nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Survey finds majority support tax on sugary drinks

yawhat!

Why should I pay more for people who like to over indulge? Next thing it will be fast food. Fizzy drinks do not cause people to get fat!

Its people who are constantly eating or over eating is the reason. Just eat less and exercise FFS.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/0623/625800-sugar-tax/

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Clearlier

Dravokivich wrote: »

I thought sugar was listed as a carb?

The issue isn't one consumable item or one common ingredient. It's overall consumption. Looking solely at foods or beverages to increase tax on is missing the point entirely.

Sugar is a carbohydrate but excess carbohydrates are stored as fat in the body.

Of course food and beverages aren't the only source of the obesity problem but it has a large part to play and it does need to be addressed. Exercise is very important too and there's already a number of initiatives out there that aim to help people exercise more. More could be done but it's not a vacuum. The cycle to work scheme is one example where tax policy has been used to promote exercise.

IMO, the attempts to provide nutritional education have failed. The food companies have rung rings around any attempt to educate people on how to make better food choices. A tax on sugar certainly won't solve the problem but it would be a step in the right direction.

osarusan

I think we should blame everybody except the drinks companies. They're the only ones not to blame.

Dravokivich

Clearlier wrote: »

Sugar is a carbohydrate but excess carbohydrates are stored as fat in the body.

I know that, nor was it what I questioned. The person I quoted stated that people are looking at the wrong part of a food's label. When it's the right place to look.

Clearlier wrote: »

Of course food and beverages aren't the only source of the obesity problem but it has a large part to play and it does need to be addressed. Exercise is very important too and there's already a number of initiatives out there that aim to help people exercise more. More could be done but it's not a vacuum. The cycle to work scheme is one example where tax policy has been used to promote exercise.

They themselves aren't. An excess quantity of them is. That takes someone to do it themselves for what ever reason leads'em to it. Additional taxes just punishes people punishing themselves already.

The Cycle to Work scheme is only good when there's the infrastructure to support it. Cars can park in cycle lanes and outside of towns or cities, roads are poorly lit. Meaning it's only viable for a little over half the year.

Clearlier wrote: »

IMO, the attempts to provide nutritional education have failed. The food companies have rung rings around any attempt to educate people on how to make better food choices. A tax on sugar certainly won't solve the problem but it would be a step in the right direction.

It isn't a step in the right direction at all as far as I'm concerned. This isn't something I can ever agree with. You're fining someone based on their choice, whether it's excessive, or casual. I don't know where the answer to this problem is, but it's not in raking money from the consumer. If someone is not properly managing their food consumption, it's just charging someone more for the result of their issue. Not dealing with the causes of it.

Seaneh

Don't tax them just do smart things like ban them and other ****e foods from vending machines in schools, give kids proper education on nutrition and exercise.

TomoBhoy

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

We already pay tax (VAT) on sugary drinks, plus there's usually a sizeable mark-up if buying in smaller shops - the pub is even worse!

More nanny state shyte. Let's penalise everyone because of the small percentage with no self-control

Exactly I paid €6 for a rock shandy once in the local hotel bar never again.

TomoBhoy

I'd prefer a tax on all alcohol products personally.

KungPao

TomoBhoy wrote: »

I'd prefer a tax on all alcohol products personally.

There's already quite a large tax on alcohol!

Geuze

TomoBhoy wrote: »

I'd prefer a tax on all alcohol products personally.

Excise duty on alcohol has been around for many years.

What is being suggested is excise taxes on things that we now know are bad for health: high fat, high salt, and high sugar.

Barely There

Surely it would be less complicated if instead of taxing the products, we just taxed people based on their weight/bmi.

Dravokivich

Barely There wrote: »

Surely it would be less complicated if instead of taxing the products, we just taxed people based on their weight/bmi.

Think about how much work will have to be done to implement it, then to keep it up to date and monitored. It's not complicated, it's just there's going to be a lot that'll need to be done, for nothing in return.

Geuze

Lapua Magnum wrote: »

Yes but why would they put a sugar supertax on Coke when Orange Juice has the exact same sugar content??

I presume an excise on sugar would be based on added sugar, not the naturally-occuring version?

RandomName2

Iwannahurl wrote: »

There's already a tax break for cycling to work.

