100% fruit juices would remain exempt
Why?? Shit’s sugar. You’re not getting most of the nutritional benefit from juice, all the fiber has been removed.
My guess is because it’s unsweetened, and that the tax applies to drinks with added sugar or sweetener.
‘We should reduce sugar and sweetener consumption, let’s not tax this drink that’s almost pure sugar because it’s natural’ is asinine. Apple juice has virtually identical sugar content to a soda.
Isn’t it fructose, or has it changed during the “jucification” process? I mean fructose is sugar, but way less bad than refined sugars.
Why not tax the actual apples then?
Because apples aren’t apple juice, metabolically or nutritionally. The fiber slows down how fast you absorb the sugar and it’s good for your gut.
Yes that’s why I wouldn’t tax them extra, however you seem to be advocating for a tax on anything with sugar. So why the change? You say yourself they’ve still sugar in it so why not tax them according to your logic?
To put another way, if the presence of sugar isn’t enough to justify the tax on its own, as long as the form is somrwhat different, then why not accept the difference between added sugar and no added sugar? That’s just as meaningful a difference.
I have no idea what you’re trying to advocate for here, but a dietitian isn’t going to tell you that apple juice and an apple are the same, because they’re not; a single serving of apple juice isn’t even made from a single apple. Fruit is healthy to eat, juice is not a health drink. If you’re taxing for health it makes sense to tax the unhealthy things and not the healthy ones.
I’m not really advocating for anything other than pointing out that your argument is inconsistent. Is it about the sugar or not? If not then you’ve already accepted that there are different definitions and clearly juice is a different definition than a soft drink. Your arbitrarily deciding what’s okay and not okay from what I can see of your argument. Adding healthy is even worse. That’s an extremely subjective argument.
What about grapes? They’re extremely high in sugar and relatively low in fiber. Is that okay? Do you see what I’m saying? There’s no consistency to go on here.
That’s not true, the tax apply to unsweetened milk alternatives.
This is probably the most bizzare part
Because like all laws, corruption came into the process to make it miss the goal entirely.
because they aren’t purtity testing their legislation and added sugar and added artificial sweeteners is their current target, it’s a start ffs
A company (Compal) in my country (Portugal) that has been making whole fruit juice since the 70’s. If they made it any thicker, you could eat it with a fork.
Spain and France also have off-brand manufacturers of this type of fruit drink. Germany could learn something
Someone paid someone else a million and now juice with 50 percent sugar is not included in this.
Stevia coke is, how weird …
The problem is processed sugar being the cheapest calories per weight you can find so adding sugar to drinks is hyper cheap while getting people (especially kids) addicted and sick. 100% fruit juices arent the problem.
No, the problem is that people have simply demonized soda. HFCS in particular. It’s not about sugar, it never has been. An exception for fruit juice makes this obvious. It’s the “naturalistic fallacy” in action.
How does an exception for fruit juice (containing natural sugar and relatively expensive) make it obvious that its not about added sugar and cheap drinks?
Sugar is exactly as healthy as sugar. Notice how I didn’t add any words to the front? Those words don’t change how (un)healthy sugar is. The law clearly isn’t about health; as it is portrayed.
Furthermore, they tax artificial sweeteners as well. So, might as well use actual sugar if you are paying the tax either way!
Sugar is exactly as healthy as sugar.
This shows how little you know about the subject yet you keep arguing as if you had facts. Sugar is a category of compounds consisting mainly of saccharids (which again, is a category of compounds). There are literally thousands of “sugars” which vary wildly in their effects on the human body. Also, other stuff you ingest/digest at the same time influences those as well…
Furthermore, they tax artificial sweeteners as well.
Nope. Klingbeil revoked that immediately afterwards.
This shows how little you know about the subject yet you keep arguing as if you had facts. Sugar is a category of compounds consisting mainly of saccharids (which again, is a category of compounds). There are literally thousands of “sugars” which vary wildly in their effects on the human body. Also, other stuff you ingest/digest at the same time influences those as well…
Yeah - but that’s not what this is about is it? It’s “natural good-for-you sugar” vs. “evil corporate refined high-fructose corn syrup”. The naturalistic fallacy laid bare.
