Globalists versus lobbyists and who will win?

Finally the globalists promote something I can get behind.

Today, WHO released its first-ever global tax manual for sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs). Currently, at least 85 countries implement some type of SBB taxation. 

The WHO manual highlights the experiences of countries who have successfully implemented the tax, including Mexico, South Africa, and the United Kingdom.

“Taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages can be a powerful tool to promote health because they save lives and prevent disease, while advancing health equity and mobilizing revenue for countries that could be used to realize universal health coverage,” said Dr Ruediger Krech, Director of Health Promotion at WHO. 

SSB, tobacco, and alcohol taxes have proven to be cost-effective ways of preventing diseases, injuries, and premature mortality. SSB tax can also encourage companies to reformulate their products to reduce sugar content.

Regular consumption of SSBs, including soft drinks, flavoured milks, energy drinks, vitamin waters, fruit juices and sweetened iced teas, is associated with an increased risk of dental cavities, type 2 diabetes, weight gain and obesity in both children and adults, heart disease, stroke and cancer. 

Evidence shows that implementing taxes on SSBs increases product prices and reduces demand, resulting in less purchases. A one time global SSB tax increase that raised prices 50% could generate additional revenues of US$1.4 trillion over 50 years.1

A recent Gallup Poll also found that a majority of people across the United States, Tanzania, Jordan, India, and Colombia supported taxes on SSBs, alcohol and tobacco.2

WHO calls on countries to introduce or increase existing SSB taxes to raise the prices of these unhealthy products, lessen demand, and reduce consumption. The manual is a reference guide that provides key considerations and strategies for countries to develop, design, and implement SSB taxes.

www.who.int...

I wonder how this will sit with the beverage industry lobbyists considering the millions they have spent over the years fighting to continue leaching taxpayer money by allowing people to buy soda pop with food stamps.

According to a 2016 report from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, sweetened beverages, including soda, are among the most commonly purchased items by recipients of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — or SNAP.

SNAP households spend about 10 percent of food dollars on sugary drinks, which is about three times more than the amount they spend on milk. In New York City alone, as we've reported, this translates into more than $75 million in sugary drink purchases each year that are subsidized by U.S. taxpayers.

However, since taxpayers foot the roughly $70 billion bill for SNAP each year, critics question whether it makes sense to support the purchase of sugary drinks, which have been shown to play a significant role in weight gain and the onset of Type 2 diabetes.

"Low-income American adults now consume nearly two [sugar-sweetened beverage] servings a day, and for every one to two daily servings consumed, the lifetime risk of developing diabetes increases by 30 percent," according to a paper published this year by Harvard adjunct public policy professor Robert Paarlberg and collaborators in the journal Society.

www.npr.org...

When I was growing up, we were poor and we drank water. And milk. But I suppose it isn't fair to assume everyone would be able to just accept that they can't afford something and not buy it.

Ms. Nooyi said she was concerned about the slippery slope in restricting SNAP funds – that the USDA might limit access to other food and drink options if it restricts sodas. The slippery slope is one of the weakest arguments in law and rhetoric,” said Danhof. “In any case, the government already prohibits the purchase of tobacco and alcohol with SNAP funds. How hard could it be to add carbonated soda as a category? I understand the company’s point, but I simply disagree.”

Danhof adds, “Our belief is that it is not okay for the government to force some Americans – the taxpayers – to subsidize non-nutritious treats for other Americans. If the purpose of the SNAP program is to be certain poor people can afford a sufficient amount of nutritious foods and beverages, doesn’t funding non-nutritious soda undermine the purpose of the program? And if Americans want to buy treats for other Americans, they can make voluntary donations to do so.”

“Individual Americans should be able to purchase as much soda as they desire and can afford,” said Danhof. “In a free marketplace, people should be able to purchase what they want. That is why Pepsi was right to fight New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s efforts to ban large beverages, but wrong when it fought his efforts to limit SNAP funds to healthier items,” said Danhof. “SNAP money does not operate in a free market. It is taken from people’s paychecks. It is reasonable to limit how those benefits are administered and for what items these benefits can be used.”

