Truvia is NOT Stevia…but it is a fantastic insecticide

Wait a second. How can Truvia be safe for me to eat and yet it kills fruit flies like Dexter Morgan on crystal meth???

According to study authors Sean O’Donnell and Daniel Marenda, “during an examination of the effects of commonly used non-nutritive sweeteners on the longevity of Drosophila melanogaster (aka the Fruit Fly), they discovered that erythritol, the main component of the sweetener Truvia, was toxic when ingested by fruit flies as compared to similar concentrations of nutritive sugar controls (sucrose, corn syrup) and other non-nutritive sweeteners.”

  • In their study, they found that fruit flies raised in tubes containing Truvia (see above), lived for an average of 5.8 days.
  • The average fruit fly lives 45 to 60 days.

They also found that Truvia-fed flies had difficulty in climbing up a small vial, indicating impaired motor function.

The problem, the team discovered, lies in an ingredient present in Truvia but not in the other six sweeteners: erythritol, a commonly used food additive approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

This is the same erythritol that has been found to be safe for rats, dogs, humans, etc in previous studies referenced by the fine people at Coca-Cola and Cargill.

What does all this science this mean???

  • If you’re a fly, this is bad news.
  • If you’re a human who hates fruit flies buzzing around the bananas on your kitchen counter, it’s good news. According to the science, we now have evidence that erythritol baits could be used as effective insecticide against fruit flies.

However, if you’re a consumer of food products containing Truvia, you have a choice to make.

One of the core assumptions of modern toxicology is “the dose makes the poison.” Drinking a glass of water is good for you – Drinking a barrel of water is toxic to you. Conversely, the most acutely lethal toxin known to science is the botulinum toxin – the same toxin used millions of times around the world to get rid of wrinkles.

Based upon this assumption (and the safety studies mentioned previously), Erythritol, and by extension Truvia, is…

  1. Safe to humans
  2. Deadly to fruit flies

However, not every scientist in the world believes in the infallibility of “the dose makes the poison.”

  • Some scientists question whether doses that are “safe for human consumption” are equally safe for babies in the womb.

For example, this study found that a dose of atrazine (a commonly used herbicide) 20,000 times lower than the lowest level known to affect adult frogs caused 20% of tadpoles to become hermaphroditic in adulthood.

And it’s not just the effect of toxins on our little frog babies. Not all toxins follow the “normal” monotonic curve in which the response to a dose of toxin increases with the size of the dose. Some toxins respond as per the non-monotonic curves pictured below.

For example, this study found that lower doses of BPA (bisphenol A) can have larger impacts upon the proliferation of prostate tumors in adult male humans than higher doses. Weird but true.

At the end of the day, what does all of this mean to you???

  • Should you buy and consume products containing Truvia and/or Erythritol?
  • Should you buy and consume products containing Truvia and/or Erythritol if you’re pregnant or trying to get pregnant?
  • Should you buy a jar of Truvia and leave it open in your kitchen to kill fruit flies?

Me?

  • I would rather drink water
  • If I had to choose a calorie-free sweetener, I would choose stevia over Truvia
  • I would also advise all potential parents to follow my lead.

What about you?

  • What do you think of the research?
  • Do you consume Truvia?
  • Will you continue to consume Truvia?

Reference

Like this article?

Subscribe to @healthhabits and my friends at Mail Chimp will make sure that every time I scribble an article for @healthhabits, it will end up in your email inbox.

In addition to the articles, I will be writing a series of Special Reports this year exclusively for @healthhabits subscribers.

Subscribe now and make sure you don’t miss out.

button subscribe

Coca Cola to End Canadian Obesity Epidemic

Today is an important day in the history of Canada. From this day forward, Canadians will recognize April 23 as the day Coca Cola came to our rescue and helped us save ourselves from the medical scourge known as obesity.

Because on this day, Coca-Cola Canada announced the launch of a national campaign to inspire Canadians to come together to find real solutions to this important issue affecting our society.

“This campaign aims to inform people about the concept of energy balance, educate them on our products and inspire Canadians to live more active, healthy lives,” said Nicola Kettlitz, president Coca-Cola Ltd.

Wait a second…that sounds like a big pile of marketing BS to me…let’s check the BS detector…

bullshit_detector4

Yup, just as I suspected…total marketing BS.

If only we could have a little honesty injected into the discussion.

So…what do YOU think?

  • Is Coca-Cola being honest?
  • Or is it just marketing BS?

Reference

‘Diet’ soft drinks associated with increased risk of Type 2 diabetes

Numerous scientific studies and just a pinch of common sense tells us that over-consumption of full-sugar soft drinks increases our odds of insulin resistance, obesity and type 2 diabetes.

Because of these threats, soft drink companies developed “diet” soft drinks…with artificial sweeteners replacing sugar.

diet-soda-obesity

Unfortunately for all the Diet Coke drinkers out there….according to this study of over 66,000 French women…

  1. Women who drink ‘diet’ soft drinks consume higher quantities than women who drink ‘normal’ soft drinks – 2.8 glasses per week vs 1.6 glasses per week
  2. When an equal quantity is consumed, the risk of contracting diabetes is higher for ‘light’ or ‘diet’ drinks than for ‘non-light’ or ‘non-diet’ drinks.
  3. And of course…the risk of T2D increases as the volume of either kind of soft drinks increases.

diet-soda-diabetes-risk

Conclusion

This study tells us that high consumption of sweet soft drinks (both normal and ‘diet’) is associated with a high increase in the risk of contracting Type II diabetes. This increased risk is all the greater for drinks of the ‘light’ or ‘diet’ type.

And association doesn’t necessarily means causation.

Even though the researchers accounted for a lot of different factors…

  • obesity,
  • type of diet – Western, Mediterranean, etc,
  • intake of carbohydrates,
  • intake of processed meats,
  • family history of diabetes,
  • education,
  • smoking status,
  • physical activity,
  • hypertension,
  • high cholesterol,
  • HRT,
  • alcohol intake,
  • Omega 3 intake,
  • coffee consumption,
  • fresh fruit & vegetable consumption,
  • the reverse causation hypothesis,
  • etc…

All we can say is that…

  1. Consumption of soft drinks is associated with an increased risk of T2D
  2. Consumption of ‘diet’ soft drinks is associated with an even greater increased risk of T2D
  3. The volume of soft drinks consumed is directly associated with an increased risk of T2D

What does this mean to you?

If you don’t drink soft drinks…nothing.

But if you do drink soft drinks, you have some options.

  1. You can ignore this study and wait for the follow-ups which intend to PROVE that ‘diet’ soft drinks cause T2D.
  2. You can believe that there is a link between the consumption of all types of soft drinks and an increased risk of T2D and cut back on your Diet Cokes.
  3. You can believe that there might be a link between the consumption of all types of soft drinks and an increased risk of T2D, cut back on your Diet Cokes just in case and wait for the follow-up studies to make up your mind.

Reference

 

Like this article???

If you like this article, don’t forget to subscribe to @healthhabits. When you subscribe, my friends at MailChimp will make sure to send you an email every time I post something new here at the blog.

As well, you also get access to the series of Supplement Reports that I am publishing this year.

button subscribe

Should We De-Legalize Coca-Cola?

Today’s post is written for people willing to….

  • Take off their “this is what I believe to be true” caps
  • Put on their “thinking” caps

[box type=”important”]For everyone who can’t resist the urge to scream FREE MARKET!!!!, I welcome your feedback, but expect to be mocked for intellectual laziness and your inability to recognize that there is no such thing as a free market. [/box]

If you doubt this statement, I suggest you try selling crystal meth & porno in front of the nearest public school to test your belief that you live in a FREE MARKET.

[box type=”note”]When I say Coca-Cola, I also mean to include Pepsi, Mountain Dew, Dr. Pepper, etc into the conversation. All soda-style products[/box]

Anyway, enough with my ranting. Here’s what I want you to think about.

Should we de-legalize Coca-Cola?

All arguments are fair game. Medical, social, economic, theoretical, etc…

coca-cola

And just in case you’re interested in my position…

  • I don’t believe that we should de-legalize Coca-Cola.
  • I do believe that Coca-Cola should come with warnings similar to tobacco products
  • I do believe that Coca-Cola should not be allowed to advertise to children (12 and younger???)
  • I do believe that we should apply “sin taxes” to Coca-Cola and have 100% of that tax revenue be directed towards health promotion programs. These health promotion programs need to be 100% transparent to receive this money. Any remaining money is funneled into treating disease affected by Coca-Cola – diabetes, heart disease, etc.

