Sugar tax: Doctors call for sweet drink levy

[Soldati Senza Confini]

The Mayo Clinic is a basic reference guide, not a manual of pathophysiology on the causes of diabetes.

While weight is a factor, if you think weight is what causes Type 2 Diabetes then you don't know what you're talking about.

Prediabetes is basically insulin resistance. Whether or not is has to do with weight is entirely irrelevant, as many overweight people do not suffer from diabetes, and many others do, so while weight is a factor, the main factor is insulin resistance, which is an entirely different thing from weight.

Sure, being fat increases your insulin resistance, but that's not the only way to become diabetic, nor the most important.

I am not saying, and I never said, that obesity was the only cause of diabetes, or that people with a normal weight could not develop it.

All I said was that obesity is a serious risk factor for developing diabetes, and it is.

Now, can we get back on topic?

High sugary drink consumption is associated with obesity (fact). Obesity is associated with a significantly increased risk of developing diabetes (fact). Diabetes is an extremely costly medical condition for society (fact).

Taxing a beverage that is disproportionately likely to raise a significant risk factor for the development of diabetes is likely to mitigate the cost of treating diabetes among numerous other conditions associated with obesity.

No, it would not. It would drive prices up for cheap beverages, which is a different thing, or they would come up with other forms of cheap drinks in order to have control over the same market.

And you were right on the first fact, wrong on the second. Obesity, like I said, can cause diabetes, but it isn't the only factor. You can develop diabetes if you drink nothing but sodas all day but you're fit as a teenager. Also, you know what else is extremely costly? AIDS, and Cancer, so I guess we should cut cancer and AIDS treatments while we're discussing cost cuts, shouldn't we? After all, fuck Cancer and AIDS patients, why did they not take care of themselves amirite? I mean, AIDS? Bitch was looking for it, she opened her legs. And if the kid gets out with AIDS? Fuck'im too, I mean, it's the mother's fault. Since apparently cost analysis is what medicine is all about. In fact, why are we paying doctors and hospitals? We should just have backalley clinics in every corner with a doctor administering basic training to a witch doctor, I mean, after all what the hell, it's not like surgeries are not costly, and if someone needs them well we're not paying for it. Too expensive.

Taxing a beverage at the end-user is not going to solve anything but make life harder for the consumer.

If you want a better solution tax the high-fructose corn syrup at the manufacturing level. Meaning, don't punish then consumer. Tax the product that is the cause of obesity, which is HFCS, not the sugary drinks, since, believe it or not, you can make a less fattening drink with water and refined sugar or, hell, brown sugar, than HFCS.

[Mark of Chain]

If you want a better solution tax the high-fructose corn syrup at the manufacturing level. Meaning, don't punish then consumer. Tax the product that is the cause of obesity, which is HFCS, not the sugary drinks, since, believe it or not, you can make a less fattening drink with water and refined sugar or, hell, brown sugar, than HFCS.

Ridiculous. From the neck down sucrose and HFCS are more or less the same. Sucrase cleaves sucrose instantly into 50/50 glucose/fructose. HFCS is 45/55. HFCS just happens to be the cheapest in the US (largely due to corn subsidies). In Australia there is no HFCS, we put regular old sucrose in everything and we have the same public health crisis.

[Scandinavian Nations]

Ramen Noodles will always be cheaper than anything healthy you can offer.

No, they will not. I've done the math in another thread, cba to dig it up now (but can later) - they're not even close. Even if you buy the absolute cheapest ramen in bulk at the cheapest wholesale store, rice is still cheaper per calorie.

A semi-balanced diet of rice, chicken and a bit of vegetable oil, spices, etc is almost as cheap. If you don't buy cartons of the absolute cheapest ramen at very big stores, but rather do what poor (mostly so in the head) college students actually do, buy whatever they sell at the nearest grocery store, two packs at a time, and occasionally a cup one, plenty of diets are cheaper.

The reason people eat ramen isn't that they're poor, it's that they're lazy. Or just like the taste, it does have some appeal to some people.

[Purpelia]

The reason people eat ramen isn't that they're poor, it's that they're lazy. Or just like the taste, it does have some appeal to some people.

Or because they are working multiple jobs, have a long commute and generally do not have the time and energy to prepare healthy meals on a regular basis.

