Oh, we must not forgot to tax salt while we're at it.
Dietary salt is an inorganic essential for human life, it just becomes bad in excessive amounts, like any good thing. Trans fat is entirely artificial, inessential, and is completely deleterious to human health. Also, unlike cigarettes and alcohol, the "effects" of trans fat (adding richness to foods with lipids) can be obtained with essential dietary elements that don't harm your health, and are in some cases good for you.
Oh, we must not forgot to tax salt while we're at it.
Dietary salt is an inorganic essential for human life, it just becomes bad in excessive amounts, like any good thing. Trans fat is entirely artificial, inessential, and is completely deleterious to human health. Also, unlike cigarettes and alcohol, the "effects" of trans fat (adding richness to foods with lipids) can be obtained with essential dietary elements that don't harm your health, and are in some cases good for you.
It's apples and oranges.
It's not apples and oranges with the sugar in the sugary drinks, though. Sugar isn't bad for you in moderate quantities. It only contributes to obesity-type complications in larger quantities, similarly to the way salt contributes to hypertension. The comment is quite relevant to the original topic of discussion.
It's not apples and oranges with the sugar in the sugary drinks, though. Sugar isn't bad for you in moderate quantities. It only contributes to obesity-type complications in larger quantities, similarly to the way salt contributes to hypertension. The comment is quite relevant to the original topic of discussion.
Yes, but I have never had a problem with HFCS. I try to avoid it because it tastes like garbage compared to cane sugar and there hasn't been enough research on the subject yet. However, I don't have a problem consuming it in moderate quantities where unavoidable.
I believe that trans fats should be banned completely, and HFCS should be left alone (as much as I loathe the CRA).
That's because HFCS is about as bad for you as sugar. It's only a problem because it is put into foods at excessive quantity to cater to Americans' lack of palate. This can happen because corn subsidies make it way cheaper than cane sugar. I don't eat a lot of processed foods anyway, so I have no problem eating HFCS occasionally. I, like you, just prefer the flavor of cane sugar. It's the sheer quantity that makes it a problem. That same quantity of regular sugar would also be a problem.
That's because HFCS is about as bad for you as sugar. It's only a problem because it is put into foods at excessive quantity to cater to Americans' lack of palate. This can happen because corn subsidies make it way cheaper than cane sugar. I don't eat a lot of processed foods anyway, so I have no problem eating HFCS occasionally. I, like you, just prefer the flavor of cane sugar. It's the sheer quantity that makes it a problem. That same quantity of regular sugar would also be a problem.
Right. I would much rather see corn subsidies end and have farming be for the farmers again rather than see the government tax foodstuffs, but there you go. Michael Pollan talks about a lot of this stuff, and makes some really good points.
The sheer magnitude of the purported increase here leads me to two questions: Did they actually determine causality, or just a correlation? They would need data on all the other factors in these peoples' lives to eliminate a confounding variable.
Why the hell did they lump all people who consume 2 or more soda a week together into some super-group? If someone consumes 8 sodas a week and another only consumes two, are you telling me that's less different than a one-drink person and a two-drink person? This study's categories are totally arbitrary, with the top category having vastly more variation than the zeros and the ones. Yet they conclude that anyone who is in that top category is subject to the same risk, regardless of variation? RAGE!
EDIT: Oh yeah, they also had a super-small number of cancer cases with which to develop their statistics, so margin of error = high.
The sheer magnitude of the purported increase here leads me to two questions: Did they actually determine causality, or just a correlation?They would need data on all the other factors in these peoples' lives to eliminate a confounding variable.
Why the hell did they lump all people who consume 2 or more soda a week together into some super-group?If someone consumes 8 sodas a week and another only consumes two, are you telling me that's less different than a one-drink person and a two-drink person? This study's categories are totally arbitrary, with the top category having vastly more variation than the zeros and the ones. Yet they conclude that anyone who is in that top category is subject to the same risk, regardless of variation? RAGE!
This is exactly why I said may in the link. I'm actually on the side of the industry here because there's simply not enough control on this study. I used to work with people who would drink a DOZEN cans of soda EVERY DAY. To even put them in the same category as someone like myself, who might get a soda twice a week or so (I don't now, but I definitely used to), is ridiculous.
