Support NeoGAF

[Manmademan]

What?!

I know, right

 

[Phu]

the second picture if you look at the can says the product is sweetener free but contains "natural flavor" (look at the sidebar next to the nutrition info) and is "naturally essenced." (look at the can). What exactly do you think "naturally essenced" means? It means they added what is for practical purposes a sweetener to it, but they don't HAVE to call it that for legal reasons.



Like I said before, Lacroix is using marketing bullshit to claim that their product has no "sweetner", but it DOES have "natural flavor" which doesn't count.

In advertising/marketing/labeling terms they're correct. Natural Flavor and sweetener are distinct and not the same thing, because the FDA says they can get away with it. From a common sense and practical perspective, "natural flavor" is obviously an artificial additive that sweetens the water.

get it?

So you agree that it's weird? Legally it doesn't have sweetener, but legally it does for the sake of the tax.

 

[Manmademan]

So you agree that it's weird? Legally it doesn't have sweetener, but legally it does for the sake of the tax.

I don't know why this is so hard to understand.

The FDA has classed

#1.) Natural Flavor

as being distinct from

#2.) Sweetener.

LaCroix claims it DOES have #1 and it's all over the box and the can.

LaCroix claims it does NOT have #2.

Most people aren't bright enough to understand that Natural Flavor is just another kind of artificial additive, and does not mean that Lacroix has a magical spring that shoots passionfruit flavored sparkling water from the earth somewhere.

Because Natural Flavor is an artificial additive that sweetens the drink, Philadelphia taxes it. Philadelphia does NOT tax 100% orange juice, because nothing is added to it and its a different class of beverage.

 

[Soapbox Killer]

One of the issue I see in talking to local store owners. The distributors have raised prices on things that don't have extra sugar (100% OJ and Apple Juice for example). Not at the 1.5cents per oz rate of other soda but it's still higher.

RedBulls are like 2/$6

Also, There was just a story on the news about how people just drive to the counties and buy in bulk rather than pay the tax. (This is what I do, I live 2 minutes from city line)

Last interesting thing, Kool-Aid is back. This is what seems most people have turned to. Just buy kool-aid and sugar.


Just some tidbits that I notice.

 

[Freshmaker]

What do you think of proposed soda taxes? Nanny state overreaching? Or helpful regulation in fighting the obesity epidemic?

Not if they also tax diet soda.

 

[SURGEdude]

I'm fine and even supportive of the idea of any kind of "sin" tax if it's applied universally to all of them. The problem is it can't and almost certainly never will.

The fact that there seems to be a surprisingly trend toward only taxing the "sins" of the poor is kinda strange. I wonder why that is?

Even in a case where this kind of thing is taxed it seems like it's unreasonable if it's not a sliding scale application. Because an extra nickel for the rich doesn't mean shit, but for a poor person those add up.

 

[ramuh]

If I was a resident of a sugar tax area like that, I would drive five minutes outside of the city limits to buy it. People are still drinking the same amount, they are just not buying it in high tax areas. To be effective it needs to be universal.

 

[Phu]

I don't know why this is so hard to understand.

The FDA has classed

#1.) Natural Flavor

as being distinct from

#2.) Sweetener.

LaCroix claims it DOES have #1 and it's all over the box and the can.

LaCroix claims it does NOT have #2.

Most people aren't bright enough to understand that Natural Flavor is just another kind of artificial additive, and does not mean that Lacroix has a magical spring that shoots passionfruit flavored sparkling water from the earth somewhere.

Because Natural Flavor is an artificial additive that sweetens the drink, Philadelphia taxes it. Philadelphia does NOT tax 100% orange juice, because nothing is added to it and its a different class of beverage.

You're not even arguing against me! You literally agreed with what I just posted!


Actually....

if lacroix is being taxed, there's a sweetener in it somewhere.

Because Natural Flavor is an artificial additive that sweetens the drink, Philadelphia taxes it.

The FDA has classed

#1.) Natural Flavor

as being distinct from

#2.) Sweetener.

 

[Manmademan]

I'm fine and even supportive of the idea of any kind of "sin" tax if it's applied universally to all of them. The problem is it can't and almost certainly never will.

The fact that there seems to be a surprisingly trend toward only taxing the "sins" of the poor is kinda strange. I wonder why that is?

it's not only taxing the poor. it's taxing distributors. Retailers have complete discretion as to how that cost is passed on, if at all. If the local supermarket wanted to apply the cost of the soda tax entirely to filet mignon and caviar, they absolutely can do so.

This is not possible with a sales tax.

Even in a case where this kind of thing is taxed it seems like it's unreasonable if it's not a sliding scale application. Because an extra nickel for the rich doesn't mean shit, but for a poor person those add up.

the pennsylvania state constitution forbids progressive taxation. we have flat taxes for everything.

