News

37030 readers

2262 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 biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.

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. Clickbait titles may be removed.

Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.

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, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.

7. No duplicate posts.

If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. 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 or news aggregators.

All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.

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

JonsJava@lemmy.world

gedaliyah@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

333

Cities with soda taxes saw sales of sugary drinks fall as prices rose, study finds (www.kpbs.org)

submitted 2 years ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

55 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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%.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] 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 21 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 4 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 14 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.