Quick Surveys on Sugary Beverages If You Don't Mind - School Related

[EChondo]

Hey guys, I am conducting a survey for my English class which is based off of whether or not there should be a "Soda Tax" on sugary beverages. These are simple questions, most are yes and no, and I will be using Straw Poll to collect the answers.

 

Here is the context: http://www.pe.com/local-news/politics/politics-headlines-index/20140220-sugary-drinks-poll-finds-many-favor-labels-tax.ece

 

Here are the questions;

 

1. Should Sugary Beverages Be Taxed 2 Cents Per Ounce?

http://strawpoll.me/1238568

 

2. Should Warning Labels Be Put on Soda Cans or Other Sugary Beverages?

http://strawpoll.me/1238572

 

3. Should People Be Prevented From Purchasing Soda With Food Stamps?

http://strawpoll.me/1238576

 

4. How Many Sugary Beverages Do You Drink Daily?

http://strawpoll.me/1238588

 

I will be sharing this with other websites. If you wish to discuss the implications that this could cause or problems this could solve, feel free to do so below!

 

Thanks guys for the help, I really do appreciate it.

[Rossco]

done

[Erik4boss]

I did it.

[MegaDave91]

For 4 I selected one because I have a glass of orange juice in the morning, even though that's not what you're asking (I wouldn't think anyway). Other than that, I drink zero REFINED sugar beverages.

[Ruostunut kokis]

Did my part.

[Vitalius]

If we went this far with sugary drinks, we'd need to do it for all refined sugar products. 

Go-gurt's Yogurts have more sugar in them than a single twinkie. Let that sink in.

[UselessBread]

Did my part.

How interesting, given your name.

[coen113]

just something to keep in mind, people who recover from eating disorders would not like to see howmuch calories there is in a drink

[Askew]

Done G.

[tobben]

the school/poll/task seems to take it's standpoint in the fact taht sugary beverages is the culprit here, the truh is there it LOTS and lots of sugar in alot of things you couldn't even imagine, sugar is cheap it adds bulk and sweetens things up, they add sugar in almost everything, things like soda doesn't have the highest sugar content, it's just the fact that we the consumers drink alot of it, that's why we ingest to much sugar from it, we drink too much.

 

1. NO, taxes if just a way for the goverment/state to make money, it wont serve any other purpose.

 

2. Sure apply that to everything containing sugar, now they wont even have space to put the product name on the packaging anymore.'

 

3 not american, don't know.

 

4 1 to none, i think they did a study that claimed that for each can of soda 0,33cl a day, increased the chances of diabetes by like 20-25% or something like that (don't remember the exact percentage, however it was significant)

[torogitar]

that is such an american thing to do. warning labels wouldn't surprise me at all if it was in the states. they have warning labels on everything

[EChondo]

the school/poll/task seems to take it's standpoint in the fact taht sugary beverages is the culprit here, the truh is there it LOTS and lots of sugar in alot of things you couldn't even imagine, sugar is cheap it adds bulk and sweetens things up, they add sugar in almost everything, things like soda doesn't have the highest sugar content, it's just the fact that we the consumers drink alot of it, that's why we ingest to much sugar from it, we drink too much.

 

1. NO, taxes if just a way for the goverment/state to make money, it wont serve any other purpose.

 

2. Sure apply that to everything containing sugar, now they wont even have space to put the product name on the packaging anymore.'

 

3 not american, don't know.

 

4 1 to none, i think they did a study that claimed that for each can of soda 0,33cl a day, increased the chances of diabetes by like 20-25% or something like that (don't remember the exact percentage, however it was significant)

Thank you for your input, but would your mind change for #1 if the U.S. government took the money from the tax and subsidized healthier options?

Healthy choices here in the states are more than often more expensive than their unhealthy counterparts.

[Ruostunut kokis]

4 1 to none, i think they did a study that claimed that for each can of soda 0,33cl a day, increased the chances of diabetes by like 20-25% or something like that (don't remember the exact percentage, however it was significant)

One can of soda increases the chance of getting diabetes by that much? That's an insane number (at least to me)

 

Let's also not forget that we all have very different metabolism rates. Some can cope with more sugar than others.

 

 

 

 

How interesting, given your name.

 

Umm... What do you mean exactly?

[LAwLz]

I didn't answer the "Should Warning Labels Be Put on Soda Cans or Other Sugary Beverages?" question because it depends on which kind of label.

I don't think there should be additional tax on it either. Why would it? Coffee doesn't have it. Tea doesn't have it. Juice doesn't have it. Why would soda have it? To discourage people from drinking it? It won't do that and even if it did it should be the responsibility of people, not the government, to decide what they eat and drink. Are they unhealthy? Then it's their choice, and fault.

[tobben]

One can of soda increases the chance of getting diabetes by that much? That's an insane number (at least to me)

 

Let's also not forget that we all have very different metabolism rates. Some can cope with more sugar than others.

 

it was for each can of soda you drink per day, so not a trivial ammount of soda drinking , and as you said people are different so there are variations.

 

 

Thank you for your input, but would your mind change for #1 if the U.S. government took the money from the tax and subsidized healthier options?

Healthy choices here in the states are more than often more expensive than their unhealthy counterparts.

well yes but the thing is, i said it wont serve any other purpose, but the fact is that it easily could, we both know that your suggestion will not be made a reality, in fact they probably have various taxes and fees on the healthy options, and usually taxe rules like these are really skewed and messed up, they are never as straight forward as they should be.

[fishy]

the school/poll/task seems to take it's standpoint in the fact taht sugary beverages is the culprit here, the truh is there it LOTS and lots of sugar in alot of things you couldn't even imagine, sugar is cheap it adds bulk and sweetens things up, they add sugar in almost everything, things like soda doesn't have the highest sugar content, it's just the fact that we the consumers drink alot of it, that's why we ingest to much sugar from it, we drink too much.

 

1. NO, taxes if just a way for the goverment/state to make money, it wont serve any other purpose.

 

2. Sure apply that to everything containing sugar, now they wont even have space to put the product name on the packaging anymore.'

 

3 not american, don't know.

 

4 1 to none, i think they did a study that claimed that for each can of soda 0,33cl a day, increased the chances of diabetes by like 20-25% or something like that (don't remember the exact percentage, however it was significant)

 

 

dunno how's there, but here, money from taxes go into free health care, at least basic care is free

so i would be more than happy to have taxes on sugary food and drinks

it's know that too much sugar causes some health issues and the thing i don't get is, that someone like me, who's young and try to live healthy (don't smoke, don't drink and i try to stay away from too much sugar as well) have to pay the same amount of money for "premium" insurance as some raging alcoholic who's liver are about to die and with a bad smoking habit that is due for a liver transplant and maybe they'd throw in a lung or 2 while at it

surgery costs a damn lot amount of money and probability of something like that happening with me, or some degenerate who spends all his money on alcohol and cigs is close to none

just pisses me off

could have bought so many gtxs and i7s with that money that i had paid for others medical services that could be avoided if they would stay away from bad stuff

 

so i give big + for taxes on the stuff that's bad for you and you can do w/o

[tobben]

dunno how's there, but here, money from taxes go into free health care, at least basic care is free

so i would be more than happy to have taxes on sugary food and drinks

it's know that too much sugar causes some health issues and the thing i don't get is, that someone like me, who's young and try to live healthy (don't smoke, don't drink and i try to stay away from too much sugar as well) have to pay the same amount of money for "premium" insurance as some raging alcoholic who's liver are about to die and with a bad smoking habit that is due for a liver transplant and maybe they'd throw in a lung or 2 while at it

surgery costs a damn lot amount of money and probability of something like that happening with me, or some degenerate who spends all his money on alcohol and cigs is close to none

just pisses me off

could have bought so many gtxs and i7s with that money that i had paid for others medical services that could be avoided if they would stay away from bad stuff

 

so i give big + for taxes on the stuff that's bad for you and you can do w/o

well you say that, the idea might be lets put taxes on it, make it more expensive so people wont buy it!, while that's a good excuse we both know it doesn't work that way and people don't care, i find it wierd though, you like taxes because it goes toward basic health care, at the same time you hate having to pay the same as everyone else for a similar service, that is contradicting to the first statement about taxes, because that is exactly what taxes are, you make everyone pay a small ammount so that a unlucky few can reap the benefits, all to reduce class difference and having a fair society, the human body is something we still don't fully understand, while your personal risk is significantly less you never know what you are carrying in your genes, you yourself have a lower risk due to not drinking/smoking, but someone who actually does can do it their entire life without running into problems, you can fall deathly ill, get cancer, lung issues, heart problems, thrombosis, without drinking or smoking once your entire life, paying differently would create some hefty descrimination and this is what people were afraid of when it comes to gene mapping, perhaps eventually you will pay insurance based on your genes.

 

but yes, unhealthy people who break themselves certainly are expensive.

[EChondo]

well you say that, the idea might be lets put taxes on it, make it more expensive so people wont buy it!, while that's a good excuse we both know it doesn't work that way and people don't care, i find it wierd though, you like taxes because it goes toward basic health care, at the same time you hate having to pay the same as everyone else for a similar service, that is contradicting to the first statement about taxes, because that is exactly what taxes are, you make everyone pay a small ammount so that a unlucky few can reap the benefits, all to reduce class difference and having a fair society, the human body is something we still don't fully understand, while your personal risk is significantly less you never know what you are carrying in your genes, you yourself have a lower risk due to not drinking/smoking, but someone who actually does can do it their entire life without running into problems, you can fall deathly ill, get cancer, lung issues, heart problems, thrombosis, without drinking or smoking once your entire life, paying differently would create some hefty descrimination and this is what people were afraid of when it comes to gene mapping, perhaps eventually you will pay insurance based on your genes.

