Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > LC Research/Media
User Name
Password
FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   ^
Old Sat, Nov-10-18, 02:55
Demi's Avatar
Demi Demi is offline
Posts: 26,727
 
Plan: Muscle Centric
Stats: 238/153/160 Female 5'10"
BF:
Progress: 109%
Location: UK
Default Study calls for sugar tax

Quote:
From Science Daily

Study calls for sugar tax

People who drink sugary beverages are more likely to eat fast food and confectionery and less likely to make healthy dietary choices, University of Otago research has found.

Dr Kirsten Robertson, of the New Zealand university's Department of Marketing, says consumption of sugar sweetened beverages (SSBs) is a significant problem in New Zealand.

The drinks have little nutritional benefit and are a leading cause of obesity, tooth decay, and type 2 diabetes.

New Zealand has an obesity epidemic, is the third most overweight nation in the OECD, and 17 per cent of adults' total sugar intake comes from SSBs.
"While a number of other countries have successfully implemented national taxes on SSBs, New Zealand relies on industry self-regulation and has called for better labelling so individuals can take responsibility for their own sugar intake," Dr Robertson says.

However, the study, published in international journal PeerJ, found people who drank SSBs were less likely to try to eat healthily, and less likely than non-SSB consumers to read food labels.

The researchers surveyed more than 2000 people, measuring their food and beverage intake over a 24-hour period and self-reported their intentions to eat healthily.

Of those, 30.5 per cent had consumed SSBs in the past 24 hours. They also displayed a general pattern of unhealthy eating as they also consumed dessert, confectionery, fast food and pre-prepared food, and were less likely to eat breakfast or a meal made from scratch.

"The findings raise significant concerns regarding the effectiveness of the current soft intervention measures. The fact that SSB consumers are less likely than non-SSB consumers to try to eat healthily, or to read food labels, raises serious questions about the likelihood of them changing their behaviour in response to better labelling," Dr Robertson says.

Along with many other researchers, she believes the food and advertising industries have created an obesogenic environment where consumption choices require significant cognitive effort.

"Past research shows the sugar content in SSBs in New Zealand exceeds WHO recommendations, thus industry self-regulation is not working.

"Further, national taxes have been shown to have little effect on industry sales -- with the UK soft drink industry simply reformulating their products to reduce the sugar content.

"Given SSB consumers are less likely than non-SSB consumers to read food labels, national taxes will give some power back to individuals to be able to make healthier choices without having to refer to food labels," she says.
The New Zealand Government could learn from the many other countries that have implemented national taxes on SSBs, including Fiji, Spain, Mexico, France, Tonga, and Belgium.

"Findings in other countries suggest national taxes will encourage the industry to reformulate their products by reducing the sugar content and will encourage consumers to select other alternatives. Therefore, we support the sugar tax recommendation by the New Zealand Medical Association and the New Zealand beverage guidance panel.

"At the end of the day, SSBs have little nutritional benefit and are causing our country significant harm."



https://www.sciencedaily.com/releas...81108091254.htm
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Sat, Nov-10-18, 07:08
thud123's Avatar
thud123 thud123 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 7,422
 
Plan: P:E=>1 (Q3-22)
Stats: 168/100/82 Male 182cm
BF:
Progress: 79%
Default

"At the end of the day, SSBs have little nutritional benefit and are causing our country significant harm."

So does driving cars without helmets. Boo to taxing the poor and ignorant.

ig·no·rant
/ˈiɡnərənt/

- lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular.

And in particular, Shugger.
Reply With Quote
  #3   ^
Old Sat, Nov-10-18, 10:12
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 15,075
 
Plan: mostly milkfat
Stats: 190/152.4/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: Ontario
Default

Quote:
"Given SSB consumers are less likely than non-SSB consumers to read food labels, national taxes will give some power back to individuals to be able to make healthier choices without having to refer to food labels," she says.


Power given back to individuals by manipulating their ability to afford sugar sweetened beverages.

I'm sort of agnostic on a sugar tax. There's the slippery slope argument--but I don't really like slippery slope arguments all that much. Sometimes we just have to fight it out about where to draw the line. A 19 year old drinking age could be a slippery slope to an age 25 drinking age, i think that's excessive, an encroachment on individual rights--but do I really want to say we'd better let 12 year old kids drink, just in case?

