Fructose tax

Health
, ,
1

There should be an extra tax on any product with high fructose sugar products in it. Basiclly a carbon tax on fructose. This would dramatically drop the obesity rate in a very short amount of time.

7 Likes
2

I am firmly against this proposal for the following 10 reasons:

  1. We do not need more Government Nanny State.
  2. We do not need a New York Tax on Sugary Drinks applied (w/ Fructose) as a national tax.
  3. The mere mention of “carbon tax” should disqualify this proposal on its face.
  4. The mere mention of suggesting we “fix something” by introducing “taxation” on the American People should disqualify this proposal on its face.
  5. The implementation of this proposal would adversely impact 95% of store shelf products that sweeten their products with it – the count is massive (via corn syrup inclusion).
  6. It slows the economy vs. helping it.
  7. The taxes collected will only fuel an already-bloated regulatory agency/govt. spending.
  8. It is anti-business and anti-free market economy.
  9. It is a form of “Regulating ourselves to prosperity” which never works.
  10. It is dscriminatory in nature.

Hope that helps. Thx.

10 Likes
3

100% agree.

1 Like
4

Since high fructose is not good for any of us, why not just do away with it. Don’t allow high fructose in our food or fed to animals. I bet the HHS could acomplish that through the USDA and the FDA.

12 Likes
5

Fructose is not good for us “in large amounts”. It is also not bad for us “in moderate amounts”. The same applies to all injestable products. Should we slap repeated taxes or even ban beer and cigs next? We can’t set precidents on restricting and banning some items but let other items go. It is best to not even start down this destructive and discriminating path. If beer is bad in large quantity, then the control should be on the consumer not to buy so much of it for himself. It should not be on the government to ban beer simply because Joe 6-Pack died of liver failure because the 20 tons of it he drank was “bad for him”. Bottom line is that the consumer should be controlling this behavior, not the government. Anyone that suggests trying to “Help Humanity” by “Taxing Humanity” is suspect. Only statists and control-freaks think this way. It is the antithesis of how our Founding Fathers viewed individual liberties, because it is of a socialist mindset, and foreign to American values. Nobel causes and social health concerns should never trump individual liberties. These socialist approaches belong over in Europe…not over here. We left that socialist nightmare more than 200 years ago, because of that busy-body, micro-management, monarchical mentality. The very notion of someone proposing restrictions on others’ consumption habits in order to “help them by costing them” is VERY unAmerican, disgusting, zealous, overly-nosey, and should be rejected out of hand as being unnacceptable and dictatorial in nature. Approx 15-20% of our population exhibits these European-esque traits, unfortunately. Perhaps we might do well, as a Republic of Individual Liberties, to discourage this contradictory nanny-state mentality when it occasionally rears its ugly head.

5 Likes
6

The people would choose healthier alternatives as well as food companies would have to look into using natural sweeteners. It is something that would help the health of Americans. Yes it would cost more, but it would also make ppl think twice before their purchase.

3 Likes
7

You sounds vaccinated, so i understand the comment of mental health.

8

Airam, although I am not aware that being vaccinated made a sound, I am not vaccinated – however, you do seem as though you are a bit too preoccupied (and with OCD-like fixation even) with the anatomical well-being of others for some strange and sickly bio-dictatorial reason – first with others’ injestion of fructose and now with vaccine status. You are showing your nasty colors with that last “jab”. No wonder you create policies that are meant for controlling others’ private business. Your words resemble those of an elderly prudish and sour neighbor living next door, who always invents new problems whilst spying on everyone else. My initial hunch was correct; and I had you pegged from the beginning.

2 Likes
9

Ok you win, you are way more intellectual than i as well as way faster at typing. I myself am a high school drop out, with a hopeful thought to help my/our country. But fun fact most C and D students grow up to own businesses versus A and B students who go on to be great employees. But have no worries, for I have achieved neither businesses nor great employee, I am only a troll under a bridge. Love Life Susan.