My reasons for taking these positions are as follows…

  • Coca-Cola has no nutritional benefit
  • It is devoid of micro-nutrients
  • It provides empty, high glycemic carb calories
  • It is addictive (caffeine)
  • It contributes to insulin resistance
  • It contributes to type 2 diabetes
  • It contributes to metabolic syndrome
  • These medical conditions have a profound effect on the health of our society
  • These medical conditions have a profound effect on our economic productivity

In short, Coca-Cola is a danger to both our health and our wealth.

On the other side of the ledger…

  • Coca-Cola tastes good.
  • We’re all grown-ups and should be allowed to make our own decisions (good and bad) without someone else telling us what to do.

And that’s how I came to my position.

  • Keep Coca-Cola legal
  • Tax it to offset it’s negative medical/financial impact on our society
  • Restrict it’s marketing campaigns to adults

What do YOU think?

Soda Industry Sues NYC

On Friday, the American Beverage Association et al filed a lawsuit that aims to overturn New York City’s restrictions on the sale of large-sized soft drinks.

The lawsuit contends that NYC’s Board of Health doesn’t have the authority to create and enforce these new bylaws – which restrict the size of sugary drinks to 16 ounces or less at restaurants, street carts, and entertainment and sports venues.

The plaintiffs say the rules represent “a dramatic departure” from the traditional role of the health department, and they are asking a judge to reject the size limits before they are put into effect. They go on to say that “this case is not about obesity in New York City, this case is about the Board of Health, appointed by the mayor, bypassing the proper legislative process for governing the city.”

Because as we know…America’s soft drink producers have always been very concerned about the sanctity of the American political system.

Well, there you have it…..an ineffectual bylaw being challenged by a morally bankrupt industry.

Reference

Death by Coca-Cola?

Natasha Marie Harris, a 30-year-old mother from New Zealand, drank nearly two gallons of Coca-Cola each day for several years until she died of a heart attack in February, 2010.

Currently, a coroner’s inquest in New Zealand is trying to make sense of this tragedy.

Medical Point-of-View #1

Pathologist Dr Dan Mornin told the court Ms Harris’ main cause of death was cardiac arrhythmia, but she also had severe hypokalemia – lack of potassium in the blood – probably relating to excessive consumption of soft-drink. He said although it was difficult to confirm this from post-mortem tests, it was consistent with her symptoms of tiredness and lack of strength and with other cases of heavy soft-drink consumers. Dr Mornin said it was probable a combination of factors, including poor diet, played a role in her death.

The Family’s Point-of-View

Ms. Harris’ partner, Chris Hodgkinson, is convinced Ms Harris’ consumption of about 7.5 litres of Coca-Cola every day contributed to her death and has called for health warning labels on the soft drink.

  • He told the court she had been unwell up to a year before her death, including vomiting six times a week.

Dr Mornin said it was likely her vomiting was caused by having too much caffeine in her body.

  • Mr. Hodgkinson said he had known Ms Harris since she was 16. She had always drunk Coke, but in the past seven or eight years she had increased her consumption to five bottles a day.
  • Mr Hodgkinson said she was addicted to Coke and without it would become moody, irritable and “quite nasty” and be low in energy.
  • But he did not suspect the beverage could be making her ill.

“I never thought about it. It’s just a soft-drink, just like drinking water.”

Medical Point-of-View #2

Professor Doug Sellman of the National Addiction Centre said all soft drinks and unhealthy foods should be marked red under a ‘traffic light’ food labelling system.

  • And he compared companies selling those foods without warning labels to drug dealers.

“This is being very strongly resisted by the food industry. It’s a bad idea if you’re into drug dealing. It’s just a good idea if you’re into health.”

The Food Lobby’s Point-of-View

Food and Grocery Council chief executive Katherine Rich said comparing food companies to drug dealers was unfair and offensive. “Professor Sellman is undermining his credibility with these kinds of comments. To refer to a food company as a drug dealer is patently absurd.”

A traffic light system labelling foods for fat, saturated fat, sugar and salt content would be confusing for consumers, she said. She claimed it would give milk amber lights for fat, saturated and salt, while soft drinks only got one red light for sugar. “It doesn’t work and it ends up sending out very confusing messages.

“The truth is there would not be a warning label on the planet that would have dealt with this extreme consumption. You can’t label for extremes.”

Coca-Cola’s Point-of-View

Coca-Cola Amatil New Zealand managing director George Adams said that Mr. Hodgkinson’s claims were “patently untrue”.

They also confirmed that in June last year it had hired a security firm to shadow its staff, after Mr. Hodgkinson, allegedly made death threats against the company.