Not as far as Im concerned. This is “corporations add dirt cheap sugar to drinks making people addicted to poison for cents per liter” vs. “there simply is sugar in a pressed fruit”. And does it really matter what the motivation is as long as the desired result is the same? Taxing fruit juices just wouldnt make any sense. Theyre not the problem.
I’m gonna go broke when they introduce the Spicy Tax.
Fuck you and your döner
- Bundestag, probably
Ordering “ohne scharf” because you’re weak ❌
Ordering “ohne scharf” because you can’t afford it ✅
The UK has had this for a while. I will be honest in that I still miss the taste of full sugar drinks, that’s definitely a downgrade, however after so many years of having these other drinks available I’ve lately found full sugar to be just… Too much.
Some artificial sugars do a number on my gut though. Been drinking more healthier things as a result, though overall I suppose the sugar tax has had a positive effect?
Personally, I find that sucralose is the only artificial sweetener that doesn’t taste kinda gross. Maybe dried up stevia leaves would be ok but I’m pretty sure I taste some leftover solvent in the refined stuff. The compound itself might be natural (not that that even really matters, as the sugar it is intended to replace is also natural), but since it’s not water soluable, processing it involves substances some would consider… unnatural.
It is a good way to tax the poors while pretending it is ethical and for public health… May the poors would be healthier if they have less money?
Starved poors mean less poors so everyone will be richer. Easy how that works isn’t it?
Taxing sugar is protecting the poor people’s wallets long-term from having to buy Ozempic, surgeries, sneakers for jogging, and fitness trackers.
That’s the real way wealth gets transfered from the bottom to the top - by selling poison AND the treatment for it.
Now that you say it, it truely works. And look, for tabaco, before the poors were smoking and dieing of the consequences of it while evil rich were getting rich by selling them poison. And so it was the richs’fault!
Thanks to taxes, poors keep smoking and they still die of it, and rich seller still make money out of it. But now the fault is on the poors who are smokers…
Also, I would like to suggest heavy high taxe on sugar and sweet products so that blackmarket could keep growing. And since we now buy cigarets from illegal drug dealers, why not also buy from them our candies and sodas? It gives back some money to (the richest one of the) poor neighbohoods without direct intervention in the economy.
Education and program for healthy behaviour accessible even for poors would be so wrong: the richest would make less money and pass for the bad guys…
Let’s go start a black market sugarbeet farm. Well take it in with our tax free pirate sugar.
If they’re really going to tax sugar-free drinks (and not even use the money for healthcare) then it’s obviously going to be another tax on being poor, like the increase of the value added tax that they are also planning.
Just what we asked for. Tax increases that are going to do nothing to the overly rich and instead hurt regular people. And then they wonder why people turn to political extremism.
They always fumble stuff like this on purpose. A bag of nuts has the worst nutri score ever, a deep frozen pizza is a B.
Lobbyists the answer is lobbyists. The government is very corrupt here, especially the current one.
Nutri scores compare with similar products in a category.
Nuts and pizza are in different categories, and maybe that specific pizza was better than the rest.
> Invents Spezi, the best beverage there is
> Invents Shorle, the best beverage type there is
> Taxes the shit out of them
I see what you did hereIt is not about “sugar-free”. It is about added artifical sweeteners. Not that one thinks they would add sugar tax to e.g. sparkling water…
The problem is that companies will figure out whar artificial sweeteners get around the tax.
Don’t. It’s shit. In the UK, every drink became low sugar as they swapped sugar for aspartame and asulfate k. Only coca-cola stayed the same and you pay the tax. I mostly drink apple or orange juice now, but I reserve the right to want to drink shitty drinks when I buy a takeaway. Companies didn’t give that choice unfortunately.
Artificial sugars taste like shit and there is some evidence that despite zero calories, they can lead to higher blood sugar level.
