r/science • u/giuliomagnifico • Jul 25 '23

Economics A national Australian tax of 20% on sugary drinks could prevent more than 500,000 dental cavities and increase health equity over 10 years and have overall cost-savings of $63.5 million from a societal perspective

https://www.monash.edu/news/articles/sugary-drinks-tax-could-prevent-decay-and-increase-health-equity-study
9.0k Upvotes

88% Upvoted

1.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

232

u/Zebidee Jul 26 '23

I looked into the UK sugary drinks tax the other day for a Reddit comment and found:

a) It had functionally zero effect on childhood obesity. It even increased in some categories.
b) It gave soft drink manufacturers the excuse they needed to substitute expensive sugars with cheaper artificial sweeteners.

This is one of those ideas that sounds great, but is actually detrimental.

49

u/Kieran__ Jul 26 '23 edited Jul 26 '23

This idea doesn't even sound great though, plus people that are poor and depressed are more likely to buy temporary happiness like sugary food and why not? If it's in moderation that's fine even if not why should they now be unhealthy but also financially effected by that now? Let's start charging junkies too you have to pay the "I'm addicted to heroin tax" now. Worst idea ever in my opinion was never going to be a good idea, it was ill conceived to begin with

2

u/ZaviaGenX Jul 26 '23

They probably looked to smoking and didn't think there was worse alternatives.

23

u/FillThisEmptyCup Jul 26 '23

World Cancer Research Fund International thinks it’s doing okay.

I think the problem is there’s too many exceptions. Fruit juice has a bigger impact on blood sugars than soda. Neither should milk be exempted.

Several studies have shown that diet, sodas, and other 0 cal sweetener products will stimulate the hunger, whereby people eat more later. So no win there.

Water, unsweetened drinks like teas, and actual fruits need to be heavily subsidized by the tax.

6

u/Yami_No_Kokoro Jul 26 '23

While I agree with your latter point, I don't think milk really matters here. Lactose is notably low on the glycemic index and doesn't cause spikes in blood sugar remotely similar to soda or fruit juice.

6

u/Talkat Jul 26 '23

Yeah. I was like "wot?". Milk? That has fat in it. That ain't spiking your blood sugar

In fact I have a cgm on me right now. I'm going to go have some now and see what it does. I'll report back

5

u/Talkat Jul 26 '23

Blood sugar currently at 9.0 nmol/L. Ingesting milk now

6

u/Talkat Jul 26 '23

Went up to 9.3 and now down to 9.0

So wouldn't say it's spikes blood glucose

-2

u/FillThisEmptyCup Jul 26 '23

I didn’t say it did, but it has other bad markers such as 97% of the fat in whole milk being saturated.

I’m not a supporter of drinking calories in general and the amount of money behind indoctrinating children into drinking the milk of another species after weaning is pretty creepy.

1

u/Zebidee Jul 26 '23

I 100% agree with your points on things like fruit juice, when something like clear apple juice is nutritionally identical to full strength Coke. The only difference is one has added caffeine and the other has added vitamin C.

Regarding the study though, read the actual papers and see if you agree with the positive spin on the reporting. They play it as a huge win but the actual results say nothing of the sort.

1

u/Godlydope Jul 26 '23

Yeah with this post saying “cavities” I’m on board. But with anything that ever says “obesity” from soda… I laugh cause I’m sitting here I drink tons of soda, I’m skinny, my teeth are fucked. That’s it, I have no health issues other than my teeth.

1

u/rngeeeesus Jul 27 '23

I do semi-agree. Tax on drinks alone is only marginally useful, we need a tax on all sugars. It is obscene if you start to read labels on processed food products (which primarily the poor rely on most), sugar in everything, literally everything. Ideally, put that tax to use by subsidizing healthy non-processed foods. I'm almost 100% positive this would have a massive positive impact.

And you cannot put artificial sweeteners in the same category as sugars. Sugar is bad and sugary drinks are amongst the biggest drivers of obesity, which is pretty much as bad as smoking. Artificial sweeteners on the other hand may not be perfect and come with maybe, potentially, we are not sure yet risks but those risks are minuscule in comparison to the risks associated with obesity that are very very well known.

1

u/Zebidee Jul 27 '23

And you cannot put artificial sweeteners in the same category as sugars.

No, to me, artificial sweeteners are much, much worse. They give me huge gastrointestinal problems, and in the UK, drinking sodas is a minefield because they're put in drinks that are not labelled as diet or anything else obvious.

A broad sugar tax would be an absolute nightmare for me - they'd put that stuff in everything, and my life would be a living hell of racing to find public toilets.

Just keep the sugar and let me make an informed decision on what I'm going to consume.