My Point-of-View

  • Drinking 7.5 litres of Coca-Cola each & every day did contribute to Ms. Harris’ death.
  • Coca-Cola knows that drinking 7.5 litres of Coca-Cola isn’t good for anybody’s death.
  • They also know that customers like Ms. Harris are great for Coke’s stock price.
  • The food lobby lady knows these things as well, but she doesn’t get paid for mea culpas.
  • Mr. Hodgkinson is either A. an idiot, B. is trying to get money out of Coca-Cola, or C. both
  • Ms. Harris killed herself with poor lifestyle choices.

No one is coming out of this investigation looking good.

Stupid choices + Greed = 8 Kids without a Mom

 

Reference

NYC Escalates War Against Childhood Obesity

New York City’s Department of Health & Human Services has escalated their war against childhood obesity with their latest  ad campaign urging New Yorkers to be more aware of portion sizes – and how they have increased – when choosing what to eat or drink.

Their concern is that the quantity of food served in a “medium” or “large” order is significantly greater today than in previous years.

In the last 50 years, for example, the serving sizes of sugary drinks quadrupled and french fries nearly tripled. With a few casual selections, a single meal could balloon to contain many more calories than the amount an adult needs for an entire day.

And based on the “growth” of our kids over the past few decades, I would have to agree

For more info, check out their Portion Size Fact Sheet, or check out a whole pile of awesome Health Habits articles on childhood obesity.

Big Food Fights Dirty in the War Against Obesity

Big Food is under attack for their contribution to the global obesity epidemic.

If it isn’t restaurants being “forced” to list nutrition info on their menus, it’s soda manufacturers being chastised by politicians or processed food producers being slammed for the high levels sugar, salt & chemicals in their food.

And just like tobacco producers back in the 80s, Big Food is fighting back.

Earlier this week, ABC News uncovered one of their strategies.

Lying.

David Allison is a renowned scientist who runs an obesity research center at the University of Alabama in Birmingham. He has a 108-page resume and has been honored at the White House.

He is also the recently resigned incoming president of the Obesity Society.

Dr Allison resigned his position after his colleagues expressed outrage when he “was paid by the New York Restaurant Association to file an affidavit in its case against New York City and its law requiring restaurants to post calorie information on menus, saying the law might actually make people eat more.

And it’s not just the NYRA.

Allison has been paid by Coca-Cola, Pepsi, the American Beverage Association, Kraft, McDonald’s, General Mills, Kellogg’s, Mars and Nabisco to say that it hasn’t been proven that their products contribute to obesity.

In addition to over $2.5 million in research grants from private industry, Dr. Allison receives considerable consulting and speaking fees from food & beverage producers.

Critics say Allison is part of a concerted effort by big food to co-opt scientists not only by funding their research but by offering them lucrative speaking and consulting deals, in an effort to confuse U.S. families about the health effects of popular food products.

Such tactics, critics say, are similar to those once used by Big Tobacco.

In a recent commentary in the Journal of the American Medical Association, respected food researchers asserted that the industry has participated in “deceptive science and advocacy.” They say “the food and beverage industry has created or funded front groups reminiscent of the tobacco institute that give the appearance of grassroots support.”

The groups, they say, include Americans Against Food Taxes and the Center for Consumer Freedom, organizations that are largely funded by the food and beverage industries.

“Big tobacco, big sugar,” food researcher Popkin said, “identical in the way they treat scientists.”

And it’s not just individual scientists.

Hospitals and medical associations take money from food producers to conduct obesity research.

Of course, these organizations are quick to assert that their research is not affected by industry funding.

The American Dietetic Association took money from Hershey to collaborate on a “Moderation Nation” website, to reach millions with a healthy-eating message, they said.

Here’s one of the recipes from the website.

Fudgey Fruit Pizza.

Because nothing says healthy like a fudge pizza does.

mmmmmmmmmmm fudge.

Let’s be honest…

  • Everybody knows that our population is getting fatter day after day.
  • Everybody knows that eating Fudgey Fruit Pizza will make you fat.

However, no one at Hershey or Coca-Cola or McDonald’s or Kellogg’s or Nabisco is forcing you to buy the food that is making the world a fatter place.

We live in a free market.

  • If you want to buy food that makes you fat…go right ahead.
  • If a company wants to sell you food that makes people fat…go right ahead

But, when a company lies to us – saying that their food isn’t a direct cause of the worldwide explosion of obesity…that’s when people get pissed off.

