Latest news with #sugarydrinks
Daily Mail
7 days ago
- Business
- Daily Mail
Australian Labor considers new tax measures affecting many citizens
A Labor MP has issued a call for a new tax on sugary drinks such as Coke, fruit juices and sports drinks - a year after a controversial national inquiry into the diabetes epidemic recommended the levy. Dr Mike Freelander, MP for the federal seat of Macarthur on Sydney's south-western edge, told Daily Mail Australia this week that he supports a levy on sugar-sweetened beverages. Dr Freelander, a medically-trained doctor, called on Prime Minister Anthony Albanese to support a proposal, pushed by a parliamentary inquiry he chaired, to force beverage producers to make healthier drinks. The 20 per cent tax would also raise an additional $1.4billion of government revenue over four years - coming at a time where tobacco excise collection dropped almost $5billion this financial year. 'The levy is a way to encourage manufacturers to reduce sugar content in their products and there is increasing global evidence of the benefits on community health and wellbeing,' said Dr Freelander, a backbencher. Sugar-sweetened beverages are defined as water-based drinks with added caloric sweeteners such as sucrose, high-fructose corn syrup, or fruit juice concentrate. The tax would include soft drinks, sports drinks, fruit drinks, energy drinks, cordials and drinks made with added fruit juice concentrate. A number of Coalition members of the diabetes inquiry committee opposed the introduction of a levy in the final report. Deputy chair of the committee Julian Leeser (pictured), Liberal MP for Berowra, said the tax would disproportionately fall upon Australia's lowest earners. 'People are doing it tough and struggling to pay bills and put food on the table,' he told the Sydney Morning Herald last year. 'There's also a real issue about whether a sugar tax would change behaviour.' Dr Freelander's (pictured)comments come as a new study showed public support for a sugar tax. The study was published in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health on Wednesday and led by professor Caroline Miller, president of the Public Health Association of Australia (PHAA). More than half (56 per cent) of the study's 1800 respondents supported a health levy tax on sugary drinks in line earlier research from 2017. Dr Miller said sugary drinks were a significant contributor to obesity - a disease which has overtaken cancer as the leading cause of Australia's preventable disease burden. She said Australia is facing a serious public health issue, one that warrants a policy approach defined by 'strong leadership'. Critics of the sugar tax claim dietary choices should be left to the individual and that lower-earning Australians would be hardest hit by the levy. The Australian Beverages Council has led the opposition against the sugary drinks tax - claiming declining consumption rates suggested something else was to blame. 'The tax is a misguided attempt to address a complex problem like obesity that lacks real world evidence it has any discernible impact on weight,' Geoff Parker, chief executive of the Council said in a statement last year. 'Consumption of sugar from drinks in Australia has decreased significantly over the last 20 years at the same time overweight, obesity and diabetes rates have continued to rise. Clearly soft drinks aren't driving the nation's expanding waistline which makes this call for a tax illogical and clearly just a revenue raiser for public health groups.' Sugar taxes are already in place in a number of European and American countries including the UK, France, Norway, Mexico and Chile. One study suggested the daily sugar intake of UK children fell by five grams within a year of the tax being introduced in 2018, while adults cut their intake by 11 grams. But chief executive of the PHAA Terry Slevin said the study proved there was 'genuine community concern about unhealthy drinks'. 'Health Minister Mark Butler and the Albanese government have implemented strong and effective measures to curb smoking and vaping, we believe similarly decisive action is needed to tackle obesity. 'We know what needs to be done, now is the time to do it.' The Australian Medical Association, the peak representative body for doctors in Australia, advocates for a tax of $0.40 per 100 grams of sugar.
Daily Mail
7 days ago
- Business
- Daily Mail
EXCLUSIVE Fresh Labor push for a new that will impact every Australian: What it means for you
A Labor MP has issued a call for a new tax on sugary drinks such as Coke, fruit juices and sports drinks - a year after a controversial national inquiry into the diabetes epidemic recommended the levy. Dr Mike Freelander, MP for the federal seat of Macarthur on Sydney 's south-western edge, told Daily Mail Australia this week that he supports a levy on sugar-sweetened beverages. Dr Freelander, a medically-trained doctor, called on Prime Minister Anthony Albanese to support a proposal, pushed by a parliamentary inquiry he chaired, to force beverage producers to make healthier drinks. The tax would also raise an additional $1.4billion of government revenue over four years - coming at a time where tobacco excise collection dropped almost $5billion this financial year. 'The levy is a way to encourage manufacturers to reduce sugar content in their products and there is increasing global evidence of the benefits on community health and wellbeing,' said Dr Freelander, a backbencher. According to the report he still supports, sugar-sweetened beverages are defined as water-based drinks with added caloric sweeteners - such as sucrose, high-fructose corn syrup, or fruit juice concentrate. This the tax would include soft drinks, sports drinks, fruit drinks, energy drinks, cordials and drinks made with added fruit juice concentrate. A number of Coalition members of the diabetes inquiry committee opposed the introduction of a levy in the final report. Deputy chair of the committee Julian Leeser, Liberal MP for Berowra, said the impost of the tax would disproportionately fall upon Australia's lowest earners. 'People are doing it tough and struggling to pay bills and put food on the table,' he told the Sydney Morning Herald last year. 'There's also a real issue about whether a sugar tax would change behaviour.' Dr Freelander's comments come as a new study showed public support for a sugar tax, despite criticism that it could disproportionately affect low-income Australians. The study was published in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health on Wednesday and led by professor Caroline Miller, president of the Public Health Association of Australia (PHAA). More than half (56 per cent) of the study's 1800 respondents supported a health levy tax on sugary drinks in line earlier research from 2017. Dr Miller said sugary drinks were a significant contributor to obesity - a disease which has overtaken cancer as the leading cause of Australia's preventable disease burden. She said Australia is facing a serious public health issue, one that warrants a policy approach defined by 'strong leadership'. Critics of the sugar tax claim dietary choices should be left to the individual and that lower-earning Australians would be hardest hit by the levy. The Australian Beverages Council has led the opposition against the sugary drinks tax - claiming declining consumption rates suggested something else was to blame. 'The tax is a misguided attempt to address a complex problem like obesity that lacks real world evidence it has any discernible impact on weight,' Geoff Parker, chief executive of the Council said in a statement last year. 'Consumption of sugar from drinks in Australia has decreased significantly over the last 20 years at the same time overweight, obesity and diabetes rates have continued to rise. 'Clearly soft drinks aren't driving the nation's expanding waistline which makes this call for a tax illogical and clearly just a revenue raiser for public health groups.' Sugar taxes are already in place in a number of European and American countries including the UK, France, Norway, Mexico and Chile. One study suggested the daily sugar intake of UK children fell by five grams within a year of the tax being introduced in 2018, while adults cut their intake by 11 grams. But chief executive of the PHAA Terry Slevin said the study proved there was 'genuine community concern about unhealthy drinks'. 'Minister Mark Butler and the Albanese government have implemented strong and effective measures to curb smoking and vaping, we believe similarly decisive action is needed to tackle obesity.' 'We know what needs to be done, now is the time to do it.' The Australian Medical Association, the peak representative body for doctors in Australia, advocates for a tax of $0.40 per 100 grams of sugar.
Yahoo
25-05-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
The #1 Food You Should Limit to Help Lower Triglycerides, According to Dietitians
Reviewed by Dietitian Karen Ansel, M.S., RDNSugary drinks are the top source of added sugars in the American diet. Their sugar can increase triglycerides, which are blood fats that raise heart disease risk. They may also increase blood sugar and belly fat and crowd out more nutritious it comes to heart health, most people focus on cholesterol. But triglycerides are just as important. Triglycerides are a type of fat in the blood that our bodies use for energy. High triglycerides can raise your risk of heart disease by leading to a buildup of small, cholesterol-rich particles in the artery walls. This can trigger inflammation and contribute to artery-blocking plaque formation. Cutting back on fat might seem like the obvious first choice. However, one of the top contributors to high triglycerides is actually sugar-sweetened drinks, like soda, sweet tea, syrup-spiked coffees and sports drinks. The link is so strong that research has found that people who drink just 12 ounces of sugar-sweetened beverages per day are 48% more likely to have elevated triglycerides. That's a lot! So, we spoke to registered dietitians to find out how cutting back on sugar-sweetened drinks can help lower high triglycerides. Here's what they told us, plus realistic strategies to improve your triglycerides for a healthier heart. Research has found that high sugar-sweetened beverage consumption is strongly linked to insulin resistance. That may sound like it's just a blood sugar issue, but insulin resistance may also influence triglyceride levels. How so? While sugary drinks are loaded with sugar, they rarely contain fat, protein or fiber to help slow glucose digestion and absorption. As a result, glucose is quickly absorbed into the bloodstream, resulting in a rapid spike in blood sugar and insulin. Over time, this can lead to insulin resistance, which alters lipid metabolism, leading to high triglycerides, low HDL-cholesterol and increased small, dense LDL-cholesterol particles. All of these can set the stage for heart disease. Even though triglycerides are a type of fat, they're formed primarily from eating excess carbohydrates and sugars. Consider what happens after drinking a 12-ounce can of cola. Its 37 grams of pure sugar are far more than your body can handle in one sitting, especially when combined with other carbohydrates and sugars from a meal or snack. What does the body do with all that sugar? 'Excess sugar is stored in the body as glycogen. Once these stores are full, our liver converts excess sugar into fatty acids, and combined with other molecules, they form triglycerides,' explains Melissa Jaeger, RD, LD. Many sweetened beverages are made with high fructose corn syrup, which may be even more harmful to your blood fat and glucose levels than table sugar. In one study, adults who drank three fructose-rich beverages daily for 10 weeks had higher levels of triglyceride-transporting particles in their bloodstreams than volunteers who consumed the same amount of glucose-rich drinks. What, exactly, makes fructose so problematic? When we consume excessive amounts of fructose, like from HFCS-sweetened drinks, the liver turns all that fructose into fat through a process called de novo lipogenesis. This happens when there is more sugar available than the liver can store as carbohydrate, and it occurs more rapidly with fructose than with glucose consumption. Deep belly fat, known as visceral fat, can spell all kinds of trouble for your health. Visceral fat releases fat into the bloodstream quickly, whereas fat stored under the skin (like in the hips or thighs) is stored and released much more slowly. This makes abdominal fat especially harmful, increasing the risk for numerous metabolic health conditions, including elevated triglycerides. Research has found that greater added sugar intake may be a powerful driver of visceral fat storage. For instance, one study found people who consumed lots of added sugars from sugar-sweetened beverages and other sources were 27% more likely to have abdominal obesity and were also 28% more prone to obesity. Sugar-sweetened beverages are our top source of added sugars, delivering an estimated 21% of our total sugar intake. One important reason: 'It's easy to over-consume calories from sugary drinks,' says Mandy Tyler, RD, CSSD. 'Although they may taste refreshing, they don't tend to fill you up.' Consider how you feel after eating a piece of cake versus drinking a glass of sweet tea. It's much quicker—and easier—to drink that sugar in liquid form. 'While our bodies may use some of the sugar in drinks for an immediate source of energy, these drinks also deliver extra calories with little to no nutritional value,' says Jaeger. Sugary drinks like soda, sweet tea, energy drinks, sugary lattes and even some fruit-flavored beverages often replace healthier options like water, milk or nutrient-rich smoothies. Limit or avoid alcohol: 'When you drink alcohol, your liver puts fat-burning on hold to process the alcohol first,' explains Katie Schimmelpfenning, RD, LD. 'That slowdown can cause more fat, especially triglycerides, to build up in your blood.' Get regular physical activity: Physical activity, especially aerobic exercise, helps to lower triglycerides by improving glucose and fat metabolism. Not sure where to start? 'Consider going for a walk during lunch, taking the stairs, parking farther away at the grocery store or enjoying a family walk after dinner,' suggests Taylor McClelland Newman, M.S., RD, LD. Eat more fiber-rich foods: 'Fiber helps lower triglycerides by slowing digestion and reducing fat and sugar absorption,' says Schimmelpfenning. Eating high-fiber foods with each meal and snack can help you hit the recommended daily 25 to 38 grams. Add in fatty fish: The American Heart Association recommends eating at least two 3-ounce servings of fatty fish like salmon, mackerel, herring, anchovies and sardines weekly. Research reveals their long-chain omega-3 fats, EPA and DHA, may help reduce triglycerides. Regularly drinking sugar-sweetened beverages can be a major contributor to high triglycerides. Their excessive sugar can elevate triglycerides by increasing blood sugar, insulin and belly fat and by providing more sugar and fructose than your body can efficiently metabolize in one sitting. In addition, sugary drinks are easy to consume in excess and usually replace more nutritious alternatives. That doesn't mean you can never enjoy a small glass of sweet tea or a soda. But limiting sugary drinks, combined with lifestyle changes like limiting or avoiding alcohol, exercising and eating more fatty fish and fiber-rich foods, can help keep your triglycerides in check and protect your heart. Read the original article on EATINGWELL
Reuters
22-05-2025
- Health
- Reuters
US farm agency to allow Iowa, Indiana to bar junk food and soda from food aid
WASHINGTON, May 22 (Reuters) - U.S. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins said on Thursday that she had signed waivers from Iowa and Indiana that would restrict some processed foods and sugary drinks from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
New York Times
20-05-2025
- Health
- New York Times
In Approving Soda Ban for Food Stamps, U.S.D.A. Reverses Decades of Policy
For two decades, the federal government has rejected states' efforts to ban purchases of sugary drinks using food stamps, hesitant, in part, to cross an unusual coalition of corporate interests and anti-poverty groups. Now, the Trump administration has waded in, approving a first of its kind waiver on Monday for Nebraska to ban purchases of soda and energy drinks through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, known as food stamps. It is likely to pave the way for more state waivers, signaling a sharp shift in nutrition policy. Under the proposal, Nebraska will establish a program, beginning in January 2026 and affecting some 150,000 food stamp recipients in the state. Nebraska, in its waiver application, said it would regularly survey participants in the state to evaluate changes in their spending habits and examine retailer data to assess reductions in purchases of soda and energy drinks. A spokesman for the state's department of Health and Human Services said that Nebraska would also provide technical assistance to help retailers make the transition. In a statement on Monday, Brooke L. Rollins, the agriculture secretary, called the approval 'a historic step to Make America Healthy Again.' The state's governor, Jim Pillen, also welcomed the step, saying, 'There's absolutely zero reason for taxpayers to be subsidizing purchases of soda and energy drinks.' The prohibition adds to the limits recipients face in using the program. Already, their benefits do not apply to hot foods, nonfood items, alcohol and tobacco products. In recent months, Nebraska and other states, largely led by Republican governors, have sought waivers to extend those restrictions to unhealthy purchases. A spokesperson for the Agriculture Department said on Tuesday that the agency was reviewing and working with Iowa, Arkansas, Indiana, Kansas, West Virginia, Colorado, Idaho, and Utah on similar waivers. A wave of approvals would come after decades of Agriculture Department denials under both Democratic and Republican administrations, including President Trump's first. In letters explaining its rejections over more than a decade and in a 2007 policy paper, the Agriculture Department expressed concerns over the rationale, feasibility and effectiveness of such bans: Which, out of hundreds of thousands of products, should be banned? How would grocery stores, especially smaller shops not using advanced checkout systems, enforce such bans? And how would a state or city study the effect of these bans? Asked about such bans during a congressional hearing in 2017, Sonny Perdue, Mr. Trump's first agriculture secretary, questioned whether enforcing such restrictions was unduly interfering in people's lives. 'On what level do we want to become a nanny state of directing how, and what, people feed their families?' he said then. The second Trump administration has struck a different tone. Ms. Rollins and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the health secretary, have written that their agencies had 'a duty to fix' the obesity and chronic disease epidemics, encouraging steering 'taxpayer dollars to go toward wholesome foods' using waivers. Past bipartisan resistance to food stamp restrictions on unhealthy foods stems from the messy politics of the issue and the strange bedfellows it has united both in support and in opposition. The American Heath Association said it 'unequivocally' supported reducing the consumption of sugary drinks as a means to combat heart disease. Right-leaning groups like the American Enterprise Institute and some conservative members of Congress have asserted that the bans would incentivize healthier purchases and return SNAP to its original purpose of helping poor people afford nutritious food. Conversely, trade groups representing grocery stores and beverage companies argue that bans would be difficult and costly to enact at the cash register and unfairly single out soda as a cause for obesity. Anti-hunger and anti-poverty organizations fear such bans may lead to broader cuts to food stamps and state that such restrictions are paternalistic. Dr. Thomas A. Farley, New York City's health commissioner at the time it requested a waiver in 2011, said in an interview that he had been 'hopeful' about approval given numerous meetings, discussions and phone calls with federal officials, only to be met with disappointment. The reasons cited by the Agriculture Department in denying New York's request in 2011 — the feasibility and large-scale nature of a citywide ban — felt like 'a smoke screen,' Dr. Farley said. He added that he believed interests from farm states that produce corn, used in the high-fructose corn syrup in soda, were the real forces behind the denial. Those forces are still in play today. But Dr. Farley marveled at how 'the Trump movement has scrambled a lot in politics.' After the American Beverage Association issued a rebuke of Arkansas' waiver request in April, Ms. Rollins wrote on social media that the trade group's leadership was 'in direct conflict with this administration's priorities for American health, well-being and taxpayer protection.' Marion Nestle, a nutritionist at New York University and author of a book on soda bans, said that the current momentum reflected both opponents' fears and supporters' wishes. 'Some of this comes from the belief that taxpayers should not be subsidizing unhealthy diets,' she said, noting that sodas were the natural start given the ingredients and low nutritional value and adding: 'Some of it reflects condescending attitudes that poor people don't know what's good for them. And I'm guessing some of it is a cover for efforts to cut SNAP.'
