Annual dental checks, and necessary procedures being covered by medicare would be more beneficial.
post
Not going to happen. The ALP is losing strugglers to One Nation across the country. They feel abandoned and have a perception Labor is out of touch with cost of living and in the pocket of lobbyists and big business.
To be very clear I think One Nation are full of shit and people putting their trust in them are being scammed and are putting our whole country in danger. But with the cost of petrol and smokes and rent and food and stagnant wages, living standards are going down for many people. I don't think they are going to see any regressive tax as a positive. A policy like this will only sell well amongst affluent educated Labor and Greens voters and they aren't the ones deserting Labor. Free dental on the other hand is a winner.
I agree with your last comment.
Do you really think that if the govt committed to free/cheaper dental care when putting up the price of soft drinks people would jack up?
While I support this, why do none of these studies or articles talk about carbonic acid, which is what makes soft drink fizzy? This directly erodes enamel and causes tooth decay. By simply rinsing your mouth with water after soft drinks, you massively reduce the amount of time your teeth are exposed to acid. Same for orange juice etc. This also work for the sugar in the drink - dilution in action.
There are studies on carbonic acid in soft drinks. I know because your comment sparked me into looking it up.
As far as I'm concerned, another reason to not drink carbonated drinks. Better and cheaper to filter water at home and take your own bottle with you.
Yes I know there are studies. What I'm saying is since tooth decay is predominantly caused by acid erosion, not sugar, I'm confused why they would ignore this in this study and the modelling. Except for people who do not brush their teeth daily (which isn't 0%!), then sugar is food for oral, acid-producing microbes.
Reducing sugar is good, but tackling tooth decay requires public health education on acidic drinks as well as a sugar tax.
Sugar is the bane of maintaining basic human health. Its more harmful than drugs I'd wager.
That's a bit of an exaggeration.
The losses for dentists and sugar manufacturers would be immense and lead to the destruction of countless paying jobs for the dental staff, farmers, factory workers.
---Some capitalist probably
If they want to prevent dental issues, they can start with preventing gronks in local councils from removing fluoride from the water.
A tax on sugary drinks is literally a poor tax. You're taxing poor people for one of the few pleasures they have in life that they can afford easily.
You know what would improve dental health across the board? Offering free dental insurance to every man woman and child in the country. You know what would stop people from having to buy sugary drinks so often? Fully fund food stamps across the board. Give people the ability to buy healthy whole foods to feed to their kids.
Edit: My mistake in not realizing this article was about Australia. My point still stands though. A tax on sugary drinks is only going to punish poor people unnecessarily and not lead to a dramatic reduction in soft drink consumption. It was tried here in my state and failed spectacularly.
I'm a bit confused with your comment. Australia as far as I know does not have a good stamp program. Do you think this is an article about the US?
And on your first point there is a variety of reasons to tax sugar. The majority of which are related to health outcomes and not just dental.
This post is about Australia.
You do have a seriously inequitable food system in the US. This is a sad and unnecessary situation.
Studies tend to show that sugary drink taxes do have some effect on better health outcomes. For example<
It is the poor who bear the brunt of ill health in large part due to only being able to afford cheap, bad-quality processed food. Sweetening the poison only adds more poison. Stand up for clean water in the US which you have problems with too:
https://www.nrdc.org/stories/americas-failing-drinking-water-system
This just means more corn syrup. A lot of things are sweet, and way worse for you than sugar.
Why would a tax on sugary drinks not cover corn syrup, which is a sugar?
Is it though? Legally? My point is that the law has to be explicit about what is taxed. Manufacturers will figure out ways around it and we will just end up paying more for sugar to make our banana bread or whatever.
Sugary drinks would include those sweetened by corn syrup (fructose) and from cane sugar (sucrose). They would be taxed no matter the source. Most fizzy sweet drinks have an excess of sugar no matter where it comes from.
all 42 comments