No, I don`t support the national sugar tax. This is just another way for my personal life to be controlled by people who do not know my personal needs and needs and who generally do not take care of my personal needs and needs. This is a non-issue that is being used to improve political and social control. Graaf C. Why liquid energy leads to overconsumption. Proc Nutr Soc. 2011;70(2):162–70. Today, unlike natural sugars in fruit, sugar is often added in foods ranging from soup to soda. Americans consume on average more than 600 calories a day from added sugar, which equates to 40 teaspoons. “Nature made sugar difficult to obtain; humans made the task easier,” the researchers write.
No, it`s ridiculous. Alcohol and drugs affect people in their thinking process. Their actions, if altered, can kill other people. The person who has consumed sugar is not so affected that he kills you. Again, people have to take responsibility for their own health, we cannot legally put in place good health. 3) the introduction of a minimum price increase of 10% through taxation or the imposition of a tax on high-sugar products, which rises to 20% after one year. More radical proposals include banning the sale of sugary drinks to under-17s and strengthening zoning laws for the sale of sugary drinks and snacks in low-income schools and regions, by analogy with alcoholism and alcohol regulation. No, if you start taxing foods added to sugar, ALL food prices will go up. We have the cheapest food in the world and the main reason is the actual cost of sugar production.
People need to understand their choices and take them accordingly. We do not need more government decision for us. Funny suggests that abnormal spikes in sugar cause problems by interfering with normal regulation of insulin, leptin and ghrelin. These hormones control glucose and fat metabolism and signal hunger and the feeling of being full for the brain (Nature 2012, DOI: 10.1038/482027a). No no. Only the density of sugar % of weight and calories in food should be listed so that the consumer can choose with caution. Sugar % tax should be levied in proportion to the addition of sugar by weight. % of sugar calories should be mentioned for total sugar content and “naturally.” No no. The ban doesn`t work! Any attempt to tax or regulate a substance has unintended consequences.
Tax sugar and you`re going to create a black market for that. Or you`re going to push people to use other “sweet” substances or fake sugar substitutes, with unknown medical consequences. Instead of taxing or regulating, educate! No, all this hatch on the extra sugar is a pure threshing! The government is already too intrusive in our lives. We must put an end to this senseless overtaxation and over-regulation and simply behave like responsible adults. We should limit our sugar intake responsibly to a reasonable level! Sugar is good, in moderation. No, there is no evidence of direct dose-dependent injury and no credible evidence of an addiction. Human behaviour (for example. B violence, judgment, etc.) are not influenced by sugar. Progressive policy should establish that there should be no sales of sugary beverages within 2 to 5 years, and that the amount of sugar used by all caterers and food producers providing public services should be gradually reduced. Despite this resistance, there may be significant health benefits of limiting the sale of large sugary beverages.
Sugar-sweetened beverages are associated with obesity and many health risks, such as type 2 diabetes. New research also suggests that the consumption of sugary drinks also increases the genetic risk of obesity.