Posted on 12/17/2008 5:40:01 PM PST by Eric Blair 2084
Governor Paterson says he can raise $404 million in state revenues with a 15% tax on soft drinks (but not diet sodas, juices, milk, or water).
The relevant section of the statute reads:
"Create Sales Tax on Soft Drinks. Imposes an additional 18 percent rate of sales and compensating use taxes on fruit drinks that contain less than seventy percent of natural fruit juice and non-dietetic soft drinks, sodas and beverages. By increasing the price, it will discourage individuals, especially children and teenagers, from excessive consumption of these beverages. Revenues will be directed for health care initiatives."
And here’s the American Beverage Association’s predictable response: hurts the middle class, nobody wants it, no science or logic behind it.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. For example, the maker of a carbonated juice drink wrote me to complain that her product, which is 50% juice and taxable, contains under 70 calories per 8-ounces in comparison to non-taxed 100% fruit juice at 110 calories/8 ounces. Obesity is about calories, no? Or is it really about the kinds of products people habitually drink?
I’m curious to know what you think of this idea. Please weigh in.
You're making a distinction without a difference. Actually, your statement really makes no sense at all so my first reply to you should have been to ask you to make some sense out of it. Since the majority of soft drinks you're referring to are made with high fructose corn syrup, you should probably explain why you're using corn syrup as an example. They are two very different products.
HFCS and sugar (sucrose) are both carbohydrates (sugars) and give you 4 calories per gram. How does corn syrup, or HFCS for that matter, give anyone the equivalent of 10-40 or more teaspoons of sugar in their soft drinks and why is that relevant?
You've yet to do any dazzling. You're only further exposing your ignorance of the subject you've chosen to rant about.
I’m fed up with your insults based on your error.
This coming form the guy who doesn't know the difference between HFCS and corn syrup or that HFCS, corn syrup and sucrose are all sugars? LOL!
Any more from you and I’ll ask the moderators to review this nonsense.
Wow. Your inability to justify your statements here really has your underwear in a bunch. Why is that?
Is the corn syrup equivalent of 10 - 40 teaspoons of sugar worse than 10 - 40 teaspoons of sugar?
What is a pure free market?
including the free movement of labor,
If by free movement of labor you mean illegal immigration, I'm against it. If you mean something else, please explain.
My response to the above comment:
Sounds like you agree (at least to an extent) with what was written in bold above. You said "yes" to his statement after all. If so, please show us that artificial sugars have been proven to cause greater weight gain than sugar or that High fructose corn syrup is not handled by the body as well as sugar.
You don't even know the difference between corn syrup and high fructose corn syrup or which one is commonly used in soft drinks. Do you think soft drinks are making people obese or that the overconsumption of calories makes people obese? Two generations ago we didn't have an obesity problem and Coke was made with real sugar and had the same number of calories as today. You seem to believe that taxing these products will alleviate the problem, or the costs associated with it, in some manner. That's absurd too.
The problem isn't with the content of the food, it's with the amount being consumed. No tax structure is going to prevent people from consuming more calories than they burn. Unless your plan is to make all food so expensive from taxation that people are forced to consume less or what the government chooses.
No matter how much smoke you blow and how much you try to hide your gross misinterpretation of a simple sentence, here is where you went wrong:
“Ah, do you even know the difference between “10 - 40 or more”, and “10-40 more”?”
Straight from your sentence and mine. Go find you high school English teacher and ask him or her to diagram the two full sentences for you and explain to you what they mean.
Try again:
“10 - 40 or more”
and
“10-40 more”
Can you yet see the difference? And the full sentence you wrote makes it clear you completely misinterpreted my post.
Wow, lots of science and nutrition info in this post. LOL!
I guess some need to study the sentences again:
“Yes, everything isn’t known in this area, but a good bit is known. And it’s corn syrup giving people the equivalent of 10 - 40 or more teaspoons of sugar (depending on size) in their soft drinks.”
Here is your response to that in your #165:
“How does that work exactly? 10-40 more teaspoons of sugar are consumed when you use corn syrup to sweeten a drink instead of sugar?”
I mention the amount of corn syrup in a soft drink (depending on size) as being equal to 10 - 40 or more teaspoons of sugar.
Then, you make the ridiculous assertion that I said that “10-40 more teaspoons of sugar are consumed when you use corn syrup to sweeten a drink instead of sugar.”
