WTFwhatthehell t1_j64f4mr wrote
Reply to comment by MagicPeacockSpider in The implementation of a soft drinks industry levy in the UK in 2018 was associated with an 8% reduction in obesity among 10-11 year old girls with the greatest reductions seen in those living in the most deprived areas. No such association was found in 10-11 year old boys or younger children. by shiruken
>Arguably
No, it's not arguable at all.
People don't just keel over dead from drinking an occasional glass of coke.
There's 35 grams of sugar in a 330 ml can of coke.
There's about 29 grams of sugar in 330 ml of orange juice.
Plenty of people can consume an occasional glass of either coke or orange juice without any negative impact on their health at all.
MagicPeacockSpider t1_j64jvni wrote
Actually the numbers on rising cases of diabetes disagree with you.
Any country that provides healthcare (Even the US, they spend more on socialised medicine than most countries.) Should tax things which are unhealthy. Tobacco, alcohol, refined sugar. The tax the manufacturers pay goes part way to paying for the treatment of those who consume the product and part way to reducing consumption.
The company profits and should have to pay externalities.
People don't tend to drink large quantities of orange juice because it's sickly.
Coke, with the bitterness of caffeine and carbonated water to balance out the sugar, is designed to be drunk in larger quantities.
But by all means limit the portion size of orange juice to 200-250ml, as is the norm and so the same with that 330ml can of coke.
Neither drink is suitable for you if you're thirsty, and if you want a treat a small portion is enough for the taste.
WTFwhatthehell t1_j64mng7 wrote
People can drink a large glass of orange juice just fine, it's quite palatable.
There's more to diabetes than people drinking the occasional coke.
"The tax the manufacturers pay"
Every penny of the cost gets passed to consumers. It's a tax the customer pays.
Also, that's massively patriarchal and a huge slippery slope. I'll believe the UK parliament actually care about health the day they stop providing taxpayer-funded booze to members of parliament. The only people ever keen on these kinds of sin-taxes are people utterly convinced that they're better/wiser than others and they make sure they don't apply to themselves.
MagicPeacockSpider t1_j64tej1 wrote
People drinking the occasional glass won't notice the tax. It's pennies.
The tax is well calibrated in this case to affect the ones most at risk of harm.
And manufacturers now sell both drinks for the same price and make more profit off a diet drink. What effect do you think that's going to have? More healthy options, more advertising of healthy options.
The fact diet coke and sugar coke cost the same in most cases is proof not all the cost is passed onto the customer. If it were they'd be undercut by a company willing to sell their diet drinks at a lower price than their sugar ones.
WTFwhatthehell t1_j64veny wrote
> People drinking the occasional glass won't notice the tax. It's pennies.
Which would be a great argument if a lot of them didn't change their recepies to include a fraction of sweeteners. As mentioned, it does affect some people.
>And manufacturers now sell both drinks for the same price and make more profit off a diet drink.
Neatly removing the incentive for consumers to pick the low-sugar option. Utterly defeating the claimed point of the tax.
There's already plenty of store-brand drinks that sell for a tiny fraction of the price of most softdrinks and like 3 massive conglomerates that sell most of the popular brands between them.
MagicPeacockSpider t1_j654pq8 wrote
As I said having a reaction to sweeteners makes you an edge case and they can easily find sugary drinks without sweeteners. If they don't like a recipe they shouldn't buy it.
Perhaps they have to check the label a bit more but frankly so should we all.
You can't have it both ways. If the price is the same and the manufacturer has more incentive to sell you a healthier untaxed product, or the price is different in which case the consumer has the incentive to buy the healthier product.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/620155/share-of-diet-soft-drinks-in-the-united-kingdom/
There is a question over if this trend needed the tax in order to continue or not, but the switch to diet drinks looks likely to happen regardless.
But the fact that regardless of whether the incentive lies with the consumer or the manufacturer the trend is in the right direction.
People have generally realised they aren't healthy and just like alcohol, we're consuming less.
You're moaning about a tiny tax that benefits society as a whole, actually being largely paid by those 3 conglomerates while prices remain the same. I genuinely don't understand your problem.
Either this tax is working, which is good. Or it's not but still gaining additional tax revenue from some multinationals, which is also good.
Or we could hail corporate, more obese children I guess. All so your friend doesn't have to check a label to avoid a migraine.
WTFwhatthehell t1_j656h5v wrote
>"You're moaning about a tiny tax that benefits society as a whole, actually being largely paid by those 3 conglomerates while prices remain the same. I genuinely don't understand your problem."
The price did not remain the same.
Prices immediately shot up right after the tax was brought in, they merely went up on both types of drinks. The cost was passed on to consumers.
This is not hard to understand but you want to not understand it.
The trend in consumption existed before the tax and continued unaffected.
[deleted] t1_j65klad wrote
[removed]
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments