Hey! Soda is bad for you
Debate is heating up in Washington over a potential soda tax that could raise several billion dollars to cover the cost of healthcare reform. The tax – a penny on every ounce – would add 50 percent to the price of a two-liter. In a recent interview with Men’s Health President Obama said he’s open to the idea because it could help improve Americans’ health. Soda consumption is linked to obesity.
Unsurprisingly, here’s what the chief executive at Coca-Cola had to say about that:
I have never seen it work where a government tells people what to eat and what to drink.
The Atlantic’s Derek Thompson defends the tax, and adds this take:
The soda tax, especially, is a flat tax on drinks that are both more likely to be consumed by poor minorities and will cost them a higher proportion of their income. But I can sleep knowing that, since the money generated from the sin tax is going to pay for Medicaid and health care subsidies for less fortunate Americans, anyway.
The idea of raising the cost of a 12-pack of soda by 45 percent is going over like a lead balloon in Congress, but Obama’s head of the Centers for Disease Control Thomas Frieden has supported junk food taxes in the past.
One study disputes Obama’s presupposition that the tax would reduce obesity:
A report from the Mercatus Center for Public Policy determined that soda would require a 1,200 percent tax – making a can $9 – in order to achieve a measurable decrease in weight.
Man, we really like our Coke.














Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top149 Comments to “Hey! Soda is bad for you”
The Corn Syrup Cartel will never let it happen.
Report comment to moderator
I dunno, I’m on a pizza/mountain dew diet and i’ve lost weight in the last two weeks.
And no, the tax wont reduce obesity, just like cigarette taxes dont reduce smoking…or beer tax reduces beer drinking…
Report comment to moderator
The soda tax is a flat tax? Well, who left that cap off???
Report comment to moderator
I think it’s a foolish idea, but I have to admit that I wouldn’t mind if it discouraged my husband from wanting to buy pop as much. He thinks that only drinking one 2-liter bottle a day is showing moderation, and isn’t happy that our budget doesn’t allow even that much. He drinks only diet (he has a sugar intolerance), so obesity isn’t the issue (he’s already obese, but from quantity not type of food). I like pop (I also drink only diet, because I like the taste better), but I limit how much I drink to save money. Of course, I can drink coffee to help me wake up in the morning; he hates coffee and drinks diet Dew or Dr. Pepper to help him stay awake working third shift.
I suspect that if this tax is put in place, it will simply shift beverage preferences to more non-carbonated (but still sugary)drinks.
Report comment to moderator
Ha…good one, thats funny.
Report comment to moderator
Pauline…what is pop? I’m not familiar with this term being from the south…
So its only carbonated drinks? So we are regulating CO2 emissions really and not sugar…cause if we were doing sugar, we’d be taxing Kool-aid too.
Will carbonated drinks fall under the cap and trade program?
Report comment to moderator
They won’t if you leave the cap on, Thorn! Ba-dum-boom.
Thank you! I’ll be here all week. Please tip your servers.
Report comment to moderator
This is an increase in taxes being proposed to pay for Obama’s health care plan. During the campaign he promised that his administration would not increase taxes on the middle class.
At the very least, he is now in the process of breaking his promise many times over as he seeks to raise taxes on cola, on medical supplies, and on anything else he can think of to get money for this monstrous, power-grabing, health care program.
However, more than just breaking his promise, he is most likely just a plain liar, knowing from the get-go that he would never be able to keep such a promise. His promise was a lie from the first moment it came out of his mouth.
Report comment to moderator
So we just need to drink all carbonated drinks from a straw, inserted into a sealed lid…we can put a check valve on the straws so when your not drinking it keeps the pressure and CO2 within.
Thus we have no C02 emissions. So this tax will be pointless as it stands now.
Report comment to moderator
Yeah Thorn, you’re real funny…it’s a shame you forgot to be right!
Taxes on beer, wine, and spirits DO reduce consumption of beer, wine, and spirits. In fact they do it so well, they are the basis for proposing a tax on soda and sugary juice drinks.
http://www.miller-mccune.com/news/raise-taxes-lower-alcohol-consumption-934
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/121639213/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
Report comment to moderator
Mynock, you have a real gift for unintentional self-parody.
Report comment to moderator
From my cold dead hands, Mr President!
(he says grasping his bottle of fully-leaded Atlanta-based dark carbonated bvg)
Report comment to moderator
I think there should be a tax on bottled water. And onions, and sea scallops.
Report comment to moderator
And raw oysters.
Report comment to moderator
Don’t drink colas, especially if you are female. Taxed or not.
Report comment to moderator
On a tax per ounce basis, the solution we would see is to reduce the water content of the soft drinks sold – this could be done down to the saturation point of the non-water components.
A 12 oz can of soft drink is how much water? 10 oz? 11 oz? It could probably stay liquid at 6 oz water or less, and halve the tax imposed.
Report comment to moderator
Michael Martin: During the campaign he promised that his administration would not increase taxes on the middle class.
You’re right. Sales, sin, and consumption taxes always hit lower and middle classes disproportionately. A dime is always more important to a poor man than a wealthy one.
But I wonder how much louder you will howl if he keeps his promise and jacks up INCOME tax rates on those over $250K.
Report comment to moderator
If this tax goes thru you can expect the Jack and coke drink to undergo radical modification. Instead of 50/50 with equal amts Jack Daniels to Coca Cola, consumers will have no choice but to increase the amt of Jack and cut back on the coke. Probably in the realm of 75/20. The soda/coke tax is not, however, forecasted impact long-time WMB’er, Chas. He is still a straight up 90 proof black label man with no coke at all. The sight of him with his infamous “personal chicks” calls to mind Dean Martin and his Gold-digger dancers.
Report comment to moderator
They’re a sin? Oh no.
Report comment to moderator
Sawgunner, how would Jack taste with Kool-aid?
Report comment to moderator
Well Mynock, your first link is not a tax reference, but solely on the price of beer. Which is true, prices go up, prices go down, people consume more or less depending upon the price.
really they drink more or less depending upon the economy as well, how much they eat out, football season, etc. So your first article is only assuming that raising taxes will lower consumption, but fails to address how much of a tax increase is necessary to do so. 10 cents will have minimal effect, which is why the soda tax would have to raise a can to 9 bucks :\ to have a dramatic effect. Many people will pay 2, 3, 4, 5 bucks for a beer, so i imagine you would have to raise it even higher than 9 bucks to have any sort of tax effect.
Your second link gave me a cookie error, so I have no idea if that was intentional and you are suggesting we tax cookies too. If so, it should be only for double stuff chocolate oreos, as its just not fair to double stuff…
Report comment to moderator
How could anyone opposed this tax? It is common knowledge that the American people lack the personal capacity and capability to make wise decisions so crucial to the future as to what we buy and drink. How can we dare to allow untrained and uneducated people to make important decisions like this on their own, especially when we have someone as enlightened and benevolent as Barack Hussein Obama in the White House to lead us and guide us in all such things and in all ways. He knows what is good or bad for us. Let go and let Obama! Why don’t we all just leave this matter to him so we can spend more time watching Oprah and CNN and stuff? This tax will fundamentally change the world as we know it and our hopes are riding on it.
_________________
Report comment to moderator
Lose the “d” in the word “ossosed” in the first sentence above.
Report comment to moderator
Perhaps if this tax is passed, Kim’s school will not have to send out pleas for good behavior.
Report comment to moderator
#20 KBells, some things are just too horrific to contemplate. Certainly not when minors are present
Report comment to moderator
Sawgunner just wants to tax my personal chicks. Jealous, that’s all.
I don’t know how much the state tax on Coke is now. But when I was a kid, a Coke cost $.05 and a penny tax. That’s 20%. You always had to have a penny to buy a Coke. And theater tickets cost $.09 plus a penny. That’s 10%! (Actually 11.11%, but who’s counting.) That’s a pretty hefty tax.
And, lest you think that’s nothing, it was significant in those days.
Governments didn’t seem to have the budget problems they have now.
Report comment to moderator
re: Jack Daniels, I have tasted hard liquor only once that I can remember. I’ve been drunk off champaign and wine. I used to drink beer with the guys in the AF. But I never liked it. Alcohol was never a temptation to me. I’m thankful for that.
Report comment to moderator
Chas 13,
There should be an outright ban on bottled water! Have you seen the movie FLOW?
An excellent resource to check out the effects of bottled water is Bottle Water Blues It also gives many alternatives, which – SURPRISE! – are not just better for the environment but cheaper
and healthier
Report comment to moderator
“Health problems are all about personal responsibility,” they say. “If people eat a healthy diet and exercise, they’ll never get sick and we won’t need health care reform!”
“Well, of course people will still get sick and we’ll still need health care reform,” others respond. “But hey, how about if we encourage healthier choices by making the unhealthy ones more costly, and using the money to pay for the reform?”
“Nooooooooooo!” they cry. “Because then the poor people won’t be able to afford as much of the beer, soda and cigarettes that I was just arguing they shouldn’t be buying anyway.”
“You make no sense,” comes the reply.
“Shut up, socialist.”
Report comment to moderator
What is sad is that I received this very thing about 10 years ago in an email joke. Just wait until the Domino’s guy tells you that according to his records you weigh too much and your pizza will be $35 and you are not allowed to buy a soda with it this time.
Report comment to moderator
Wow, Steve. Didn’t know it was possible to nest so many straw men into one ugly whole. Well done.
Report comment to moderator
So, if Coke is taxed, does that mean Obama wants us to drink the Kool-Aid?
Report comment to moderator
Didn’t the President say that he was not going to tax the middle class? Kind of like Bush 1. Read my lips. “No new Taxes” Yeah right. Give me a break.
I personally do not drink soft drinks, but I do that as a personal choice. Common sense should tell the ID10T’S in DC that people will just drink something else like coffee or home brewed ice tea.
Report comment to moderator
But Steve the rich will still be able to afford the bad stuff and will die off and take all the jobs with them.
Report comment to moderator
Here we go. No one really believed their taxes wouldn’t go up did they? I’ve said from the start to hold on.
new taxes to come: breathing tax, toilet paper tax
Report comment to moderator
The problem I see with this is the same as tobacco taxes for health care meant to reduce smoking. When no one uses tobacco or drinks carbo bevs, there will not be the money coming in to take care of the Medicare/Medicaid recipients. Then what will the party of high taxes do?
Report comment to moderator
A number of years ago when I was in Chicago, there was a lot of debate over how high taxes on food were hurting the poor. Thus someone came up with the idea of food being taxed at only 1%. It passed. A few years later, someone realized oh no, Coke was being treated as food. So they changed the tax on soft drinks and charged more than they were charging for non-food items. Medicine was somewhere in the middle between food and non-food taxes, as I recall. So, unless things have changed in the six years I’ve been gone, anytime you go to the store in Chicago and get several categories of items, your receipt at the bottom tells you the tax percentages and how much of the total was taxed at each percentage.
I can see a percentage tax, like this 12%. Can’t say I agree it should be done (and definitely should not be done at the federal level), but I can see it. But a penny per ounce is ludicrous. And I say that as someone who hardly ever buys soda.
Report comment to moderator
“So, if Coke is taxed, does that mean Obama wants us to drink the Kool-Aid?”
Yes, because sugar is not the tax, its C02 emissions from soda. Kool-aid does not produce CO2 that I’m aware of, so your okay here Bob.
C02 makes you obese, this is why we exhale it to get thinner.
However, kissing would be a form of cap and trading C02 emissions. So the tax is still pointless.
Report comment to moderator
RR: The sad thing is, there are no straw men there. Every argument I adapted has actually been made on this board. I just took two related topics and sewed them together artfully.
Report comment to moderator
Well, Steve, I suppose you can have some fun cataloging (or, more honestly, distorting) the weaker arguments by your opponents and applying them to a subject they weren’t addressing, and then walk away patting yourself on the back for being fiendishly clever.
Have fun with that, if it makes you feel better.
Or, you can actually explain why you think a soda tax is a good idea.
Report comment to moderator
WHOA
Well, they have held the liter cola at a dollar for way too long.
Now if they keep the price of coffee high then they may decide not to hike coffee prices.
Can anyone do another study that says again that coffee is good for you? If you do it soon enough you might be able to tack it on to the Healthcare bill.
Wait…isn’t too much PORK bad for you? I think congress needs to be taxed for the EXCESS PORK.
Report comment to moderator
THORN #38
made me laugh
Report comment to moderator
If the government is empowered to decide what is “bad for you,” and we all ride the bandwagon feeling good about reducing obesity and saving the planet, then what else can the government decide is bad for you?
What happens to religious liberty for Christians in particular when the ACLU and its robots run the country? I think the ACLU and other seculibs (credit Sawgunner with that term) very deeply and sincerely think that Christianity is “bad for you.”
_____________
I don’t drink soda either and I even agree that it IS bad for us, but policy-wise, this is a serious misapplication of governmental power and purpose, folks. We need personal responsibility even MORE than we need government. That was a fundamental founding principle for this nation.
Report comment to moderator
“If the government is empowered to decide what is “bad for you,” and we all ride the bandwagon feeling good about reducing obesity and saving the planet, then what else can the government decide is bad for you?”
Marijuana?
Report comment to moderator
43: well said, JM.
The overriding issue here really isn’t that a Coke tax hits poor folks harder than rich folks, or that soda is bad for you, altho both of those are sound arguments against the tax.
The issue is making our federal government our Momma and Papa and Nanny too. Freedom carries with it the risk that some folks will unwisely spend their money and/or rot their teeth with unhealthful unfoods. This has always been the case. Let us deal with it. OTOH, getting our government involved in stopping us from being ourselves is costly, intrusive, and self-perpetuating, having the effect of training us to look to government to make every decision for us and to right every wrong.
Report comment to moderator
If they do this, let’s throw a bunch of coke in the Boston Harbor.
Report comment to moderator
Convince me that our representatives care about the poor.
Our bus/rail prices have more than doubled. Who can afford it? They also talked about raising the cost of parking so people would have to take the bus/rail. People can’t afford to go anywhere so they can stimulate the economy.
Are they taxing our car insurance? Maybe they are.
Bills here go something like this:
county tax
city tax
state tax
federal universal service fund
911 charge
regulatory surcharge
Federal excise
They charge you to keep your number out of the phone book
Our city charges you a sales tax even if you bought equipment in another city or state. If you bring it back here you pay a tax.
Our city charges tax on food. It was supposed to be temporary. No such thing.
What do they DO with all that money?
It’s so sad the special interest groups they give money too?
Where does it end?
We have college students who can vote to raise property taxes–do they own property? You should NOT be allowed to vote in the city you are visiting.
Report comment to moderator
Do we really want people driving around on marijuana?
People don’t know not to drive when they are drunk.
They don’t know not to drive when texting.
Of course, if they spill the cola on them while driving, that could be hazardous to their health.
And so on.
Report comment to moderator
SOY is bad for us and it is IN EVERYTHING.
Just think of the revenue on that. WOOHOO!
Report comment to moderator
How about DIET COLA?
Artificial sweeteners can cause cancer.
Shouldn’t that be taxed?
Artificial sweeteners are in stuff that doesn’t even say it has the stuff. (I spend way too much time in stores reading ingredients.)
Report comment to moderator
MSG can cause headaches.
Headache meds cost a lot of money.
We should tax MSG.
Report comment to moderator
Convince me that our representatives care about the poor.
Interesting. Here in VA, just off the top of my head, local (county or city) taxes include:
Real estate tax
Personal property tax (autos. In my area, effective rate of about 2% of vehicle’s value every year, after tax relief)
Local vehicle license fee for each car
Sales tax (2.5% food; 5% all else)
Business license (a tax on gross receipts that only the smallest small businesses are exempt from)
Meals tax
Transient occupancy tax
Communications tax (incl E911 fee)
Utility tax (electric, gas, etc.)
Car rental tax
Other stuff like bank stock tax and railroad rolling stock tax that ultimately affect individuals
Recordation taxes, permits, and sundry others paid at the courthouse
That’s in addition to the state income tax and excise taxes, and everything the feds take.
We’re all involved. I wonder if voting college students understand that a large share of their apartment rental goes to property tax?
Report comment to moderator
The sugar content tax is intriguing. But as was pointed out, the corn syrup producers are a powerful lobby. The cane sugar industry is also a powerful industry. The sugar producers receive extensive ag subsidies. It seems unlikely that they’ll allow any type of sugar taxation. And confectionary workers are unionized with a direct hotline to the DNC.
For the record, hard liquors are to me as tasty as gasoline. For me to drink any distilled spirits I gotta have them mixed in with a daquiri or other sweet slurpee-like foo-foo ladies drink. Straight whiskey like the cowboys? Not for the ol’ Sawgunner.
Report comment to moderator
52: oh, that’s an annual fee you pay for the privilege of putting a decal in the window of each car. About 25 bucks. The counties are now mostly doing away with the decal, but keeping the fee.
Businesses also pay property tax (3.5% of value, annually, in my area) on every desk, computer, wrench, and photocopier on the premises, alongside their vehicles. I wonder why many of them are having a tough time meeting overhead during this recession.
Report comment to moderator
RR Or, you can actually explain why you think a soda tax is a good idea.
For the reasons stated.
1. It discourages unhealthy choices, thus helping to promote better health.
2. It generates revenue that can be used to pay for health care programs.
Report comment to moderator
I love diet Dr. Pepper and diet coke. Other than water, I don’t like drinking just about anything else. (I do like apple juice, but as a borderline diabetic, I can’t drink it.)
My son, who is a full-fledged diabetic with Insulin and all, can only drink water and diet beverages. (He doesn’t like tea.)
So, I suppose that we could call this a tax on those with diabetes too.
I wonder if we could get the “Americans with Disabilities Act” involved here?
I don’t think it is anyone else’s business what I choose to drink. Diet Dr. Pepper doesn’t impair my functioning. It doesn’t make me fat. It doesn’t cause me to drive poorly or go loose at the lip or wear a lampshade on my head.
It doesn’t make my breath smell. It takes no food out of anyone’s mouth.
So, why should I be forced (and my son) into drinking water-only because some “holier-than-thou” person thinks it is a “sin” (while they go on to drink very fattening juice and have their morning coffee???)
Report comment to moderator
I am also NOT for taxing marijuana either, Mynock. I consider it in a different category than soda and different from religion too. As a legal matter rather than a political one, I consider it legitimate to criminalize drugs like that and worse. I respect Libertarian disagreement with me on this, though, and I appreciate your comment.
Report comment to moderator
#55,
3. It resricts human freedom while empowering bigger micro-managing government.
Report comment to moderator
Or, we could just cut government spending and taxes too!
Report comment to moderator
* “If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” ~ Ronald Reagan, on the government’s view of the economy.
Report comment to moderator
I can’t tell you how many mothers have looked askance at me (my SIL is big on this one) for letting my kids drink diet soft drinks, while they go on and allow their kids to drink juice after juice after juice.
Juice is NOT good for you. It rots your teeth. It is FULL of sugar. You would be better off eating the real fruit (that still has fiber in it) then trying to pretend you are being healthy by drinking a lot of juice.
Drinking sugar is more like it.
Drinking juice is marginally better for you than drinking full-fledged sugary soft-drinks, because there are some vitamins in it, but it is far from “good for you.”
Report comment to moderator
STEVEG
Just like the extra high taxes on cigarettes made people quit smoking.
Report comment to moderator
#55, redux:
1. It discourages those choices that the powerful don’t get much involved in anyway, thus helping them to build their careers by funding gargantuan programs at somebody else’s expense.
2. It generates revenue that will disappear into the black hole of federal budgeting, be used to fund the whims of our betters down the line.
Report comment to moderator
With all the money being spent on the elite they could have just bailed out (paid for) many houses, thereby helping banks not have to cover foreclosures.
With all the money they used in the bailouts, etc. given back to the people, we all might be part of the elite by now.
How would you spend your million?
Report comment to moderator
I would take issue with your statement Steve G about generating revenue. It will do just the opposite. The people (Union people I might add) would work in the factories that make soda pop will get laid off. Here is why: People in America are hurting financially. You even said so in a previous thread that you have had to take a pay cut. So if the pinheads in DC pass a tax on soda pop. People will just make their own drinks like kool aid or tea or something else. Then when that happens, the people who are employed by Coke, Pepsi etc will not have any work. So when the sales drop, they get laid off. Adding to the already exhausted unemployment roles Steve G.
Report comment to moderator
There are some who will find an argument in FAVOR of any and all taxes because they NEVER question their government. That’s twisted in and of itself. But that they believe the government has the right to even think about controlling what we eat and drink — well, that’s just strange.
Report comment to moderator
Right on, NJL. How have we gotten to the point that not only can a soda tax be seriously proposed, but that the conversation immediately moves to how much revenue it’ll generate and how much it will improve health? It is no longer questioned — except by those who are immediately categorized as lunatic fringe — that this sort of thing is right and proper for a government to do.
Report comment to moderator
Kbells, that is an excellent idea, just make sure you clarify that it is coca cola…and not just a coke party…or else you’ll have certain other people showing up, and then theyll be all confused.
“Just like the extra high taxes on cigarettes made people quit smoking.”
Doesnt our president smoke? Maybe we should just raise the cigarette tax again, since it’s probably behind the inflation rate anyway.
Report comment to moderator
I’ll quit my mountain dew habit when our Pres quits smoking..i think that’s reasonable.
Report comment to moderator
MSG might be a factor in weight gain
http://health.yahoo.com/experts/weightloss/2200/the-surprising-ingredient-causing-weight-gain
Report comment to moderator
I was pointing out the self-contradiction in people who think so many of our country’s health problems are self-inflicted and then turn around and condemn any and every measure intended to try to reduce that factor.
I neither support nor oppose this particular proposal, but that point remains valid.
Report comment to moderator
Let’s face it: food is a factor in weight gain. Let’s slap a 45% tax on it! People will buy less of it, and lose weight. The logic is impeccable.
Report comment to moderator
So, TRS, all they have to do is brush their kids’ teeth, or do they need the government to hold their hands on that one, too? Seriously, no matter what you eat or drink — brush your teeth!
Report comment to moderator
Do we get tax credits for documented exercise periods? Or does the extra C02 exhalation during excercise negate the actual weight loss? Maybe there is a ratio here we can use to set the tax at a proper pointless rate.
Report comment to moderator
Sorry, SteveG, but it is not the government’s business to counter self-inflicted health problems. If I eat too many brownies, it is not the government’s job to shut my mouth. It’s mine. And it is the mindset that you have that the government should even concern itself with this sort of thing that is so disturbing.
And it isn’t just in food. Leftys want the government to control speech — you can use this word, not that word, all that politically correct nonsense — that’s offensive. And that you and so many others want the government involved in everything we say and do.
People in this country used to think for themselves, but now we’re put down if we do. Have you listened to Pelosi lately? This country was built by people who were free to think for themselves and more than that WANTED to think for themselves!
Report comment to moderator
71: and I am pointing out that:
1. The widespread opposition to Obamacare is based not on a claim that the nation’s health problems are largely self-inflicted — a red herring — but that the government has neither the constitutionally-granted role nor the basic competence to sort them out.
2. Any and every measure intended to try to reduce that factor should be rigorously examined if it increases central control over and against basic freedom, silly economics, dubious health-improvement claims, or any combination thereof. Claimed good intentions on the part of our betters are very far from enough.
Report comment to moderator
I will simply make my own or import it from Canada.
Blessings
Roger
Report comment to moderator
JoelMark: It is common knowledge that the American people lack the personal capacity and capability to make wise decisions so crucial to the future as to what we buy and drink.
How true. A brief visit to the mall, frequented by squadrons of massively overweight shoppers should convince you of that.
And if you still doubt it, check out Hoss’s or any other buffet style restaurant. Or the playground next to my backyard, where I would estimate that 1/4 of the kids, grades 1-3 are noticeably overweight.
Or, if you still doubt it, there are lots of studies…
RR: Some foods more than others.
I am generally not in favor of taxation as a way to change intimate personal behavior, but the logic of this particular tax, as a way ultimately to try to reduce health care costs still stands.
Report comment to moderator
There is a reason poor people are fat. Beans, rice, pasta, cheese, etc is relatively cheap when you compare it to other items in the grocery store. For the past year I have been making a better effort to eat healthier. It has increased my grocery budget about $100 a month. Everything in my grocery store that is a healthier choice: whole wheat pasta, brown rice, low sodium, whatever is higher than its “evil twin”.
I rarely buy sodas and when I do I try to buy the mini cans. It is a big treat for Darling Daughter to get a liter of Dr. Pepper when she has a friend spend the night. I can just see me explaining that we can no longer afford a treat.
People need to take personal responsibility. Everyone knows that you shouldn’t drink a liter of soda a day. Even when I was in school I put two and two together that if mechanics used Coca Cola to erode the crud off of an engine (oh, the useful things I learned in Bible class) that it probably wasn’t doing my stomach much good. When they first came out with NutraSweet, I noticed everytime I drank a diet soda I got a headache. And believe me I am no rocket surgeon (wink to KBells).
It is not the gummints fault yo is fat! Get off yer duff and do something about it yerseff.
Report comment to moderator
Lung cancer rates by state–2005. I would love to see a chart matching the tobacco sales tax rates to this one.
http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/lung/statistics/state.htm
Or this chart 25 years from now, after the 50 cent a pack federal tax increase that happened this year. That was, I believe a Republican tax increase.
Report comment to moderator
Well, instead of taxing people, why not just pass a law that you can’t advertise soda, the way you can’t advertise cigarettes? This IS NOT about making anybody healthy. This is about money and control and lying to everyone to get it.
The left in government has never met a tax it will not impose. It never occurs to them that they ought to live within “their” means. The left in government use the leftist population, they scare them into believing that taking our freedoms will “help” us, and the leftys believe it all — hook, line and sinker. Talk about sugar drinks! Lefty koolaid doesn’t rot just teeth.
Report comment to moderator
I am generally not in favor of taxation as a way to change intimate personal behavior, Glad to hear it.
but the logic of this particular tax, as a way ultimately to try to reduce health care costs still stands. [Deep sigh.] No, it doesn’t, unless you are prepared to demonstrate that it will not herd unwise people toward other, cheaper, unhealthy choices, and I’m pretty sure you cannot.
Why not slap a 45% tax on anything that comes out of a fast-food fryer? Isn’t the prevailing thinking — this week — that this stuff is just as bad as soda?
I suspect a lot of people eat fast food because they spend much of their lives in a hurry, hustling from the office to the daycare provider to the club meeting to home in time to get the family fed and the homework finished somehow before bedtime. Maybe the tax should be on hurrying, which arguably is the root cause of the consumption of both Coke and fries.
Report comment to moderator
Well, instead of taxing people, why not just pass a law that you can’t advertise soda, the way you can’t advertise cigarettes? This IS NOT about making anybody healthy. This is about money and control and lying to everyone to get it.
Then you’d stop complaining about taxes and start complaining about restrictions on free speech.
Report comment to moderator
You know, Chad OchoCinco, pretty much only eats McDonald’s. Yet he is in quite physically good shape.
Of course that may also contribute to his childish antics on the field.
Report comment to moderator
You already have no advertising on cigarettes, and I think we never should have allowed advertising on prescription drugs — people know jack about prescribing medicine for themselves.
And just so you know, commercial speech is a different set of case law.
Report comment to moderator
I didn’t grow up so that the government could treat me like a child and “parent” me.
As I said, when there is ample evidence that a behavior or food choice or some such severely restricts someone else’s choices, behavior or ability to enjoy life, then I can (sometimes) get behind it. The government does exist to try to help large groups of people to live together with the least amount of conflict.
However, when my food choices hurt ME and — for the most part — ONLY me, then I don’t need another parent.
Government stay out.
Report comment to moderator
And another irony here is that Democrats tend to think taxes are good and don’t hurt business, but if you want to change something bad, add a tax. I wish someone would draw the connection here, that lowered taxes in other area would be a good idea for business.
And it’s not the government’s business to tax things it doesn’t consider healthy. Outlaw it if it’s dangerous to others, but otherwise leave it alone.
Report comment to moderator
NJL,
I wasn’t suggesting that the government stop parents from giving their kids juice.
I was simply pointing out that a lot of people mistakenly think juice is healthy. It really isn’t.
Report comment to moderator
Hey, if they slap a big TAX on FOOD then fewer people will buy it because more people will be out of work.
Report comment to moderator
Juice is an excellent choice as long as NO SUGAR has been added. Some people are not able to digest fruit, so juice is a great choice.
If one is a diabetic the natural sugars in juice OR fruit would need to be checked.
Report comment to moderator
Well, we’ll have to disagree, Victoria. Even without added sugar, juice is not “healthy” as many people think.
Here is only one (of many, many articles…I don’t have time to post them all):
http://pokedandprodded.health.com/2008/07/29/fruit-juice-worse-than-soda/
Report comment to moderator
On juice and teeth…it’s not just the sugar:
http://www.abc.net.au/health/talkinghealth/factbuster/stories/2009/07/15/2627735.htm
Report comment to moderator
Juice and baby bottle tooth decay:
http://www.cvshealthresources.com/topic/bottletoothdecay
Report comment to moderator
TRS, pure juice probably is better than soda, and it’s a different type of sugar. No matter what you drink, however, your teeth are in jeopardy — too much acid from orange juice and you have the same problems as soda. They probably don’t think about that. Soda is really empty calories (as my sister always tells me when she sees me with a Coke). At least with pure juice, you’ll get some vitamins. I will venture to say that if you watch these same mothers who put down mothers who let their kids drink soda that you’ll find they indulge their kids in lots of other processed foods. My parents were big on real food and cooking. We didn’t have soda unless there was company and then it was ginger ale or club soda, rarely had pizza, but we ALWAYS had cookies and ice cream! You can’t let people get to you.
Report comment to moderator
http://www.obesitydiscussion.com/forums/diet-forum/drinking-juice-no-better-than-2021.html
Quote from article:
“People think juice is healthy, but it’s not,” says Dr. Robert H. Lustig, professor of pediatric endocrinology at UCSF and director of the Weight Assessment for Teen and Child Health (WATCH) Clinic. “Drinking juice, even if it says “100% natural” is no better than drinking soda.”
Report comment to moderator
Now, I’m off. I’m just saying. I don’t care if you choose to drink juice. Personally, if I could, I LOVE really cold apple juice.
But, it is not particularly healthy. It is very, very fattening, it is missing many of the things that make fruit healthy due to it’s processing (e.g. fiber, and other things), and it is extremely bad for your teeth.
You need to eat the real fruit.
So, if you drink it, drink it because you like it, not because you think you’re doing yourself some sort of health favor.
Report comment to moderator
Research it.
I only posted a few sites. There are thousands.
Trust me. I had to go through extensive health counseling with my son when he became diabetic. But, it’s not just unhealthy for diabetics.
It is one of the big nutritional misconceptions people have.
Report comment to moderator
It’s always been “pop” in Iowa and the midwest.
Report comment to moderator
Taking TRS’s position at face value, I still think it likely there is SOMETHING in soda that is making us fatter. Maybe it’s just that they have managed to make it taste irresistibly good. Or there’s something in it designed NOT to quench one’s thirst.
I know of nobody in my circle of friends and close acquaintances who regularly consumes anywhere nearly as much juice as the several friends and one family member who seem almost to be addicted to one particular kind of soda and consume, to me, prodigious amounts of the stuff.
In addition, juice is generally a lot more expensive than soda; assuming then (pace’ TRS) that it is better for you, jacking up soda prices might make sense.
At the very least, juice must provide more good stuff than soda, right???
Report comment to moderator
TRS,
It partly depends on what kind of juice. I find that OJ gives me a bit of a sugar rush, and I’ve pretty much stopped drinking it. But cranberry juice is good for me, partly because of vitamin C and partly because of a history of UTIs–it’s sure better than yearly antibioitics! One can’t eat pure cranberries; one can get them in pill form (and I do that sometimes) or in cranberry juice or in cranberry sauce. But anyone who would say that cranberry juice (or grape juice, for that matter) is worse for you than soft drinks may not know what they’re talking about. One can “prove” anything on the Internet. (Full disclosure: Since I stopped being able to drink milk, because I find only water a “boring” choice, I buy juice, and drink up to a glass a day. Sometimes I go several days without it, and I never drink more than one glass. I lean toward grape juice or cranberry cocktails, but sometimes buy other varieties.)
Report comment to moderator
Look, I’m a Coca-Cola girl and lately an orange juice girl — because I like them. Don’t really drink other sodas or juices. I drink them because I am thirsty. Either way, too much, and I gain weight. So, I get it.
Corn syrup is the culprit. But when you think about it, drunks want their sugar, too. They just get it a different way.
But this is about TAXES! No one should be jacking up any prices or taxing anything we eat or drink. Try to get through ONE day without accepting a new tax without a second thought. It’s none of the government’s business.
(I will note that my very first post here was to say that the government should stay off my plate, and I was immediately smacked down. If you wait long enough…..)
Report comment to moderator
“Or there’s something in it designed NOT to quench one’s thirst.”
I think I’ve heard that sugar will make you thirty.
Report comment to moderator
KBells, I am fifty two and I eat a lot of sugar.
Report comment to moderator
I know of a lot of people who drink a lot of diet pop and most of them are quite overweight. I do not think it is the sugar, I think it is the salt.
I hope eating that last chocolate chip cookie will not make me thirty. No. Definitely not.
Report comment to moderator
Let us just “cut to the chase” and understand what these Marxist liberals ultimately want:
The TOTAL income of every American goes straight to the government. After that, the politicians and bureaucrats will take their cut right off the top. Then all their favorite statist programs will be funded. Then, the favored political classes will get direct payments for their “redistributed” share of the wealth. Finally, if there is anything left, productive Americans may get something in proportion to their “need,” as defined by Obama and company.
Briefly summarized, that is the goal of the current Marxist leadership of the Democrat Party. The speed of movement towards this goal has been, and will continue to be, in direct proportion to the political ignorance and entitlement greed of the American people. With Obama at the helm, feeding the ignorance and stoking the greed, we are moving fast.
Report comment to moderator
Mumsee, I thought you were fifty.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer,
I am fifty two! Not one year less. This has been a long term goal of mine ever since my mom died at fifty two.
Report comment to moderator
I never was able to drink pop, (I like saying “pop” as, to my mind, “coke” is a brand, and “soda” is just weird), because it gave me huge headaches, and I liked the taste of diet better anyway. I always drank diet. I never really liked juice. Too sweet. Nor do I like tea. I did like milk.
But then I found out I’m diabetic, insulin and everything, so that’s pretty much shot. I drink diet pop, and water. I don’t suppose there’s a provision for diet? I drink lots of water, but it’s hardly fair to force me to pay ore for the only other drink I can realistically have.
Report comment to moderator
MUMSEE: I am 76 and a chocoholic. I take no medication. I do take a vitamin tablet, potassium tab, low grain aspirin and fish oil caplets. I refuse to be intimidated by anyone. I worked in a nursing home for awhile. I overheard an LNA tell a 95 year old man that he should not smoke because it could ruin his health. Honest!
Blessings
Roger
Report comment to moderator
I am happy for you Mumsee that you made your goal. I have a friend who was nervous until she passed 27 because her mother had been that old when she died, I think from MS. She died when my friend was 6 months old, never saw her because she went blind, but well, you know….
I said what I said to tease you. You wrote: “… will not make me thirty.” Let’s face it — chocolate chip cookies are outstanding, but they can’t make you thirty. Sorry to let you down on that one.
Report comment to moderator
TJSCatlover, there was a provision in the NYC proposed law — it wasn’t supposed to be on diet sodas.
Report comment to moderator
I foresee a huge market for the first person to bake chocolate chip cookies that can make you thirty. I think Mumsee’s been holding out on us.
Report comment to moderator
I was going by KBells in 102 when she said the sugar would make folks thirty.
Report comment to moderator
102. Thirsty! Thirsty! That’ll teach me to try to post as I’m running out the door.
Report comment to moderator
Of course, if sugar did make me thirty I would be willing to pay the tax.
Report comment to moderator
Michael Martin: Just a reminder. Not so long ago the maximum federal income tax rate on the wealthy was 89%. And the economy was perking along just fine. Today, it’s about 37%. As Mr Buffett said, “if there is class warfare being waged in America, my side is winning.”
You might also bear in mind that while the average wage earner pays 2.5% of his wages into Social Security, the wealthy one pays 0.3% or less.
And then, of course, there is the benefit of not having taxes withheld from dividends and interest payments, or profits. And off-shore hidey-holes for big bucks, that somehow Uncle Sam with all his majestic power can’t seem to locate.
But MM, don’t let little things like facts and figures get in the way of your rants. Fantasies are fun.
Report comment to moderator
Oh! So it was an allusion to Vorrect Firday and I missed it. So sorry.
Report comment to moderator
89% is socialism and 37% is just not fair.
Report comment to moderator
“Not so long ago the maximum federal income tax rate on the wealthy was 89%. And the economy was perking along just fine. Today, it’s about 37%.”
And about 50% of Americans don’t pay any income tax at all.
Taking 37% of someone’s honest earnings is unfair on its face. That means you work as an unpaid slave solely for the government into the month of May before you get to keep a penny. All this is economic injustice, in my opinion. I think about 20% is more tolerable and fair.
Report comment to moderator
When was it at 89%?
Was that when food prices skyrocketed?
Is that why CEOs got more money? and thought of more ways to keep the gov’t from getting it?
Did charitable contributions bring the amount down?
Report comment to moderator
My brother-in-law drinks diet Pepsi and eats fresh Krispy Kreme (hot off the press).
The thought of those two together give me a sugar high.
Report comment to moderator
Diet Pepsi has no sugar. Trust me, my health depends on it.
Report comment to moderator
#100
I know that one can “prove” anything with the Internet, but I also know what I was taught in hospital nutrition classes and what I have learned from books.
Cranberry juice is good for UTI’s. (And, you can get true cranberries here in the Pacific NW, and you can eat them, but I guess that wouldn’t be true everywhere, and it certainly is easier to consume as juice.)
Still, grape juice is still sugar water.
Do with that what you will.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia (#116):
With Obama in charge, and people like you supporting him, we will be heading back up the scale towards max rates of 89% and higher. For over 50 years, from 1933 to 1986 (mostly under Democrats), the highest income tax rates were 70% and above. At one point they actually reached the almost totally confiscatory rate of 94%. Democrats have taken us down this road before and we are headed back in the same direction now.
The social security percentages are lower for upper incomes because they are not yet completely “graduated” in the way they are applied. SS taxes are imposed on only the first $106,800 of income. So income earners in higher categories will naturally show lower percentages relative to their overall income. That does not mean they pay less than others, as you disingenuously imply. Higher wage earners pay the same as everyone else, up to the max limit.
Your next paragraph is intentionally misleading. Taxes are paid by everybody on dividends, interest and profits. They are just not like wages where the taxes are withheld by the government at the time of earning. The taxes are accounted for and paid by April 15th each year, in case you forgot.
So, Arcadia, I’ll help you keep track of the truth as you try to manipulate the numbers and the facts to support your Marxist agenda.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia, post 116, you lost me here: “You might also bear in mind that while the average wage earner pays 2.5% of his wages into Social Security, the wealthy one pays 0.3% or less.”
Social Security and medicare taxes total 15 point something percent, I think it’s 15.4%–for everybody. Yes, there’s a cap, and yes, those who aren’t self-employed actually only see half of that taken from their check. But the average person pays 15.4%, not 2.5%, and wealthy people don’t pay “0.3% or less.” They pay the same 15.4% of the first couple hundred thousand (or whatever the cap is), and after that I don’t know if they don’t pay anything or if it goes down. But either way, since Social Security is supposed to be savings for retirement, not a “tax,” it doesn’t make sense to force any of us to pay it, and it definitely doesn’t make sense to force the wealthy to do so (since they have other means of saving for the future), and certainly not past the first couple hundred thousand or so of their income. So your numbers are wrong and your logic is too. Social Security is simply not relevant in this discussion.
Report comment to moderator
Why do people drink anything other than water or coffee or tea? And why do so many Americans believe they should drink pop or juice?
Report comment to moderator
Mumsee,
Why do people drink coffee or tea? That’s what I’ve never figured out. Why people would willingly drink stuff that tastes so bad, causes “addictions,” and needs more sugar than soda to make it palatable.
I drink some juice because it tastes good, is a nice break from water, adds pleasure to meals (which is important for this borderline underweight gal who needs a little enticement to eat). And I don’t really pay much attention to all the experts who say “high cholesterol will kill you,” “fat is bad for you,” “eggs are good for you,” “eggs are bad for you,” “vitamin C is the miracle vitamin,” “vitamin C won’t do you any good.” I eat a lot of veggies, as close to their natural form as I can get them (fresh or frozen), and quite a bit of actual fruit, so I’m not really all that worried about arguments that juice doesn’t include the fiber and thus it’s bad . . . and juice is a whole lot closer to a “natural” (God-created) product than soda is, so I simply don’t believe the hype that juice is “worse” than soda. Wine might be healthier than grape juice, but it’s more expensive, not as tasty, and some in my family don’t approve of alcohol. And I’m thin and nobody anywhere in my family has diabetes, so I’m not going to avoid an occasional glass of juice!
Report comment to moderator
People have used tea for thousands of years as a hot drink for cold times and it has definite health benefits as an antioxidant type and good for other maladies. The benefits are canceled when milk is added. Coffee, I just started drinking that about four years ago to relieve headaches though overcoming the taste was not easy, has also been used therapeutically for many years. Again, an antioxidant, good for blood pressure and for diabetics and for pain reduction in arthritics and other things. But not with the additives people throw in like sugar and milk and flavorings. My additive is water as the taste is still too strong.
Report comment to moderator
I drink both coffee and tea because they taste good, they are loaded with antioxidants, they are relatively cheap, and they definitely wake you up in the morning. I personally don’t add sugar nor any other adulterant to them either.
I also try to drink a lot of water because I go to martial arts classes six days a week which tends to dehydrate me something terrible.
Regarding the soda tax, I think it’s a terrible idea and will if enacted result in all kinds of unintended consequences. Further, I seriously doubt it will reap anywhere near the anticipated windfall its proponents hope for.
Report comment to moderator
I like spearmint tea, but can rarely find it. I once looked in about three stores (in Chicago) before I finally found a package, and it didn’t taste much like spearmint. (We had occasional spearmint plants sprouting in our front yard of my childhood home, and Mom would make tea from the real thing. I loved that.)
Coffee, I’ll drink a cup in the winter if I’m actually cold and there’s no hot chocolate available (say in Chicago on a day when the snow was slush and my feet got wet and cold getting to work) . . . or if there’s hazelnut coffee brewing. But I have to add about four teaspoons of sugar to make it palatable, and milk or creamer too, and I honestly figure by that point it really isn’t very good for me. So I drink it maybe once a year, if that.
Hot chocolate, on the other hand . . . I buy a couple cans (Ghiardelli) in the fall, and have a cup whenever I’m in the mood (which is usually every couple of weeks), and I won’t be made to feel guilty about that. My conviction is that in heaven the streets are made of gold, and we’re told that. What we aren’t told is what the air will smell like, and I’m fairly sure it will either be chocolate or vanilla. (Please not coffee. I’m one of the few non-coffee drinkers who usually doesn’t even like the smell.)
Report comment to moderator
Re coffee and tea, I’ve found fellow Americans can tolerate people who don’t drink coffee if at least they prefer tea. Not drinking either makes me seem weird. (I can tolerate coffee with enough sugar and simply cannot stand regular tea.) I once attended a banquet with maybe a couple of hundred people, in the evening when I thought most people had had their coffee or tea for the day, and coffee and tea were the only beverages offered. Literally. No water was available. I asked about ice water and was directed to the nearest water fountain, so off I trotted with a coffee cup to get a glass of water from the fountain!
Report comment to moderator
I just started drinking tea about the same time as coffee but I have to make myself. I tend to drink water. But that is only rarely.
In the past I drank pop. It was not a good idea.
Report comment to moderator
The only juice I drink is one glass of orange juice first thing in the morning. It has vitamin C and added calcium, and I’ve been told by someone I consider reliable (my husband) that getting those in juice will make them easier to absorb by the body than in a pill (I also take a multivitamin every day). Plus I take my daily medicines with the juice, and if I don’t have the juice I forget to take my medicine. It’s a habit I can easily maintain every day, whereas I’m not likely to consistently eat an orange every day, especially when I’m in a hurry.
I drink coffee in the morning because it helps me wake up, it’s free at my office, and I like something hot in the morning (it’s air-conditioned where I work, so I always want something hot). I add a little hot chocolate powder and milk because I like the taste, though I can enjoy a good cup of coffee with milk if it’s not too strong (at work it’s always too strong, I’m not the only one who has to dilute it with hot water).
I drink a cup of diet cola with lunch. It tastes good, and I can make a large cup (about 16 oz) last for an hour or two.
During the afternoon I drink hot tea, sometimes black, sometimes green, sometimes herbal. Tea bags are also free at the office, and I like tea better than water. Plus there’s that air conditioning – I work in the corporate datacenter where it’s a bit chilly year-round.
I drink a glass of skim milk with supper. In the evening I drink water or diet lemonade. Water is OK if it’s filtered – we use a Brita pitcher. What comes out of the tap is not all that bad, but not great either. It tastes much better from the pitcher. I really like a mix of diet lemonade with diet lemon/lime pop, but bottles of pop go way too fast in our house so I had to stop buying them, except for the diet Dew and Dr. Pepper my husband insists on for work.
When it’s sunny I make sun tea. Oddly enough, my husband, who loves ice tea, insists on adding sweetener to it. I find it tastes just fine with a squirt of lemon juice. When we run out of sun tea (usually a gallon goes in a day), we mix up diet raspberry ice tea for him (he doesn’t drink water unless he has to).
My younger son is the only one in the family who really likes water. He also likes milk just about every other beverage any of us drink (including my coffee), and will ask for whatever he sees someone else drinking. But if he has to help himself he’ll go for water most often, probably because it’s the easiest to reach and he knows it’s not as bad if he spills some.
Report comment to moderator
On the “Is juice good for you?” question, I’ve simply seen too many fads, plus I’m watching the death of a sister-in-law who is dying after choosing fad diets instead of medical treatment for cancer.
Is salt good or bad for you? Meat? Chocolate? Bread? Butter? Coffee? Eggs? Peanut butter? Grape juice? Orange juice? About all of these, and more, medical wisdom changes opinions as often as they change their scrubs.
I think most people would agree that eating a lot of processed sugar is bad. But as my sister has pointed out, most of the foods that the Bible uses as positive metaphors are now (at least temporarily) being treated as bad for you, and theologically that’s a little hard to swallow. (No pun intended.) Jesus is the bread of life . . . but bread is bad for you. We are the salt of the earth . . . but salt is deadly. The Bible speaks positively of wine . . . but Christians and unbelievers alike have joined in condemning it, often even when it is drunk in biblical moderation. God specifically gave us permission to eat meat, but now a lot of people declare meat is unhealthy.
Many doctors insist that people watch their cholesterol level. I once worked with a man who was thin, bordering on underweight; who exercised three or four times a week; who watched his diet. But none of it was “good enough,” and the doctor put him on cholesterol medication. To me that’s borderline quackery. Unnecessary medication just about has to be worse for the body than slightly elevated cholesterol. The dumb thing is I’ve known of a lot of people with low cholesterol who have heart attacks, and lots of people with “frighteningly high” levels who never have. I’ve heard there’s a lot of debate on this subject in the medical community; I think it’s only a matter of time before doctors retract today’s “wisdom” that high cholesterol is dangerous–and in fact so dangerous that one should even go on medication for it if it can’t be resolved by diet and exercise.
So, I take all of this stuff with a grain of salt. (Not literally; I don’t actually eat much salt, and never add it to food I cook.) The idea that soda (regular or diet) isn’t healthy makes sense. The idea that juice isn’t healthy, in moderation, as a small part of the diet of a healthy adult, does not. For me personally I know that OJ gives me a sugar rush. I’m sure I could get away with a four-ounce glass, but I couldn’t use up a carton before it goes bad by drinking it in such small quantities, so I no longer buy it. I don’t like apple juice since it was the only juice we drank regularly when I was a child and I grew very tired of it; I still like cider (but rarely get a glass). I love grape juice, like cranberry juice; and occasionally enjoy a carton of Dole mixed juices (like their pineapple-orange-banana)–not their “juice drinks,” which aren’t real juice.
As one of my brothers points out, the Bible says a lot more about how we eat than what we eat. We’re to eat in gratitude, in moderation, etc. But whether or not we eat meat, salt our food, drink juice, etc. is less significant. To me, the idea of downing sugar-free soft drinks is hideous–I can always tell one in the first sip, and can’t stand the aftertaste, and I don’t like the idea of what the stuff does to one’s body. So I’d rather drink an occasional regular soda than touch the diet soda, and I’ll poir diet soda down the drain if I accidentally get a glass of it. But diet sodas are marvelous for diabetics. And when I gave up drinking about four glasses of milk a day, trading it for water and one glass of juice a day (at most) was a good trade.
Report comment to moderator
About the soda thing: it is not a health drink. Nothing wrong with pouring down your throat the same thing I use to clean the grout off of tile. Just kidding! (though I do use the sugar free to clean things.) A bit of pop now and then is refreshing and fun. The constant imbibement is the problem. We as Americans tend to think if you are not drinking pop you are either deprived or crazy. Not so. And colas are known for the phosphates pulling the calcium from the bones. So teen girls guzzling colas is osteoporosis just calling out for a home.
About the diet such and such: In my view, a lot of people think if it is sugar free, there is nothing negative about it so tend to eat a lot of it. It is diet candy bars, sugar free! So I can eat twenty, does not work. The occassional treat, sure. As for me, the diet stuff is a definite no no. It makes me physically unwell so I watch for it.
About the juice: A glass of juice considered as a healthy choice dessert is fine. A glass of juice followed by ten others because you are thirsty or “it is healthier than pop” is not a good idea. Ten glasses of juice would give you all the calories of a full meal. It is supposed to be easier to digest and actually use the vitamins than a pill. But thinking it is inocuous is not a good idea. And somewhere, in the deep dark recesses of my mind, I recall reading that oj can actually cancel the effects of some meds and some vits. Not sure on that one but it might be worth looking into. I like the idea of it being a reminder, and a tasty one.
Report comment to moderator
Mumsee,
Grapefruit juice can wreak havoc with medicine. (I used to work in a drugstore, and one of the warning stickers was “Do not take with grapefruit juice.”) Not sure about OJ. I can’t drink reconstituted orange juice at all; it bothers my stomach. But I like squeezing a few ounces myself (and then eating the pulp from the squeezed oranges too), and I like the cartons of not-from-concentrate, though I can’t really drink that either anymore.
But this noon I had Mexican food, and that simply goes better with juice than with water, and the last few days I’ve been working on a pork roast, which again pretty much needs juice along with it. (And pizza pretty much needs root beer, but I don’t go to pizza places unless I’m with other people, and the people I eat with go only rarely.) When I was able to drink milk, I drank it with every meal and usually with a snack at some point too. Now I drink juice with either lunch or supper, not both, though I sometimes go a couple of weeks without it before I open a new bottle or carton. (Or in this case, buy more. Once I finish the current cranberry juice, I’ll be out of juice.) I’m glad I grew up virtually without soda. We had root beer floats as a nice treat and occasionally would buy a two liter of something, but it was a rare treat and never a habit. In college I probably drank two much (several times a week), but now it’s a rare treat.
Report comment to moderator
Actually, for most, the over consumption of any liquid is bad. Even water has negative effects if you drink too much. Drink especially alot, and drowning may result.
This is why gluttony is bad.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn,
Correct. We are told to consume gallons of water but that is not what we need either. If you are thirsty and want something, water is a quencher, pop is not, though it tastes good. It makes you thirstier. Juice in serious moderation would work as well though the sugar in it would cause a sugar low later in the day. But walking around carrying a bottle of water and drinking every few minutes is not necessarily a good thing either. Though there are folks who would tell you it is.
As to the thread, the way I figure it, if “they” are taking over our health care, it seems reasonable for them to try to curtail unhealthy activity and since it won’t work (cigs) “they” will get lots of taxes to spend on things we don’t need but probably want to our detriment.
Report comment to moderator
Mumsee,
I saw somewhere that by the time you feel thirsty you’re actually dehydrated, that you should drink before you feel thirsty. That struck me as insane, and only something that would be said by someone who doesn’t believe we have a Creator. (Well, even animals know that thirst and water are related, so even evolution should say that thirst means you’re thirsty, not that you’re in trouble and should have gotten a drink earlier, before getting thirsty!!) But honestly, we don’t go around asking people to scratch our backs because we think they might itch later, and it’s stupid to disconnect thirst from water in such a way.
And this modern idea that we “need” an absolute minimum of eight glasses of water a day, more if we’re working hard or sweating? I would like to hear the response of people who had to haul it two miles from the well! My guess is that few people in history have drunk that much. I do try to drink it throughout the day, but definitely don’t aim for 8-12 glasses a day unless I have an infection or I’m sick.
