Saw something on the news about how "The City" is trying to impose a new tax on drinks that are high in sugar. What do you think; would that change people's consumption choices? Is it unethical to tax alcohol and cigarettes just because they are health hazards? Anyone care to comment on the potential dangers of sugar free counterparts?
Hey kids, just say no to HFCS.
If you asked this a few months ago I would probably disagree, but after taking a class on regulatory policy and doing a case study on the FDA, I am more likely to consider this a good policy.
When regulating you have to determine the intent of the manufacturers. Clearly, HFCS is an unnecessary additive and there many substitutes that are not as dangerous. Why then do manufactures continue to use it? Arguably, the case can be made that concentrated sugar and sodium additives are addictive. While I would prefer to see people just make smarter decisions, I think it's evident that American's either don't care or aren't educated enough. So yes, I think this is a good idea. Ideally, the revenue would be used to educate the public.
Sugar-free alternatives are available, but they pose a whole different set of threats. Tough issue...
High Fructose Corn Syrup is cheap when you farm 10,000 acres of corn at a time. And yes, apathy and ignorance are America's two largest health issues. Since Dr. Atkin's everybody is on a non-carb kick, but pick your color packet, these sugar subs are bad news. Where is the Food and Drug Administration on that one? The FDA is busy getting fat on America's poor health, as "new and improved" food technology floods the market, and I include HFCS in this category of synthetic garbage available for consumers. Sure the 0 calorie solutions won't cause hyperglycemia for a diabetic, but when the tongue senses sugar it alerts the pancreas for secretion of insulin, and eventually this has to affect the individual's endocrine system. In the words of Bobby Beaushe' "Water is better". If the tax can be used to educate people, sweet!