But whether it's all right to manipulate people's choices or not, calling this empowerment is bleakly silly.
Reply With Quote
  #4   ^
Old Sat, Nov-10-18, 12:30
Grav Grav is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,469
 
Plan: Banting
Stats: 302/187/187 Male 175cm
BF:
Progress: 100%
Location: New Zealand
Default

I'm personally for taxation in situations where I think it could help. We tax cigarettes pretty heavily for example, and nobody really argues against that. I wish we'd do the same with alcohol, but that particular substance is still too fashionable throughout wider society for any political party to dare consider that idea seriously.

When I spoke in person with our country's Health Minister earlier this year, I told him that while I certainly support the intention behind the idea of a sugar tax, there are other measures that I think we need to take before implementing such a tax.

Top of my list of course was changing the guidelines. It seems strange to have guidelines recommending grains which can spike our blood sugar almost as badly as some drinks, yet we might consider taxing another common source of dietary glucose that just happens to come in liquid form. It's mixed messaging: "Don't give yourself diabetes that way, do it this way instead."

Once the wider situation can be better framed and more people realise that the problem is not just sugary drinks, but in fact any food or drink that can excessively spike blood sugar, then we can simply change the guidelines to say "avoid all of these things." Until then, a tax on sugary drinks to me feels a bit hypocritical on the part of any government who might implement it on one hand, while continuing to recommend that we eat grains on the other.

This particular study also looks pretty heavily associational, and some of the associations make for curious reading. For example, SSBs were associated with a range of "less healthy behaviours," one of which was "Eaten a meal at home made from pre-prepared food / sauces." Would my bunless burgers be considered unhealthy just because I don't make the burger patties myself? And the study also considers simply eating breakfast to be another healthy behaviour. What if I'd had leftover takeaways for breakfast? Does eating something less healthy suddenly become more healthy if I have it for breakfast?

Regardless of all the discussion about a sugar tax in our local media here lately, I really don't think much will happen for a little while anyway. Our government has promised no new taxes during its current term of office (though it has raised several existing ones), and the Minister does claim to be working with the food industry to get them to reformulate their products in the meantime. Whatever happens beyond the next election in 2020 remains to be seen; my bet would be "not much," unless the DGAs in the States come out with some more meaningful changes between now and then.

Last edited by Grav : Sat, Nov-10-18 at 12:45.
Reply With Quote
  #5   ^
Old Sat, Nov-10-18, 23:06
GRB5111's Avatar
GRB5111 GRB5111 is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 4,038
 
Plan: Very LC, Higher Protein
Stats: 227/186/185 Male 6' 0"
BF:
Progress: 98%
Location: Herndon, VA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grav

Top of my list of course was changing the guidelines. It seems strange to have guidelines recommending grains which can spike our blood sugar almost as badly as some drinks, yet we might consider taxing another common source of dietary glucose that just happens to come in liquid form. It's mixed messaging: "Don't give yourself diabetes that way, do it this way instead."

Once the wider situation can be better framed and more people realise that the problem is not just sugary drinks, but in fact any food or drink that can excessively spike blood sugar, then we can simply change the guidelines to say "avoid all of these things." Until then, a tax on sugary drinks to me feels a bit hypocritical on the part of any government who might implement it on one hand, while continuing to recommend that we eat grains on the other.


And these comments touch on the real issue here. At what point is there agreement on what is considered a healthy food? There are some who would like to tax SSBs, there are some who would tax meat or red meat or processed meat, there are some who would tax foods with excess saturated fats. When do we reach consensus that grains are unhealthy, spike blood sugar, stimulate unhealthy insulin release, and deserve to be taxed? We still hear about "healthy whole grains," so when do we reach consensus that there is no truth to that statement? It's a slippery slope, as setting a precedent on taxing things that are considered unhealthy may not be taxing unhealthy things at all. They may turn out to be the things that people should be eating for better health. Increasing taxes solely to curb behavior is a regressive solution that will not work for the best.

The driving force that impacted tobacco consumption most effectively was the real prospect of developing fatal cancer. That seemed to be the real wake-up call even before taxes were levied. Faced with deteriorating health leading to an early death based on factual root causes and the stark publicity of the same tends to get people's attention.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:49.


Copyright © 2000-2024 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.