Oh, and aspartame could be carcinogenic: https://www.who.int/news/item/14-07-2023-aspartame-hazard-and-risk-assessment-results-released
It’s like when UK pushed folk to diesel to cut CO2 emissions and greenhouse gases got worse.
is it weird that I prefer sugar free drinks
The normal versions taste far too sweet and they mess up my stomach
The sugar free versions are more reasonable (imo) and they don’t mess up my stomach
Yeah once you get used to the taste of the artificial sweetner its the superior version IMO. There’s no corn syrup film left on your teeth either
That’s a thing that happens with corn syrup? They use actual sugar for drinks here so i didn’t know
No
If you have a film left then something is weird about the drinks you were drinking
Yeah its the fucking corn syrup. That shit is awful
It’s not weird if that’s what you like. It makes me feel ill and triggers the gag reflex.
I wonder if my point is allowed, the fast food industries heavy investment in partial “science” and astroturfing has been very successful.
What do you mean by “allowed”?
The hive view here is the rather not so nuanced sugar = bad, artificial sweeteners = great". Reminds me why I don’t miss reddit. It was the same in the pro-nuclear stance which had been astroturfed to the point that “nuclear > wind and solar”. Weirdly surreal and disturbing.
I get surprised when anticapitalists start doing the work of corporations.
Not at all,
Love my sugar free drinks, they taste better than sugared drinks
My kid spilled sugar free coke in my hair on a trip, and unlike if it was regular coke, it wasn’t an issue.
Oh, and aspartame could be carcinogenic: https://www.who.int/news/item/14-07-2023-aspartame-hazard-and-risk-assessment-results-released
This is straight up misinformation. The study you cited specifically says JEFCA continues to rate aspartame as safe with a fairly high daily intake, and IARC says there is limited evidence (i.e. basically no evidence of an acceptable standard) for carcinogenicity. It is classified as group 2B “possibly carcinogenic”, because there is no such thing as “not carcinogenic”. For reference:
There is also very little evidence aspartame affects blood glucose. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2161831325000857
People are free to drink the drinks that are worse for you, but given that the state foots the bill for the consequences of that, it’s not unreasonable to ask that you pay more to do so, just as we do for tobacco and alcohol.
Very good point. We may as well have that beer instead of the occasional sugary drink. Similar carb count to tax ratio.
I mostly drink apple or orange juice now
I’m pretty sure this is the intended purpose of the law.
As an adult, I can smoke, drink, eat all sorts of shit, but I cannot have a sugary drink unless it’s coke because shops stopped selling them. The law was intended to discourage, not prohibit. I actually drink more coke too now as it’s only soft drink I can buy that doesn’t taste like chemicals.
For reference, kids in schools can drink shit filled with artificial sweeteners. They can get chocolate with their lunch and trust me, they treat themselves to chocolate and a Prime on their way home.
This law didn’t protect health, just move folk to substitutes that aren’t necessary better for them. States shouldn’t be preventing consenting adults making decisions with their own health.
Hell, the food is still largely unregulated with ridiculous levels of sodium which is ridiculous for heart disease.
So if I sell water with the tag sugar free will it get taxed?
If it doesn’t contain sweeteners, then no
It’s sugar free.
But that’s not specifically when the tax is applied
I’m more often drinking water, only coffee with stevia for up to 4 times a day, and enjoy a little soda or fruit juice once in a while as I treat those the same way as a shot of whisky. Just all in moderation.
TBH good, drink some water you’ll be healthier. And FUCK artificial sweeteners that shit is straight chemical cancer. I fucking hate when I get Stevia or Splenda or Sucralose etc, they all taste like chemical garbage.
Straight up Stevia isn’t too bad. It comes from the leaves of a plant and if anything is often sweeter tasting per volume than sugar. That doesn’t mean people should be drinking soft drinks with it in great volume versus water, but it’s an acceptable substitute IMO to sugar in coffee or the occasional drink and still better than cane sugar. Soft drinks contain plenty of other shit that’s not particularly good for you in addition to the sweeteners too.
Sucralose is nasty stuff, and Splenda is just a brand, with their “sweetener” containing a bit of Sucralose in their chemical cocktail “sugar substitute” in addition to hefty doses of dextrose/maltodexrin as bulking agents.
