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.
> 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 hereDon’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
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.
artificial sweeteners that shit is straight chemical cancer
Common misconception and misread of the facts. They way they are used, they’re fine.
Sweeteners like aspartame have been intensely researched because the health scare that used to be around it, Is still considered totally safe so “Straight chemical cancer” is false, it is not.
Probably there are way worse thinks that we don’t know around somewhere that affect us way worse than diet cola lol.
I would be more worried about air quality
That way you might come to the conclusion that car-centric infrastructure might be the problem, and we can’t have that. Quick, demonise some household item as a distraction! Spatulas cause erectile dysfunction! Let’s talk about that ad nauseam.
Most big cities in EU do, only euro 6 cars can pass or electric, or electric buses.
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.
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
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?
“But there isn’t even sugar in this!”
“Yeah, but you still suck, so you’re paying anyway.”
Why would they exempt things that are harmful to the body and the climate like milk?
Lmao okay, tell that to my rock hard bones. Never broken a bone and I sink like a rock in water. That MILK BABEY, so until I get brittle Imma keep downing a gallon a week and half gallon of cookies and cream icecream.
Eats 6 3/8 American bricks of milk a day
Ive also never broken a bone, and I was vegan half my life? Still I stay away mostly from dairy. ya fuckin doink, suck ur mother’s tit with that attitude
Probably because thats not what this is about. Its about processed sugar being addictive and harmful.
Aspartame is great though: https://www.who.int/news/item/14-07-2023-aspartame-hazard-and-risk-assessment-results-released
Not sure if you are trying to be sarcastic? This source says that Aspartame is perfectly safe unless you consume 10 cans of soft drinks per day. And even when you exceed that, it doesnt mean it is harmful, just that there is not enough evidence to prove it isnt.
Sugar is proven to be harmful even in small amounts, so Aspartame is better in every way. Its a shame I hate the aftertaste of artificial sweeteners, but I dont consume a lot of sugar anyway.
Milk is addictive and harmful.
Sounds like what this is about…
Outside of babies trying to survive their first year, how is milk addictive?
Are you high on milk rn?
The minister of finance clarified that the tax will not apply to sugar free drinks
If you read it, the tax will still apply to drinks with artificial sweetener:
“Gestern war ein Papier aus Klingbeils Ministerium bekannt geworden, demzufolge die geplante Abgabe mehr Produkte betreffen könnte als ursprünglich angenommen. In dem Papier des Finanzministeriums sind zum Beispiel auch Säfte, Milchersatzprodukte wie Hafer- und Mandelmilch und alkoholfreie Biermixgetränke genannt, außerdem Getränke, die lediglich Süßungsmittel enthalten.”
O lol that’s fairly recent tho. Yesterday they were all saying: hurr durr the drinking of sweet tasting things should be curbed and I almost punched the narrator via TCP/IP
I would definitely support it if somebody wants to tax stevia.
What’s wrong with stevia?
Its fucking disgusting tasting.
Nothing other than the aftertaste.
I’m used to it. Better than actual sugar which causes some weird itching sensation for a while.
Funny Thing ist the Aftertaste comes from the Processing that ist mandated by law and has been lobbied in by big sugar
The Union really doing their upmost to have the AFD seem more appealing for the uneducated, reactionary conservatives.
I’m gonna go broke when they introduce the Spicy Tax.
Ordering “ohne scharf” because you’re weak ❌
Ordering “ohne scharf” because you can’t afford it ✅Fuck you and your döner
- Bundestag, probably
Next a savory tax? Or Euros taxing flavor because it frightens and confuses them.
Dude, this is an effective method to keep poor people from getting more obese than they already are. Poor people unfortunately suffer most often from obesity because of the readily available junk food. The Danes had a sugar tax long before us and they’re among the happiest people in the world.
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.
Hey, one person got it!
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.
They’re too busy enjoying their 600 lb life to understand that in the US.
Today I learned y’all dumb as fuck. What’s wrong with the comments?