10

People sometimes forget that their rights end where another’s begins; and the notion of pushing one’s social ideals onto others (no matter how hopeful, helpful, worthy, nobel, or well-intended the cause) by use of govt force via taxes and regulation, is exactly the opposite of what America represents as a nation. It is not helpful – it is destructive. We are a nation of individuals with individual rights foremost – we are not a collective of slaves whose duty is to serve the nation state foremost. The state serves the individual, it is not supposed to dictate to the individual (especially on what to consume).

Nevertheless, I do hope you achieve your goal in helping others. Perhaps you might do so while also respecting them as an individual, and allow them to make their own choices in life about what is good for them, instead of trying to push the government (or others) to negatively impact them in order to change their behavior. That would be the “nice and helpful” approach. Hope that helps.

1 Like
11

I agree with this proposal. High fructose corn syrup is used because it is less expensive than cane sugar. Unfortunately it is far worse for our bodies than plain old sugar. Taxing high fructose corn syrup would make it less viable economically and it wouldn’t take long for cane sugar to replace it.

2 Likes
12

God forbid, we go down the shopping aisle and read the ingredients before we purchase something, right? Isn’t that the definition of being “gifted”? Do we really need a policy for being “gifted whilst shopping”? Perhaps we need a policy for teaching gifted shopping persons how to shop properly in order to identify the phrase: "High Fructose Corn Syrup" on the label. Most shoppers didn’t know it was so diffucult a task. They do just fine weeding it out from the other products. Or they simply pick up the can of wicked demon sliced peaches and move on down the aisle with their shopping cart. Should the peaches on the shelf be roiling with flames, to be seen aglow from 20 paces, in order for to help the poor unknowing shoppers identify its toxic and demonic sugary ingredients? Should we come together and hold hands in search of the vitcims of this lingering Steven King-ish fructose horror? Woeth us! Pray tell, of these tempting sweetness demons! Oh, the horror of it all!
.
.
.
**I mean…really? :face_with_monocle:

1 Like
13

If you are for living in a nanny state, why stop with high fructose sugar products? Let’s ban all of them. Just because they are “safe” today, who knows what we will find out tomorrow?

Food Additives to Avoid

While FDA generally recognizes most additives on this list as ‘safe,’ there are growing concerns about the safety of many common food additives, if consumed in large quantities.

  1. Sodium nitrate: Added to processed meats to stop bacterial growth. Linked to cancer in humans. (Worst Offender)
  2. Sulfites: Used to keep prepared foods fresh. Can cause breathing difficulties in those sensitive to the ingredient.
  3. Azodicarbonamide: Used in bagels and buns. Can cause asthma.
  4. Potassium bromate: Added to breads to increase volume. Linked to cancer in humans.
  5. Propyl gallate: Added to fat-containing products. Linked to cancer in humans
  6. BHA/BHT: A fat preservative, used in foods to extend shelf life. Linked to cancerous tumor growth.
  7. Propylene glycol: Better known as antifreeze. Thickens dairy products and salad dressing. Deemed ‘generally’ safe by FDA.
  8. Butane: Put in chicken nuggets to keep them tasting fresh. A known carcinogen.
  9. Monosodium glutamate (MSG): Flavor enhancer that can cause headaches. Linked in animal studies to nerve damage, heart problems and seizures.
  10. Disodium inosinate: In snack foods. Contains MSG.
  11. Disodium guanylate: Also used in snack foods, and contains MSG.
  12. Enriched flour: Used in many snack foods. A refined starch that is made from toxic ingredients.
  13. Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH): Geneticially-engineered version of natural growth hormone in cows. Boosts milk production in cows. Contains high levels of IGF-1, which is thought cause various types of cancer.
  14. Refined vegetable oil: Includes soybean oil, corn oil, safflower oil, canola oil, and peanut oil. High in omega-6 fats, which are thought to cause heart disease and cancer.
  15. Sodium benzoate: Used as a preservative in salad dressing and carbonated beverages. A known carcinogen and may cause damage our DNA.
  16. Brominated vegetable oil: Keeps flavor oils in soft drinks suspended. Bromate is a poison and can cause organ damage and birth defects. Not required to be listed on food labels.
  17. Propyl gallate: Found in meats, popcorn, soup mixes and frozen dinners. Shown to cause cancer in rats. Banned in some countries. Deemed safe by FDA.
  18. Olestra: Fat-like substance that is unabsorbed by the body. Used in place of natural fats in some snack foods. Can cause digestive problems, and also not healthy for the heart.
  19. Carrageenan: Stabilizer and thickening agent used in many prepared foods. Can cause ulcers and cancer.
  20. Polysorbate 60: A thickener that is used in baked goods. Can cause cancer in laboratory animals.
  21. Camauba wax: Used in chewing gums and to glaze certain foods. Can cause cancer and tumors.
  22. Magnesium sulphate: Used in tofu, and can cause cancer in laboratory animals.
  23. Chlorine dioxide: Used in bleaching flour. Can cause tumors and hyperactivity in children.
  24. Paraben: Used to stop mold and yeast forming in foods. Can disrupt hormones in the body, and could be linked to breast cancer.
  25. Sodium carboxymethyl cellulose: Used as a thickener in salad dressings. Could cause cancer in high quantities.
  26. Aluminum: A preservative in some packaged foods that can cause cancer.

