‘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.
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)
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.
Ignore them. If you have apple trees and have to deal with a bunch of excess apples in autumn, make apple juice. You’ll spend like half a day to a day on the process and it’ll be annoying, but you’ll end up with the best goddamn apple juice you’ve ever had.
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’m not really advocating for anything other than pointing out that your argument is inconsistent. Is it about the sugar or not?
I literally just explained to you why the sugar in an apple is not identical to the sugar in a serving of apple juice, if you don’t want to acknowledge it I can’t make you.
What about grapes? They’re extremely high in sugar and relatively low in fiber.
Find me a dietitian that says grapes are bad for you 🤷♂️ Rules lawyering how biology works doesn’t actually work, the soda is still worse for you than fruit even if you go “ah ah ah, but you both have sugar!!”
I really don’t understand what you’re not getting about this. No one’s confused about sugar in apples versus juice. No one is confused about serving sizes. Move past that.
The question was are there exact standards. Is it based upon sugar content? Is it just all liquids? What’s your criteria? You said what’s healthy but that is so incredibly subjective I don’t know why you’d even bother writing it. You could find a dietitian to say you shouldn’t eat basically everything. Absolutely grapes. I’m not saying that. It seems like you’re not saying that. Which is why I’m confused because earlier your criteria, high sugar low fiber, would seem to exclude them.
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)
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).
“Potential health effects”
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.
Ignore them. If you have apple trees and have to deal with a bunch of excess apples in autumn, make apple juice. You’ll spend like half a day to a day on the process and it’ll be annoying, but you’ll end up with the best goddamn apple juice you’ve ever had.
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 literally just explained to you why the sugar in an apple is not identical to the sugar in a serving of apple juice, if you don’t want to acknowledge it I can’t make you.
Find me a dietitian that says grapes are bad for you 🤷♂️ Rules lawyering how biology works doesn’t actually work, the soda is still worse for you than fruit even if you go “ah ah ah, but you both have sugar!!”
I really don’t understand what you’re not getting about this. No one’s confused about sugar in apples versus juice. No one is confused about serving sizes. Move past that.
The question was are there exact standards. Is it based upon sugar content? Is it just all liquids? What’s your criteria? You said what’s healthy but that is so incredibly subjective I don’t know why you’d even bother writing it. You could find a dietitian to say you shouldn’t eat basically everything. Absolutely grapes. I’m not saying that. It seems like you’re not saying that. Which is why I’m confused because earlier your criteria, high sugar low fiber, would seem to exclude them.
I motion we tax Catoblepas for being too starchy.