I genuinely don’t understand how anyone can ingest fake sweeteners and not be disgusted, they taste so wrong.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9891650/
I’m not sure if this includes Stevia but artificial sweeteners have some pretty bad long term effects
Little is known about the impacts that ASBs pose on health, especially those used in beverages like DS. As discussed above, some findings have been made about their relation to cardiometabolic implications, but these findings remain controversial.
Why in the fuck y’all linking the studies without reading? Or do you think people around you are also stupid and nobody can actually read what you linked? Do you think we would be intimidating by big words or something. Fuck.
? Did you read the conclusion, which is what the researchers believe you should take from these findings? I picked some random paper because this is well established that they have negative effects
The excessive consumption of these beverages does indeed pose a threat to health, as it impacts many organs and systems.
Some of the risks are listed as follows: mental health (including incidental mood disorders such as depression and eating disorders such as bulimia); delays in child neurodevelopment when consumed by mothers during pregnancy; cardiac remodeling (increased LAD and LVM); evidence of worsening retinopathy as well as increased HbA1c in diabetics; increased urinary symptoms in women; incidental ESRD, a modest association between consumption of ASB and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma as well as multiple myeloma in men, incidental rheumatoid arthritis in women; increased risk of hip fractures in postmenopausal women; incidental dental erosion and caries; and finally, increases in BrAC when used in alcoholic beverages.
Is that how you read the articles? Is that how you expect everyone to read the articles? You just skip to conclusion and pretend that you now understand what it’s all about? Bloody hell, no wonder then. I know people like to link studies that don’t support their points, and I now get why, you actually think you do.
That is how you should read anything you are not an expert in, yes. A layperson can very often misunderstand what they are reading (mixing up correlation and causation for instance) and draws incorrect conclusions, so you defer to what the experts believe, i.e. their conclusion.
You should never, ever, under any circumstances, cherry-pick what parts of studies to read and use that to draw conclusions. You need to read all the words, experts believe all the words in the study they publish, unless it’s a citation predicated with “some idiots who are wrong also saying:”.
Whoever told you your way of reading lied to you, possibly taught you wrong way on purpose as a joke.
Next a savory tax? Or Euros taxing flavor because it frightens and confuses them.
Obesity and diabetes kill people. Dangerous to your health and the health of the people around you if you are naive about the average amount of sugar consumed. Anyone arguing life is already very expensive has a point, but arguing it is a silly tax is either because you are uninformed or indifferent to the health of your community.
They wanted to increase the tax on unsweetened oat milk as well, how will that positively impact peoples health?
I am not arguing in favor of this specific tax, I totally agree with you. It is a very bad thing the milk lobby got their way. My point is about the serious risk our average sugar consumption poses to our collective health and the idea that a financial incentive towards a healthy alternative is a useful tool to lower that consumption in general. I do not think soda with artificial sweetners should be included, and definitely not unsweetened drinks. Oat milk is much better for the climate as well, so taxing that and not cow milk that is a stupid move in more than one way.
This is an article about how they’re going to increase taxes on sugar free drinks, which famously don’t cause diabetes or obesity
No it is an article about tax on sugar, that includes sugar free drinks. My comment is obviously about drinks that contain sugar, so is this article, it is very relevant.
a tax on sugar, that includes sugar free drinks.
So, a tax on things that taste sweet, not just things that contribute to diabetes and obesity. One might, in an attempt to point out how silly this is, compare it to a hypothetical tax on things that taste savory.
Yes, a hypothetical tax on savory things would also be a stupid tax. It was actually the second part that really triggered me, because that addition makes it seem like that person is mocking laws that limits peoples freedom, it was no longer about their health. This law in particular is stupid, there is a reason someone posted this to c/nottheonion. But the general idea of making unhealthy things is not a silly one and that is the belief that made me write my comment.
Some people think everybody should be allowed to do everything they want without the government interfering. Those people clearly haven’t been outside and have not look at the state of world. We’re killing the planet and breaking our bodies. Not because we are making free choices, but because we live in a world that incentives us to overconsume so a happy few can live a good life on yachts and private jets.
For the second part I was just mocking Northern European food as bland.
Hey, one person got it!
They’re too busy enjoying their 600 lb life to understand that in the US.