Artificial Sweeteners to Avoid

Artificial sweeteners are regulated by FDA, just as food additives are, but this does not apply to products ‘generally recognized as safe.

  1. Saccharin: Carcinogen found to cause bladder cancer in rats. (Worst Offender)
  2. Aspartame: An excitotoxin and thought to be a carcinogen. Can cause dizziness, headaches, blurred vision and stomach problems.
  3. High fructose corn syrup: Sweetener made from corn starch. Made from genetically-modified corn. Causes obesity, diabetes, heart problems, arthritis and insulin resistance.
  4. Acesulfame potassium: Used with other artificial sweeteners in diet sodas and ice cream. Linked to lung and breast tumors in rats.
  5. Sucralose: Splenda. Can cause swelling of liver and kidneys and a shrinkage of the thymus gland.
  6. Agave nectar: Sweetener derived from a cactus. Contains high levels of fructose, which causes insulin resistance, liver disease and inflammation of body tissues.
  7. Bleached starch: Can be used in many dairy products. Thought to be related to asthma and skin irritations.
  8. Tert butylhydroquinone: Used to preserve fish products. Could cause stomach tumors at high doses.

Artificial Food Colorings to Avoid

Food colorings are used to give foods a more attractive appearance, but some experts believe they cause serious health problems, including asthma and hyperactivity in children.

  1. Red #40: Found in many foods to alter color. All modern food dyes are derived from petroleum. A carcinogen that is linked to cancer in some studies. Also can cause hyperactivity in children. Banned in some European countries. (Worst Offender)
  2. Blue #1: Used in bakery products, candy and soft drinks. Can damage chromosomes and lead to cancer.
  3. Blue #2: Used in candy and pet food beverages. Can cause brain tumors
  4. Citrus red #1: Sprayed on oranges to make them look ripe. Can damage chromosomes and lead to cancer.
  5. Citrus red #2: Used to color oranges. Can cause cancer if you eat the peel.
  6. Green #3: Used in candy and beverages. May cause bladder tumors.
  7. Yellow #5: Used in desserts, candy and baked goods.Thought to cause kidney tumors, according to some studies.
  8. Yellow #6: A carcinogen used in sausage, beverages and baked goods. Thought to cause kidney tumors, according to some studies.
  9. Red #2: A food coloring that may cause both asthma and cancer.
  10. Red #3: A carcinogen. that is added to cherry pie filling, ice cream and baked goods. May cause nerve damage and thyroid cancer.
  11. Caramel coloring: In soft drinks, sauces, pastries and breads. When made with ammonia, it can cause cancer in mice. Food companies not required to disclose if this ingredient is made with ammonia.
  12. Brown HT: Used in many packaged foods. Can cause hyperactivity in children, asthma and cancer.
  13. Orange B: A food dye that is used in hot dog and sausage casings. High doses are bad for the liver and bile duct.
  14. Bixin: Food coloring that can cause hyperactivity in children and asthma.
  15. Norbixin: Food coloring that can cause hyperactivity in children and asthma.
  16. Annatto: Food coloring that can cause hyperactivity in children and asthma.