There are very good public health reasons to use tax policy as a means of curbing the consumption of sugary drinks, just as there are with other products such as alcohol and tobacco.

"Nanny State" accusations are just the usual reactionary huffing and puffing.

But it is Nanny Stateism - you just happen to think that that's a good thing!

There already is a tax on sugary drinks (it's called VAT)

But why stop there if you support a tax on things that make people gain weight? If we are not going to be hypocritical we should lump in products high in carbohydrates and fat. Cheese, butter, bread, rice should all be taxed, surely? And when you say "sugary drinks" I hope you remember that that would include apple juice, smoothies, orange juice etc.

Bloody hell, another "but more tax makes things everything better" pundit.

JamboMac

Yeah it's the sugars fault not the parents kicking the fat little bastard out to play rather then on their playstation.

In 80's and 90's look all the E numbers in sweets, I probably ate as much as these kids but I was running around for about 12 hours a day.

Now their too busy putting up selfies, it's sunny but how many kids do you see outside playing.

Geuze

RandomName2 wrote: »

Bloody hell, another "but more tax makes things everything better" pundit.

Note that most people would suggest reducing taxes on labour.

52% on income above 32,800 is crazy - most people agree on that.

So let's use the revenue from sugar and fat taxes to reform labour taxes.

jimeryan22

yawhat! wrote: »

Why should I pay more for people who like to over indulge? Next thing it will be fast food. Fizzy drinks do not cause people to get fat!

Its people who are constantly eating or over eating is the reason. Just eat less and exercise FFS.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/0623/625800-sugar-tax/

While I totally agree the rest of us shouldn't have to pay for others drinking fizzy drinks.. Your wrong with regards to the second part of your statement...
Fizzy drinks are proven to be a cause of obesity... Also they neutralise your stomach acid giving you digestion problems in the future with excessive drinking of them... They are a death trap waiting fact.. They're trying to copy Yanky land.. I believe in New York the massive buckets of fizzy drinks have been band and a tax has or is trying to be introduced on sugary items.. Oh and exercise is overhyped.. There's not a pro athlete in the world to live to a hundred I believe also.. Plus they also wear out every joint in their body's so... Like all things. Moderation

looking_around

Zamboni wrote: »

I would be willing to bet that even doubling the PE time in schools would have a near zero effect on obesity levels.

Considering the pe we used to have in school (if we did any)...not all that surprising.

PE was chat time, where you threw a few balls half heartedly and called it "exercise".

Also, anyone fat would get a free pass out of it, because they weren't fit enough to keep up :rolleyes:
______
Mallow has outdoor exercise machines, great thing, though they could be a bit better, every town should have similar.
But it's not just exercise thats important to health, infact, people can exercise and still be overweight, with most of it fat. If you eat crap, no amount of exercise will help.
Diet needs a major overhall, but then you know eat cereal it's sooooo good for you :pac:

[Deleted User]

TomoBhoy wrote: »

I'd prefer a tax on all alcohol products personally.

We are already being fleeced with tax when it comes to drink and you want more added? Its a reduction we need.

Why cant people be left alone to enjoy drinking without having to pay so so much for the pleasure. Pure and utter dry sh*te suggestion.

Same goes for this sugar tax, leave people alone to make their own choices. Just because some people choose to drink gallons of soft drinks is not a reason to put up the price for others.

It's also going to make going out more expensive as mixers for spirits will shoot up in price too. What a load of absolute nanny state boll*cks. Robbed on the drink, robbed on mixers and robbed on a bottle of coke for the next morning. Going on a night out is going to involved getting a loan the way things are going......

airuser

I am not sure if anyone has posted this suggestion. That is, rather than Tax, ensure that they reduce the sugar content of the products.

jimeryan22

looking_around wrote: »

Considering the pe we used to have in school (if we did any)...not all that surprising.

PE was chat time, where you threw a few balls half heartedly and called it "exercise".

