this post was submitted on 07 Jan 2024
327 points (97.7% liked)

News

30959 readers
2849 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Sales of sugary drinks fell dramatically across five U.S. cities, after they implemented taxes targeting those drinks – and those changes were sustained over time. That's according to a study published Friday in the journal JAMA Health Forum.

Researchers say the findings provide more evidence that these controversial taxes really do work. A claim the beverage industry disputes.

The cities studied were: Philadelphia, Seattle, San Francisco and Oakland, Calif., and Boulder, Colo. Taxes ranged from 1 to 2 cents per ounce. For a 2-liter bottle of soda, that comes out to between 67 cents to $1.30 extra in taxes.

Kaplan and his colleagues found that, on average, prices for sugar-sweetened drinks went up by 33.1% and purchases went down by basically the same amount – 33%.

all 46 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] TurnItOff_OnAgain@lemmy.world 40 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Soda is a real money maker too in fast food. That 32oz drink you are paying $2+ for only costs the restaurant 8-10c? And most of that is the cup.

[–] EdibleFriend@lemmy.world 13 points 2 years ago

I know gas stations are a 300% mark up on fountain pop. At least thats what it was back when i worked in one like 15 years ago.

[–] SeaJ@lemm.ee 36 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Which is what the beverage companies were afraid of so here in Washington they spent millions lobbying and lying to get it banned from happening outside Seattle.

[–] squidman@lemmy.world 16 points 2 years ago

That ad campaign pissed me off so much. I was even more disappointed when the people here fell for it. I thought we were smarter than those damn companies, but no.

[–] TenderfootGungi@lemmy.world 28 points 2 years ago (4 children)

It was eye opening the first time we flew to Europe. The first convenience store sold few sodas, mostly different types of water. And the soda they did sell was more expensive.

We tried an orange soda. It was less sweet and tasted far better.

[–] Xenny@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

Orange soda is odd in Europe. In Europe depending on region has a varying percentage of real orange juice. In the US its 0% juice naturally

[–] postmateDumbass@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago

And then there is the Fanta origin story.

[–] SheeEttin@programming.dev 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

In the US, if you want that, you have to get Orangina. Not a fan, personally. It's fizzy, watered-down orange juice.

[–] andrew@radiation.party 1 points 2 years ago

And it has an unfortunate name, to boot.

[–] omgarm@feddit.nl 4 points 2 years ago

In the Netherlands bottles of water and soda cost pretty much the same. Unless you specifically ask for tap water in a restaurant, then it's generally free.

[–] ExLisper@linux.community 3 points 2 years ago

Grape juice is my favourite, especially the fermented one. A bottle of decent one is about $5-10 in a supermarket in Spain.

[–] Objects@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 2 years ago

Orange Fanta is made with real sugar over there and less food coloring it seemed

[–] youCanCallMeDragon@lemmy.world 28 points 2 years ago (1 children)

“Basic economics still works, more at 11”

Except when it conflicts with one of my beliefs, in which case economics is wrong and should feel bad, actually

[–] bedrooms@kbin.social 22 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

A claim the beverage industry disputes.

I mean, if they really believed the sales wouldn't drop, why did they complain?

[–] RippleEffect@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago

They know sales will drop. They're blatantly lying and getting away with it.

[–] diykeyboards@lemmy.world 20 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

So the 33% poorest people can no longer enjoy it. That tracks.

[–] Zoboomafoo@slrpnk.net 15 points 2 years ago (3 children)

Did we really need a study to prove supply and demand still works?

[–] EatATaco@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The supply and demand curve is about how those two determine the price. With the tax, we are talking about the price "controls" affecting the demand, not the other way around.

And, additionally, even if we think the outcome should be obvious, it's always important to do a structured objective analysis to see if that was actually the case because, if it wasn't, it's time to revisit the theory or figure out what went wrong.

[–] lemmington_steele@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

you can model the tax on the supply or the demand. in most simple models the outcome is the same

[–] EatATaco@lemm.ee 1 points 2 years ago

Maybe you can, that would make sense. But it's really neither supply nor demand, so it's just forcing it into the model, which you've now made more complicated and no longer the simple curve that the op was suggesting it is.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 2 points 2 years ago

The argument would presumably be that demand is highly price-inelastic. Which seems ludicrous to me for soft drinks, but you could try making the argument if it was in your interest to do so.

[–] girlfreddy@lemmy.ca 11 points 2 years ago

I have type 2 diabetes so make my own with club soda, lemon and lime juice, sweetened with stevia. Tastes pretty good and keeps my blood sugar in check.

[–] mateomaui@reddthat.com 7 points 2 years ago

Over here a 16 oz bottle of soda can be close to $4. I’d rather buy 64 oz bottles of juice on sale for $5 or less and water it down.