How many of you actually cook on a regular basis? I do. And let me tell you its not easy. You can't just whip things up in 15 minutes like they do on TV because actually preparing the food is not even half of the work. You have to think up what you are going to make, check what you have in your home, buy what you don't have, make sure you can afford to buy it and only than can you start cooking. And all this is tiring and takes time. And that's before we add complications such as having a kid that's a picky eater or having people with different schedules so you have to reheat the food for everyone any number of things that can waste more of your time.

Frankly I can't imagine my self cooking and eating healthy like I do if I had to balance a job, children and all sorts of other things on the side.

[Community Values]

The reason people eat ramen isn't that they're poor, it's that they're lazy. Or just like the taste, it does have some appeal to some people.

Or because they are working multiple jobs, have a long commute and generally do not have the time and energy to prepare healthy meals on a regular basis.

How many of you actually cook on a regular basis? I do. And let me tell you its not easy. You can't just whip things up in 15 minutes like they do on TV because actually preparing the food is not even half of the work. You have to think up what you are going to make, check what you have in your home, buy what you don't have, make sure you can afford to buy it and only than can you start cooking. And all this is tiring and takes time. And that's before we add complications such as having a kid that's a picky eater or having people with different schedules so you have to reheat the food for everyone any number of things that can waste more of your time.

Frankly I can't imagine my self cooking and eating healthy like I do if I had to balance a job, children and all sorts of other things on the side.

This. I have the luck where I can actually cook a lot of the time without interfering too much with my studies. The only way I can imagine someone actually cooking is to spend 5 hours on Sunday to make food for the rest of the week.

[Scandinavian Nations]

Or because they are working multiple jobs, have a long commute and generally do not have the time and energy to prepare healthy meals on a regular basis.

No. Not because of that. While I generally believe in the existence of people who work 16 hours a day, 7 days a week, and have no time in their life to do anything else beside work, I'm yet to meet one in my life (and I ain't 20). Everyone I've ever met who didn't have time to cook (or, really, insert X) only didn't have it because they had allocated their free time to something more important. Usually watching TV.

And that's before we add complications such as having a kid that's a picky eater

Since when are kids in the mix? And if they are, do you seriously propose feeding them ramen as the alternative?

How many of you actually cook on a regular basis? I do. And let me tell you its not easy. You can't just whip things up in 15 minutes like they do on TV because actually preparing the food is not even half of the work. You have to think up what you are going to make, check what you have in your home, buy what you don't have...

I do. And let me tell you it's easy - you can whip things up with very little time. Provided that you don't think up what you are going to make, because your goal is to eat, not to have a gourmet experience.

Carbs and proteins are the base, add fiber and other stuff when possible. So you need rice or any cereal. You need meat or fish of some kind. And some greens or veggies. There are some incompatible combinations, but unless you're 20, you know them in advance. Just freaking cook what you have, it's what people have done for the last million years, and have somehow survived to this day.

Yes, every now and then I'll cook something really interesting. I can afford to eat out, and not fast food, for every meal, so not much point cooking plain stuff. Even so, I do that, because it takes less of my time than eating out - it's often literally a couple minutes, the rest is unattended. I used to think I didn't have time, but really you only have less and less spare time as you grow older, you just learn to allocate it better.
Cooking food doesn't take long. Cooking delicious dinners does, reasonably healthy food for sustenance doesn't.

[Cetacea]

The reason people eat ramen isn't that they're poor, it's that they're lazy. Or just like the taste, it does have some appeal to some people.

Or because they are working multiple jobs, have a long commute and generally do not have the time and energy to prepare healthy meals on a regular basis.

How many of you actually cook on a regular basis? I do. And let me tell you its not easy. You can't just whip things up in 15 minutes like they do on TV because actually preparing the food is not even half of the work. You have to think up what you are going to make, check what you have in your home, buy what you don't have, make sure you can afford to buy it and only than can you start cooking. And all this is tiring and takes time. And that's before we add complications such as having a kid that's a picky eater or having people with different schedules so you have to reheat the food for everyone any number of things that can waste more of your time.

Frankly I can't imagine my self cooking and eating healthy like I do if I had to balance a job, children and all sorts of other things on the side.

um I have a job and a family and do the cooking and well it's not that hard (although I do occasionally go out for a meal and usually buy lunch). I do lots of stir fry pork or chicken as its relatively quick and only requires one pan, then chuck in a sprig of spring onion and some spinach leaves (both grown in pots I keep on my back step), then a sauce of coconut cream, tumeric and ginger, it takes about 20 minutes, including cutting up the meat and then we can put it over rice and serve.

