Children’s sugar consumption halved since tax announcement, study finds
www.theguardian.com
Experts say success soft drinks shows expansion of tax to cover other foods and drinks is a ‘no brainer’
  • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
    1·
    4 months ago

    That’s why I favor outright banning added sugars, or even better, improve their lives so much that they don’t want to fill the void with sugar.

      • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
        12·
        4 months ago

        Well to start, everything that’s included in this sugar tax. Does anyone really need this garbage?

        But really, it’s more important to give people lives that are good so they don’t get sucked in to unhealthy behaviors.

        Give people something to live for any they won’t kill themselves.

        • ryannathans@aussie.zone
          1·
          4 months ago

          How is banning sweet food in its entirety supposed to help give people something to live for? It only makes life shitter

          • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
            1·
            4 months ago

            Not what I said.

            I said I prefer a ban instead of a tax. A tax just bans sugar for the poor. A ban effects everyone, so it’s fair and more effective.

            But also, the optimum solution instead of a tax or a ban would be to make people’s lives better so they don’t kill themselves.

              • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
                1·
                4 months ago

                To clarify, I didn’t say to ban the ingredient itself, just foods with added sugars i.e. sugar-sweetened beverages, sugary snacks and junk food, sugary breakfast cereals, etc. We’re talking about this in context of the tax, which doesn’t ban raw bags of sugar.

                If someone wants a teaspoon of sugar in their coffee at home then whatever, that’s not the source of the public health crisis. The problem is from convenience and processed foods. We could solve the problem. We won’t.