[–] _danny@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I'm more curious about how it affects the sale of other drinks and foods.

Do fast food sales drop because of the increased cost of their primary drink options? Do people turn to water as an alternative or do they fill the hole with another option like alcohol, tea, or coffee?

[–] yamanii@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Soda at fast food is already triple the price though.

[–] shortwavesurfer@lemmy.zip 5 points 2 years ago

I have cut my soda down to once or twice per week, but I still do enjoy it.

[–] GiddyGap@lemm.ee 5 points 2 years ago

Sociatal health in the US would improve a lot if restaurants would drop the free refills.

[–] HiddenLayer5@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

I encourage everyone who likes sugary soda to at least try flavoured sparkling water. Personally I have replaced nearly all my soda intake with it, and the fruit flavored ones are surprisingly sweet without any sugar or artificial sweetener, and I imagine are way healthier than even diet soda. If you find that you like it, getting a sparkling water machine like a Soda Stream is also more environmentally friendly and more cost effective if you drink a lot of it as well.

[–] hydrospanner@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

I like both but they definitely aren't interchangeable for me.

When I want a seltzer that's what I want and a coke is too sweet.

When I want a coke, the seltzer isn't sweet enough.

That being said, one of the few healthy changes I made and stuck with was after making my most recent move 6 years ago, I just didn't buy 2L bottles of soda to keep in stock in the fridge.

Didn't boycott them, didn't avoid them in restaurants or convenience stores, and I still keep a few baby cans as mixers in the bar at my apartment, but in that list of things you just get when you run low to keep a stock...I just kinda took soda off that list.

Found that I only really missed it a few times a year, and if I was really craving it, I could go get a little can from the bar...but just that one small change probably cut my soda consumption by like 85% and I barely miss it.

[–] SaltySalamander@kbin.social 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

So do 100% orange juice/grape juice have the same taxes? Because these are just as sugary, if not more so, than soda. Sugar is sugar, doesn't matter the source. If they're not taxed the exact same way as soda, then this is a bullshit tax that shouldn't survive a challenge in court.

[–] EatATaco@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago

I'm not a fan of juice for the reasons you point out. But soda provides pretty much no nutritional value, it's just pure sugar. At least with juice you get some other nutritional benefits. . .although, you should obviously get that from eating it and not drinking it.

But I think the tax laws are, generally speaking, if they don't include juices, are for drinks with added sugar/sweeteners which would exempt 100% juice. This would probably pretty easily hold up in court.

[–] gullible@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It is my political opinion that milk, water, tea (practically water), and vodka are the only beverages fit for human consumption. There’s an argument to be made for certain juices, but it can be safely ignored as Dole propaganda. You only get the two sets of teeth, all.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It's my political opinion that milk should only be consumed if it comes from a consenting adult.

[–] bedrooms@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

How do I get consent from an adult cow?

[–] edgemaster72@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

That's the neat part, you don't.

[–] ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 years ago

"No sweets for the poor, fuck you."

Thanks for deciding what's good for me government, and not the cool way by making HFCS be replaced with real sugar at the manufacturer level, just the way that sucks for me. 'Preciate it.

[–] kool_newt@lemm.ee -2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

What if I don't want to be healthy? Why must the government punish me? If behavior is to be corrected by law, correct the companies not the people.

If one's goals are say, maximize freedom and fairness/equality/equity for humans and minimize harm from sugary drinks, it makes more to ban the advertising of these unhealthy foods rather than make them more difficult to procure for those with less money.

[–] ristoril_zip@lemmy.zip 19 points 2 years ago (2 children)

So some other person can come behind you and say, "what if I want to know about different ways I can be unhealthy!?"

Give me a break. Government ends up footing the bill for the outcomes of these decisions. We can either tax the people making these decisions to pay for it, or tax everyone to pay for it. The latter just means people who don't engagie in the behavior subsidize the people who do.

Tax unhealthy foods, make (actually) healthy food tax free. And not food that some marketing shitbag slaps a name like "healthy choice" on. Actually healthy food.

Use that tax money to subsidize the production & distribution of healthy food, especially to eliminate food deserts. This will lower the cost to the government of dealing with the consequences of unhealthy foods.

[–] blargerer@kbin.social 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

So, I'm in favour of sugar taxes, but lots of studies have found that healthy people actually cost more in the long run, because they actually live into their old age where they start costing a shit ton. For the most part unhealthy people just end up dying young.

[–] bedrooms@kbin.social 13 points 2 years ago

Can you share the studies you base your argument on? Those who live longer might also pay more tax, so it's not a clear cut for me.