- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 7/10/24 at 11:13 am to tiggerthetooth
quote:
Unhealthy people eventually become a burden on the welfare state and we might as well get ahead of the issues.
Really should. It is cruel to do otherwise. Not only would your proposal cut down on consumption and save us money it would also mean fewer people were deathly ill.....thats a good thing, as good as the savings.
Posted on 7/10/24 at 11:13 am to TigerHornII
quote:
Back in the day, we ate sugary everything, but people were still mostly skinny.
That is not exactly accurate or at least misleading. Back in the day the sugary things we ate were supposed to be sweet, now everything processed is filled with sugars. So people consume tons of sugar and will never know it unless they read the ingredients and nutritional label.
Posted on 7/10/24 at 11:14 am to TigerHornII
quote:
Back in the day, we ate sugary everything, but people were still mostly skinny.
Probably smoking near a pack a day too.
Posted on 7/10/24 at 11:16 am to StringedInstruments
It's made with pure cane sugar!
Posted on 7/10/24 at 11:16 am to Obtuse1
quote:
That is not exactly accurate or at least misleading. Back in the day the sugary things we ate were supposed to be sweet, now everything processed is filled with sugars. So people consume tons of sugar and will never know it unless they read the ingredients and nutritional label.
Back in the day men did things like pulp wooding and construction work to earn a living. Women did housework in un air conditioned homes and gardnened. They ate sugar, sure, and lard and all manner of shite....but they did not do it in the quantities we do today and they did not do it while sitting on their asses all day. They also lived about 25 years less.
Posted on 7/10/24 at 11:26 am to Bamafig
quote:
All of you who think this is a great idea are clueless. Do you really think Government would stop with sugar? You don’t think more taxes on beer, wine, meat or whatever it is that affects you won’t be next? Any Government that controls your healthcare controls you. I have said this before, “If You Give A Mouse A Cookie” should be required reading.
I don't think it's a great idea, but I think it's the only viable option. We will never get lobbyists out of Washington creating incentives in capitalistic structures for doing this.
There's an incentive to use as many taste "boosting" things as possible - mostly sugar, salt and fat. There's an incentive to use the cheapest version of these things - HFCS, Seed Oils. There's an incentive to having lifelong healthcare customers. There's an incentive to starting kids on these foods early. There are incentives at EVERY step of the way.
This will NEVER be solved by the market - multiple markets don't even few this as a problem. This will never be solved by politicians - they aren't paid by lobbyists to solve this problem for the above reasons. This will never be solved by a captive audience. Have you ever tried to avoid HFCS and Seed Oils? The only way it's possible is if you make every item in your kitchen from scratch. Which isn't sustainable.
And of course, there's the clear European label comparison.
Is it not crazy that the least expensive items are the most engineered? That the thing with 30 ingredients costs less on the market than the thing with 5? That's a broad statement for sure, but even logically - that's just odd.
Posted on 7/10/24 at 11:28 am to StringedInstruments
quote:
It showed that the daily sugar intake for children fell by about 4.8g,
The average sugar consumption for children fell by .14 of an ounce?
That's it?
Posted on 7/10/24 at 11:41 am to Freauxzen
quote:
I don't think it's a great idea, but I think it's the only viable option. We will never get lobbyists out of Washington creating incentives in capitalistic structures for doing this.
For those who haven't been paying attention, more taxes rarely, if ever, solve problems. I certainly do not trust government with a new avenue for taxation (specific food items deemed unhealthy) not to abuse this new road paved with good intentions.
That's why the only response to this is, "No".
This post was edited on 7/10/24 at 11:49 am
Posted on 7/10/24 at 11:46 am to Jake88
quote:
It is amusing when statements like this are made. As if individuals have no agency and are all victims
While you are correct, the industry and the government were basically allowed to lie for decades about the effects of sugar consumption. It also is absolutely an addictive substance.