I was also lucky enough to pick up one of those counter top halogen ovens with a timer for $70 which allows me to do chicken meals in about 45 minutes and not worry about having to be there to turn it off

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Ramen Noodles will always be cheaper than anything healthy you can offer.

No, they will not. I've done the math in another thread, cba to dig it up now (but can later) - they're not even close. Even if you buy the absolute cheapest ramen in bulk at the cheapest wholesale store, rice is still cheaper per calorie.

A semi-balanced diet of rice, chicken and a bit of vegetable oil, spices, etc is almost as cheap. If you don't buy cartons of the absolute cheapest ramen at very big stores, but rather do what poor (mostly so in the head) college students actually do, buy whatever they sell at the nearest grocery store, two packs at a time, and occasionally a cup one, plenty of diets are cheaper.

The reason people eat ramen isn't that they're poor, it's that they're lazy. Or just like the taste, it does have some appeal to some people.

I have to agree with you, if we're talking about long term expenses.

Up front, a prepackaged meal costs less at the store than the ingredients of a meal.

Many people live paycheck to paycheck, so they don't have long-term planning for their finances.

[Pope Joan]

Here is a Levy (Coach Marv) about a sweet drink (beer):

[Tule]

I am not saying, and I never said, that obesity was the only cause of diabetes, or that people with a normal weight could not develop it.

All I said was that obesity is a serious risk factor for developing diabetes, and it is.

Now, can we get back on topic?

High sugary drink consumption is associated with obesity (fact). Obesity is associated with a significantly increased risk of developing diabetes (fact). Diabetes is an extremely costly medical condition for society (fact).

Taxing a beverage that is disproportionately likely to raise a significant risk factor for the development of diabetes is likely to mitigate the cost of treating diabetes among numerous other conditions associated with obesity.

No, it would not. It would drive prices up for cheap beverages, which is a different thing, or they would come up with other forms of cheap drinks in order to have control over the same market.

And you were right on the first fact, wrong on the second. Obesity, like I said, can cause diabetes, but it isn't the only factor. You can develop diabetes if you drink nothing but sodas all day but you're fit as a teenager. Also, you know what else is extremely costly? AIDS, and Cancer, so I guess we should cut cancer and AIDS treatments while we're discussing cost cuts, shouldn't we? After all, fuck Cancer and AIDS patients, why did they not take care of themselves amirite? I mean, AIDS? Bitch was looking for it, she opened her legs. And if the kid gets out with AIDS? Fuck'im too, I mean, it's the mother's fault. Since apparently cost analysis is what medicine is all about. In fact, why are we paying doctors and hospitals? We should just have backalley clinics in every corner with a doctor administering basic training to a witch doctor, I mean, after all what the hell, it's not like surgeries are not costly, and if someone needs them well we're not paying for it. Too expensive.

Taxing a beverage at the end-user is not going to solve anything but make life harder for the consumer.

If you want a better solution tax the high-fructose corn syrup at the manufacturing level. Meaning, don't punish then consumer. Tax the product that is the cause of obesity, which is HFCS, not the sugary drinks, since, believe it or not, you can make a less fattening drink with water and refined sugar or, hell, brown sugar, than HFCS.

What world do you live in? Governments are bombarding the general public with infomercials that encourage condom use to prevent HIV infection, and tobacco, one of the biggest cause of cancer, is heavily taxed in most western countries. And guess what? It's working. Tobacco use is lower when tobacco taxes are implemented and HIV infection rates are plummeting.
And where the hell did I say that people with diabetes, HIV or cancer should not be treated?

What works for tobacco will work for sugary drinks, probably more so since sugary drinks aren't literally addictive like tobacco is.

Also where did I ever suggest that diabetic people shouldn't be treated?

As has been already mentioned, there is currently insufficient evidence to support the idea that HFCS is any worse than other kinds of sugar.

I'm not wrong on the second fact, I've repeatedly posted reliable sources for the claim that obesity is a significant risk factor for the development of diabetes. Stop denying it or come up with good sources of your own, anecdotes don't count.

[Kubra]

No, it would not. It would drive prices up for cheap beverages, which is a different thing, or they would come up with other forms of cheap drinks in order to have control over the same market.

