the increased cost and taxation, knowledge of the effects on heLth or the general loss of favor and social stigma associated with it?

Sugar, one could argue is just as harmful as smoking. Arguably there are no immediate effects to others such as is associated with second hand smoke. However is not obesity described as an epidemic and on the rise? Hasn't diabetes trumped smoking related diseases as a drain on the health system. Which has the most negative social connotation? They fat guy standing on the corner eating candy and pizza or the slim guy smoking a cigarette? I don't think it is taxation that has led to the drop in smoking.

 

[Umbran]

What several people has touched on it the idea of using the law and taxes as social engineering tools. That's a very dangerous and slippery slope.

It is, however, also a time-honored tradition, in practice for about as long as humans have had laws or taxes. I suppose sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't.

Humans are not terribly good at long-term risk assessment. We tend to go for short-term pleasures or gains over long-term well-being. Is something that helps support making good long-term choices, but doesn't actually prohibit the short term pleasure much, if we want it, really such a bad idea?

 

[Ahnehnois]

Sugar, one could argue is just as harmful as smoking.

Well, to be fair, sugar is a basic nutrient that all of us need a substantial amount of. It's only a problem when it's eaten in the absence of other nutrients, and to excess. Which, unfortunately, is happening quite a bit these days.

It's also not as addictive as smoking (though sugar is addictive).

Trying to figure out this challenge of getting people to be healthier without forcing them to is really one of the themes of first world life in the twentieth century.

 

[Grehnhewe]

Well, to be fair, sugar is a basic nutrient that all of us need a substantial amount of. It's only a problem when it's eaten in the absence of other nutrients, and to excess. Which, unfortunately, is happening quite a bit these days.

It's also not as addictive as smoking (though sugar is addictive).

Trying to figure out this challenge of getting people to be healthier without forcing them to is really one of the themes of first world life in the twentieth century.

You bring up a good point. Sugar is a basic nutrient, similar to fat. Both of which have good and bad forms. Trans-fats I would say have been successfully vilified. There are certainly different forms of sugar. This certainly makes smoking different as it does not have a healthful form.

 

[Ahnehnois]

This certainly makes smoking different as it does not have a healthful form.

It doesn't have a nutritional form. Nicotine can be a performance-enhancer. Not worth it, though.

 

[Nellisir]

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 just read an article about that. I totally forget which lost more weight, but they both felt lethargic, mentally fatigued, and generally horrible. I think neither one thought the extreme diets were worth the side effects. Moderation in all things.

 

[sabrinathecat]

The way people were talking, it sounded like a crusade was being made. The PR face person for the scientists and the politicians in SF were acting like they were climbing onto stallions to charge at some sinister phantasm and save people from themselves. Really. Not kidding. The way they phrased what they were doing and villifying sugar is part of what got my back up and has me questioning the validity of the study.

Pre "new coke" had sugar. "coke classic" had corn syrup. Was it a deliberate bait and switch? I can't prove it. I suspect it. Maybe I'm wrong. I don't have a 30 yo can of coke to try a taste test with, nor do I have access to the minds of the executives and businessmen, nor the machinations they engaged in. Would it surprise me? No.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Humans are not terribly good at long-term risk assessment. We tend to go for short-term pleasures or gains over long-term well-being. Is something that helps support making good long-term choices, but doesn't actually prohibit the short term pleasure much, if we want it, really such a bad idea?

Actually, yes. When you let government run your life for you - right down to the food they let you eat - you put government in a position of perpetrating unthinkable abuses. At some point people must be left free to live their lives as THEY choose, not as the governement chooses, and to be accountable for their own decisions. Myself, I think that includes the government "allowing" people to suffer poor health due to obesity resulting from bad diet choices. People ultiamately cannot be protected from every bad idea (such as the government declares it to be) without doing some very destructive things to society. Protecting others from the results of MY bad decisions doesn't extend to governement starting to dictate everyone else's diet. The government is not there to be our nanny as Margaret Thatcher once said. Or as Ronald Reagan said, "Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves."

No politics! Absolutely not. Thanks. - Lwaxy

 

[Joker]

Actually, yes. When you let government run your life for you - right down to the food they let you eat - you put government in a position of perpetrating unthinkable abuses. At some point people must be left free to live their lives as THEY choose, not as the governement chooses, and to be accountable for their own decisions. Myself, I think that includes the government "allowing" people to suffer poor health due to obesity resulting from bad diet choices. People ultiamately cannot be protected from every bad idea (such as the government declares it to be) without doing some very destructive things to society. Protecting others from the results of MY bad decisions doesn't extend to governement starting to dictate everyone else's diet. The government is not there to be our nanny as Margaret Thatcher once said. Or as Ronald Reagan said, "Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves."

The problem is that they strain public resources because of increased health problems.

Also, if someone is suffering from alcohol and drug addiction, you step in to help them. The same with abuse of some foods.

 

[delericho]

Sugar production is in fact heavily subsidized by the federal government (in the US anyway)...

And you can bet that if sugar is taxed, companies that make food will start competing to create appealing options with less of it, and consumers will take notice.

Given the first sentence I've quoted, then surely before taxing sugar the first step should be to end (or sharply reduce) the subsidies for sugar production?