Germany plans sugar tax that includes sugar free drinks
https://brusselssignal.eu/2026/08/germany-plans-sugar-tax-that-includes-sugar-free-drinks/Open linkView original on lemmy.worldSyndicated from the fediverse. Read and engage on the original instance.
View original on lemmy.worldhttps://brusselssignal.eu/2026/08/germany-plans-sugar-tax-that-includes-sugar-free-drinks/Open linkView original on lemmy.world
19 replies
Why?? Shit’s sugar. You’re not getting most of the nutritional benefit from juice, all the fiber has been removed.
My guess is because it's unsweetened, and that the tax applies to drinks with added sugar or sweetener.
‘We should reduce sugar and sweetener consumption, let’s not tax this drink that’s almost pure sugar because it’s natural’ is asinine. Apple juice has virtually identical sugar content to a soda.
Why not tax the actual apples then?
Because apples aren’t apple juice, metabolically or nutritionally. The fiber slows down how fast you absorb the sugar and it’s good for your gut.
I motion we tax Catoblepas for being too starchy.
Yes that's why I wouldn't tax them extra, however you seem to be advocating for a tax on anything with sugar. So why the change? You say yourself they've still sugar in it so why not tax them according to your logic?
To put another way, if the presence of sugar isn't enough to justify the tax on its own, as long as the form is somrwhat different, then why not accept the difference between added sugar and no added sugar? That's just as meaningful a difference.
Because like all laws, corruption came into the process to make it miss the goal entirely.
Taxing almost all sugary drinks including artificial sweetners but not 100% juice is not "missing the goal entirely". That's still hitting the unhealthiest and most marketed beverages.
Fructose is worse than sugar
Artificial sweeteners are arguibly often worse than sugar
If you drink 3000+ cans of diet a day you will approach the lower limit of what’s considered safe.
Weird comment knowing how little we know about artificial sweeteners and it's long term impact on the body. Actually, quite dangerous comment.
But you can start here; https://www.health.harvard.edu/heart-health/sugar-substitutes-new-cardiovascular-concerns
Or here: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40902134/
Or here; https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10465821/
Also fun fact about sorbitol; https://source.washu.edu/2025/11/alternative-sweetener-sorbitol-linked-to-liver-disease/
Not all artificial sweeteners are the same, so it's borderline meaningless to say we "know so little" about them.
Hell, aspartame is literally the most studied food additive in the history of the FDA, and has never been shown to have any adverse effects in any reputable study.
Again, dangerous comment. Please actually spend a minute looking around before making such bizzare claims.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8373935/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23097267/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24700203/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35324894/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36638072/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39547074/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41765137/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21376768/
There are like 30 other studies showing negative effects in mice and rats.
Oh come now, none of these articles even address the risk of sand mites or magnetic resonance.
Last I remember it lowers the body's tolerance to sugar which increases how much food people eat overall.
And the fructose in fruit juice isn't "healthy" in any way. Even though it doesn't hit insulin, it does the liver, and the caloric impact is the same.
https://www.health.harvard.edu/heart-health/abundance-of-fructose-not-good-for-the-liver-heart
Why do all these bills always amount to "fuck whatever it is poor people eat"?
The problem is that companies will figure out whar artificial sweeteners get around the tax.