Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Sugar Tax
A sensible move to tackle obesity, or gesture politics?
http://
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by sp1814. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I disagree, I think it is another bad move. Not only will folk now have to find more money to buy the product, again the real aim is to gather more tax. If they were that worried about obesity they'd teach nutrition in school and ensure all pupils got sufficient exercise. But that was the hard decision, not the, "let's pretend we're concerned and doing something", option. Got an issue, can we tax/charge it ? It's all governments know/are interested in. And again it is the less well off that will get hit hardest, firstly because the tax is per can/bottle and not related toi income, and also because they are more inclined to go for the more convenient high sugar soda drink in preference to the low sugar high price organic fair trade New Zealand babaco with tanjong spritzer.
Don't draw too many conclusions from this but low-dose Aspartame affects gut flora in rats and had knock-effects on metabolism which include insulin response.
http://
Google search terms "aspartame implicated obesity"
The generation brought up on rationing may have splurged on sugary foods when it came off rationing but did they become obese? If not, it may be that the lean times, during rationing, "programmed" their metabolism to behave in such a way that high-carbohydrate intake, in later life, did not lead to making them fat.
There is another strand of research concerning "epigenetics", in which parental metabolism "settings" influence what nutrient levels the foetus is exposed to, affecting its metabolic settings, so factors are "inherited" but this is not attributable to genes.
Synthetic aspartame is, in effect, a change to our environment and the date of its introduction really ought to be marked on any graph of increasing prevalence of obesity (in childhood or otherwise) just so people can evaluate for themselves what the story is; the same way that we know when the industrial revolution kicked off and keep that in mind when looking at graphs of global CO2 concentration and temperature etc.
http://
Google search terms "aspartame implicated obesity"
The generation brought up on rationing may have splurged on sugary foods when it came off rationing but did they become obese? If not, it may be that the lean times, during rationing, "programmed" their metabolism to behave in such a way that high-carbohydrate intake, in later life, did not lead to making them fat.
There is another strand of research concerning "epigenetics", in which parental metabolism "settings" influence what nutrient levels the foetus is exposed to, affecting its metabolic settings, so factors are "inherited" but this is not attributable to genes.
Synthetic aspartame is, in effect, a change to our environment and the date of its introduction really ought to be marked on any graph of increasing prevalence of obesity (in childhood or otherwise) just so people can evaluate for themselves what the story is; the same way that we know when the industrial revolution kicked off and keep that in mind when looking at graphs of global CO2 concentration and temperature etc.
It certainly fits with the "tax the fat because they're a nuisance on planes" thing...
... But clearly doesn't go far enough.
There's no value in sugary carbonated drinks for anyone other than the companies that make them.
If they were banned completely, would anyone do much more than shrug?
Why a small levy applied to the companies? Why not on the consumer as well. Maybe it would be a deterrent?
... But clearly doesn't go far enough.
There's no value in sugary carbonated drinks for anyone other than the companies that make them.
If they were banned completely, would anyone do much more than shrug?
Why a small levy applied to the companies? Why not on the consumer as well. Maybe it would be a deterrent?