Yeah, I think the point the scientists at the end (unaffiliated with the study) make is a good one. It is high sugar intake that is associated with insulin production, which is the function of the pancreas. Stressing the pancreas can increase the risk of pancreatic cancer. Therefore, consuming high volumes of sugar, no matter what the medium, increases your risk. It is narrow, misleading, and downright fallacious to claim that two sodas a week and no other major sugar intake puts you at the same risk as someone who consumes 2 sodas a day and two gallons of ice cream a week. These guys basically did bad science and then trumpeted their "findings" prematurely.
It could be decent science and a bad writer. This is being spun out of control.
Written by Kathleen Doheny:
Kathleen Doheny is a Los Angeles-based journalist specializing in health, fitness, and behavior topics. In addition to writing for WebMD, her articles have appeared in the Los Angeles Times, Shape, Natural Health, and many other magazines and web sites.
Yes, but I have never had a problem with HFCS. I try to avoid it because it tastes like garbage compared to cane sugar and there hasn't been enough research on the subject yet. However, I don't have a problem consuming it in moderate quantities where unavoidable.
Yes, but I have never had a problem with HFCS. I try to avoid it because it tastes like garbage compared to cane sugar and there hasn't been enough research on the subject yet. However, I don't have a problem consuming it in moderate quantities where unavoidable.
So are you ok with a salt tax then?
Is there an epidemic of people buying excessive amounts of salt? I thought the biggest salt problem was that with all the pre-packaged and processed foods, the things we are buying already contain excessive salt. Also, salt is so cheap and we use such small quantities and buy it so infrequently that a tax would have to be tremendously high to generate effective revenue. Soda, on the other hand, is consumed in larger volumes and priced such that the tax would be less than 20%.
A salt tax would simply be inefficient from a revenue-generating standpoint.
Yes, but I have never had a problem with HFCS. I try to avoid it because it tastes like garbage compared to cane sugar and there hasn't been enough research on the subject yet. However, I don't have a problem consuming it in moderate quantities where unavoidable.
So are you ok with a salt tax then?
See earlier posts:
I believe that trans fats should be banned completely, and HFCS should be left alone (as much as I loathe the CRA).
[On HFCS taxation] I would much rather see corn subsidies end and have farming be for the farmers again...
It's not the government's business if you take something essential (a sugar, a mineral) or a harmless food chemical (glutamates, binders, gelatin) and then attempt to kill yourself with it. It becomes the government's business when food science invents an inessential and artificial chemical that radically increases your chances of a fatal disease, pushes it into everyday foods, and then writes it off as something totally acceptable to consume.
Fat tax sounds like good tax. A responsible decision, good job. Much better than subsidizing healthier products, the USA doesn't have the money for that.
What if they just levied a tax based on weight sensors at the points of entry to public buildings? From each according to his wear and tear on the concrete sidewalk, to each according to his need.
Isn't that basically the same choice as choosing to walk around with 150 pounds of fat on your body?
Not quite. The 150 lbs of iron weights aren't the result of your own poor health decisions. Plus, they'll make you more fit. Also, I'm being an ass.
EDIT: That would also be counter-productive. Taxing the sidewalk would encourage fat people to not walk. We want them to walk everywhere so they stop being fat. Solution: base vehicle registration fees on the gross weight of the driver. 400 lbs? That'll be $15,000 to register your vehicle.
What if they just levied a tax based on weight sensors at the points of entry to public buildings? From each according to his wear and tear on the concrete sidewalk, to each according to his need.
For Christ's sake, it's not a fat tax any more than end-of-life counseling is a death panel. Many skinny people drink soda too, and there are fat people who don't drink soda. No one is saying that people should be taxed based on their weight, and since genetics have a large role in body shape, that kind of rule wouldn't stand up to the courts anyway! If you don't drink excessive amounts of sugary drinks, this tax would barely even affect you at all, regardless of your weight and body composition. People just need to suck it up and take responsibility for what they put into their bodies. If this tax is going to break your budget, you drink too much goddamn soda.
That name is just sensationalist bullshit designed to invoke knee-jerk reactions. SURPRISE.
I know lots of you guys are joking and having fun, but there are plenty of people who take this seriously.