Last Wednesday, the National Center delivered the same message to Coca-Cola executives, who replied, stating: “Regarding your question on the Company’s position on Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) participant purchases, we join with others in the non-alcoholic beverage industry and the broader food products industry concerned about any static policy, including SNAP benefits, that would look across 300,000+ items in a grocery store and arbitrarily restrict the sale of some of our products based on calorie content.”

“We agree with the beverage industry far more than we disagree,” said Amy Ridenour, chairman of the National Center for Public Policy Research. “We completely agree that the government should not arbitrarily restrict the sale of any products based on their calorie content. That’s not only anti-freedom, but also ridiculous, as a healthy balanced diet can include a number of high-calorie items and even include a reasonable amount of sugary soda. We will never join the food police. We’re just sticking up for the taxpayers, who prefer subsidizing orange juice to soda.”

nationalcenter.org...

Ah well, I understand now. It is anti freedom to oppose taxpayer funding of junk food for people who can't afford it.

NOPE
I don't like it.

First do away with plastic bottles. Go return bottle for 2 cents, then i believe someone knows their #tt about living in a healthy environment.

I read this it as just another excuse to tax people. For example, this statement:

SSB, tobacco, and alcohol taxes have proven to be cost-effective ways of preventing diseases, injuries, and premature mortality.

Really? I know people that smoke, I know some alcoholics. Many suffer and die due to their ill habits but all the while, government happily takes their money. They really aren't trying to fix anything.

a reply to: Antimony

I'm not sure if you're for sugar taxes or against?

I'm assuming you're against food stamps being used for sodas and sugary drinks. What about the ingredients to make your own? Probably a lot more expensive than the real deal in the Americas...

Personally I think sugar taxes are a bit of an insult since it's lobbyists and governments that created the situations in the first place. Confectionery and beverage companies are worldwide corporations, the lobbyists are globalists when it comes to the likes of CocaCola, Mars, Nestlé, Heineken...

WHO asked them?

time for everyone to ignore these idiots (if you event been doing so already)

a reply to: Antimony

So the people that consume this crap, will go broke, before they die from it.

I got a better idea. How about regulate the amount and type of sugars added to products.

Another money making scheme, that’s trying to convince you it’s for your benefit…. 🤡 🌎

I don't know why people are so anxious to pay even more taxes in order to give up even more of their ability to control their own lives.

This sounds like it's coming from the forked tongue of the 'My body, my choice" crowd.

It seems more and more people are happy to have a gov. entity micro-manage their lives and charge them extra taxes for the privilege. The end result is they'll all be eating bugs whether they like it or not-because they so willingly gave up all their choices, one little issue at a time.

The Globalists love to rush to do something without thinking it through. They often make horrible decisions with wretched unintended consequences. But make them money. Like taxes and the production of artificial sweetners rather than natural sources of sweetness like sugar made from vegetables and plants.

Like when they banned production of incandescent light bulbs. The consequence: we were forced to use florescent bulbs for years. The bulbs we were forced to use had mercury in them. If they broke you were supposed to get a hazmat team in to do clean up. If they had left things alone LED's came along naturally and don't require a hazmat team to clean up after them if they break and use far less energy.

Like the planned ban on production of gas powered cars. The consequence: The batteries only last for an average of 8-10 years (I buy a new car and keep it until it is a "junker" and take great care of it so they last a really long time) and replacement batteries cost on average $10K which will more than double by the time it needs replacing at current inflation rates. The mining of the minerals used pollute the air/water. When they wear out disposal of them create hazards. There are cheaper and safer for the environment cars being created as prototypes, but the globalists won't wait and will create mountains of hazardous batteries beginning in 10 years. Let alone what happens to electric cars in a crash where a fire results, or a faulty wiring or defective battery is involved; they explode leaving nothing but ashes and maybe part of the frame of the car.

Like the lockdowns. We now see, thanks to China and the world the results of severe lockdowns. The places with few or no lockdowns had the most cases early on and then the cases declined and have stayed low. The more strict the lockdown the more cases overall. Look at China, it is in a sudden population meltdown because they did not allow anyone to catch the virus as best they could, then when they opened up no one had any natural immunity or exposure to the virus previously to help with fighting the mutated versions. Once it was worldwide and there was no way to quarantine, allowing people to decide for themselves to protect themselves or not seemed statistically to work the best. But the globalists wanted draconian lockdowns heavy on punishment for disobedience and deciding the populace was too ignorant and animal like to do what was best for themselves, so they had to force the population to do what was best for themselves.

