396
Germany plans sugar tax that includes sugar free drinks (brusselssignal.eu)
submitted 2 months ago by to c/nottheonion@lemmy.world
203 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 0 points 2 months ago (7 children)

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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago (6 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago* (5 children)

    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?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (4 children)

    Sugar is exactly as healthy as sugar. Notice how I didn't add any words to the front? Those words don't change how (un)healthy sugar is. The law clearly isn't about health; as it is portrayed.

    Furthermore, they tax artificial sweeteners as well. So, might as well use actual sugar if you are paying the tax either way!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (3 children)

    Sugar is exactly as healthy as sugar.

    This shows how little you know about the subject yet you keep arguing as if you had facts. Sugar is a category of compounds consisting mainly of saccharids (which again, is a category of compounds). There are literally thousands of "sugars" which vary wildly in their effects on the human body. Also, other stuff you ingest/digest at the same time influences those as well..

    Furthermore, they tax artificial sweeteners as well.

    Nope. Klingbeil revoked that immediately afterwards.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    This shows how little you know about the subject yet you keep arguing as if you had facts. Sugar is a category of compounds consisting mainly of saccharids (which again, is a category of compounds). There are literally thousands of “sugars” which vary wildly in their effects on the human body. Also, other stuff you ingest/digest at the same time influences those as well…

    Yeah - but that's not what this is about is it? It's "natural good-for-you sugar" vs. "evil corporate refined high-fructose corn syrup". The naturalistic fallacy laid bare.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago* (1 child)

    Not as far as Im concerned. This is "corporations add dirt cheap sugar to drinks making people addicted to poison for cents per liter" vs. "there simply is sugar in a pressed fruit". And does it really matter what the motivation is as long as the desired result is the same? Taxing fruit juices just wouldnt make any sense. Theyre not the problem.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •