this post was submitted on 26 Aug 2026
404 points (96.1% liked)

Not The Onion

22348 readers
1705 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

  1. Links to news stories from...
  2. ...credible sources, with...
  3. ...their original headlines, that...
  4. ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Please also avoid duplicates.

Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, ableist, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] DarkCloud@lemmy.world 7 points 2 days ago (2 children)

The problem is that companies will figure out whar artificial sweeteners get around the tax.

[–] arrow74@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Kinda hard to pitch that as a loophole when it was the original plan set forth by the health ministry. They want companies to reformulate to reduce added sugar

[–] RamRabbit@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

They also want them to reformulate away from the current artificial sweeteners to full sugar. If you gotta pay the tax, might as well use the tasty stuff.

[–] arrow74@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

That's the new version not the original, although there may be another newer version that once again excludes artificial sugar.

Apparently this entire tax has become a governmental shit show with lots of fighting between groups. So who knows anymore

[–] quick_snail@feddit.nl 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Don't let perfect be the enemy of the good. This is good.

[–] CrypticCoffee@lemmy.ml -2 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] quick_snail@feddit.nl 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Diabetes is a real issue that actually kills people.

Your link says:

The committee therefore reaffirmed that it is safe for a person to consume within this limit per day. For example, with a can of diet soft drink containing 200 or 300 mg of aspartame, an adult weighing 70kg would need to consume more than 9–14 cans per day to exceed the acceptable daily intake, assuming no other intake from other food sources.

[–] CrypticCoffee@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yes it is, and it's solved not by soft drinks but making healthy food more accessible even to the most financially streched families. Shit food is always cheaper than healthy food. Yet they'll push to the corporations preferred and most profitable artificial sweeteners.

[–] quick_snail@feddit.nl 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

If you tax sugar in drinks, doesn't that mean that healthy options become cheaper?

[–] CrypticCoffee@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 day ago

You mean the price a smoothie drops? No. Does that or sweetener drinks give people more money in their wallet? No.