 

but yes, unhealthy people who break themselves certainly are expensive.

Thrombosis? That's oddly specific

Well, here in the U.S., car insurance is the exact opposite. The people who don't get into any wrecks, always pay on time, never get tickets, etc. pay less than the people who get into wrecks all the time or speed down freeways like they own the place. Why can't health care do the same? Because the government has a say in it.

Now, not to get off of too much of a tangent, if this "soda tax" was implemented, the U.S. could potentially have free health care if the taxes went into the right places, instead of pockets.

[IdeaStormer]

If cigarettes require a warning label and are age restricted and basically ostracized because if it harms health and ends up costing healthcare overall which is why its heavily taxed (as well as alcohol), these sugary drinks should fall under the same category otherwise why not remove the warning labels on cigarettes and alcohol like sugary drinks?

 

Equal play or no play.

[Dr_Orpington]

1. No, IDK why.

2. Yes, warnings about poor diet and diabetes.

3. Yes, soda, but not necessarily unsweetened beverages such as tea.

4. 2, usually coffee milk and orange juice.

[LAwLz]

If cigarettes require a warning label and are age restricted and basically ostracized because if it harms health and ends up costing healthcare overall which is why its heavily taxed (as well as alcohol), these sugary drinks should fall under the same category otherwise why not remove the warning labels on cigarettes and alcohol like sugary drinks?

 

Equal play or no play.

Should we also put an age restriction on coffee, tea and juice as well? Oh and put warning labels on them.

There is a huge difference between soda and cigarettes. Soda is food. It gives us energy which we need to survive. Cigarettes does the exact opposite, without any kinds of benefits.

It's only when you consume too much it has a negative effect on health (talking about soda here, not cigarettes) but that can be said for literally any food, including water. Should we put warnings on water as well?

[fishy]

well you say that, the idea might be lets put taxes on it, make it more expensive so people wont buy it!, while that's a good excuse we both know it doesn't work that way and people don't care, i find it wierd though, you like taxes because it goes toward basic health care, at the same time you hate having to pay the same as everyone else for a similar service, that is contradicting to the first statement about taxes, because that is exactly what taxes are, you make everyone pay a small ammount so that a unlucky few can reap the benefits, all to reduce class difference and having a fair society, the human body is something we still don't fully understand, while your personal risk is significantly less you never know what you are carrying in your genes, you yourself have a lower risk due to not drinking/smoking, but someone who actually does can do it their entire life without running into problems, you can fall deathly ill, get cancer, lung issues, heart problems, thrombosis, without drinking or smoking once your entire life, paying differently would create some hefty descrimination and this is what people were afraid of when it comes to gene mapping, perhaps eventually you will pay insurance based on your genes.

 

but yes, unhealthy people who break themselves certainly are expensive.

 

maybe i wasn't clear about the second thing

the "premium insurance" is not obligatory, it's recommended, but you don't have to, doesn't have anything to do with taxes

and people do care, i work in retail and see people opting for cheaper stuff usually

at this point in time, the unhealthy choice is the cheap choice unfortunately, unless they only live from bread and water

and i still don't see the point of me paying the same as someone who is having bad habits and has statistically more chances of getting seriously ill than me

i know i can get ill any time in my life, maybe a serious accident at work or on the road, that's why i pay it, but it's the same for all

 

imagine paying an insurance for a house, or a car

if it's a big house or a good and expensive car, you'll pay more coz if something goes wrong with it, it's gonna cost more to fix it

same with people with bad habits, they are more expensive to maintain than regular folks who need a check-up once in 5 years

(last time i was at doctor for a serious thing was when i was 3 months old coz i was born with hernia and maybe few stitches here and there)

 

p.s.

i'm not saying they should pay much more, but make a damn difference, atm the insurance is around 27€/mth for everybody, just make a difference for them, maybe that'll even make them quit some of the habbits

[tobben]

maybe i wasn't clear about the second thing

the "premium insurance" is not obligatory, it's recommended, but you don't have to, doesn't have anything to do with taxes

and people do care, i work in retail and see people opting for cheaper stuff usually

at this point in time, the unhealthy choice is the cheap choice unfortunately, unless they only live from bread and water

and i still don't see the point of me paying the same as someone who is having bad habits and has statistically more chances of getting seriously ill than me

i know i can get ill any time in my life, maybe a serious accident at work or on the road, that's why i pay it, but it's the same for all

