170

The amount of sugar consumed by children from soft drinks in the UK halved within a year of the sugar tax being introduced, a study has found. (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 3 months ago by alphacyberranger@sh.itjust.works to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml

27 comments fedilink hide all child comments

cross-posted from: https://sh.itjust.works/post/22143130

top 27 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] LNRDrone@sopuli.xyz 20 points 3 months ago

So is there study that would have looked into how much of the sugar was just replaced with other sweeteners? Or how much soda consumption itself has changed?

[-] ch00f@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago

What's wrong with other sweeteners?

[-] LNRDrone@sopuli.xyz 8 points 3 months ago

Most sweeteners have their own health risks. Generally probably still better than sugar, but just moving to sweeteners isn't all sunshine and happiness.

[-] ryannathans@aussie.zone 4 points 3 months ago

Carcinogenic like aspartame, and still activate glucose receptors (that's why they are sweet) so still cause insulin resistance etc.

[-] prodigalsorcerer@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 months ago

Aspartame is not carcinogenic.

[-] ryannathans@aussie.zone -2 points 3 months ago

It's in the same carcinogen group as acetaldehyde, aflatoxin, chloroform, DDT and lead. But sure go around making those bold claims which are not supported by the WHO.

[-] prodigalsorcerer@lemmy.ca 18 points 3 months ago

It's also in the same carcinogen group as electromagnetic fields, aloe vera, nickel, and kimchi. Most of those things you listed are quite dangerous for other reasons, but cancer is not the primary concern with any of them.

IARC group 2B is where substances end up if a study manages to produce cancer at any dose. If you drink 50 cans of diet coke per day (which is the equivalent of the rat study that demonstrated that it's possible for aspartame to cause cancer), then you might get cancer caused by the aspartame you just consumed.

[-] ryannathans@aussie.zone -2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Okay now we are getting somewhere. It's admittedly carcinogenic but the dose is debatable. I think the revised threshold is 8 glasses of soft drink or 2L per day but seems to be dropping every few years

[-] queermunist@lemmy.ml 17 points 3 months ago

Imagine what would happen if the government actually regulated and restricted sugar.

[-] ryannathans@aussie.zone 6 points 3 months ago

Imagine if people gave a shit about what they consumed

[-] queermunist@lemmy.ml 12 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

People in despair don't care about much at all. Nevermind this shit is addictive, psychologically manipulative, it also acts as a little dopamine hit in an otherwise miserable life. Obesity deaths are deaths of despair.

Imagine if people wanted to live.

[+] ryannathans@aussie.zone -10 points 3 months ago

Then make the decision to live. Let people choose. You want to exercise? Do it. You don't? Then don't. You want to eat shit? Then eat shit. You don't? Then eat better. Oh no I don't have the willpower to stop eating shit but now I can't afford to continue so it doesn't matter? This isn't improvement

[-] queermunist@lemmy.ml 10 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

People don't just randomly make the decision to live, they need to have things for which to live.

You're right, taxing sugar isn't an answer. Banning it is better, somewhat, but it's still not the best solution.

The best solution is to make people want to stop eating like shit and stop killing themselves. I called obesity deaths "deaths of despair" because it's really not much different from any other unhealthy/dangerous behavior be that drug abuse, self harm, etc. Screaming "make the decision to live" at people is kinda fucking stupid lol