And when Big Food companies co-opt respected scientists, doctors, medical associations & hospitals to help propagate those lies….people get even more pissed off.

And when people get pissed off, they tell other people. (hint, hint)

 

Clear On Calories is proof that Coca-Cola is afraid of YOU

About a year ago, I wrote the article – Coca-Cola & McDonalds Are Afraid of You.

In that article, I made the argument that America’s fast food producers were concerned that America’s parents were becoming a little too health conscious & were starting to abandon their McFood.

So, like any 21st century mega corp, they rallied the troops and prepared to fight back with lower calorie products and an advertising blitz designed to silence their critics.

Since writing that article, America has gotten fatter & more diabetic….but at the same time, America’s fast food companies have been under constant attack from citizens groups and politicians eager to make points with America’s Moms.

One result of those attacks is the decision of soft drink manufacturers to print calorie count labels on the front of all containers.

And just in case America’s Moms are unaware of the new labels, the American Beverage Association (aka America’s soda lobby) is running this commercial on every network numerous times per day.

.

Because they are scared to death of your purchasing power.

.

Remember that the next time you go shopping.

If you don’t want your kids to grow up obese & diabetic, don’t buy food that will make them obese & diabetic.

  • Junk food producers only produce junk food because we eat junk food.
  • If you buy real food, they will produce real food.

.

<end of rant>

.

FAT BRITANNIA

British Government Sells Out to the Fast Food Industry

As part of it’s continuing effort to destroy it’s healthcare system, the British government has invited fast food companies including McDonald’s and Kentucky Fried Chicken to help write government policy on obesity, alcohol and diet-related disease.

In addition to Ronald and the Colonel, representatives from PepsiCo, Kellogg’s, Unilever, Mars and Diageo are also among the businesses that have been asked to contribute to the five ‘responsibility deal’ networks set up by Health Secretary Andrew Lansley.

And while the details aren’t expected to be released until the government presents it’s public health white paper in the next few weeks, it’s believed that:

  • the Food Responsibility Deal Network will be chaired by one of the above mentioned companies, while the
  • the Food sub-group on calories is to be chaired by PepsiCo
  • the Behavior Change Responsibility Deal Network is to be chaired by the National Heart Forum
  • the Physical Activity Responsibility Deal Network is to be chaired by the Fitness Industry Association, and
  • the Alcohol Responsibility Deal Network is chaired by the head of the lobby group Wine and Spirit Trade Association

WTF!!!

In America, they’re banning the sale of Happy Meals.

In the U.K., they’re asking Ronald McDonald to design national policy on food consumption and obesity.

.

Is it any wonder why nobody trusts politicians any more?

.

Note – If any of my U.K. readers would like to express their displeasure over this decision to the british Secretary of Health, Andrew Lansley, here is his contact info.

Constituency Office
153 St Neots Road
Hardwick
Cambridge
CB23 7QJ
Tel: 01954 212 707
Fax: 01954 211 625

Email: lansleya@parliament.uk

Coca-Cola & McDonalds Are Afraid of You

For the past few years, North American obesity & fitness geeks have been preaching about the dangers of childhood obesity.

At first, we were ignored…then laughed at….then threatened with lawsuits….

Today, we see:

  • the First Lady adopting childhood obesity as her personal crusade
  • celebrity chef Jamie Oliver taking on the USDA & America’s school system in an attempt to reverse childhood obesity
  • daily media coverage of the latest obesity horror story

The tide may finally turning

And as a result, mega corporations like Coca-Cola & McDonalds are scared to death that America’s parents are going to punish them for their part in the fattening of America’s children.

Hence the following menu changes & advertising campaigns:

Note: It’s probably just an oversight, but this commercial failed to mention that parents groups have been pressuring the soft drink industry & school boards for years about the pop machines in schools.

But, I guess that there’s nothing like a mob of angry parents to get an entire multi-billion dollar industry to stop selling their product directly to children

And it’s not just the soft drink industry.

Dairy Queen has their Mini Blizzard that is roughly half the size of the previous smallest size.

According to DQ reps, “The size and price (between $1.99 and $2.49) really appeal to many consumers and in fact create a very strong perceived value for the new Mini.”

The next thing you know, Ronald McDonald will be out of a job and KFC will be serving tofu-chicken stir-frys

Who needs steroids when you got McDonalds

At this year’s Olympic games, we have seen some amazing performances.