I understand what you mean, dw there are still reasonable people
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.
Some artificial sugars do a number on my gut though
Do not eat any substantial amounts of candy containing xylitol. Stuff is a laxative, and lots of sugar-free candy and gum uses it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xylitol
Adverse effects
Humans
When ingested at high doses, xylitol and other polyols may cause gastrointestinal discomfort, including flatulence, diarrhea, and irritable bowel syndrome (see Metabolism above); some people experience the adverse effects at lower doses.[21][36] Xylitol has a lower laxation threshold than some sugar alcohols but is more easily tolerated than mannitol and sorbitol.[37]
My wife is ADHD and cannot stop herself from chewing through an entire box of gum if she buys one, then spends the evening moaning in pain on the toilet. 😬
It does help to reduce cavities, however. Xylitol limits acid production from fermenting bacteria, and it’s the acid which actually causes cavities (sugar, on the other hand, feeds the fermentation).
So use xylitol toothpaste if you can. You don’t swallow it, so the stomach concerns are nullified.
There’s that LA Beast video on YouTube where he goes through a large bag of sugar free haribo bears and develops an excellent relationship with his toilet. After reading hilarious Amazon reviews about how they’re a laxative.
I discovered him when he ate two huge jars of Vegemite straight up. As an Australian, this made me worry about his blood pressure.
“Awgh! It burns!”
Its also poisonous to pets, just fyi
The problem is that companies will figure out whar artificial sweeteners get around the tax.
Don’t let perfect be the enemy of the good. This is good.
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.
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?
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
Not all sugar is the same. I’ve read that natural fruit sugar is still way healthier than industrially refined sugar. Also fruit juice usually contains vitamins, electrolytes and fiber. So from a health perspective it makes sense to me to exempt 100℅ fruit juices. The alternative would be to only allow juice mixed with water or something else.
Well, you read wrong. Fructose is a very short chain sugar and is absorbed into the bloodstream a lot faster than “regular” sugar, making it more unhealthy.
Jesus, the Kennedy-fication of public health is real.
Read where?
I’ll just link to another comment I made here: https://feddit.nu/post/22364165/21693381
I read in a magazine a few years ago, so I can’t point you to that exact source. But yeah, it’s surely more complicated than that
You can’t expect logic from a conservative government, silly.
Fructose is worse than sugar
Sugar is literally 50% fructose.
Not sure why you are getting downvoted, it’s established science that fructose is worse than glucose. People freak out at high fructose corn syrup, but when it’s “natural” juices it’s completely fine I guess
Huh? Those natural juices are glucose. They have some fructose still, but it’s nothing like sweetened drinks.
At least in the case of apples, cultivated fruits are mostly sucrose and fructose: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0308814614013995
Sucrose is itself 50% fructose.
Sure. Maybe I’m just in a weird group of people, but I don’t know anyone that considers Apple juice to be fruit juice though. At least from a perspective of “would you like some juice”. No one is ever talking about apple juice because it’s long been just sugar water in America. There’s only like two good brands that make it anymore. When the people I know talk about juice it’s orange, pineapple, mango, etc. almost always pulpy juices.
Okay, but this is about Germany, and apple juice is the most popular juice in Germany. And apple flavored sugar water is not allowed to be labeled as Apple juice here
You’re in a weird group or a weird country then, I drink apple juice quite often, even have made it myself when there’s been a plentiful year. And it’s still pulpy.
If you’re getting pulpy apple juice then yes, you are not in my country. I’m in the U.S. I’ve never even heard of pulpy apple juice.
The comments here are insane
Because like all laws, corruption came into the process to make it miss the goal entirely.
Taxing almost all sugary drinks including artificial sweetners but not 100% juice is not “missing the goal entirely”. That’s still hitting the unhealthiest and most marketed beverages.
I’d agree if this targeted products with added sugar and left the artificial sweetners out of it. Fruit juice is also sold in high volumes, especially to families and people beyond their prime age. They might be less marketed, but I would argue they’re not less unhealthy than soda with artificial sweetners. They might not miss the figurative goal entirely, but they sure are missing their literal goal if they are doing this to limit peoples consumption of unhealthy drinks.
