Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New evidence suggests that Seattle’s soda tax is working well

thecounter.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 127 posts

Re: New evidence suggests that Seattle’s soda tax is working well

#111

Post by AnthonyMouse »

arcticbull wrote: post #56
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We know they didn't buy only candy with the money. Maybe they bought candy and cigarettes.

That's a cool theory, do you have any data to back it up or is this just an unfounded assertion?

This is literally the thing the person who started this thread is asking for:

> This isn't the right definition of success. The first minimal requirement for this to be a successful initiative is that the community lost weight overall. Or even gained weight, but more slowly than other communities.

Re: New evidence suggests that Seattle’s soda tax is working well

#112

Post by AnthonyMouse »

smorgusofborg wrote: post #71
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We know they didn't buy only candy with the money. Maybe they bought candy and cigarettes.

You can't have it both ways, if stopping candy leads to cigarette money then cigarettes are healthy because anyone who smokes has less money for heroin.

That's not having it both ways. It's the problem with having incomplete data.

But if cigarettes are the thing preventing people from buying heroin with the money you deterred them from using to buy soda, that doesn't mean that the soda money is going someplace better than it was before your law, it only implies that "well then we just need a higher tax on cigarettes" wouldn't be a beneficial solution.

Re: New evidence suggests that Seattle’s soda tax is working well

#113

Post by notfed »

zaji wrote: post #69
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're hungry, so you eat something. When you run low on food, you go to the supermarket. Soda has increased in price, so you spend your soda money on something else. The next time you're hungry, that's what's in your kitchen. This is only better if the thing you replace the soda with is better for you than the soda. Without any data on what that is, you don't know if that's true.

I wouldn't be surprised if the alternatives that the citizens of Seattle are choosing are juices, fruit punches, iced teas, and other non-water beverages that are hardly better for you than soda.

I had to look this up and you're right: the "sugary drink tax" excludes fruit juice.

Also, Starbucks is exempt.

Re: New evidence suggests that Seattle’s soda tax is working well

#114

Post by notfed »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #92
renewiltord wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. No one drinks soda. Coca Cola Corporation’s revenue of 40 billion dollars a year is entirely fabricated. It is the next Enron. When you see a person drinking a soda, try touching them. They are a hologram, an attempt by a fading company to convince people of their relevance. Having substituted all soda with clear water, humanity has entered a new era of peace and prosperity. War is a thing of the past now that Ma…

Coke Zero is a thing, it’s what I get my kid when he wants a very occasional pop. I tried some, it mostly tastes like the coke I remember.

To me "Coca Cola Zero Sugar" tastes 100% exactly like regular Coca Cola. I've wondered how many people agree.

Re: New evidence suggests that Seattle’s soda tax is working well

#115

Post by SilasX »

cycomanic wrote: post #109
SilasX wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When your entire argument is “you’re wrong because this pattern-matches to what shills say”, then yes, you are accusing the OP of shilling and it would be better to say what specifically is wrong with the arguments.

But why is it not on the OP to give some evidence, instead of making wild assertions? This is the problem that comes up again and again in lots of these discussions (be it climate change, health...), someone posts some assertions without evidence, people respond by dismissing it because it has been debunked again and again and they then get accused in not engaging in an honest debate. Why are you not accusing the OP…

It is on the OP to back their arguments! And I would have preferred a better argument there with better backing.

But the thing is, it was an argument, in terms of specifying a logical mechanism by which the conclusion would be unwarranted, even if the evidence doesn't bear it out in the way OP needs. And it's on you to make more substantive contributions than "you pattern-match to bad people" if you're going to respond at all.

I replied to you rather than the OP because your comment more obviously doesn't belong here. A culture of "you're wrong because you sound like bad people" is more toxic to this forum that a dubious counterpoint. (cf. "You know who else went vegetarian?")

Re: New evidence suggests that Seattle’s soda tax is working well

#116

Post by inglor_cz »

hellisothers wrote: post #110
inglor_cz wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neither OP nor a sugar industry shill, but it may well be possible that we need to cut down on zero calorie soda as well. Even though zero calorie soda does not directly contain any energy, it may mess up our feelings of hunger and make us more hungry. [0] So far, scientific studies indicate that people who switch from sugary soda to zero calorie drinks do not lose weight [1]. Feelings of hunger and satiety are compl…

I’m tempted to downvote mainly because at best this is besides the point and at worst is a distraction from the point.

I don't feel this is beside the point. Human nutrition is complicated and tax incentives based on simple rules may have unintended consequences downstream.

Re: New evidence suggests that Seattle’s soda tax is working well

#117

Post by chrismcb »

Ok, but are they shopping outside the city?

The Seattle sugar tax is flawed. It is charged per ounce not a flat percentage. Typically more expensive drinks have more sugar but are actually effected less. Throw in the fact that milk based drinks are exempt, like the sugar rich milkshake, and this is a flawed law.

Re: New evidence suggests that Seattle’s soda tax is working well

#118

Post by ellyagg »

eagsalazar2 wrote: post #26
ellyagg wrote: post #7

Armed with three years of grocery shopping data, researchers found that total sugar sales are down by almost 20 percent, driven largely by falling soda purchases. This isn't the right definition of success. The first minimal requirement for this to be a successful initiative is that the community lost weight overall. Or even gained weight, but more slowly than other communities. If they could prove that it would be a…

"exceedingly likely"? Are you taking the "right" thing from these "equivocal" studies? Sounds like you too are mainly expressing your personal and unsubstantiated beliefs. Anyway, it would be pretty weird if decreasing consumption of sugary liquids on average increased the consumption of solid fats. I could see if you were a person doing hard daily labor you'd need to get crazy amounts of calories from somewhere, but…

I think exceedingly is the right word here. We know from lots of research that mass diet interventions don't work. The body's autonomic processes for weight equilibrium are powerful. Stephan Guyenet is a good follow but doctors on Hacker News are only too happy to tell you the same thing.

Re: New evidence suggests that Seattle’s soda tax is working well

#119

Post by chrismcb »

function_seven wrote: post #60
dlp211 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This makes zero sense. A gallon of gas is about $4.00, the idea that someone would spend all that gas money to avoid a tax of 1.75 cents/oz just doesn't pass the sniff test.

The tax is 1.75¢ per ounce ? That nearly doubles the price of a 12-pack depending on whatever brand is on sale that week. When I buy soda during my shopping trips, I usually get three 12-packs for $9.99. With this tax, the total would be $17.55. If I still drank sugary soda, I'd go out of my way to avoid this tax. I find the idea people alter their shopping habits to avoid it totally believable. probably not enough t…

For something like iced tea or absolutely doubles the price or worse.

Re: New evidence suggests that Seattle’s soda tax is working well

#120

Post by chrismcb »

insickness wrote: post #101
oneepic wrote: post #3

Depends how closely you watch your spending on food. I'm so disconnected that I only learned just now that we have a soda tax. I will still buy my favorite sludge water without concern for the price.

Based on a 1.75 cents per ounce tax and CVS's prices, here is the increase: 20-ounce bottle of Coke: $2.50 --> $2.85. 2 liter (72-ounce) bottle of Coke: $2.70 --> $3.96. If you drink a lot of soda, it can definitely add up.

It adds up. But not as much, percentage wise, as compared to something with less sugar in it, like iced tea.
Post reply on HN