Do you think you'd ever want a sugar hit so badly that you'd be willing to pay extra cash--in the form of tax--for it?In my case?Never saynever.But that's exactly what researchers are suggesting: a sugar tax.
A study by the University of California,San Franciscopublished in the journalNature,says that sugar is just as dangerous to our health as alcohol and tobacco.The authors say that the sweet stuff should be treated as such,and taxed in the same way that the other substances are.
The tax would apply to any processed foods that have sugar added to them: soda,juices,cereal,candy.The study's authors also suggest an age limit for buying sugary snacks (just as there is buying cigarettes and beer).
的想法limiting the availability of certain kinds of foodhas kicked around for a long time--the soda tax is something people are still debating--but this is the first proposal that wants to affect a very wide range of foods,blanket-style.
But does that mean that processed foodswithoutsugar would pass the no-tax test?
"Regulating nutrients is a slippery slope,"says Dr.David Katz,co-founder of the Yale Prevention Center."The focus should be on the overall nutritional quality of foods,not just one nutrient."
Hm.I appreciate theideabehind the proposed tax--as in,"let's improve the country's health,yay!"--but I agree with Katz.Sugar is hardly the only thing to blame for obesity,diabetes,or other weight-related diseases.
What do you think?Should the sugar tax be a go?How much sugar do you eat?