There is no evidence that sugar substitutes are unhealthy and in fact have proven over and over again to increase weight loss compared to full sugar or telling people to “just drink more water”.
Hypocrisy is hypocrisy regardless of its intentions.
My guess is because it’s unsweetened, and that the tax applies to drinks with added sugar or sweetener.
That’s not true, the tax apply to unsweetened milk alternatives.
‘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.
They’re not the same types of sugar. Your body uses glucose differently than fructose.
They are both very high in fructose. What is your point? I genuinly don’t get it.
What is the difference? Both harmful same way, glucose spikes, leads to obesity
Maybe to some extent? I don’t think the superiority of one monosaccharide over the other has been clearly established. There are differences, but the health impact of them are not clear. Also, “glucose vs fructose” is
-
not super-relevant to the matter of comparing juice with soda. At least here in the Nordics, most sodas seem to be sweetened with sugar, a.k.a. sucrose (a.k.a. fructose+glucose, see below), and maybe a splash of juice. (Based on a survey of my favorites, though I mostly drink the Zero-versions)
-
a bit of a false choice (see below).
Fructose often co-occurs with glucose
(Source: Wikipedia article on Fructose)
- Fructose co-exists with glucose, in sucrose …
Fructose, or fruit sugar, is a common monosaccharide, i.e. a simple sugar. It is classified as a reducing hexose, more specifically a ketonic simple sugar found in many plants, where it is often bonded to glucose to form the disaccharide sucrose.
- … and in fruit.
Table: “Sugar content of selected common plant foods”. Note that many of the fruits’ sugar content is dominated by a combination of sucrose and free fructose. Only plum breaks this trend, containing mostly glucose instead (still 47% sucrose and fructose).
- Also: Fructose mostly ends up as glucose
The liver converts most fructose and galactose into glucose for distribution in the bloodstream or deposition into glycogen.
“Potential health effects”
- A lot of the discussion in this part of the article is just about overconsumption of dietary sugars (including glucose and sucrose) in general, which would indicate to me that the differences between them aren’t all that significant. However:
The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) stated in 2011 that fructose may be preferable over sucrose and glucose in sugar-sweetened foods and beverages because of its lower effect on postprandial blood sugar levels,[58] while also noting the potential downside that “high intakes of fructose may lead to metabolic complications such as dyslipidaemia, insulin resistance, and increased visceral adiposity”.[58][59] The UK’s Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition in 2015 disputed the claims of fructose causing metabolic disorders, stating that “there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that fructose intake, at levels consumed in the normal UK diet, leads to adverse health outcomes independent of any effects related to its presence as a component of total and free sugars.”[60]
- “Compared to sucrose”
Fructose was found to increase triglycerides in type-2 but not type-1 diabetes, and moderate use of it has previously been considered acceptable as a sweetener for diabetics,[61] possibly because it does not trigger the production of insulin by pancreatic β cells.[62] For a 50 gram reference amount, fructose has a glycemic index of 23, compared with 100 for glucose and 60 for sucrose.[63] Fructose is also 73% sweeter than sucrose at room temperature, allowing diabetics to use less of it per serving.
-
The sugar in soda contains fructose (it is in fact 50% fructose). Soda with HFCS isn’t actually that much higher in fructose than plain sugar soda, ironically; the ‘high’ just means ‘higher than white sugar’.
The “high” means greater than 55% fructose. HFCS has to be at minimum HFCS-55 according to the FDA. Many sodas mix HFCS-55 with HFCS-90 to increase the concentration. And I never said that soda doesn’t have fructose? Don’t know where you got that.
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.
Don’t get me wrong, they probs should tax it but wouldn’t that just push people to make their own juice instead and probs not change much?
I doubt it, making juice is annoying and you have a lot of apple mush to deal with.
Eh fair enough.
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.
I motion we tax Catoblepas for being too starchy.
