Children’s sugar consumption halved since tax announcement, study finds
www.theguardian.com
Experts say success soft drinks shows expansion of tax to cover other foods and drinks is a ‘no brainer’
  • @[email protected]
    21•2 months ago

    So is there study that would have looked into how much of the sugar was just replaced with other sweeteners? Or how much soda consumption itself has changed?

      • @[email protected]
        8•2 months ago

        Most sweeteners have their own health risks. Generally probably still better than sugar, but just moving to sweeteners isn’t all sunshine and happiness.

      • @[email protected]
        4•2 months ago

        Carcinogenic like aspartame, and still activate glucose receptors (that’s why they are sweet) so still cause insulin resistance etc.

          • @[email protected]
            -4•2 months ago

            It’s in the same carcinogen group as acetaldehyde, aflatoxin, chloroform, DDT and lead. But sure go around making those bold claims which are not supported by the WHO.

            • @[email protected]
              16•2 months ago

              It’s also in the same carcinogen group as electromagnetic fields, aloe vera, nickel, and kimchi. Most of those things you listed are quite dangerous for other reasons, but cancer is not the primary concern with any of them.

              IARC group 2B is where substances end up if a study manages to produce cancer at any dose. If you drink 50 cans of diet coke per day (which is the equivalent of the rat study that demonstrated that it’s possible for aspartame to cause cancer), then you might get cancer caused by the aspartame you just consumed.

              • @[email protected]
                -3•2 months ago

                Okay now we are getting somewhere. It’s admittedly carcinogenic but the dose is debatable. I think the revised threshold is 8 glasses of soft drink or 2L per day but seems to be dropping every few years