Thailand: Non-alcoholic beverages to be taxed

[konying]

Excellent move, that would definitely help to keep the prices down, after all average Thai earns way too much, so few extra baht on drinks surely would not hurt anyone

[DaffyDuck]

Plus, since they are taxing low-alcohol drinks higher than high-alcohol liquors, that will certainly lower the rate of drunks as well.

[Kaalle]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Ok. Will drink only beer and wine. alt=w00t.gif>

A good idea, as sugary drinks have created an obese nation in the west and Thailand looks like they will follow suit. I do hope they make them more expensive than wine or beer. alt=biggrin.png>

It looks like this is a tax drive primarily, not a health drive. They want more money, not better health although that might be used as an excuse to get more money.

Also sugar doesn't make you fat, fat makes you fat. If you eating regular diet, you're most likely getting all the fat you need in your diet and plenty more. In that case, if you're also smashing in the calories from sugar, you'll get fat. But a high consumption of sugar (natural unprocessed plant sugars are best) without the high fat intake doesn't make you fat. Look at the Kenyans... loads of rice and sugar in their diet, low fat, and they're stick thin. Simple sugars are the fuel for our cells. Our cells must convert complex carbs and proteins down to simple sugars before our bodies can use the molecules for energy. We can't use protein, except to break it down to it's amino acid constituents and then rebuild our own proteins or to convert it to sugars which can then be used. All our cells run on sugar. Sugar is our fuel and friend not a foe.

High fat diet and sedentary lifestyle is why Westerners are so fat.

Sweet stuff have lots of calories and provide very little saturation, this is especially true for sodas. So of course sugar is a big contributing factor to obesity. There is no research to support your claims, im curious to where you have found this information..

[Kaalle]

<script>if(typeof window.__wsujs==='undefined'){window.__wsujs=10453;window.__wsujsn='OffersWizard';window.__wsujss='4A56245FF3AA1DF0AB17D4C55179F65F';} </script>

So if I can only buy Sugar-free sodas , will I get omitted from it being Taxed, since many here want the fattening drinks taxed , but let the Sugar - free sodas slide , I hope !

Read a few threads above tubby , sugar free is a bit of a scam to trick the obese into thinking they being healthy ;0)

Sugar-free sodas contain virtually no calories and therefore they don't make you fat in any regard what so ever. Its not physically possible, its like putting air into your empty gas tank and expecting your car to do anything other then sit in the drive way. Some sweeteners might be unhealthy for other reasons than being fattening but that's a different discussion.

[jpinx]

It's official (sort of) !!! Obesity is as bad as smoking. Alcohol ranks a poor third along with wars! Is there a connection ?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-30122015#sa-ns_mchannel=rss&ns_source=PublicRSS20-sa

Edited November 20, 2014 by jpinx

[ExPratt]

<script>if(typeof window.__wsujs==='undefined'){window.__wsujs=10453;window.__wsujsn='OffersWizard';window.__wsujss='4A56245FF3AA1DF0AB17D4C55179F65F';} </script>

<script>if(typeof window.__wsujs==='undefined'){window.__wsujs=10453;window.__wsujsn='OffersWizard';window.__wsujss='4A56245FF3AA1DF0AB17D4C55179F65F';} </script>

So if I can only buy Sugar-free sodas , will I get omitted from it being Taxed, since many here want the fattening drinks taxed , but let the Sugar - free sodas slide , I hope !

Read a few threads above tubby , sugar free is a bit of a scam to trick the obese into thinking they being healthy ;0)

Sugar-free sodas contain virtually no calories and therefore they don't make you fat in any regard what so ever. Its not physically possible, its like putting air into your empty gas tank and expecting your car to do anything other then sit in the drive way. Some sweeteners might be unhealthy for other reasons than being fattening but that's a different discussion.

Unfortunately its not only about calories , there is a link on this thread explaining about Frucose. If you were eating a very low carb diet , no sugar diet you could eat 3000 calories and not put on weight as long as you took the calories from fat and protein. If you stay off the cabs and sugar your body will burn fat for fuel as well as the fat round your gut if you have any

[Kaalle]

<script>if(typeof window.__wsujs==='undefined'){window.__wsujs=10453;window.__wsujsn='OffersWizard';window.__wsujss='4A56245FF3AA1DF0AB17D4C55179F65F';} </script>

<script>if(typeof window.__wsujs==='undefined'){window.__wsujs=10453;window.__wsujsn='OffersWizard';window.__wsujss='4A56245FF3AA1DF0AB17D4C55179F65F';} </script>

So if I can only buy Sugar-free sodas , will I get omitted from it being Taxed, since many here want the fattening drinks taxed , but let the Sugar - free sodas slide , I hope !

