War on Sugar?

[Ahnehnois]

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?

Well yes, but getting into the mechanics of that is almost certainly going to take us over the line from science into politics.

 

[Umbran]

Actually, yes. When you let government run your life for you....

Sorry, my bad! I left a leading question that was too close to the line.

I'll leave it off with saying that I agree that governments should not run the lives of citizens - I just don't think raising the price of highly sugared drinks a bit counts as "running your life". Opinions on that will vary, of course.

 

[Dungeoneer]

I think the focus that gov'ts are putting on junk food and soda is missing the point. I think they are targets because of the stereotype of the fat teenager who lives on nothing but MacDonalds. But most of us who struggle with our weight know enough not to be dining on happy meals all the time (or ever). We all eat different things, and different things seem to affect different people in different ways (famously, in the documentary Super Size Me, a man is interviewed who lives on nothing but Big Macs and is skinny as a rail).

I think the real problem is that so much of our lives are sedentary now. We sit in an office all day only to come home and sit in front of our computers. Whereas exercise was once an integral part of our lives, now its something we have to intentionally work in. I suspect this is why obesity is an epidemic.

Of course, science is all over the map on this as with everything else. So who knows!

 

[Dungeoneer]

Highly apropos - just read an excellent New York Times article about why no one seems to be able to say anything for sure about nutrition. Here are a few choice morsels:

Because the nutrition research community has failed to establish reliable, unambiguous knowledge about the environmental triggers of obesity and diabetes, it has opened the door to a diversity of opinions on the subject, of hypotheses about cause, cure and prevention, many of which cannot be refuted by the existing evidence. Everyone has a theory. The evidence doesn’t exist to say unequivocally who’s wrong.

Nutritionists have adjusted to this reality by accepting a lower standard of evidence on what they’ll believe to be true. They do experiments with laboratory animals, for instance, following them for the better part of the animal’s lifetime — a year or two in rodents, say — and assume or at least hope that the results apply to humans. And maybe they do, but we can’t know for sure without doing the human experiments.

They do experiments on humans — the species of interest — for days or weeks or even a year or two and then assume that the results apply to decades. And maybe they do, but we can’t know for sure. That’s a hypothesis, and it must be tested.


And they do what are called observational studies, observing populations for decades, documenting what people eat and what illnesses beset them, and then assume that the associations they observe between diet and disease are indeed causal — that if people who eat copious vegetables, for instance, live longer than those who don’t, it’s the vegetables that cause the effect of a longer life. And maybe they do, but there’s no way to know without experimental trials to test that hypothesis.

Read the whole thing here.

 

[Ahnehnois]

no one seems to be able to say anything for sure about nutrition.

True. Research is hard, both because of funding limitations and bureaucracy but also because getting data that answers the tough questions poses serious practical and ethical challenges.

However, public policy does not require the level of knowledge you seem to be implying. Many laws are enacted without that kind of evidence supporting them. If we waited for absolute truth in order to do something, we'd be waiting forever.

A lot of times, the way these things work is that a small jurisdiction (like, say, San Fransisco) tries something out first, something that may be fairly experimental or of uncertain merit, and then if it seems to do well, other, larger bodies will pick up on it.

I think the real problem is that so much of our lives are sedentary now.

Also true, but very difficult to legislate. A lot of times, law is about picking low-hanging fruit. Changing the activity level of a significant number of people is an extraordinary difficult proposition.

 

[billd91]

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?

You'd think so, wouldn't you? But the fact is, it's easier to get a series of taxes passed in smaller, like-minded municipalities and regions than it is to stop large economic sector subsidies in Washington where there are constituencies (and their politicians) who prefer those subsidies because they bring jobs to their districts (and political contributions and votes to the politicians who support them).

 

[EscherEnigma]

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.

Yes, increased taxes and costs of smoking can drastically reduce the incidence of smoking (and thus longterm smoking-related health problems). Whatever you may think of Bloomberg's "nanny state", his war on nicotine in New York City has drastically reduced smoking.

 

[WayneLigon]

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.

It'll be interesting to see what might happen in wake of CVS deciding not to carry tobacco products at all, any more.

 

[Zombie_Babies]

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

Yes, a reduced chance of Alzheimer's is certainly a laughable bonus.

 

[Kramodlog]

Yes, a reduced chance of Alzheimer's is certainly a laughable bonus.

Is that bonus worth it with the risk of cardio-vascular disease, cancer and reduced quality of life (short breath, impotence)?