 

imagine paying an insurance for a house, or a car

if it's a big house or a good and expensive car, you'll pay more coz if something goes wrong with it, it's gonna cost more to fix it

same with people with bad habits, they are more expensive to maintain than regular folks who need a check-up once in 5 years

(last time i was at doctor for a serious thing was when i was 3 months old coz i was born with hernia and maybe few stitches here and there)

 

p.s.

i'm not saying they should pay much more, but make a damn difference, atm the insurance is around 27€/mth for everybody, just make a difference for them, maybe that'll even make them quit some of the habbits

usually private insurance copanies do gather as much information as possible, smoking/drinking current health, previous surgeries, illnesses etc, and can even flat out refuse to provide insurance, if it's another solution for premium insurance provided to everyone outside of private companies, once again, we are back to human rights, disctrimination, class difference and all that.

 

yeah people buy cheap stuff, but paying half a dollar or something similar on EVERYTHING won't make a dammn difference, they will buy the cheapest soda, they wont find another alternative.

[IdeaStormer]

Should we also put an age restriction on coffee, tea and juice as well? Oh and put warning labels on them.

There is a huge difference between soda and cigarettes. Soda is food. It gives us energy which we need to survive. Cigarettes does the exact opposite, without any kinds of benefits.

It's only when you consume too much it has a negative effect on health (talking about soda here, not cigarettes) but that can be said for literally any food, including water. Should we put warnings on water as well?

 

Drinking too much coffee won't kill you, nor tea especially with its antioxidants, quite the opposite of sugary drinks. In fact some have pro health labels on them listing their benefits if you read closely.

Ref (one of many): http://www.health.harvard.edu/fhg/updates/update0406c.shtml

Ref (one of many): http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/features/health-benefits-tea

 

Sugary drinks jam excessive amounts of refined sugar or corn syrup into you forcing your body to react extremely to counter that sugar, repeatedly drinking those sugary drinks can lead to diabetes and has been proven. Ref (one of many):  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/behindtheheadlines/news/2013-04-25-sugary-soft-drinks-linked-to-raised-risk-of-diabetes/

 

If you need energy eat carbs not sugar, they provide long term energy for you do live not a short massive jump in sugar levels with an externally massive drop due to the body getting rid of them. You can survive without soda, you are just addicted to it and need to wean off of it, you'll live, remember if cave man did eat it you will live without it, just like they did.

 

Every thing in moderation, yes that is true including carbs unless you want to continue to grow sideways, which brings me back to soda, as you grow you will have a reduced metabolism and eventually you'll start growing sideways due to its excessive sugar load.

 

Read up and learn, its the same science that is used to make your computer work so if you believe in your computer well then...

[LAwLz]

Drinking too much coffee won't kill you, nor tea especially with its antioxidants, quite the opposite of sugary drinks. In fact some have pro health labels on them listing their benefits if you read closely.

Ref (one of many): http://www.health.harvard.edu/fhg/updates/update0406c.shtml

Ref (one of many): http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/features/health-benefits-tea

 

Sugary drinks jam excessive amounts of refined sugar or corn syrup into you forcing your body to react extremely to counter that sugar, repeatedly drinking those sugary drinks can lead to diabetes and has been proven. Ref (one of many):  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/behindtheheadlines/news/2013-04-25-sugary-soft-drinks-linked-to-raised-risk-of-diabetes/

 

If you need energy eat carbs not sugar, they provide long term energy for you do live not a short massive jump in sugar levels with an externally massive drop due to the body getting rid of them. You can survive without soda, you are just addicted to it and need to wean off of it, you'll live, remember if cave man did eat it you will live without it, just like they did.

 

Every thing in moderation, yes that is true including carbs unless you want to continue to grow sideways, which brings me back to soda, as you grow you will have a reduced metabolism and eventually you'll start growing sideways due to its excessive sugar load.

 

Read up and learn, its the same science that is used to make your computer work so if you believe in your computer well then...

Drinking too much coffee, tea or juice is just as likely to kill you as drinking too much soda (although the amounts needed to reach the "too much" limit are different). Just like with soda, a small amount is good but over consumption is harmful.

Juice contains a lot of sugar. Should we put warning labels on juice as well? A lot of fruits contains a lot of sugar as well. Should we start putting warning labels on those too? I just don't see why we should put warning labels on it. I am pretty sure everyone knows that it's not good to drink soda every single day. We don't need a sticker to tell us that. People drink it anyway though, which shows that they do not care. Adding an additional tax doesn't really make any sense either. It won't stop people from drinking soda, so all it will do is make everyone slightly poorer, and the government slightly richer. I am not really against that, but it seems pointless since the people who want it wants to do it to make everyone more healthy, but it won't accomplish that at all.