So, here perhaps we’ve identified another problem. Do you know what the word “equivalent” means. If you did, you’d never have made the mistake you made.
As used, equivalent meant the amount of corn syrup in various sizes of soft drinks was equal to 10 - 40 or more teaspoons of sugar. And that’s all it meant.
How did you leap from “equivalent” to “10-40 more”?
Again, your ridiculous misinterpretation:
“How does that work exactly? 10-40 more teaspoons of sugar are consumed when you use corn syrup to sweeten a drink instead of sugar?”
I know Toddsterpatriot from other discussions. I don’t care how many join you in your ridiculous refusal to admit your glaring mistake in interpreting what a simple sentence means.
Look up “equivalent” in your online dictionary. That should help you.
“Wow, lots of science and nutrition info in this post. LOL!”
None at all, I agree, Toddster. We are now down to basic sentence structure and the meaning of such words as “equivalent”.
Haven’t seen you much the past months. Wher’ve you been. I took a few weeks off just before and after election day.
Now that we see you meant 10-40 teaspoons, maybe you'll respond to the science questions?
Haven’t seen you much the past months.
I've been here, poking the clowns, as usual.
High fructose corn syrup used in soft drinks is 55% fructose and 45% glucose. Sucrose is 50% fructose and 50% glucose. Since fructose is sweeter than glucose maybe you can use less HFCS than sugar (sucrose) to sweeten soft drinks thereby reducing the total amount of calories. If that's the case, please tell us all again about your definition of "equivalent".
It's become very clear why you purposely avoid the many other questions asked of you. You have no idea what you're talking about. But you sure do like to talk.
“Aside from your confusion with the science, your post was muddled.
Now that we see you meant 10-40 teaspoons, maybe you’ll respond to the science questions?”
The sentence was not muddled. What is muddled about “equivalent to 10 - 40 or more teaspoons”? No way to go from that to “40 more” but a misreading.
And, precisely what is my “confusion with the science”? I’ve noted the distinguished authority Mase using corn syrup and HFCS interchangably as I did in the sentence in question.
What “science questions” are you talking about?
And it’s damned strange, all the insulting and finger pointing from people who’ve provided damned little science themselves. The use of HFCS only scores so many points.
And, let it be said, this entire string of nonsense began with a misinterpretation of a clear and correct sentence that was part of a discussion with another poster.
Is the corn syrup equivalent of 10 - 40 teaspoons of sugar worse than 10 - 40 teaspoons of sugar?
“Is the corn syrup equivalent of 10 - 40 teaspoons of sugar worse than 10 - 40 teaspoons of sugar?”
Lol, I didn’t make a statement related to that. Someone I exchanged comments with did. I don’t know if that’s proven, but some believe it is worse than table sugar.
http://www.hfcsfacts.com/diffHfcsSugar.html
Not playing games, and was trying to determine something. On a Domino granular sugar canister it says 4 grams = 1 teaspoon.
On a 12 oz. canned Coke there are 39 grams of sugars (HFCS).
Do you know if the grams of table sugar and HFCS are equivalent? If so, there are almost 10 teaspoons of sugar in that 12 oz. Coke. I was reading to see if they are equivalent. Probably close to the same, but I’d like to know for sure.
I didn't realise that HCFS and Sucrose were so close in composition of glucose and fructose, but the following two articles point out that there is still a difference. In Sucrose the two sugars are bound and requires additional processing by the liver, whereas, in HCFS the fructose is unbound and is converted to fat faster. There's also something about a substance called Carbonyls liked to HCFS that is not in sugar.
Sugars are not the same
Carbonyls
difference described (not scientific source but appears consistent with more scientific articles)
Differences 2
Carbonyls 2
And I agree with you about being skeptical about studies because of the money backing them. But the HCFS producers and the artificial sugar producers have a lot of money.
That's the main problem with letting gov't regulate this stuff. It's likely to come down to who has paid for the most junk science instead of what is really healthy. I don't need scientific studies to know that I don't want to have to breathe second hand smoke from inconsiderate smokers in public buildings. But I don't want government taxing sugar when it might be healthier than all the alternatives except abstinence.
LOL!
Do you know if the grams of table sugar and HFCS are equivalent?
Yes. The only difference is the slight difference in percentages.
If so, there are almost 10 teaspoons of sugar in that 12 oz. Coke.