  • Petra Majdic winning a bronze medal in cross country skiing after suffering 5 cracked ribs and a deflated lung.
  • Lindsey Vonn winning downhill gold with her messed up shins
  • Shaun White twisting and turning like the Tazmanian Devil
  • Jon Montgomery coming from behind to win gold in my new favorite winter sport – skeleton

And, in past years, we might have attributed those performances to steroids…but not with these Olympians.

They don’t need steroids.

They’re being powered by the official food & drink of the 2010 Olympics…

McDonalds and Coca-Cola


But wait, it gets better.

McDonalds has decided to sponsor hundreds of young athletes as they train & eat their way to future Olympic glory.

Allow me to introduce you to the 2026 Olympic gold medal winner in downhill skiing and competitive eating.

.

.

You Will NEVER Drink Soda Again

 

More

Nutrition Myth Busted: Caffeine and Dehydration

For years & years, we have been told that caffeinated beverages (coffee, tea, etc) are diuretics and that they dehydrate us and that they do not count towards those magic 8 glasses of water we are all supposed to drink each and every day.

And for years & years, I thought this was a colossal line of B.S.

And I was right.

According to this study & that study, there is no valid scientific support for the suggestion that consumption of caffeine-containing beverages as part of a normal lifestyle leads to fluid loss in excess of the volume ingested or is associated with poor hydration status.

Therefore, there would appear to be no clear basis for refraining from caffeine containing drinks in situations where fluid balance might be compromised.

So, the next time someone tells you that you shouldn’t drink coffee because it will dry you up like a California Raisin, send them over to Health Habits for a little book learnin’.

And once again, like those guys on the Discovery Channel, I declare this nutrition myth…BUSTED

myth-busted

Related Posts

New York’s OBESITY TAX…social engineering or prudent fiscal policy?

New York state Governor David Paterson is introducing a new 15%  “Obesity Tax” on high-calorie soft drinks. Milk, fruit juices, bottled water and “diet” soft drinks will be exempt from the new tax.

When reached for comment, executives from Coca Cola and Pepsi were quoted as saying:

“that son of a bi#ch Paterson! Who the fu*k does he think he is? Does he really want to go to war with us? If he thought The Sopranos were tough, wait until I get my hands on him, I’ll rip him a new as#h@le! bleep… bleep…bleep

They went on like that for about 20 minutes. Eventually, I just gave up on the interview. And they weren’t the only ones losing it:

  • Noted Fat Acceptance guru Kate Harding had a few choice words on her blog.
  • Right wing blowhard Rush Limbaugh claimed to have predicted this 14 years ago. Must have been when he was hooked on the Oxycontin.
  • Kevin Keane, senior VP-public affairs at the American Beverage Association, said the organization has reached out to New York Gov. David Patterson’s office regarding the proposed tax on full-calorie sodas. “It looks like a money grab. [Mr. Patterson] is trying to grab money anywhere he can find it,” Mr. Keane said. “This is a time when the government, just like families, needs to tighten its belt.” Mr. Keane went on to question the validity of an ‘obesity tax‘ on full-calorie soda, given data that show that obesity rates are rising even as soft-drink sales are flat. He also said the soft-drink industry provides the state with plenty of jobs, including union jobs. PepsiCo is based in Purchase, N.Y., and major bottlers are also based in New York.blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah……

Let’s Recap

  • New York state is having trouble balancing it’s budget. No big surprise. Apparently the U.S. has been in recession for a full year now.
  • Governments raise taxes to increase their revenues.
  • Fat people are an easy target…no pun intended
  • New York city and other various levels of government have already enacted legislation in order to curb obesity.
  • Slapping a tax on a product linked to obesity is a no-brainer in the current political, economic and social environment.

But will it work?

  • cornSoft drink companies are heavily subsidized through their use of HFCS as their main ingredient. So what we have here is one level of government taxing a product and another level of government subsidizing it….SMART
  • Soft drinks are cheap!    If a 2 liter bottle of Coke costs $2.00, the new “fat tax” will add 30 cents to the bill. 30 cents!!! Who can’t come up with another 30 cents? Do they really think that this extra expense is going to cause obese New Yorkers to forgo their purchase of a vanilla Coke?   Hmmm, let’s see, buy that bottle of Pepsi or pay the rent. What to do, what to do…

My Conclusion

This tax is designed to bring more money into the state’s near empty coffers. Period.

It is not going to entice anyone to drink less pop.

It will however, make it easier to add new taxes or even slap bans on other forms of junk food. And won’t that really tick off the fat Acceptance crowd.