Or take personal responsibility and:

Avoid fast foods
Avoid soda and sugary drinks & juice
Eat more fruits, vegetables and grains
Eat hormone free meat
Drink hormone free milk
Know what you’re eating!
3 Likes
14

Our food should be nourishing and safe to eat.

But more than 10,000 chemicals, some of which are potentially toxic, are allowed in cereal, snacks, meat and many other types of food sold in the U.S.

Almost 99 percent of food chemicals introduced since 2000 were greenlighted for use by food and chemical companies rather than properly reviewed by the Food and Drug Administration. Many of these widely used chemicals are associated with major health harms, including increased risk of cancer, developmental harm and hormone disruption.

These substances end up in what we eat, thanks to a legal loophole that allows food ingredients to be classified as “generally recognized as safe.” The loophole lets manufacturers – instead of the FDA – determine which food chemicals are safe to consume. Chemical and food companies have exploited this loophole for decades.

15

If it is cheaper to use chemicals and manufacturers can create the nutritional standards it is only natural that ,in a capitalist government, try to maximize profits.

What’s unfortunate that the Departments created to protect us, has been infiltrated and failed us. After all listed by Bob W. , what is actually left on the shelves to choose from?

Understood, it is the responsibility of every human being to take care of their bodies. But can we agree that a majority of the chemicals added are literally constructed to trick the human mind? We also can note the marketing strategies are created to manipulate.

Just as Big Tobacco was held accountable for the “misdirection” pushed for profits, So to should the food companies.

16

I will never agree to any kind of Big G Government being a nanny for the people on anything, but depending on how it is implemented, I might agree with some kind of rating program for foods displayed prominently on the front of the product.

Also, if you do a search, there are over 50+ proposals for food safety already posted.

“Search results for 'food safety order:latest' - Policies for the People”

17

We already label hazardous chemicals, why not use something similar for food?

  1. Number of food additive and color change due to severity.
  2. Number and type of artificial sweeteners and color change due to severity.
  3. Number and type of artificial colors added and color change due to severity.
  4. GMO or not.

SP1251841
SP12518411000×752 150 KB

1 Like
18

Bob has the right approach – instead of slinging ban regulations and taxes all over the place for every little health risk, we could allow the market to be the control mechanism. If customers are clearly aware of possibly dangerous ingredients within products, via a clearly marked warning on the FRONT of the package, with a manditory set image-size-to-package-size ratio, the market will see to it that this product “bans itself” by dropping consumption rates to near zero, forcing the mfg company to replace questionable ingredients with more healthy substitutes that do not warrent a “big red flag” posted on the front of their products for all the shoppers to avoid. Thus, no nanny state, and a wiser shopping community. Force the mfgr to regulate and ban its own products, while saving millions in govt tax code and regulation costs. Common sense libertarian free market approach! I see no better solution than what Bob provided.

Of course, there are die-hard nanny-statists who want govt to do everything for them, so that they don’t have to put much effort out on anything – there is no convincing these folks. These are the same people who will line up like lemmings for the next mRNA bird flu fake pandemic rollout being set up right before our eyes (approx. 20% of the population is authority-dependent like this).

2 Likes
19

100% agree. Totally exclude it from all products!

20

Arkansas has a similar tax and it hasn’t slowed the sale.
1.26 per gallon of soft drink or simple syrup. Bottled Soft Drinks – $20.6 cents per gallon of bottled or canned soft drink product.
It only benefits the state.

1 Like