52
Sugar tax may prevent millions of dental procedures, study suggests (www.abc.net.au)
submitted 1 day ago* by to c/australia@aussie.zone
35 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Health experts have thrown their support behind the proposal, which aligns with long-standing recommendations from the World Health Organization.

Researchers suggest money generated from the proposed tax could be used to strengthen oral health services, improving access and cutting costs at the dentist.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -1 points 19 hours ago (2 children)

This just means more corn syrup. A lot of things are sweet, and way worse for you than sugar.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 2 points 10 hours ago

    Sugary drinks would include those sweetened by corn syrup (fructose) and from cane sugar (sucrose). They would be taxed no matter the source. Most fizzy sweet drinks have an excess of sugar no matter where it comes from.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 14 hours ago (1 child)

    Why would a tax on sugary drinks not cover corn syrup, which is a sugar?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 13 hours ago (1 child)

    Is it though? Legally? My point is that the law has to be explicit about what is taxed. Manufacturers will figure out ways around it and we will just end up paying more for sugar to make our banana bread or whatever.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 44 minutes ago

    Yes, corn syrup is a sugar. It shows up as such, by law, in nutrition tables.

    Sugar is a broad category referring to many different compounds. If it's a carbohydrate that is sweet and dissolves in water, it's a sugar.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent