Nutrition and healthy eating

Free

E-Newsletters

Subscribe to receive the latest updates on health topics. About our newsletters

• Housecall
• Alzheimer's caregiving
• Living with cancer

• October 21, 2009 8:54 a.m.

  Absolutely not, educate folks to help them make good decisions rather than have government interfere yet again in our lives. We know from experience that taxing just hurts the people that can least afford it. Tax tax tax, can't our politicians think of something constructive to do rather than coming up with more ways to pile on the taxes?

  - Rick

• October 21, 2009 8:33 a.m.

  Part of the problem is that all of school (grades K – 12th grade) have reduced or remove recess and P.E. from our school programs. There is three parts to maintaining a healthy body weight (Exercise, Food in Moderation, and Water (min of 64 ounces a day).

  - valerie

• October 21, 2009 6:50 a.m.

  Tax, Tax, Tax that is all government can do when they have made such a mess of using our tax dollars unwisely. If they have more tax dollars they will just be able to make more unwise decisions. Why don't they consider giving back some of our tax dollars from their raises for theirselves which is automatic. Leave our food and drinks alone. It is not government's place to micro manage our lives and that is where we are going with this. What's next tax the "Air we breathe."

  - Pat

• October 21, 2009 1:25 a.m.

  Next, people will have to sneak into a donut or ice cream shop, tax those, tax cookies, tax candy bars, tax potato chips, tax sugar in the bag itself. tax. sweet teal. tax jelly, jam, pop tarts, cereal, and the list goes on. Give us a break! People do not want to be controlled in that manner.

  - Jayne

• October 20, 2009 11:39 p.m.

  Big Brother is invading our lives! It is no one's business whether or not I drink Cokes, etc.; and the government certainly has no business taxing extra for it. This idea is simply a ploy from two directions: 1, those who want to manage everyone else's lives, and 2, the government--which sees this as a way to increase revenue by adding yet another tax burden to the general population.

  - John

• October 20, 2009 10:49 p.m.

  This administration has enough on its plate. Lets support our troops, solve the unemployed problem, fight the terrorist and on and on and on. Lets not grow the government to the point that no one is free.

  - Billie

• October 20, 2009 8:27 p.m.

  No. The general population should not be taxed for it. It's the companies that make the products like sugary cereals and soda, who should be taxed for making them. Also, people wh make the choice NOT to drink or eat these food should not be penalized. It's the old fashioned way of making the whole class stay after school, when one of the kids did something wrong and the teacher makes the whole class stay till there's a confession. Geraldina

  - Geraldina

• October 20, 2009 8:19 p.m.

  Does the government really think that taxing sugar laden drinks will decrease consumption and lead to healthier choices?? We, as individuals, need to make those healthier choices on our own. It is sad that "pop" is considerably lower in price than healthier fruit juices. Junk food is a lot cheaper to buy than vegetables and fruit. Has taxing junk food lowered consumption?? Consumers will shop according to budget restraints. You go into any health food retail store and it is more costly to eat healthier. As consumers we MUST make healthier choices, not let the government decide for us.

  - Samantha

• October 20, 2009 7:02 p.m.

  Here we go again..the government is the solution and initself is the problem. Taking personal responsibility for ones behaviors and habits will resolve the problem without the need for government interferring in ones person life and living. Don't think we need the fat police at our front doors...or it it due to creating new jobs with stimulus monies...

  - Katti

• October 20, 2009 6:45 p.m.

  Not everyone can handle artificial sweeteners. My Mother, Uncle and I were all sensitive to even the artificial sweeteners in gum. I believe sugar is more healthy, in moderation of course. Maybe the government should tax greasy foods too.

  - Barbara

• October 20, 2009 6:17 p.m.

  One more thing for the government to tell us what to do. Most of us are smart enough to figure it out by ourselves.

  - Sandy

• October 20, 2009 6:17 p.m.

  I'm all for a tax. Obesity now causes more deaths each year than cigarette smoking. Obesity is on its way to becoming such a major health problem that it drives rates up for those of us with a bit of self disicipline. We tax cigarettes and cigars because we understand they are a health problem. This tax has contributed to a decline in smoking and this a decline in tobacco related deaths. Why should the rest of us subsidise the habits of those that knowingly contribute to this obesity problem and thus higher health costs for all of us.

  - Steve

• October 20, 2009 5:59 p.m.

  This is government trying to control our freedoms and behavior. You notice that they are not taxing ALL sugar usage. I have tried all the artifical sweetners on the market and they can not come close to natural sugar. Oh yes, didn't they find out maragine had health problems when used to cook with, so now we are back to real butter. Look at the number of people that pay more for bottled waer than they do for gasoline and most are drinking tap water, DAH! I use a Pur water filter pitcher and refill a Rubbermaid water bottle and I changed the filter every 3 - 5 months. $ in my pocket.

  - Mike

• October 20, 2009 5:40 p.m.

  If I drank a soda product sweetened with artifical sweetener I would become so dizzy and off balance I might fall on my face. Artifical sweeteners have their draw backs too. So lets drop the tax idea. As for cigerette's - tax the tobacco grower and mftr not the people who buy them. You can quit smoking if you so desire. My son did. Wasn't easy but he did it. Hooray!!!!!

  - Carol

• October 20, 2009 4:20 p.m.

  No one HAS to drink soda, and actually no one SHOULD. Anything to encourage less soda drinking is OK with me.

  - elvin

• October 20, 2009 2:35 p.m.

  Absolutely - this should be lumped together with other "sin" txes - tobacco, alcohol - it is the cause of many health problems

  - a.d.

• October 18, 2009 8:27 a.m.

  A tax to force people to make the "correct" personal choice will not educate people. Those who want to drink soda will do it no matter what. They will compensate for the tax with buying more unhealthy food since healthy food is more expensive. People hear what they want to hear, and buy what they want to buy. One of my fears is that the next tax could be on high-fat meat. Why not? Meat that's high in fat isn't healthy for you either. Another thing to consider is that this tax will punish those people that don't have an issue with soda causing weight gain. Why punish them because some people overindulge? This would be an unfair tax.

  - Julie

• October 18, 2009 2:20 a.m.

  I don't agree. If a tax is placed on sweetened soft drinks, then the next tax may be on something that some powerful lobby decides will benefit them. A better solution is to educate the consumer to choose healthier options.

  - Annice

• October 18, 2009 12:54 a.m.

  Tax the makers of the bad ingredients and then tax the company purchasing it for use in their products and if they tax the buyer then so be it. We are not the maker, they know what they are doing, you tax the maker and they will decide if they want to pay more to sell it or charge their buyers or if it would be a better idea to get their labs working to find better ingredients to make their products. They are experts not us. I dont know why taxes to the little guy always seems to be the only fix the government can come up with while the big money makers are still allowed to put that stuff in a box and sell it to the public. Personally I dont care because I drink about 3 or 4 pop in a month and can live without it especially since all I want is that cold blast as it come out of the fridge and can rarely finish a whole bottle but I am tired of the working class being taxed for everything that is supposed to hurt us. I see this as an easy fix, lable certain dangerous chemicals and ingredients as non consumable and anyone wanting to put it in their foods must pay to use it and then make them label it as unsafe so there is more cost in their packaging. They will get rid of it and they probably know how to already. And why just pop? Make them all answer for bad ingredients. TAX THE MONEY MAKERS WHO ARE HURTING US. Can anyone hear this?

  - Sally