Again, much of medical advice seems to lack common sense, and almost seems to be set up to see how many hoops people will willingly jump through.
Report comment to moderator
What I’ve read is that you don’t need 8 glasses of water, just that equivalent of fluids – including what is in foods. But people sometimes don’t get that much, or eat salty foods requiring more fluid than they would otherwise.
I’ve also read, and found it true in my experience, that when you get thirsty depends on how often you usually drink. If you don’t drink much, your body figures there’s a water shortage and retains more water and doesn’t make you feel thirsty as soon. But that also means that it takes longer before your body can get toxins flushed out. If you drink more often, you want to drink more often (not a strong thirst, but a desire to have some water), and your body flushes things through more often.
If for some reason I don’t drink as often (happens on weekends when I’m not following my weekday routine), then I don’t find myself wanting to drink as often either. But I also find myself wanting to eat more. If I drink often then I don’t feel an urge to snack, only to eat when I need to. And if I do feel the urge to snack, and remind myself to have a drink instead, I suddenly realize that I was actually thirsty, and I’m not longer hungry.
Report comment to moderator
CherylD: I think most people would agree that eating a lot of processed sugar is bad. But as my sister has pointed out, most of the foods that the Bible uses as positive metaphors are now (at least temporarily) being treated as bad for you, and theologically that’s a little hard to swallow. (No pun intended.) Jesus is the bread of life . . . but bread is bad for you. We are the salt of the earth . . . but salt is deadly. The Bible speaks positively of wine . . . but Christians and unbelievers alike have joined in condemning it, often even when it is drunk in biblical moderation. God specifically gave us permission to eat meat, but now a lot of people declare meat is unhealthy.
Oh, so now the great atheist conspiracy is undermining the Bible through nutritional advice?
Whole-grain bread is good for you; white-flour bread, especially if its juiced up with sodium and high-fructose corn syrup (and check the labels, many brands do just that) is not.
Salt is not deadly; we need some sodium. We do not need the truckloads of sodium that many processed foods have. In the Biblical metaphor, salt is a preservative, which was its primary use prior to the invention of refrigeration.
Medical advice is that 1-2 glasses of red wine a day is good for your heart. More can be bad. If some groups going by religious beliefs condemn it, that’s their error, not an error of medical science.
Likewise, meat. Red meat IS unhealthy in large quantities, but a few moderate servings a week is not.
It’s all about moderation.
The dumb thing is I’ve known of a lot of people with low cholesterol who have heart attacks, and lots of people with “frighteningly high” levels who never have. I’ve heard there’s a lot of debate on this subject in the medical community; I think it’s only a matter of time before doctors retract today’s “wisdom” that high cholesterol is dangerous–and in fact so dangerous that one should even go on medication for it if it can’t be resolved by diet and exercise.
That is not the “wisdom.” The key thing with cholesterol is the ration of HDL to LDL. You can have a total cholesterol under the goal of 200 and still have some cardiac risk if the HDL/LDL balance is not good (I am in this boat). You can have a total cholesterol above 200 and be in good shape if the ratio is healthy. Doctors know this already.
I saw somewhere that by the time you feel thirsty you’re actually dehydrated, that you should drink before you feel thirsty. That struck me as insane, and only something that would be said by someone who doesn’t believe we have a Creator. (Well, even animals know that thirst and water are related, so even evolution should say that thirst means you’re thirsty, not that you’re in trouble and should have gotten a drink earlier, before getting thirsty!!) But honestly, we don’t go around asking people to scratch our backs because we think they might itch later, and it’s stupid to disconnect thirst from water in such a way.
There’s that atheist conspiracy again.
But it’s actually true. Thirst is a signal that your body’s in dire need of hydration. If you stay adequately hydrated through the day, you shouldn’t feel significant thirst.
Report comment to moderator
Oh Steve, you’re the one who mentioned atheist conspiracies!! Yes, I know that about HDL/ LDL. My point is that doctors will report that someone’s bad cholesterol is something like three times what “should” have caused a fatal heart attack and they’re shocked he’s healthy, and someone else with very low cholesterol has a serious heart attack a week after being declared healthy. And many doctors are beginning to admit the link between cholesterol and heart disease is far from well established. It seems almost like it’s a theory that’s still being tested. Maybe cholesterol is just part of the picture, a smaller part than doctors thought a decade ago, I don’t know. All I know is that I had mine tested once, by people of dubious skill, didn’t believe the results (I think they had me as having very, very low cholesterol, I don’t remember, but other people who had it tested along with me said the test didn’t come close to matching more official results they’d had elsewhere) . . . and my finger hurt for a week. So I’m content in not knowing what my cholesterol is. I’m thin, with fairly good genes, and eat more veggies than most people do.
I know that most people don’t think salt is “deadly”; unfortunately, I’ve met too many extremists on this one. And as to whole-grain bread, many people will say it’s better than white bread, but still not good for you. I’m fairly sure (could be wrong) that that is in fact the typical thinking today. I don’t believe the thinking that red meat isn’t good for people; I think it depends on the person. It seems to me that most men need red meat; some women do and some don’t. I’m one of the one who does. The body’s cravings can give some idea of what an individual’s needs are (within reason–craving sugar or coffee may be more an “addiction” than a need).
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl: Well sure, people believe all kinds of things about food. But the actual science is not as all over the map as you imply.
Report comment to moderator
And many doctors are beginning to admit the link between cholesterol and heart disease is far from well established. It seems almost like it’s a theory that’s still being tested. Maybe cholesterol is just part of the picture, a smaller part than doctors thought a decade ago, I don’t know.
See, I think you’re overplaying it. Cholesterol is one of several risk factors for cardiac issues, along with hypertension, diabetes, family history, sodium intake and obesity. And I don’t think that’s a new insight or something doctors are just “beginning to admit.”
Report comment to moderator
As Steveg points out:
“Cholesterol is one of several risk factors for cardiac issues, along with hypertension, diabetes, family history, sodium intake and obesity.” —— TRUE!
Add in physical activity, weight control – this isn’t new INFO, it’s been sung over and over again, in the media, magazines, health reports. The REAL PROBLEM? – people don’t want to comply by watching what they EAT, they throw caution to the wind instead of taking the information seriously.
Report comment to moderator
#136: Weird, isn’t it? I was told not to take grapefruit juice, not even a drop, ever, while I’m on this one medication. Interestingly, mandarin oranges are out too.
I honestly don’t care if science finds that red meat’s molecular structure spells die, puny mortals, I’m still eating it.
But I don’t think I ever commented on the tax itself, other than that it was unfair. I don’t think the government should take it upon itself to “force” the people to be healthy. Nor do I think they have the authority, even if they should.
Report comment to moderator
TJS Catlover,
My husband also has to avoid grapefruit juice because of the medicine he takes. He won’t even drink Fresca, which has grapefruit flavor but I don’t know if there is any real juice in it. I hadn’t heard about mandarin oranges having the same issue. Not that we ever get them anyway.
There are very few things that aren’t OK to eat some of. As SteveG pointed out, it’s about taking things in moderation. The only people I know of who advise not ever eating red meat are vegetarians. (Whether because they think it’s wrong to kill animals, or because they think our bodies are made to eat only plants.) And the only person I’ve known who thought even whole grain bread should be avoided was my mother, who wanted her food to be processed as little as possible, and thought that whole grains should be eaten whole, not ground up for flour.
Report comment to moderator
Hi Pauline,
Many medications require that NO grapefruit juice or grapefruit be consumed.
We eat red meat. Vitamin B12 is found in large quantities in red meat – lack of B12 causes concentration and memory problems.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!