this post was submitted on 12 Jul 2024
165 points (98.2% liked)
World News
32291 readers
598 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
Banning added sugar? From what?
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.
How is banning sweet food in its entirety supposed to help give people something to live for? It only makes life shitter
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.
I wonder how much diabetic deaths would increase with no easy access to sugar
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.