Sugar in itself is not necessarily the problem - much of the problem lies with obesity with whatever the root causes underlie that condition.
A lack of exercise is certainly part of it and the availability of highly processed foods also has a significant bearing on the problem – these foods are easily digested and could generally be described as empty calories.
To keep this short, there are two points I would like to make.
1) Taxing sugar will only enhance the use of alternative sweeteners - there is a growing body of evidence to suggest that these are not the panacea that the food industry and dieticians hoped they would be.
2)Ten years ago when visiting Cambodia, I was amazed at how many “skinny” people had or had died from diabetes. This has to one degree or another been narrowed down to a diet very rich in certain types of rice. Hence my comment about processed foods.
The rice itself was not what one would normally associate with highly processed but the end result was that the bloods sugar levels in these individuals spiked just like they had been eating candy bars.
It will be interesting to see if gut bacteria have a role in this condition so until the evidence has been collected I would suggest that taxing sugar is a copout – a seemingly simple solution to a complex problem.
Shannon - 9 years ago
For the most part, extremely intelligent responses. Two comments bother me.
"If soft drinks are truly that big of a health issue then ban them."
I don't agree with that. First of all, that opens the door for some idiot group to band together and pressure the government to ban the product. It's not that bad. The product itself isn't the problem!!! And, I'm sorry, but I'm intelligent enough to decide for myself if I want to buy a bottle of pop or not. Bans on things are just as bad as taxes.
"Instead of taxing the consumer - why don't they fine the producer for putting too much sugar in - let the producer pay for it. Perhaps they will come up with a better way to add flavour than sugar!"
1. When you tax/fine a corporation, they tend to have a habit of pulling up stakes and leaving which negatively impacts the job market and the economy. Bad idea.
2. Artificial flavours are no better than sugar. If a corporation is going to substitute flavour for sugar, the most economical way for them to do that is to use artificial flavours.
Again - it's up to the consumer to choose. We all have the freedom/responsibility/intelligence to be wise in our decisions or not.
Allison - 9 years ago
I disagree with simply taxing sugar sweetened beverages. Why not work towards making healthy drinks more affordable? It's outrageous that milk costs so much more than pop, especially in northern communities. Why do alcohol and tobacco cost the same across the province, north to south, urban to remote, when milk costs up to $20 for 4 L? The government should be working toward making healthy food more affordable and accessible rather than making the only food some people can afford cost even more.
Food insecurity is a huge problem in SK and across Canada, and adding a tax to sugar sweetened beverages will not help create food security for those individuals and families. Food Security means that all people at all times have access to enough, safe, nutritious, and culturally acceptable food at all times. If processed, packaged, high fat and high sugar foods are so much more affordable and accessible than vegetables, fruit, and milk then how can we continue recommending these healthy choices when we know so many can't afford them. People living with food insecurity want to be able to purchase healthy foods, but it's often a choice between having enough food and paying rent. Making cheap unhealthy food more expensive through added tax won't help solve this. Low economic status is a documented determinant of health and is also associated with food insecurity. Helping people to be food secure will lead to better health outcomes than adding a tax to sugar sweetened beverages.
Let's start by making healthy food more affordable and accessible, then we can look at taxing unhealthy choices.
David - 9 years ago
enough with the tax first thinking. It doesn't work and is a lame excuse to funnel more otherwise productive capital to inefficient governments.
Diana - 9 years ago
What is going to be next? Tax the air we breath??
Kylie Antoine - 9 years ago
Absolutely not. I support making healthy choices more affordable. Milk should not cost more than pop, junk food should not be cheaper than fruits and vegetables. Don't make the crappy stuff more expensive, make the good stuff affordable.
People will still buy sugar sweetened items regardless of cost much like people still buy cigarettes despite major public education and raising the price.
Many people can enjoy things like pop and treats in moderation without any problems. We have to keep educating people on the benefits of balanced diets and exercise as well as make real food affordable. Plenty of people are stuck battling weight problems and the health issues associated with it not because they choose it but because their whole lives they haven't had the opportunity to actually eat healthy because they simply can't afford it.
As with anything there will always be those who have issues with food. They get addicted to sugar or use eating to comfort themselves. But breaking the bank of everyone on the planet is not the way to solve the problem.
Greg Swanson - 9 years ago
Taxing something to prevent bad behaviour does little if anything, if it did then there wouldn't be a single alcoholic or smoker in Canada. What it does do is raise significant revenue for the Government so that they can waste money on things that most people neither want nor need. If soft drinks are truly that big of a health issue then ban them.
Peter - 9 years ago
A tax will not affect consumption levels. As for citing studies of the other countries that have implemented such a tax and have seen a reduction in consumption, I would advise that such "studies" are usually flawed and are nothing more than bad number counting or biased polls.
Joanne - 9 years ago
Instead of taxing the consumer - why don't they fine the producer for putting too much sugar in - let the producer pay for it. Perhaps they will come up with a better way to add flavour than sugar!
Ron - 9 years ago
When is "sweetness" in these drinks no longer a factor? Having investigated the sugar content for many of these drinks it was found that the sugar content range was from the equivalent of 10 cubes of sugar all the way to just over 40 cubes of sugar. How can it possibly be healthy to consume 10 let alone 40 cubes of sugar in one drink (albeit the one with over 40 was much larger)? Thus, our healthcare system would at some point have to bear the burden of treating people who have health issues brought on by such over-consumption. If these companies continue such practices, then they should be shouldering the tax burden. Yes, set a limit and apply the appropriate tax.