You bet.
This particular consumer preference may not change so readily.
When I worked in a hospital I was once approached by a very large nursing assistant who asked about help in losing weight. We talked a bit, and I asked about her diet. She consumed two to three 2-liter jugs of Pepsi a day, among a host of other things. I asked if she would consider, just for starters, to switch to Diet Pepsi. Absolutely not. "Doesn't taste right."
We obviously didn't get much further.
Go for it. Your school will have the best fed garbage cans in the country.
Thanks for the links. Both of those have been used in the past on the forum to suggest that the consumption of diet drinks increase weight gain. The studies claim that the taste function can control or influence the amount of calories that go into our bodies. This is not how the body is set up and contradicts what we've learned about hunger and satiation. These people seem to believe that the body's genetic structure can be overridden.
These studies also suggest sweet gustation exercises a level of control over the body's satiation and hunger mechanisms. These studies have also suggested that when the trigeminal nerves recognize thickness, it tells the body that calories are coming and satiation begins. Although your senses are able to cause hormonal activity in the body, these researchers are wrong when they suggest that the body can learn to determine, through taste or texture, what amount of calories are being consumed. I've never seen any research that proves this is so. Suggestion and correlation may get you additional grant money from the NIH but it is certainly a long way from proving anything.
What the article here is saying is that people who consume beverages sweetened artificially will crave carbs, and overeat more, than those who use sucrose. That makes no sense to me and defies what we know about hunger and satiation.
In Sucrose the two sugars are bound and requires additional processing by the liver
Sucrose is bound but HFCS is free. That's true. Those bonds are broken down in the gut by a common enzyme called sucrase. This breakdown occurs quickly and once hydrolyzed, the body cannot tell the difference between fructose and glucose from HFCS or fructose and glucose from sucrose.
Fructose is metabolized in the liver. Since there is almost identical quantities of fructose in HFCS and sucrose I don't know why they would make the distinction.
Carbonyls are highly reactive and could end up being significant in the debate. Dr. Ho at Rutgers is looking into this possibility and, knowing him, I can say he is a first class researcher. At this point this is simply a possibility but one worthy of continued study.
But the HCFS producers and the artificial sugar producers have a lot of money.
Corn syrup is a low margin business and HFCS isn't all that much better. Sugar receives protection from the government totaling more than $2.5 billion annually. Of course, the fact that these are big businesses doesn't make them sinister in any way. Kinda like the people who demonize big oil when they know absolutely nothing about the industry.
It's likely to come down to who has paid for the most junk science instead of what is really healthy.
As much as I dislike the FDA, I give them credit for ignoring the junk science, for the most part, when it would be easier for them to fold to the food police and penalize industry based on stupidity.
I don't need scientific studies to know that I don't want to have to breathe second hand smoke from inconsiderate smokers in public buildings.
I don't like breathing second hand smoke either but I know enough about it to realize it isn't dangerous to me. Personally, I don't smoke but what the fedgov and nanny staters have done to those who wish to smoke is a travesty.
But I don't want government taxing sugar when it might be healthier than all the alternatives except abstinence.]
Given government's record with social engineering I want them to stay the hell out of the debate all the time. I'd rather they lived within their means, providing only what the Constitution requires, and stop taxing these things altogether. But that's just me.
Not sure what the current status of super-sizing is, but I know in the past some convenience stores and maybe fast food places were offering up to 64 oz. soft drinks. That would give the consumer a whopping 50 - 55 teaspoons of sugar. But I guess the more modest 32 ozs. with 25 or so teaspoons of sugar were more common.
Still, hell yes, anyone pouring that much sugar down their throats from one drink should be paying at least a 10% tax to partially offset the damage such indulgences will cause. Put that tax on all high sugar products now, nationwide.
And your big “LOL”, sorry, but I’m right about that one, too. The affect on HFCS and fructose in general is still disputed. Actually, health food stores used to sell fructose as being safer for diabetics. But that’s now disputed. Most things in this area are still disputed, as are many things in the area of diet and nutrition in general (Is Vitamin E beneficial, or harmful? Studies say both). But maybe it was you, or some of the other posters here, who came up with this rare gem for the sugar industry:
“Sugar is just one part of a healthy and balanced diet.”
LOL!
Where have we heard that before?
Reminds me of a Katie Couric interview.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.