And you were right on the first fact, wrong on the second. Obesity, like I said, can cause diabetes, but it isn't the only factor. You can develop diabetes if you drink nothing but sodas all day but you're fit as a teenager. Also, you know what else is extremely costly? AIDS, and Cancer, so I guess we should cut cancer and AIDS treatments while we're discussing cost cuts, shouldn't we? After all, fuck Cancer and AIDS patients, why did they not take care of themselves amirite? I mean, AIDS? Bitch was looking for it, she opened her legs. And if the kid gets out with AIDS? Fuck'im too, I mean, it's the mother's fault. Since apparently cost analysis is what medicine is all about. In fact, why are we paying doctors and hospitals? We should just have backalley clinics in every corner with a doctor administering basic training to a witch doctor, I mean, after all what the hell, it's not like surgeries are not costly, and if someone needs them well we're not paying for it. Too expensive.

Taxing a beverage at the end-user is not going to solve anything but make life harder for the consumer.

If you want a better solution tax the high-fructose corn syrup at the manufacturing level. Meaning, don't punish then consumer. Tax the product that is the cause of obesity, which is HFCS, not the sugary drinks, since, believe it or not, you can make a less fattening drink with water and refined sugar or, hell, brown sugar, than HFCS.

What world do you live in? Governments are bombarding the general public with infomercials that encourage condom use to prevent HIV infection, and tobacco, one of the biggest cause of cancer, is heavily taxed in most western countries. And guess what? It's working. Tobacco use is lower when tobacco taxes are implemented and HIV infection rates are plummeting.
And where the hell did I say that people with diabetes, HIV or cancer should not be treated?

What works for tobacco will work for sugary drinks, probably more so since sugary drinks aren't literally addictive like tobacco is.

Also where did I ever suggest that diabetic people shouldn't be treated?

As has been already mentioned, there is currently insufficient evidence to support the idea that HFCS is any worse than other kinds of sugar.

I'm not wrong on the second fact, I've repeatedly posted reliable sources for the claim that obesity is a significant risk factor for the development of diabetes. Stop denying it or come up with good sources of your own, anecdotes don't count.

I'm not gonna get diabetes cuz I only drink cane sugar soda, even if it's the same calorie content my calories are worth less

[Internationalist Bastard]

Don't Tread On Me Lucky Charms

[Sanctissima]

What world do you live in? Governments are bombarding the general public with infomercials that encourage condom use to prevent HIV infection, and tobacco, one of the biggest cause of cancer, is heavily taxed in most western countries. And guess what? It's working. Tobacco use is lower when tobacco taxes are implemented and HIV infection rates are plummeting.
And where the hell did I say that people with diabetes, HIV or cancer should not be treated?

What works for tobacco will work for sugary drinks, probably more so since sugary drinks aren't literally addictive like tobacco is.

Also where did I ever suggest that diabetic people shouldn't be treated?

As has been already mentioned, there is currently insufficient evidence to support the idea that HFCS is any worse than other kinds of sugar.

I'm not wrong on the second fact, I've repeatedly posted reliable sources for the claim that obesity is a significant risk factor for the development of diabetes. Stop denying it or come up with good sources of your own, anecdotes don't count.

I'm not gonna get diabetes cuz I only drink cane sugar soda, even if it's the same calorie content my calories are worth less

To be blunt, calories aside, constantly drinking sugary drinks does put you at risk for diabetes. Doesn't matter if you're skinny as a twig, you can still get Type-2 Diabetes if soda, pop or some other high-sugar drink is something you consume very often.

[Internationalist Bastard]

I'm not gonna get diabetes cuz I only drink cane sugar soda, even if it's the same calorie content my calories are worth less

To be blunt, calories aside, constantly drinking sugary drinks does put you at risk for diabetes. Doesn't matter if you're skinny as a twig, you can still get Type-2 Diabetes if soda, pop or some other high-sugar drink is something you consume very often.

Well let us fuck up our own bodies

[Sanctissima]

To be blunt, calories aside, constantly drinking sugary drinks does put you at risk for diabetes. Doesn't matter if you're skinny as a twig, you can still get Type-2 Diabetes if soda, pop or some other high-sugar drink is something you consume very often.

Well let us fuck up our own bodies

Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm not in favour of the whole sugar tax thing.

But still, facts are facts. Even if you regularly exercise and are otherwise healthy, drinking sugary drinks on a regular basis does put you at a high-risk for diabetes.