We don't even give our kids juice unless it's watered down. The only time they get things like Capri Sun's are on vacation.
Posted on 7/10/24 at 11:49 am to StringedInstruments
I hate all taxes but could see how this could help people make better decisions.
If they do this they should remove all taxes from non processed foods (basically the items on the outside walls of most grocery stores: meat, dairy, fruits and vegetables) I would also include canned or frozen vegetables as tax free.
Way too many fatties on assistance buying stuff that is only going to make them fatter and increase the cost of their medical costs.
If they do this they should remove all taxes from non processed foods (basically the items on the outside walls of most grocery stores: meat, dairy, fruits and vegetables) I would also include canned or frozen vegetables as tax free.
Way too many fatties on assistance buying stuff that is only going to make them fatter and increase the cost of their medical costs.
Posted on 7/10/24 at 11:52 am to LegendInMyMind
quote:
For those who haven't been paying attention, more taxes rarely, if ever, solve problems. I certainly do not trust government with a new avenue for taxation (specific food items deemed unhealthy) not to abuse this new road paved with good intentions.
That's why the only response to this is, "No".
Again, I don't disagree, but not sure status quo is the way to go either.
Posted on 7/10/24 at 11:55 am to MikeD
quote:
US should do this. Or give incentives for healthy eating.
Modifying behavior by taxation feels like something the founding fathers would raise gallows over.
The amount of taxation we already do on tobacco products is frankly disgusting. It's crazy how we as a society demonize one industry while being completely fine with others. This is coming from someone who cannot smoke and actually is missing 40% of a lung.
Posted on 7/10/24 at 11:56 am to notiger1997
quote:
I would be for more taxes on shitty foods, but I want these taxes to go into a fund(private company managed, not government). These funds would be used to pay for the medical care of all the poor who we currently have to treat for diabetes and heart disease.
MSA
Posted on 7/10/24 at 11:58 am to Cosmo
Not clear at all:
LINK
LINK
quote:
There is currently not enough evidence that high-fructose corn syrup is any worse than sugar from a health perspective, though more research is definitely needed. Both can be harmful when consumed in excess.
This post was edited on 7/10/24 at 11:59 am
Posted on 7/10/24 at 12:00 pm to Big4SALTbro
quote:
Daddy gov you harder is want you want
Incentive is better option
Yeah, but maybe someone telling you how to live a better, healthier life is okay. Walk around. Americans are fricking disgusting because they can and want to be. Those people are very large net negative on national health.
You all bitch about fast food places. Would the world benefit with having less fast food places that serve garbage to people? Maybe create more healthy fast food or promote cooking at home for cheaper and healthier meals.
I'm a TRUMPER, but society sucks if left alone. People are not responsible. We need some guidelines because people are generally stupid.
Of couse, situations like this can overreach and all that slippery slope stuff may come into effect.
This post was edited on 7/10/24 at 12:03 pm
Posted on 7/10/24 at 12:08 pm to Ingeniero
quote:
100%. It's insane the amount of slop they're allowed to put in our food that would never fly in the EU
it has completely different ingredients outside the US
Posted on 7/10/24 at 12:12 pm to jcaz
You could put half the sugar in a coke and it would taste the same.
LINK
Personally, I drink tap water. Or beer, or wine, or bourbon. Straight.
LINK
quote:
An eight-ounce serving of juice and cola both contain about 30 grams of sugar on average — that's almost eight teaspoons.
Personally, I drink tap water. Or beer, or wine, or bourbon. Straight.
Posted on 7/10/24 at 12:13 pm to TigerintheNO
But you don't make a meal of ketchup. I doubt the difference is meaningful in the context of a total diet.
Posted on 7/10/24 at 12:17 pm to MidWestGuy
I’m a Mio guy.
I’m an energy drink guy but always get one or two particular brands that use sucralose instead of sugar.
I’m an energy drink guy but always get one or two particular brands that use sucralose instead of sugar.
Page 3 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News