 

[Manmademan]

You're not even arguing against me! You literally agreed with what I just posted!


Actually....

Dude, your comprehension is REALLY poor.

Last time I'm going to address this.

"Sweetener" is a distinct category, defined by the FDA.

not everything that sweetens is a Sweetener.

"Natural Flavor" is an artificial additive that sweetens a beverage, but because it hits certain other arbitrary definitions set up by the FDA, it is NOT a "Sweetener."

Philadelphia doesn't care about FDA definitions and chose to apply their tax to anything added to a beverage that sweetens it, regardless of FDA definition or marketing terms.

This isn't rocket science, it's semantics. You're being played hard by marketing BS.

 

[Phu]

Dude, your comprehension is REALLY poor.

Last time I'm going to address this.

"Sweetener" is a distinct category, defined by the FDA.

not everything that sweetens is a Sweetener.

"Natural Flavor" is an artificial additive that sweetens a beverage, but because it hits certain other arbitrary definitions set up by the FDA, it is NOT a "Sweetener."

Philadelphia doesn't care about FDA definitions and chose to apply their tax to anything added to a beverage that sweetens it, regardless of FDA definition or marketing terms.

This isn't rocket science, it's semantics. You're being played hard by marketing BS.

You literally said those things, those are your words. You literally said La Croix is getting taxed because it has sweeteners. Then you said it's getting taxed because it has natural flavors. Then you pointed out how sweeteners and natural flavors are legally different several times over, while also acknowledging that La Croix is allowed to say that they don't use sweeteners.

 

[Deku Tree]

I think in Philly at least those statistics about soda sales have been debunked.

 

[Manmademan]

You literally said those things, those are your words. You literally said La Croix is getting taxed because it has sweeteners.

it does.

Then you said it's getting taxed because it has natural flavors.

"Natural Flavor" is an artificial additive that sweetens a beverage. This is why Philadelphia taxes it. Orange juice has "natural flavors" (i.e. flavors that occur in nature by default without additives) and is untaxed.

Then you pointed out how sweeteners and natural flavors are legally different several times over, while also acknowledging that La Croix is allowed to say that they don't use sweeteners.

your failure here seems to be a struggle to understand that the capitalized "Sweetener" and the uncapitalized "sweetener" are two completely different things.

Capitalized "Sweetener" is defined by the FDA. Because LaCroix uses "Natural Flavor" (again, note the caps here this is still artificial additives) it can advertise itself as not having "Sweeteners."

The Philadelphia law taxes any beverage that has anything added that sweetens the drink and refers to all of them as (uncapitalized) sweeteners. FDA definitions are irrelevant, if it didn't come that way in nature it's getting taxed. 100% Orange Juice? Untaxed. Lacroix? Taxed.

Again- done here. I'm not sure if english isn't your first language or what, but I've made this as clear as I can.

 

[Phu]

it does.



"Natural Flavor" is an artificial additive that sweetens a beverage. This is why Philadelphia taxes it. Orange juice has "natural flavors" (i.e. flavors that occur in nature) and is untaxed.



your failure here seems to be a struggle to understand that the capitalized "Sweetener" and the uncapitalized "sweetener" are two completely different things.

Capitalized "Sweetener" is defined by the FDA. Because LaCroix uses "Natural Flavor" (again, note the caps here this is still artificial additives) it can advertise itself as not having "Sweeteners."

The Philadelphia law taxes any beverage that has anything added that sweetens the drink and referse to all of them as (uncapitalized) sweeteners. FDA definitions are irrelevant, if it didn't come that way in nature it's getting taxed. 100% Orange Juice? Untaxed. Lacroix? Taxed.

Again- done here. I'm not sure if english isn't your first language or what, but I've made this as clear as I can.

Eh, I'm looking at the FDA site and don't know where you pulled the capitalization stuff from. Like here, they don't capitalize it.

Edit: You've been taking all these potshots so at least source your info.

 

[LosDaddie]

Not surprising given the results cigarette taxes had on consumption. But there was/is an anti-smoking marketing campaign to go along with those taxes.

Combating obesity has to be a mutipronged strategy. Taxing unhealthy stuff like soda could be effective.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/venessawong/its-not-rocket-science

What do you think of proposed soda taxes? Nanny state overreaching? Or helpful regulation in fighting the obesity epidemic?

I'm all for it given the significant burden that obesity places on the NHS.

This data doesn't surprise me either, given the results of taxing products like cigarettes.

I mean, we tax cigarettes. Soda does a lot of damage and probably shouldn't be given to kids either

Do you think those on govt benefits should be allowed to buy these unhealthy drinks? 😏