Dentists against sugar tax

opinion guy

So this story didn't feature much in last few days due to the miscarriage case, but I was wondering what the deal is with this.

As ye may or may not know there are rumours of a sugar tax being brought in in the budget.

Now I would have though dentists would favour this considering the role sugar plays in tooth decay. But the IT carried this story saying dentists are against taxing sugar tax:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/1114/1224326574059.html

Eh.....huh ?
I don't get it. I'm wondering the view points of the dentists on here.
Surely cutting sugar consumption would be a good thing from a dental perspective?

keelanj69

Money money money MONEY!

opinion guy

keelanj69 wrote: »

Money money money MONEY!

Well...thats one conclusion.....a very cynical one I'd be slow to accept..........however I didn't want to annoy our dental friends by flinging that accusation at them from the get go - I'm interested are there other reasons. But thank you for sabotaging the thread :rolleyes:

Squiggle

opinion guy wrote: »

So this story didn't feature much in last few days due to the miscarriage case, but I was wondering what the deal is with this.

As ye may or may not know there are rumours of a sugar tax being brought in in the budget.

Now I would have though dentists would favour this considering the role sugar plays in tooth decay. But the IT carried this story saying dentists are against taxing sugar tax:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/1114/1224326574059.html

Eh.....huh ?
I don't get it. I'm wondering the view points of the dentists on here.
Surely cutting sugar consumption would be a good thing from a dental perspective?

From a dental perspective yes but from a dentist's perspective I doubt that people having less cavities, assuming sugary drinks contribute to cavities, would be good for business ! The whole idea of taxing sugary drinks, in an effort to reduce obesity, while leaving taxes on cakes , biscuits, chocolate Alcopops etc etc untouched seems bizarre and it won't work imo.

btkm8unsl0w5r4

Dentists are pro fluoride so any argument about money is silly, but predictable.

Wicklowandy

Id say because the government are selling it on fighting obesity....

opinion guy

Averi Scrawny Hemp wrote: »

Dentists are pro fluoride so any argument about money is silly, but predictable.

But whats your opinion on the sugar tax ? Yay or nay and why ?

I mean personally I'm in favour of taxing ****ty foods (although I recognise people will disagree what constitutes ****ty food)

shedweller

Wicklowandy wrote: »

Id say because the government are selling it on fighting obesity....

I'd say the majority, if not everyone, will not reduce their sugar consumption as a result of this. Remember, this is about generating revenue. Not fighting obesity.

Pat Mustard

Here is an article from the IDA which suggests that if the tax is introduced, revenues could possibly be spent on reintroducing previous levels of free dental care, with a view to avoiding situations like this.

Even though the IDA is in favour of reducing public consumption of sugary drinks, it stated that the introduction of a sugar tax is not the appropriate way in which sugar consumption should be reduced.

If the IDA was only trying to reinstate lost revenue for dentists, isn't it likely that it would have simply supported the tax, with a call for revenues to be spent on dental care?

The IDA is against the tax because dentists believe that it won't work.

It seems that dentists can't win. Some malcontents want to accuse them of some wrongdoing, whether there is a good reason or not.

mathepac

"Michael Crowe, secretary of the IDA, said the issue of food taxes was complex and the association was “not persuaded” of the merits of such a tax to tackle obesity."

I'd say that guy has it right.

I'd also say that to describe this proposed new tax as a "sugar tax" is incorrect because it will not be a tax on sugar (or sugars). It will a tax on (primarily) "carbonated soft drinks which have refined sugar(s) added to them as part of the production process" - my interpretation of what''s proposed. Examples would be TK Red Lemonade, CocaCola, Fanta, Pepsi Cola, Cidona, Red Bull, etc.

If this were truly a sugar-tax then an enormous range of so called "junk foods", food ingredients, ready-foods and ready-meals would fall into the "sugar-tax" category including pizzas, savoury cooking sauces, frozen foods, food flavourings, sweets, ice-cream and chocolate, cranberry juice, most manufactured cereals, breads, biscuits, packet soups, tins of soup, beans, peas, certain cooking oils, etc. This would be a sugar tax as it would tax sugar(s) used as ingredients in foods. This is clearly not the proposal

This is a "fizzy sugary drinks" tax and as such will have minimal, if any effect on obesity nationwide, IMHO.

btkm8unsl0w5r4

opinion guy wrote: »

But whats your opinion on the sugar tax ? Yay or nay and why ?

I mean personally I'm in favour of taxing ****ty foods (although I recognise people will disagree what constitutes ****ty food)

I am personally never pro a tax, they are too hard to get rid of. Also the point made above are all valid,I think that no matter what position the dentists take they are going to get the braying hoards talking about dental fees despite altruistic intentions.

As we see from tobacco tax, you cannot force people into healthy behaviours with tax, you need to educate. Taxation has been shown to be a poor health care initiative. This is a revenue generator no more.

Personally I think the Ida should have not issued any opinion on this, cause all they will get is the obvious anti dentist crap. It's getting far more attention than oral cancer screening day this year where most dentist gave FREE checkups to people.

Wicklowandy

I suppose they know the high consumption of soft drinks

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056807903

judging by this and its a soft revenue target like petrol and cigarettes, easily collected by the government

Blackmarket coca cola anyone;)

Big_G

I think that the question is will it really work? In the form it is being proposed I think not, it will just turn out to be another tax. It could work but it would have to encompass many more foods, and I think a subsidy for fresh foods would have to be introduced to swing people across. The whole issue is very complex. I train for sports and the more I go with it, the more I realise that the most important part of our daily lives is nutrition, even more so than exercise. Hygiene is about the only thing that is as important for general health, and it is one of the things that everyone can choose to control (believe me I know those choices are probably more difficult than anything else).