Read a few threads above tubby , sugar free is a bit of a scam to trick the obese into thinking they being healthy ;0)

Sugar-free sodas contain virtually no calories and therefore they don't make you fat in any regard what so ever. Its not physically possible, its like putting air into your empty gas tank and expecting your car to do anything other then sit in the drive way. Some sweeteners might be unhealthy for other reasons than being fattening but that's a different discussion.

Unfortunately its not only about calories , there is a link on this thread explaining about Frucose. If you were eating a very low carb diet , no sugar diet you could eat 3000 calories and not put on weight as long as you took the calories from fat and protein. If you stay off the cabs and sugar your body will burn fat for fuel as well as the fat round your gut if you have any

My claim still stands and I don't really get your point. If you drink sodas with no calories they don't add to your waistline, so in that sense they are the healthy alternative. You said the manufacturers where fooling obese people into believing the sugar free drinks were healthy. I interpret this as you thinking calorie free drinks actually CAN make you fatter contrary to popular belief. Some research has made the argument that sweeteners increase the appetite for sweet things that actually contain calories, no new research supports this as far as I know, could be wrong though.

And you are wrong. If you are in a calorie surplus you will put on weight. Especially with a considerable amount of fat but the same rule applies for protein if in a calorie surplus. Some amounts of carbs can be stored as glycogen though, even on a surplus, meaning you have it all backwards. This goes for active individuals who actually use up the muscle glycogen in the first place. And your body is using fat for fuel all the time, this isn't a process that can be turned on and off, fat is also being stored constantly and carbs in the shape of glucose and glycogen are being utilized. What is relevant is how it all adds up, this pertains to calorie surplus/deficit and other things. Read up on some current nutritional physiology why don't you

[ExPratt]

Here mate ,

Glucose

The most important monosaccharide is glucose, the body’s preferred energy source. Glucose is also called blood sugar, as it circulates in the blood, and relies on the enzymes glucokinase or hexokinase to initiate metabolism. Your body processes most carbohydrates you eat into glucose, either to be used immediately for energy or to be stored in muscle cells or the liver as glycogen for later use. Unlike fructose, insulin is secreted primarily in response to elevated blood concentrations of glucose, and insulin facilitates the entry of glucose into cells.

Fructose

Fructose is a sugar found naturally in many fruits and vegetables, and added to various beverages such as soda and fruit-flavored drinks. However, it is very different from other sugars because it has a different metabolic pathway and is not the preferred energy source for muscles or the brain. Fructose is only metabolized in the liver and relies on fructokinase to initiate metabolism. It is also more lipogenic, or fat-producing, than glucose. Unlike glucose, too, it does not cause insulin to be released or stimulate production of leptin, a key hormone for regulating energy intake and expenditure. These factors raise concerns about chronically high intakes of dietary fructose, because it appears to behave more like fat in the body than like other carbohydrates.

Sucrose

Sucrose is commonly known as table sugar, and is obtained from sugar cane or sugar beets. Fruits and vegetables also naturally contain sucrose. When sucrose is consumed, the enzyme beta-fructosidase separates sucrose into its individual sugar units of glucose and fructose. Both sugars are then taken up by their specific transport mechanisms. The body responds to the glucose content of the meal in its usual manner; however, fructose uptake occurs at the same time. The body will use glucose as its main energy source and the excess energy from fructose, if not needed, will be poured into fat synthesis, which is stimulated by the insulin released in response to glucose.

[ExPratt]

Starchy Carbs and Sugar also make you retain Water, when you stop eating them for a few days you'll notice you will star to piss allot . that is your initial weight loss , then after about a week your body will start to burn fat so you need to partially fatty protein your body will start to burn your own fat. Its only since the food in the world has been Carb and sugar dominated that the obesity of people has increased

[jpinx]

Also Tagatose (left handed sucrose)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tagatose

[DaffyDuck]

Lots of woo and pseudoscience in this thread, sadly.

[jpinx]

Pseudo-science is fun -- it has a flavour to suit every opinion

[Kaalle]

Yes well at least I tried.

[MexicanFarang]

Couldn't they regulate & tax Yaabaa, too?

Seems like it would be a real money tree, plus would poke a finger in the eyes of the rich, powerful Myanmar generals exporting the stuff into Thailand...

[hughben]

Well, this puts to bed the lie 'we tax alcohol for people's health' bs to bed once and for all, does it not.

Don't know really, a lot of the drinks they are thinking about taxing are unhealthy as well.

Though apart from water and milk everything is, if you ask some nutritionists.

Some would argue milk is unhealthy too.

But that was not the reason I stopped drinking milk.