Also, anyone fat would get a free pass out of it, because they weren't fit enough to keep up :rolleyes:
______
Mallow has outdoor exercise machines, great thing, though they could be a bit better, every town should have similar.
But it's not just exercise thats important to health, infact, people can exercise and still be overweight, with most of it fat. If you eat crap, no amount of exercise will help.
Diet needs a major overhall, but then you know eat cereal it's sooooo good for you :pac:

Correct... At the end of the day it's an old line that exercise will make someone lose weight.. No it won't, it will turn the fat into muscle.. Diet of correct food only... No processed ****e...

jimeryan22

Interesting read on the subject...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobsullum/2013/10/16/research-shows-cocaine-and-heroin-are-less-addictive-than-oreos/

Clearlier

Dravokivich wrote: »

They themselves aren't. An excess quantity of them is. That takes someone to do it themselves for what ever reason leads'em to it. Additional taxes just punishes people punishing themselves already.

Part of the reason is cost. (I'm currently living in the UK but the price comparisons shouldn't be too far out). I read somewhere the suggestion that instead of a chocolate bar for a snack think about picking up a bell pepper which seemed like a pretty good idea. I was in the shop yesterday and I could purchase a pepper for 98p or 3 bars of chocolate for £1. IMO, the incentives are the wrong way around there. I agree about the regressive tax element but I suppose I'm thinking more about the future. The people who are addicted to sugar already shouldn't be abandoned of course but how much easier would it be if half of western society weren't already addicted?

Dravokivich wrote: »

The Cycle to Work scheme is only good when there's the infrastructure to support it. Cars can park in cycle lanes and outside of towns or cities, roads are poorly lit. Meaning it's only viable for a little over half the year.

I'm in complete agreement about the need for proper cycling infrastructure and for a step change in the education of motorists on how to drive around cyclists but the main point that I was making is that tax policy is already used (however ineptly) to try and promote exercise.

Dravokivich wrote: »

It isn't a step in the right direction at all as far as I'm concerned. This isn't something I can ever agree with. You're fining someone based on their choice, whether it's excessive, or casual. I don't know where the answer to this problem is, but it's not in raking money from the consumer. If someone is not properly managing their food consumption, it's just charging someone more for the result of their issue. Not dealing with the causes of it.

I don't see it as fining anybody. I see it as an attempt to charge the true cost of a product. There's an implicit subsidy to the food companies at the moment because they don't have to pay for the health care required by the people who consume their products. This means that the products are cheaper than they should be and that people consume more of them than they would if they had to pay their true price. I don't expect that it will make a huge difference (if any) to the people who already consume vast quantities but as my kids grow older and start to make some decisions about what to spend any money they have on I'd be happier if there choice between an apple and a chocolate bar wasn't so tilted in favour of the chocolate bar on cost grounds, i.e. it's for future generations. I don't know what the history of tobacco consumption is but I don't imagine that the first extra tax on tobacco products made a big difference to its immediate consumption.

BTW - someone not properly managing their food consumption IMO vastly underestimates the power wielded by the big food companies.

Dravokivich

Clearlier wrote: »

Part of the reason is cost. (I'm currently living in the UK but the price comparisons shouldn't be too far out). I read somewhere the suggestion that instead of a chocolate bar for a snack think about picking up a bell pepper which seemed like a pretty good idea. I was in the shop yesterday and I could purchase a pepper for 98p or 3 bars of chocolate for £1. IMO, the incentives are the wrong way around there. I agree about the regressive tax element but I suppose I'm thinking more about the future. The people who are addicted to sugar already shouldn't be abandoned of course but how much easier would it be if half of western society weren't already addicted?

But if you get more people eating more bell peppers because they think it should be better for them and their rate of consumption isn't being addressed. Am I then going to expect to pay more for bell peppers because I just want 1?

Clearlier wrote: »

I don't see it as fining anybody. I see it as an attempt to charge the true cost of a product. There's an implicit subsidy to the food companies at the moment because they don't have to pay for the health care required by the people who consume their products. This means that the products are cheaper than they should be and that people consume more of them than they would if they had to pay their true price. I don't expect that it will make a huge difference (if any) to the people who already consume vast quantities but as my kids grow older and start to make some decisions about what to spend any money they have on I'd be happier if there choice between an apple and a chocolate bar wasn't so tilted in favour of the chocolate bar on cost grounds, i.e. it's for future generations. I don't know what the history of tobacco consumption is but I don't imagine that the first extra tax on tobacco products made a big difference to its immediate consumption.

BTW - someone not properly managing their food consumption IMO vastly underestimates the power wielded by the big food companies.

That's because people don't see taxes in general as a fine. The reason for this proposed "tax" is to reduce the quantity people purchase by increasing the cost to purchase, for no reason other than to limit the amount they can purchase.

