The amount of sugar consumed by children from soft drinks in the UK halved within a year of the sugar tax being introduced, a study has found. : worldnews

[-] LNRDrone@sopuli.xyz 20 points 4 months ago

So is there study that would have looked into how much of the sugar was just replaced with other sweeteners? Or how much soda consumption itself has changed?

[-] ch00f@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago

What's wrong with other sweeteners?

[-] LNRDrone@sopuli.xyz 8 points 4 months ago

Most sweeteners have their own health risks. Generally probably still better than sugar, but just moving to sweeteners isn't all sunshine and happiness.

[-] ryannathans@aussie.zone 4 points 4 months ago

Carcinogenic like aspartame, and still activate glucose receptors (that's why they are sweet) so still cause insulin resistance etc.

[-] prodigalsorcerer@lemmy.ca 3 points 4 months ago

Aspartame is not carcinogenic.

[-] ryannathans@aussie.zone -2 points 4 months ago

It's in the same carcinogen group as acetaldehyde, aflatoxin, chloroform, DDT and lead. But sure go around making those bold claims which are not supported by the WHO.

[-] prodigalsorcerer@lemmy.ca 18 points 4 months ago

It's also in the same carcinogen group as electromagnetic fields, aloe vera, nickel, and kimchi. Most of those things you listed are quite dangerous for other reasons, but cancer is not the primary concern with any of them.

IARC group 2B is where substances end up if a study manages to produce cancer at any dose. If you drink 50 cans of diet coke per day (which is the equivalent of the rat study that demonstrated that it's possible for aspartame to cause cancer), then you might get cancer caused by the aspartame you just consumed.

[-] ryannathans@aussie.zone -2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Okay now we are getting somewhere. It's admittedly carcinogenic but the dose is debatable. I think the revised threshold is 8 glasses of soft drink or 2L per day but seems to be dropping every few years

[-] queermunist@lemmy.ml 17 points 4 months ago

Imagine what would happen if the government actually regulated and restricted sugar.

[-] ryannathans@aussie.zone 6 points 4 months ago

Imagine if people gave a shit about what they consumed

[-] queermunist@lemmy.ml 12 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

People in despair don't care about much at all. Nevermind this shit is addictive, psychologically manipulative, it also acts as a little dopamine hit in an otherwise miserable life. Obesity deaths are deaths of despair.

Imagine if people wanted to live.

[+] ryannathans@aussie.zone -10 points 4 months ago

Then make the decision to live. Let people choose. You want to exercise? Do it. You don't? Then don't. You want to eat shit? Then eat shit. You don't? Then eat better. Oh no I don't have the willpower to stop eating shit but now I can't afford to continue so it doesn't matter? This isn't improvement

[-] queermunist@lemmy.ml 10 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

People don't just randomly make the decision to live, they need to have things for which to live.

You're right, taxing sugar isn't an answer. Banning it is better, somewhat, but it's still not the best solution.

The best solution is to make people want to stop eating like shit and stop killing themselves. I called obesity deaths "deaths of despair" because it's really not much different from any other unhealthy/dangerous behavior be that drug abuse, self harm, etc. Screaming "make the decision to live" at people is kinda fucking stupid lol

[-] ryannathans@aussie.zone 1 points 4 months ago

Do you know what portion of overweight people are depressed compared to healthy population?

[-] queermunist@lemmy.ml 3 points 4 months ago

As we see here, obesity and very low body weight are both associated with worse mental health outcomes. Merely being overweight, interestingly, seems to be associated with better mental health outcomes. This tracts, being overweight isn't necessarily associated with the kinds of unhealthy or dangerous behavior that obesity is - that's just a problem of quantity rather than quality.

IANAD but I think obesity is the real killer.

[-] ryannathans@aussie.zone 1 points 4 months ago

Is this tax not hurting the most vulnerable group the most?

[-] queermunist@lemmy.ml 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

That's why I favor outright banning added sugars, or even better, improve their lives so much that they don't want to fill the void with sugar.

[-] ryannathans@aussie.zone 1 points 4 months ago

Banning added sugar? From what?

[-] queermunist@lemmy.ml -1 points 4 months ago

Well to start, everything that's included in this sugar tax. Does anyone really need this garbage?

But really, it's more important to give people lives that are good so they don't get sucked in to unhealthy behaviors.

Give people something to live for any they won't kill themselves.

[-] ryannathans@aussie.zone 1 points 4 months ago

How is banning sweet food in its entirety supposed to help give people something to live for? It only makes life shitter

[-] queermunist@lemmy.ml 1 points 4 months ago

Not what I said.

I said I prefer a ban instead of a tax. A tax just bans sugar for the poor. A ban effects everyone, so it's fair and more effective.

But also, the optimum solution instead of a tax or a ban would be to make people's lives better so they don't kill themselves.

[-] ryannathans@aussie.zone 1 points 4 months ago

I wonder how much diabetic deaths would increase with no easy access to sugar

[-] queermunist@lemmy.ml 1 points 4 months ago

To clarify, I didn't say to ban the ingredient itself, just foods with added sugars i.e. sugar-sweetened beverages, sugary snacks and junk food, sugary breakfast cereals, etc. We're talking about this in context of the tax, which doesn't ban raw bags of sugar.

If someone wants a teaspoon of sugar in their coffee at home then whatever, that's not the source of the public health crisis. The problem is from convenience and processed foods. We could solve the problem. We won't.

[-] LarkinDePark@lemmygrad.ml 5 points 4 months ago

Imagine if people weren't constantly bombarded with expertly tailored marketing campaigns designed to psychologically manipulate them into consuming things that are unhealthy.

[+] Mindtraveller@lemmy.blahaj.zone -16 points 4 months ago

Great, now all the undernourished kids with poor parents are going to drink water instead and lose weight to dangerously unhealthy levels.

According to The Guardian (same source as this article), the number of children in food poverty in the UK is 4 million. 15% of UK households went hungry in January. Now, soda isn’t the smartest source of calories in a kid’s diet. It’s expensive and low in other nutrients. But kids aren’t always smart. A poor kid thinks “I’m hungry, I have a few pounds, there’s a vending machine, problem solved”. If the soda is too expensive, that doesn’t mean the kid is going to go to Aldi, buy some potatoes, and roast them for a cheap and nutritious meal. They’re a kid! It means they’ll pay more or go without. Which means you’re making the poverty and malnutrition problem worse.

[-] nekandro@lemmy.ml 4 points 4 months ago

The Health Survey for England 2021 estimates that 25.9% of adults in England are obese and a further 37.9% are overweight but not obese.

[-] HumanPenguin@feddit.uk 2 points 4 months ago

The tax only applys to soda. Fruit juces chocolate bars and all the other crap in vending machines is the same tax as always.

While still crappy calories, they are all better than soda. As a % of the carbs is not refined sugar.

World News

Rules: