[ad_1]
It is no mystery that carbonated soda and so-called healthy juice drinks produce a sweet blow to the detriment of those who consume them – mainly teenage teens.
Besides the sedentary lifestyle exacerbated by the internet, these are the leading causes of soaring rates of obesity, heart disease and diabetes among children in this country.
Better late than never, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Heart Association have issued a series of recommendations aimed at reversing this disconcerting trend. They include increasing the prices of sugar-sweetened beverages through an excise tax, with the proceeds being spent "in part on reducing health and socio-economic disparities" no matter what it means.
Beacon Hill's legislators appear to have also taken the soft drink train.
They introduced two bills that target the consumption of sugary drinks by children, as proposed by the Academy of Pediatrics / Heart Association.
According to the State House News Service, Senators Jason Lewis, Kay Khan and Jon Santiago have introduced a bill that would impose an excise tax on sweetened beverages. This tax would increase at the same time as the sugar content.
Under the invoices (S 1709, H 2529), beverages containing 7.5 grams of sugar or less per 12 fluid ounces would not be taxed, but those containing 30 grams of sugar or more per 12 fluid ounces would be taxed at the rate of 2 cents. per ounce. Beverages between these two levels of sugar would be taxed at 1 cent per ounce.
It is estimated that this legislation would generate annual revenues of between $ 280 million and $ 320 million.
The same three legislators also introduced bills (S 1291, H 1947) to reduce youth access and exposure to sugary drinks. They would ban the marketing of sugary drinks in schools and require advertisements of sugary drinks to carry a label indicating the higher incidences of obesity, diabetes and tooth decay that accompany their consumption.
The "default drink" for the children's meal at any restaurant in the chain should also be water, sparkling water, flavored water, 100% pure juice without sweetener or milk. Customers could always ask for another drink.
Well-intentioned, encouraging parents to choose the least resistant way or their sugar-fed children to pay more for this glucose supplement can generate millions of dollars, but it disproportionately affects a portion of the population that can bear the least these extra expenses.
This is because the list of items from poor and low-income Massachusetts families receiving cash benefits from the Transitional Assistance Department can not use this EBT card because it includes everything from alcoholic beverages to marijuana to recreational purposes, but not sugar-free soft drinks.
As long as non-alcoholic beverages do not join this list, this legislation will not only help the most financially and physically vulnerable, but may even worsen their situation.
Taking a more proactive approach contained in the other set of bills – banning the marketing of sugary drinks in our public schools and requiring them to wear a health warning label – would actually create a " socio-economic inequality "with a unique message – campaign for all.
This is because sugar does not discriminate. its adverse effects represent an equal risk to health.
[ad_2]
Source link