[Esternial]

Sugar is an addictive substance and the vast majority of people worldwide don't or refuse to treat it with the severity it should be treated with.

So maybe a sugar tax on (products that contain needlessly large quantities of) refined sugars isn't such a bad idea. Just because so many people do it doesn't mean it should just be tolerated and considered "the way things are".

[Esternial]

To be blunt, calories aside, constantly drinking sugary drinks does put you at risk for diabetes. Doesn't matter if you're skinny as a twig, you can still get Type-2 Diabetes if soda, pop or some other high-sugar drink is something you consume very often.

Well let us fuck up our own bodies

You can, you just pay a tax.

Which might make sense if you have to defer to the NHS for treatment of your atherosclerosis, coronary heart disease, bowel cancer, depression and more.

The food you ingest has an impact beyond putting on a few pounds. High sugar diets impact your gut microbiome, which in turn has an influence on your mental state and immune system. The link between high sugar food and depression has gotten increasingly stronger over the last few years thanks to microbiome research.

Just some food for thought.

[Sanctissima]

Sugar is an addictive substance and the vast majority of people worldwide don't or refuse to treat it with the severity it should be treated with.

So maybe a sugar tax on (products that contain needlessly large quantities of) refined sugars isn't such a bad idea. Just because so many people do it doesn't mean it should just be tolerated and considered "the way things are".

The thing I don't understand, is if you want to get rid of overly-sugary products, why not just ban them? Like, say, put a limit on the amount of sugar companies are allowed to put in their products.

Ideology aside, why beat around the bush with your objectives? If you want something gone, get rid of it, don't lightly nudge it towards the door in the hopes that it will eventually leave.

[Esternial]

Sugar is an addictive substance and the vast majority of people worldwide don't or refuse to treat it with the severity it should be treated with.

So maybe a sugar tax on (products that contain needlessly large quantities of) refined sugars isn't such a bad idea. Just because so many people do it doesn't mean it should just be tolerated and considered "the way things are".

The thing I don't understand, is if you want to get rid of overly-sugary products, why not just ban them? Like, say, put a limit on the amount of sugar companies are allowed to put in their products.

Ideology aside, why beat around the bush with your objectives? If you want something gone, get rid of it, don't lightly nudge it towards the door in the hopes that it will eventually leave.

*smokes a cigarette and drinks beer*

Who knows?

[Tule]

Sugar is an addictive substance and the vast majority of people worldwide don't or refuse to treat it with the severity it should be treated with.

So maybe a sugar tax on (products that contain needlessly large quantities of) refined sugars isn't such a bad idea. Just because so many people do it doesn't mean it should just be tolerated and considered "the way things are".

The thing I don't understand, is if you want to get rid of overly-sugary products, why not just ban them? Like, say, put a limit on the amount of sugar companies are allowed to put in their products.

Ideology aside, why beat around the bush with your objectives? If you want something gone, get rid of it, don't lightly nudge it towards the door in the hopes that it will eventually leave.

Because it's a fair compromise between personal freedom and social responsibility. We do it with a lot of things including but not limited to alcohol, tobacco, firearms and motor vehicles.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I'm not wrong on the second fact, I've repeatedly posted reliable sources for the claim that obesity is a significant risk factor for the development of diabetes. Stop denying it or come up with good sources of your own, anecdotes don't count.

I'm not telling you that obesity doesn't cause diabetes ffs.

What I am telling you is that focusing on diabetes as the only source of diabetes is missing the forest for the weakest tree.

I never said that diabetes doesn't cause diabetes, what I am saying is that it is not the only one, and to argue otherwise is disingenuous and wrong.

You quoted the Mayo Clinic on diabetes ffs. What I am telling you is that insulin resistance is not caused by obesity alone, although I agree it is a factor. Hell, even Wikipedia cites the reasons for insulin resistance, among which is a diet high in fats, carbs, or simple sugars like sucrose and fructose. and there are studies linking fructose to insulin resistance in rats.

In other words, even if you are healthy, too many sugars are bad for you, regardless whether you keep your weight in check through exercise and little eating, munching down on junk food as a diet is still going to give you insulin resistance and, eventually, diabetes.