Fritz - 9 years ago
It would be nice if tuning into the SASKATOON news was actually broadcasting our local hosts and program, who ever has decided to cut to the Ontario location is costing Viewers.
Sugar in itself is not necessarily the problem - much of the problem lies with obesity with whatever the root causes underlie that condition.
A lack of exercise is certainly part of it and the availability of highly processed foods also has a significant bearing on the problem – these foods are easily digested and could generally be described as empty calories.
To keep this short, there are two points I would like to make.
1) Taxing sugar will only enhance the use of alternative sweeteners - there is a growing body of evidence to suggest that these are not the panacea that the food industry and dieticians hoped they would be.
2)Ten years ago when visiting Cambodia, I was amazed at how many “skinny” people had or had died from diabetes. This has to one degree or another been narrowed down to a diet very rich in certain types of rice. Hence my comment about processed foods.
The rice itself was not what one would normally associate with highly processed but the end result was that the bloods sugar levels in these individuals spiked just like they had been eating candy bars.
It will be interesting to see if gut bacteria have a role in this condition so until the evidence has been collected I would suggest that taxing sugar is a copout – a seemingly simple solution to a complex problem.
For the most part, extremely intelligent responses. Two comments bother me.
"If soft drinks are truly that big of a health issue then ban them."
I don't agree with that. First of all, that opens the door for some idiot group to band together and pressure the government to ban the product. It's not that bad. The product itself isn't the problem!!! And, I'm sorry, but I'm intelligent enough to decide for myself if I want to buy a bottle of pop or not. Bans on things are just as bad as taxes.
"Instead of taxing the consumer - why don't they fine the producer for putting too much sugar in - let the producer pay for it. Perhaps they will come up with a better way to add flavour than sugar!"
1. When you tax/fine a corporation, they tend to have a habit of pulling up stakes and leaving which negatively impacts the job market and the economy. Bad idea.
2. Artificial flavours are no better than sugar. If a corporation is going to substitute flavour for sugar, the most economical way for them to do that is to use artificial flavours.
Again - it's up to the consumer to choose. We all have the freedom/responsibility/intelligence to be wise in our decisions or not.
I disagree with simply taxing sugar sweetened beverages. Why not work towards making healthy drinks more affordable? It's outrageous that milk costs so much more than pop, especially in northern communities. Why do alcohol and tobacco cost the same across the province, north to south, urban to remote, when milk costs up to $20 for 4 L? The government should be working toward making healthy food more affordable and accessible rather than making the only food some people can afford cost even more.
Food insecurity is a huge problem in SK and across Canada, and adding a tax to sugar sweetened beverages will not help create food security for those individuals and families. Food Security means that all people at all times have access to enough, safe, nutritious, and culturally acceptable food at all times. If processed, packaged, high fat and high sugar foods are so much more affordable and accessible than vegetables, fruit, and milk then how can we continue recommending these healthy choices when we know so many can't afford them. People living with food insecurity want to be able to purchase healthy foods, but it's often a choice between having enough food and paying rent. Making cheap unhealthy food more expensive through added tax won't help solve this. Low economic status is a documented determinant of health and is also associated with food insecurity. Helping people to be food secure will lead to better health outcomes than adding a tax to sugar sweetened beverages.
Let's start by making healthy food more affordable and accessible, then we can look at taxing unhealthy choices.
enough with the tax first thinking. It doesn't work and is a lame excuse to funnel more otherwise productive capital to inefficient governments.
What is going to be next? Tax the air we breath??
Absolutely not. I support making healthy choices more affordable. Milk should not cost more than pop, junk food should not be cheaper than fruits and vegetables. Don't make the crappy stuff more expensive, make the good stuff affordable.
People will still buy sugar sweetened items regardless of cost much like people still buy cigarettes despite major public education and raising the price.
Many people can enjoy things like pop and treats in moderation without any problems. We have to keep educating people on the benefits of balanced diets and exercise as well as make real food affordable. Plenty of people are stuck battling weight problems and the health issues associated with it not because they choose it but because their whole lives they haven't had the opportunity to actually eat healthy because they simply can't afford it.
As with anything there will always be those who have issues with food. They get addicted to sugar or use eating to comfort themselves. But breaking the bank of everyone on the planet is not the way to solve the problem.
Taxing something to prevent bad behaviour does little if anything, if it did then there wouldn't be a single alcoholic or smoker in Canada. What it does do is raise significant revenue for the Government so that they can waste money on things that most people neither want nor need. If soft drinks are truly that big of a health issue then ban them.
A tax will not affect consumption levels. As for citing studies of the other countries that have implemented such a tax and have seen a reduction in consumption, I would advise that such "studies" are usually flawed and are nothing more than bad number counting or biased polls.
Instead of taxing the consumer - why don't they fine the producer for putting too much sugar in - let the producer pay for it. Perhaps they will come up with a better way to add flavour than sugar!
When is "sweetness" in these drinks no longer a factor? Having investigated the sugar content for many of these drinks it was found that the sugar content range was from the equivalent of 10 cubes of sugar all the way to just over 40 cubes of sugar. How can it possibly be healthy to consume 10 let alone 40 cubes of sugar in one drink (albeit the one with over 40 was much larger)? Thus, our healthcare system would at some point have to bear the burden of treating people who have health issues brought on by such over-consumption. If these companies continue such practices, then they should be shouldering the tax burden. Yes, set a limit and apply the appropriate tax.
It would be nice if tuning into the SASKATOON news was actually broadcasting our local hosts and program, who ever has decided to cut to the Ontario location is costing Viewers.