I get why you are thinking of your kids future. I've worked in newsagents and I've seen a 3 year old kid who was literally bursting out of their skin with fat. But the issue there was not that she had too much money to spend on sweets, or that they were cheaper than the fruit she could have gotten in spar next door. If the sweets she wanted to get cost more, her parents would have made sure she had the money for it.

Increasing the cost to the consumer isn't how this should be done.

JJayoo

Add some tax to the sugar filled version and leave the tax the same on the sugar free version ie coke/coke zero

Lapua Magnum

JJayoo wrote: »

Add some tax to the sugar filled version and leave the tax the same on the sugar free version ie coke/coke zero

What sugar tax will you put on Orange Juice??

ScumLord

airuser wrote: »

I am not sure if anyone has posted this suggestion. That is, rather than Tax, ensure that they reduce the sugar content of the products.

I don't agree with that, some of the most enjoyable foods are bad for you. If you go to any high class restaurant you're probably eating as many calories as going to McDonalds depending on what you order.

People should be able to have a treat, they should be able to buy whatever food they like, we should also have the freedom to get fat. Sometimes it's shocking how ready people are to have every aspect of their lives controlled so they don't have to see others doing things they don't like or agree with.

JJayoo

Lapua Magnum wrote: »

What sugar tax will you put on Orange Juice??

Deal with the facts. The government is gonna put a tax on sugary soft drinks, by leaving the non sugar versions tax free you might steer people towards them since they are usually stacked side by side in the shop. This would result in just as much soft drinks being consumed but less sugar.

If you raise tax on all soft drinks it won't make the slightest bit of difference on the amount purchased and it won't give people any slight push to try the sugar free versions.

A better approach would be to clearly label how many grams of sugar are in all drinks and to teach students about this sh1t in school. Before a student leaves secondary school they should at the very least be able to decipher a label on food.

Dravokivich

JJayoo wrote: »

Deal with the facts. The government is gonna put a tax on sugary soft drinks, by leaving the non sugar versions tax free you might steer people towards them since they are usually stacked side by side in the shop. This would result in just as much soft drinks being consumed but less sugar.

If you raise tax on all soft drinks it won't make the slightest bit of difference on the amount purchased and it won't give people any slight push to try the sugar free versions.

A better approach would be to clearly label how many grams of sugar are in all drinks and to teach students about this sh1t in school. Before a student leaves secondary school they should at the very least be able to decipher a label on food.

Where are soft drinks referenced as a fact in the article from the OP?

there should be a health-related tax on sugar-sweetened drinks to help reduce childhood obesity

believe that sugar-sweetened drinks contribute to obesity among children

calling for a 20% tax on sugary drinks

[Deleted User]

airuser wrote: »

I am not sure if anyone has posted this suggestion. That is, rather than Tax, ensure that they reduce the sugar content of the products.

And ruin the taste?

Feck all this increasing tax on alcohol, nice foods and soft drinks. We're here for a good time not a long time.

Amirani

JJayoo wrote: »

A better approach would be to clearly label how many grams of sugar are in all drinks and to teach students about this sh1t in school. Before a student leaves secondary school they should at the very least be able to decipher a label on food.

A lot of people are saying this and it's an understandable reaction. The problem with this however is they already do teach kids about this stuff in schools. Any kid who is any way attentive is going to come out of school realising that a high sugar intake is bad for you, that's if they hadn't already figured it out - it's fairly obvious.

A big problem with giving nutritional advice in school is that a large amount of it is terrible. The food pyramid is awful, people shouldn't eat that much starchy, high carbohydrate food. Then you have powerful lobbies such as the dairy industry influencing the policy makers. Cheese based snacks are not healthy.

So there is consensus already on some advice given in schools via subjects such as Biology, SPHE, Home Economics and some extra-curricular seminars and classes. Students know that excessive sugar is bad, but most else they know as a result of state nutritional information is pretty useless. I fail to see the point in increasing the frequency or magnitude of this advice.

fleet_admiral

Start teaching children from a young age about healthy eating and cooking, even in primary school. I went out with a girl who worked in a creche a few years ago, she always said the children got chips and some other frozen crap everyday.
Even my own son's second birthday party last october and every party he has been to since has the usual Crap like chips nuggets and fizzy drinks