Being obese, while a major factor, is not the only one. Stop repeating that it is the only focus we should pay attention to because people are obese. Obesity has somewhat to do with diabetes, but the responsible factors are high content of fats and sugars in your diet. Being obese is a result of high contents of fats and sugars AND sedentary habits, but that doesn't mean that the harm is because you're fat, it's because of your diet. The fact that you're fat compounds the issue and can carry a host of other issues which make your propensity to be diabetic worse, but it's not, by any means, a direct cause of diabetes, it is a related cause of a bad diet and sedentary habits.

What I am basically saying, therefore, is not that obesity doesn't cause diabetes, but that focusing on obese people because they are more prone to have diabetes is like saying we should ban 18-wheelers because they are the largest land vehicles that consume fossil fuels.

[Cetacea]

No, they will not. I've done the math in another thread, cba to dig it up now (but can later) - they're not even close. Even if you buy the absolute cheapest ramen in bulk at the cheapest wholesale store, rice is still cheaper per calorie.

A semi-balanced diet of rice, chicken and a bit of vegetable oil, spices, etc is almost as cheap. If you don't buy cartons of the absolute cheapest ramen at very big stores, but rather do what poor (mostly so in the head) college students actually do, buy whatever they sell at the nearest grocery store, two packs at a time, and occasionally a cup one, plenty of diets are cheaper.

The reason people eat ramen isn't that they're poor, it's that they're lazy. Or just like the taste, it does have some appeal to some people.

I have to agree with you, if we're talking about long term expenses.

Up front, a prepackaged meal costs less at the store than the ingredients of a meal.

Many people live paycheck to paycheck, so they don't have long-term planning for their finances.

I'm not even sure if thats right. I checked the Tesco online store and a 100g pack of noodles cost 0.45p (and feed 1 maybe 2 people) whereas a 1kg of rice cost 0.99p

[Harponsia]

Even if high taxes on sugary drinks has a negative impact on the economy, I say it's worth it. The state is in a unique position to effect the health of its citizens in this way, why not make use of it? That being said, I wouldn't call this a critical role of the state, and if a high tax on soda pop were judged to be too onerous it could be abandoned without catastrophic effect.

[Tule]

I'm not wrong on the second fact, I've repeatedly posted reliable sources for the claim that obesity is a significant risk factor for the development of diabetes. Stop denying it or come up with good sources of your own, anecdotes don't count.

I'm not telling you that obesity doesn't cause diabetes ffs.

What I am telling you is that focusing on diabetes as the only source of diabetes is missing the forest for the weakest tree.

I never said that diabetes doesn't cause diabetes, what I am saying is that it is not the only one, and to argue otherwise is disingenuous and wrong.

You quoted the Mayo Clinic on diabetes ffs. What I am telling you is that insulin resistance is not caused by obesity alone, although I agree it is a factor. Hell, even Wikipedia cites the reasons for insulin resistance, among which is a diet high in fats, carbs, or simple sugars like sucrose and fructose. and there are studies linking fructose to insulin resistance in rats.

In other words, even if you are healthy, too many sugars are bad for you, regardless whether you keep your weight in check through exercise and little eating, munching down on junk food as a diet is still going to give you insulin resistance and, eventually, diabetes.

Being obese, while a major factor, is not the only one. Stop repeating that it is the only focus we should pay attention to because people are obese. Obesity has somewhat to do with diabetes, but the responsible factors are high content of fats and sugars in your diet. Being obese is a result of high contents of fats and sugars AND sedentary habits, but that doesn't mean that the harm is because you're fat, it's because of your diet. The fact that you're fat compounds the issue and can carry a host of other issues which make your propensity to be diabetic worse, but it's not, by any means, a direct cause of diabetes, it is a related cause of a bad diet and sedentary habits.

What I am basically saying, therefore, is not that obesity doesn't cause diabetes, but that focusing on obese people because they are more prone to have diabetes is like saying we should ban 18-wheelers because they are the largest land vehicles that consume fossil fuels.

I don't disagree with any of that, I originally brought up diabetes simply as one example of how excessive sugar intake can result in costly diseases.

[Kubra]

I'm not gonna get diabetes cuz I only drink cane sugar soda, even if it's the same calorie content my calories are worth less

To be blunt, calories aside, constantly drinking sugary drinks does put you at risk for diabetes. Doesn't matter if you're skinny as a twig, you can still get Type-2 Diabetes if soda, pop or some other high-sugar drink is something you consume very often.

that was the joke