It is not about “sugar-free”. It is about added artifical sweeteners. Not that one thinks they would add sugar tax to e.g. sparkling water…
They always fumble stuff like this on purpose. A bag of nuts has the worst nutri score ever, a deep frozen pizza is a B.
Lobbyists the answer is lobbyists. The government is very corrupt here, especially the current one.
Nutri scores compare with similar products in a category.
Nuts and pizza are in different categories, and maybe that specific pizza was better than the rest.
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 hereI’m more often drinking water, only coffee with stevia for up to 4 times a day, and enjoy a little soda or fruit juice once in a while as I treat those the same way as a shot of whisky. Just all in moderation.
Don’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.
Oh, and aspartame could be carcinogenic: https://www.who.int/news/item/14-07-2023-aspartame-hazard-and-risk-assessment-results-released
This is straight up misinformation. The study you cited specifically says JEFCA continues to rate aspartame as safe with a fairly high daily intake, and IARC says there is limited evidence (i.e. basically no evidence of an acceptable standard) for carcinogenicity. It is classified as group 2B “possibly carcinogenic”, because there is no such thing as “not carcinogenic”. For reference:
There is also very little evidence aspartame affects blood glucose. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2161831325000857
People are free to drink the drinks that are worse for you, but given that the state foots the bill for the consequences of that, it’s not unreasonable to ask that you pay more to do so, just as we do for tobacco and alcohol.
I mostly drink apple or orange juice now
I’m pretty sure this is the intended purpose of the law.
As an adult, I can smoke, drink, eat all sorts of shit, but I cannot have a sugary drink unless it’s coke because shops stopped selling them. The law was intended to discourage, not prohibit. I actually drink more coke too now as it’s only soft drink I can buy that doesn’t taste like chemicals.
For reference, kids in schools can drink shit filled with artificial sweeteners. They can get chocolate with their lunch and trust me, they treat themselves to chocolate and a Prime on their way home.
This law didn’t protect health, just move folk to substitutes that aren’t necessary better for them. States shouldn’t be preventing consenting adults making decisions with their own health.
Hell, the food is still largely unregulated with ridiculous levels of sodium which is ridiculous for heart disease.
Apple juice isn’t really healthier than soft drinks, especially sugar-wise.
After the first one. One is likely good for you, but more and it’s a bit like drinking coke. Pulp based smoothies are more healthy through.
Fruit juice is the sugar of the fruits without the fibers. So not much different than a soda sugar wise.
No. Juice is not good for you. And smoothies are still worse than fresh fruit. And fruit is still worse than vegetables.
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
It’s not weird if that’s what you like. It makes me feel ill and triggers the gag reflex.
I wonder if my point is allowed, the fast food industries heavy investment in partial “science” and astroturfing has been very successful.
What do you mean by “allowed”?
Yeah once you get used to the taste of the artificial sweetner its the superior version IMO. There’s no corn syrup film left on your teeth either
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.
Still tastes like artificial shit tho. You can steralize shit all you want I’m still not eating it.
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.
Okay, still tastes like complete ass tho.
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.
I genuinely don’t understand how anyone can ingest fake sweeteners and not be disgusted, they taste so wrong.
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?
Taxing sugar is protecting the poor people’s wallets long-term from having to buy Ozempic, surgeries, sneakers for jogging, and fitness trackers.
That’s the real way wealth gets transfered from the bottom to the top - by selling poison AND the treatment for it.
Now that you say it, it truely works. And look, for tabaco, before the poors were smoking and dieing of the consequences of it while evil rich were getting rich by selling them poison. And so it was the richs’fault!
Thanks to taxes, poors keep smoking and they still die of it, and rich seller still make money out of it. But now the fault is on the poors who are smokers…
Also, I would like to suggest heavy high taxe on sugar and sweet products so that blackmarket could keep growing. And since we now buy cigarets from illegal drug dealers, why not also buy from them our candies and sodas? It gives back some money to (the richest one of the) poor neighbohoods without direct intervention in the economy.
Education and program for healthy behaviour accessible even for poors would be so wrong: the richest would make less money and pass for the bad guys…
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.
Perfectly safe, yo…
“IARC classified aspartame as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B) on the basis of limited evidence for cancer in humans (specifically, for hepatocellular carcinoma, which is a type of liver cancer).”.
Industry astroturfing and funding partial “science” has been highly successful.
You know what else is carcinogenic? Breathing contaminated air, which is present just about everywhere on the planet, besides maybe on mountaintops or something. But the effects in “normal” areas are so little that it doesnt make sense to worry about. The data indicating carcinogenicity in sweeteners is so vague and inconclusive that they cant even certainly say “how” bad it is, just that it maybe has some kind of influence. Thats a million times better than actual sugar with thousands of studies proving its harmful effects.
People will drink sweet stuff whether you want it or not. The question is if they should drink the ones that give you a 1% chance of a bad liver and diabetes, or the ones that may have a .0001% chance of promoting some kind of cancer? (these arent supposed to be actual realistic values, if it wasnt obvious, as risks depend on a million factors)
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