That's too damn much! I think a penny-per-ounce is still high. Also, what about free refills? Will you be charged for the initial drink or for each time you belly up to the soda fountain?
Not quite. The 150 lbs of iron weights aren't the result of your own poor health decisions. Plus, they'll make you more fit. Also, I'm being an ass.
No, it's not the result of poor health decisions, however, it is your decision to carry around those 150 pounds of iron, as it is to carry around 150 pounds of fat by living unhealthy, and such makes no difference for the wear and tear of the concrete sidewalk, that which was the little sidetracking.
No, it's not the result of poor health decisions, however, it is your decision to carry around those 150 pounds of iron, as it is to carry around 150 pounds of fat by living unhealthy, and such makes no difference for the wear and tear of the concrete sidewalk, that which was the little sidetracking.
Well, the intent of taxing by way of wear on concrete is to discourage an unhealthy lifestyle, i.e. to encourage people to shed 150 pounds of fat by making it cheaper for them to walk places. If a person who is already of a healthy weight is carrying heavy stuff around, they're being punished outside of the intention of the tax.
How about public weigh stations, like we have for trucks? Every so often, you walk off into a weigh station and pay a fine based on your body weight.
On a serious note, I really have no problem with this tax. Gotta raise revenue somehow, and people aren't going to stop drinking soda just because it's suddenly $0.02 more expensive per unit.
Every so often, you walk off into a weigh station and pay a fine based on your body weight and type.
FTFY. Because there are plenty of people out there who are skinny, but heavy - for example, I'm tall and wiry, with very little body fat, but I weigh 92 Kilos/202 pounds.
That's too damn much! I think a penny-per-ounce is still high. Also, what about free refills? Will you be charged for the initial drink or for each time you belly up to the soda fountain?
Only a nutter would propose something so unreasonable!
'We found that the people who were sensitive to fat, who could taste very low concentrations, actually consumed less fat than the people who were insensitive,' Mr Keast told AFP... 'We all like eating fatty foods. What we speculate is (that) the mechanism is to do with stopping eating. Your body is able to tell you you've had enough and stop,' he explained.
It's not the only reason for being chubby, but it could explain some things. Now I'm off to find a girl that can't taste salt.
Comments
It's apples and oranges.
I believe that trans fats should be banned completely, and HFCS should be left alone (as much as I loathe the CRA).
EDIT: Ooops, forgot the quote.
Did they actually determine causality, or just a correlation? They would need data on all the other factors in these peoples' lives to eliminate a confounding variable.
Why the hell did they lump all people who consume 2 or more soda a week together into some super-group? If someone consumes 8 sodas a week and another only consumes two, are you telling me that's less different than a one-drink person and a two-drink person? This study's categories are totally arbitrary, with the top category having vastly more variation than the zeros and the ones. Yet they conclude that anyone who is in that top category is subject to the same risk, regardless of variation? RAGE!
EDIT: Oh yeah, they also had a super-small number of cancer cases with which to develop their statistics, so margin of error = high.
Written by Kathleen Doheny: I google searched the bitches' name and this came up:Kathleen Doheny Advice is WRONG!
A salt tax would simply be inefficient from a revenue-generating standpoint.
EDIT: That would also be counter-productive. Taxing the sidewalk would encourage fat people to not walk. We want them to walk everywhere so they stop being fat. Solution: base vehicle registration fees on the gross weight of the driver. 400 lbs? That'll be $15,000 to register your vehicle.
That name is just sensationalist bullshit designed to invoke knee-jerk reactions. SURPRISE.
I know lots of you guys are joking and having fun, but there are plenty of people who take this seriously.
That's too damn much! I think a penny-per-ounce is still high. Also, what about free refills? Will you be charged for the initial drink or for each time you belly up to the soda fountain?
How about public weigh stations, like we have for trucks? Every so often, you walk off into a weigh station and pay a fine based on your body weight.
On a serious note, I really have no problem with this tax. Gotta raise revenue somehow, and people aren't going to stop drinking soda just because it's suddenly $0.02 more expensive per unit.
*ahem*
EVERYONE. DRINK MORE COFFEE. NOW.
[Courage Wolf]
Pee all over everything.