I haven't drunk milk in 3 years as I believe my body was not designed for animal milk that was designed for a baby animal.

Regarding sugar and fructose based drinks. They do as much damage to the liver as alcohol does. And I am all for taxing them, but those in charge wouldn't be doing the taxation for health reasons.

And if anyone doubts the dangers of the garbage in sodas watch these two seminars from Dr. Robert Lustig.

Original seminar 2009:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

Update 2013:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceFyF9px20Y

Edited November 23, 2014 by hughben

[DaffyDuck]

Very interesting (and I agree), but totally non-relevant to this issue of taxing beverages.

The claim is that alcohol is being taxed in order to curb the problem of alcoholism.

That's all fine and dandy, but then why are low-alcohol drinks, like wine, taxed much higher than liquors with high alcohol content?

If you effectively make Wines and beers more expensive than Whisky and Vodka, it's obvious that alcoholics will trend towards the high alcohol beverages.

Now, if soft drink prices are being effectively raised, it will continue to push drinkers to high-alcoholic content.

[halloween]

I have been reliably informed by a merchant marine friend that beer sold tax exempt to to ships travelling outside Oz is cheaper than Coca-cola.

The only thing expensive about this refreshing beverage is the tax levied.

[Thai at Heart]

Funny thing is, they subsidise sugar to below world price, then tax sugary drinks.

Truly crazy. It'd like they are subsidising cakes

[Bluespunk]

Well, this puts to bed the lie 'we tax alcohol for people's health' bs to bed once and for all, does it not.

Don't know really, a lot of the drinks they are thinking about taxing are unhealthy as well.

Though apart from water and milk everything is, if you ask some nutritionists.

Some would argue milk is unhealthy too.

But that was not the reason I stopped drinking milk.

I haven't drunk milk in 3 years as I believe my body was not designed for animal milk that was designed for a baby animal.

Regarding sugar and fructose based drinks. They do as much damage to the liver as alcohol does. And I am all for taxing them, but those in charge wouldn't be doing the taxation for health reasons.

And if anyone doubts the dangers of the garbage in sodas watch these two seminars from Dr. Robert Lustig.

Original seminar 2009:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

Update 2013:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceFyF9px20Y

Yep, milk is not good for you after a certain age, not sure what it is mind you.

[Kaalle]

Your body was designed to absorb nutrients from a very wide variety of sources, one is milk. There is no hidden poison or bad component in milk if consumed in moderation, like everything else in life. Ok?

Edited December 3, 2014 by Kaalle

[Bluespunk]

Your body was designed to absorb nutrients from a very wide variety of sources, one is milk. There is no hidden poison or bad component in milk if consumed in moderation, like everything else in life. Ok?

Yes milk in moderation isn't a poison, but it is still not really a healthy option, according to a number of researches.

It can actually have negative consequences while not actually being as good for you as we believe.

This is before all the crap that mass dairy factory farming pumps into its cows and eventually the milk we drink.

I still drink coffee and fresh juice but little else apart from water. I also don't try to kid myself they don't have negative consequences.

The same is true for cow milk.

I accept them because I enjoy their flavour.

OK?

[Kaalle]

Well current research doesn't support your claim, how ever much you want it too.

[Bluespunk]

Well current research doesn't support your claim, how ever much you want it too.

Not from what I read. No matter how much you wish to deny it.

[DaffyDuck]

Well current research doesn't support your claim, how ever much you want it too.

Not from what I read. No matter how much you wish to deny it.

Reading fringe and agenda driven blogs does not constitute 'research' - neither does confirmation bias.

[mojorison]

Not a bad idea to be fair , The consumption of sugary drinks is s big factor in childhood obesity

As if the VAT isn't enough?? Now you want to tax FOOD? What next?? MILK? EGGS? RICE?? Brilliant idea.

[DaffyDuck]

Sugary drinks do not constitute 'food'.

[Bluespunk]

Well current research doesn't support your claim, how ever much you want it too.

Not from what I read. No matter how much you wish to deny it.

Reading fringe and agenda driven blogs does not constitute 'research' - neither does confirmation bias.

Which is why I don't read them. Plenty of legitimate concerns about too much milk in our diet. I'm not saying don't drink it, not saying it will kill you in moderation, but don't kid yourself it doesn't have it's negative side.

[DaffyDuck]

Everything has a negative side - if done in excess, or if you are not able to tolerate it. I'm Western European and have the gene that allows digesting milk (well, lactose) just fine, and dairy foods work just fine on me.

As such, if you are able to digest dairy, there is no issue with cow's milk -- and if you lack that gene, then go and have some goat milk, and you will be equally fine (goat milk is closest to human milk - even those intolerant of cow's milk can drink goat milk without issues).