I actually think sugar and other refined carbohydrates (think high fructose corn sugar) are highly dangerous and highly addictive. They are a drug (we don't need them to survive, but some people abuse them to feel good). Prohibition doesn't work for any drug that I know of, but some paternalism (think high taxes on cigarettes) seems to work.

The statement that the IDA made about these taxes hitting the lowest socioeconomic groups hardest is utter statement of the obvious and ridiculous to the extreme as the lower socioeconomic groups are the ones who abuse sugar the most and suffer all the concomitant health effects which a society such as ours with a public healthcare facility has to pay for. But that is a wider taxation/responsibility issue and not just a healthcare issue.

eric hoone

Any revenue from this tax should be ring-fenced for public health measures. Otherwise it is going to disproportionately affect the lower socio-economic groups who eat more processed foods and are harder hit by stealth taxes generally.
Better to hike tax on cigarettes and off sales of alcohol in my book.

Big_G

eric hoone wrote: »

Any revenue from this tax should be ring-fenced for public health measures. Otherwise it is going to disproportionately affect the lower socio-economic groups who eat more processed foods and are harder hit by stealth taxes generally.
Better to hike tax on cigarettes and off sales of alcohol in my book.

I would think a tax like this is designed to stop people abusing refined carbohydrates. The fact that this happens mostly in the lower socioeconomic groups is irrelevant as the healthcare for the diabetes epidemic has to be paid for from somewhere, the tax is a double whammy (if it would work, which I don't think it would). The theory is reduce consumption, increase revenue to pay for healthcare, exactly like a tax on cigarettes and booze. The only problem is we don't need cigarettes and booze to survive. We probably can do without refined carbohydrate but we need food, and getting people to make good choices takes education. And even then, humans have a tendency to make poor choices.

Aquarius34

Sugar is not only highly dangerous to the body its a killer. People have no idea just how harmful sugar really is. Like sodium fluoride its a killer.

But then again if people looked after their health and teeth their wouldn't be dentists in existence

davo10

Aquarius34 wrote: »

Sugar is not only highly dangerous to the body its a killer. People have no idea just how harmful sugar really is. Like sodium fluoride its a killer.

But then again if people looked after their health and teeth their wouldn't be dentists in existence

Too much of anything can be a killer, even pure H2O, Aquarius.

Don't forget cosmetic, orthodontic, trauma dentistry, decay due to acids, poor hygiene, developmental conditions, people with weak teeth who get decay even though they have low sugar intake. Aquarius, dentists are here to stay.

ballsymchugh

Aquarius34 wrote: »

Sugar is not only highly dangerous to the body its a killer. People have no idea just how harmful sugar really is. Like sodium fluoride its a killer.

But then again if people looked after their health and teeth their wouldn't be dentists in existence

time to close and move to the conspiracy theory forum, before the killer sunshine gets you..

btkm8unsl0w5r4

I will not allow this thread to descend into another fluoride, mercury debate. Hobby horses can be hitched elsewhere.

Aquarius34

davo10 wrote: »

Too much of anything can be a killer, even pure H2O, Aquarius.

Don't forget cosmetic, orthodontic, trauma dentistry, decay due to acids, poor hygiene, developmental conditions, people with weak teeth who get decay even though they have low sugar intake. Aquarius, dentists are here to stay.

If you have weak teeth, something is going wrong in the body or you are not getting the nutrients, blood, oxygen flowing.

It's not about to much of anything. Sugar has no benefit to your teeth. Sugar is poison. Sugar destroys your teeth.

I will be happy to see Dentists going! Once people have the knowledge on how to look after their own teeth and cut out the harmful chemicals, cut out sugars and practice a healthy diet (without fluoride and abrasive chemicals) your teeth will never need to be checked by a dentist.

Aquarius34

ballsymchugh wrote: »

time to close and move to the conspiracy theory forum, before the killer sunshine gets you..

Sunshine is great Ballsmychugh, I'll have you know.

btkm8unsl0w5r4

Auqarius leave your idiotic opinions in the heath and fitness forum, Sugar is not a poison, its the bacteria in your mouth that create the acid. FACT

Dentistry exists for a lot more reasons than dental decay and gum disease, all of which are perfectly preventable for most people already.

Oral Surgeon

Aquarius34 wrote: »

I will be happy to see Dentists going! Once people have the knowledge on how to look after their own teeth and cut out the harmful chemicals, cut out sugars and practice a healthy diet (without fluoride and abrasive chemicals) your teeth will never need to be checked by a dentist.

And what amazingly indispensable profession are you in Aquarius??

opinion guy

Oral Surgeon wrote: »

And what amazingly indispensable profession are you in Aquarius??

Trolling it would seem

btkm8unsl0w5r4

opinion guy wrote: »

Trolling it would seem

And business is booming.........:rolleyes:

So this is going nowhere, this story is old news. Locking it up now. Aquarius I am putting you on warning here, derail any more threads with your conspiracy theory stuff, scaremongering and poorly researched, but arrogantly argued pseudoscience and I will ban you from the forum. What they put up with in Health and Fitness I dont put up with here.