As to sugar: tax it, great, more money for the globalists who distribute tax money to themselves regularly by hiring their companies with tax money enriching themselves. So get rid of sugar? The alternative is artificial sweetners www.eatthis.com...

"When you consume artificial sweeteners some data suggests that artificial sweeteners cross the blood-brain barrier and disrupt hippocampal function. This impairs sensitivity to interceptive signals, dysregulate appetitive behavior, and thereby promote food intake," says Rocio Salas-Whalen, MD, endocrinologist and founder of New York Endocrinology.
Artificial sweeteners can retrain your taste buds. And not necessarily for the better. "Because artificial sweeteners have many times the intensity of sweet flavor in comparison to natural sugars, you and your taste buds become accustomed to super sweet things," shares Tanya Freirich, MS, RD, CDN, CDE, nutritionist for Sweet Nova, an all-natural food company. "Those who consume artificial sweeteners may be become accustomed to ultra-sweet flavors.
Artificial sweeteners may impact your gut health. We'll file this one under "no, thank you: "Some studies have shown that [artificial sweeteners] affect the normal gut microbiota. This can lead to obesity and metabolic syndrome," notes Salas-Whalen, citing a 2014 study published in the respected journal Nature.
which can lead to diabetes. "Artificial sweeteners can alter your gut microbiota," says Freirich. "As per a recent study in Physiology & Behavior, the consumption of artificial sweeteners alters the gut microbiota and is linked with impaired glucose tolerance. Impaired glucose tolerance raises blood sugars and increases the risk for diabetes."
Artificial sweeteners simply love chilling in your gut. "[The 2014 Nature study] showed that regular use of artificial sweeteners like saccharin, sucralose and aspartame, led to an abnormal mix of bacteria in the gut that increased risk of insulin insensitivity (the precursor of diabetes) and weight gain," explains Ogunyemi. "One way this may happen is that as the artificial sweetener sits in your gut and is not absorbed, it is used as 'food' for unhealthy bacteria.
And artificial sweeteners may be linked to a host of gastrointestinal issues. "Another PLoS One study showed a similar effect of acesulfame potassium, but only in men," comments Ogunyemi (worth noting this study was conducted on mice, further research, especially on humans is needed to replicate the findings). "Gut dysbiosis, often associated with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), is very common and not only leads to abdominal bloating and pain, but also decreases our ability to get the most nutrients from our food, decrease the health of our immune system and increase our risk of a host of chronic inflammatory disorders."
Beware that some artificial sweeteners have calories. Artificial sweeteners can be non-nutritive or nutritive, although most artificial sweeteners fall under the non-nutritive umbrella. "Non-nutritive sweeteners are synthetic sugar substitutes that are free of calories and carbohydrates. They may be derived from naturally occurring plants or herbs and are many times sweeter than sugar," says Daghigh. The other category of artificial sweetener is nutritive, which only includes aspartame.
Artificial sweeteners can usher in overeating. Ever notice how after you consume a diet soda with a meal, you eat more than you normally would or crave more food after your meal is completed? "While artificial sweeteners are supposed to help us reduce our calorie intake, the opposite may be true. Artificial sweeteners still trigger our sweet taste sensors, increasing insulin levels in the same way as if you eat sugar," notes Ogunyemi. "This can lead to us to eat more calories than we would if we skipped the artificial sweetener and increases our risk of packing on the pounds around our midsection, which increases our risk for heart disease and heart attacks." See more on the connection between artificial sweeteners and obesity from a 2017 review in Current Gastroenterology Reports.
Aspartame isn't for all. "Aspartame (NutraSweet or Equal) is approved for use in food as a nutritive sweetener. Aspartame contains calories, but because it is about 200 times sweeter than table sugar, consumers are likely to use much less of it," says Daghigh. "It loses its sweetness when heated, so it typically isn't used in baked goods. People with a rare congenital disease known as phenylketonuria (PKU) have a difficult time metabolizing phenylalanine, a component of aspartame, and should avoid aspartame."

a reply to: Antimony

Government has no business taxing some citizens for certain behaviors. Period.

Does anyone think people will give up their sweet drinks and snacks? Of course not! They will simply purchase products with artificial sweeteners instead, with little to no nutritional value, but all the added adverse effects of artificial sweeteners.

Does anyone really believe the government has the best interests of the people at heart? Or is this just a backdoor way to for government to regulate competition and give some competitors a huge market advantage???

And if government can restrict the purchasing freedom of some, nothing will stop them from restricting the purchasing freedom of all.

I gotta also say, as someone who desperately needs to GAIN weight and eating accordingly, the pearl clutchers would be clutching even harder if they saw my recent grocery receipts! Government doesn't know my situation, my circumstances, my needs, and has no business creating such one-size-fits-no oneall" regulations.

yep
china over 60000 deaths this month.
TV here shows it as it is . NO BS reporting.
The hallways are filled. Sorry I don't know what city it is .
Love ones are lined outside of the hospital to see their family members, riots can happen any time according to the journalist
Staff are force to stay in the canteen to sleep for up to 4 hours or a bit more and then go back to work.
If this is all true, I can see a decline of birth in china at about 42 % in the next 1.5 years.
People in china now are trying to get into Hong kong where they might have a chance to survive.
Bad situation there.

With all due respect to nerds, and not to use the "widget" analogy.

All nerds aren't globalists, but all globalists are nerds

Of course, they are gonna want to change the balance of the world, because for all their wealth and power they still feel powerless and unappreciated.

Are you telling me Bill Gates isn't somewhere licking his wounds?

a reply to: Antimony

“Taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages can be a powerful tool to promote health because they save lives and prevent disease, while advancing health equity and mobilizing revenue for countries that could be used to realize universal health coverage,” said Dr Ruediger Krech, Director of Health Promotion at WHO.

No they don't just like taxes on alcohol don't stop people becoming alcoholics , I agree with LogicalGraphitti , just more tax.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: Antimony

“Taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages can be a powerful tool to promote health because they save lives and prevent disease, while advancing health equity and mobilizing revenue for countries that could be used to realize universal health coverage,” said Dr Ruediger Krech, Director of Health Promotion at WHO.

No they don't just like taxes on alcohol don't stop people becoming alcoholics , I agree with LogicalGraphitti , just more tax.

This is what artificial sweetners also do (see my previous post for the link):

Artificial sweeteners may impact your gut health. We'll file this one under "no, thank you: "Some studies have shown that [artificial sweeteners] affect the normal gut microbiota. This can lead to obesity and metabolic syndrome," notes Salas-Whalen, citing a 2014 study published in the respected journal Nature.
which can lead to diabetes.

"Artificial sweeteners can alter your gut microbiota," says Freirich. "As per a recent study in Physiology & Behavior, the consumption of artificial sweeteners alters the gut microbiota and is linked with impaired glucose tolerance. Impaired glucose tolerance raises blood sugars and increases the risk for diabetes."

And artificial sweeteners may be linked to a host of gastrointestinal issues.
"Gut dysbiosis, often associated with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), is very common and not only leads to abdominal bloating and pain, but also decreases our ability to get the most nutrients from our food, decrease the health of our immune system and increase our risk of a host of chronic inflammatory disorders."

"While artificial sweeteners are supposed to help us reduce our calorie intake, the opposite may be true. Artificial sweeteners still trigger our sweet taste sensors, increasing insulin levels in the same way as if you eat sugar," notes Ogunyemi. "This can lead to us to eat more calories than we would if we skipped the artificial sweetener and increases our risk of packing on the pounds around our midsection, which increases our risk for heart disease and heart attacks."

a reply to: The2Billies

Their war is with sugar not artificial sweeteners , as usual they have it the wrong way round.

a reply to: gortex

Great for corporations with the ability to adapt to markets...

Unlike alcoholics the sugar tax has changed the consumption habits of swathes of people. Remember the irn bru debacle?

The beverage market changed in the UK, the rise in super premium beverages is nice but it's more of a niche market, that's the spot which smaller businesses have flocked to. The rest of the market predominantly features sweeteners these days and it's all brands that either always used them or had the ability to adapt recipes.

The rest are priced out of the market. I'm fairly sure a similar thing happened in the early 90s.

Yeah sweeteners aren't good for you either.