Active Low-Carber Forums - The Sugar Tax: A Review

Active Low-Carber Forums (http://forum.lowcarber.org/index.php)

- LC Research/Media (http://forum.lowcarber.org/forumdisplay.php?f=4)

- - The Sugar Tax: A Review (http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthread.php?t=482853)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calianna

<...snip...>
But education that ends up promoting products that contain less sugar? :rolleyes:Unless there's some serious profit incentive involved in selling unsweetened, and sweetener-free products, or they come up with a universal substitute that satisfies the enhanced sweet tooth brought about by the substitution of sugar for the fat missing in most of the foods out there these days, the manufacturer sponsored education is going to be slowed considerably.

This is the main problem with capitalism. Unless there is a profit motive, nothing much gets done. (Of course communism is worse because with no profit motive, even less gets done).

But taxes won't work, making it illegal won't work, so what else do we have?

Some things are sweetened with Stevia, which seems OK, but sugar is not only cheaper, but subsidized by the US Government (a few years ago I read in the Palm Beach Post that the US gives Florida sugar growers $4 billion/year).

Cheaper ingredients = more profits. That's one reason why maltodextrin is in almost every frankenfood.

Bob

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calianna

It can be done, but it'll likely take decades.

Exhibit 1:

The propaganda claiming that fat makes you fat, along with the dangers of cholesterol and saturated fat started 40ish years ago, and now nearly everyone is so firmly in the low fat/fat free/cholesterol free/low saturated fat camp that the stores are full of products proclaiming how good they are for you because they're low fat, fat free, cholesterol free, and heart healthy.

Of course it only took this long to turn so many to the fat free side because the food manufacturers were taking advantage of it, educating the public as part of pushing to sell more grains and manufactured products that met the fat phobic criteria.

But education that ends up promoting products that contain less sugar? :rolleyes:Unless there's some serious profit incentive involved in selling unsweetened, and sweetener-free products, or they come up with a universal substitute that satisfies the enhanced sweet tooth brought about by the substitution of sugar for the fat missing in most of the foods out there these days, the manufacturer sponsored education is going to be slowed considerably.

All excellent points and valid concerns. Due to the fact that we have little agreement about what foods constitute a healthy way of eating, it's got to happen at the grass roots level where people experience a significant improvement in health due to their WOE. Also, there are those who support a certain WOE due to ethical positions for reasons beyond health. It's started to happen, but agreement will be hard to come by and will certainly take some time.

My own efforts are being noticed in my little town. Just this morning, again! The lady I’ve bought my coffee from for a couple of years exclaimed over my transformation and asked, “Was it Weight Watchers?”

I happily said NO and explained keto :)

Quote:

Green tax on sausages a step too far for Germans

Germany has raised the prospect of imposing a hefty tax on meat to encourage carnivores to cut down on their consumption.

This week MPs from the ruling parties flirted with abolishing meat’s special status in the tax system and nearly trebling the levy on each product to 19 per cent.

While the idea was swiftly shelved after an outcry from the opposition and an icy response from the farming minister, it has stirred up a debate about whether sausages and mince are too cheap.

Alongside staples such as bread, milk and coffee, Germany levies only a 7 per cent VAT rate on meat products, while charging 19 per cent VAT on baby food, restaurant meals and mineral water.

Earlier this week MPs floated the idea of moving meat into the more expensive category, in effect indicating that it is more of a luxury than an indispensable foodstuff. This would raise the price of a standard packet of bratwurst by 29 cents, to €2.88.

Friedrich Ostendorff, the agriculture spokesman for the Green party in the German parliament, said it was “impossible to explain” to consumers why they should pay 7 per cent VAT on burgers but 19 per cent on oat milk.

With support from Angela Merkel’s Christian Democrats and her Social Democrat coalition partners, Mr Ostendorff, 66, called for the extra money raised to be spent on animal welfare subsidies.

While politicians on both the left and right denounced the idea as an ill-conceived assault on ordinary Germans’ living standards, it is broadly in line with a shift in the national diet.

n spite of the country’s reputation for heroic levels of pork consumption, Germans are eating ever less meat. One recent survey found that only 28 per cent would admit to eating it every day, down from 34 per cent in 2017.

Yet prices remain so low that many farmers feel forced to keep their livestock in crowded or otherwise unpalatable conditions, according to Thomas Schröder, president of the German Animal Welfare Society.

Rather than a tweak to the VAT system, Mr Schröder favours a separate “meat levy” of a few cents on every kilogram, with the money ring-fenced by law to cover the estimated €3 billion to €5 billion cost of upgrading livestock farms to an acceptable standard.

“Meat and other animal products are too cheap, and mostly sold at bargain-basement prices: it is not possible to rear animals humanely, because the price pressure compels farmers to squeeze ever more animals into ever smaller spaces,” he told The Times.

The meat tax was abandoned yesterday as the leaders of the mainstream parties fretted that it could become politically toxic and difficult to administer in Germany’s highly devolved federal structure.

Julia Klöckner, Mrs Merkel’s farming minister, said the answer was instead for consumers to voluntarily pay more money for better-quality meat.

“People are prepared to pay several hundred euros for a mobile phone, but only 15 cents for 100g of chicken,” Ms Klöckner, 46, told Deutschlandfunk Kultur, a radio station. “I think that’s an obscene state of affairs. We have to ask ourselves: how are we going to get more animal welfare?”

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/...rmans-660vjpbn7

Not surprised this is happening. Like I said before, tax one food product because some bureaucrats decide that consuming that product isn't healthy and that taxing it will reduce consumption... and the door opens for taxing ANY food product that some bureaucrat we'd be "healthier" if we consumed less of it.

It has the potential of becoming a circus with no social value.

I agree with the person who pointed out cheap meat was getting too cheap. Humane regulations would not put it up all that much, and we'd get so much more nutrition.

Food taxes hurt poor people the most.

I'm saddened by this.

Bob

Most bans or taxes have work a rounds:

Things like honey, agave, molasses, evaporated cane juice, and malt or any syrups, nectars, juices, or purees that show up on an ingredients list are all technically added sugars -- even though they sound less scary than dextrose, maltose, and fructose!

I think we can skip $4 billion given to sugar growers. It’s a fine start.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WereBear

I think we can skip $4 billion given to sugar growers. It’s a fine start.

IMHO All farm subsidies and other government funds going to private business should stop, immediately.

The $4B paid to big sugar is also for price support. The gov't buys sugar to waste to keep the price the customers pay the highest in the world.

Bob