Yes that’s why I wouldn’t tax them extra, however you seem to be advocating for a tax on anything with sugar. So why the change? You say yourself they’ve still sugar in it so why not tax them according to your logic?
To put another way, if the presence of sugar isn’t enough to justify the tax on its own, as long as the form is somrwhat different, then why not accept the difference between added sugar and no added sugar? That’s just as meaningful a difference.
I have no idea what you’re trying to advocate for here, but a dietitian isn’t going to tell you that apple juice and an apple are the same, because they’re not; a single serving of apple juice isn’t even made from a single apple. Fruit is healthy to eat, juice is not a health drink. If you’re taxing for health it makes sense to tax the unhealthy things and not the healthy ones.
I’m not really advocating for anything other than pointing out that your argument is inconsistent. Is it about the sugar or not? If not then you’ve already accepted that there are different definitions and clearly juice is a different definition than a soft drink. Your arbitrarily deciding what’s okay and not okay from what I can see of your argument. Adding healthy is even worse. That’s an extremely subjective argument.
What about grapes? They’re extremely high in sugar and relatively low in fiber. Is that okay? Do you see what I’m saying? There’s no consistency to go on here.
I’m not really advocating for anything other than pointing out that your argument is inconsistent. Is it about the sugar or not?
I literally just explained to you why the sugar in an apple is not identical to the sugar in a serving of apple juice, if you don’t want to acknowledge it I can’t make you.
What about grapes? They’re extremely high in sugar and relatively low in fiber.
Find me a dietitian that says grapes are bad for you 🤷♂️ Rules lawyering how biology works doesn’t actually work, the soda is still worse for you than fruit even if you go “ah ah ah, but you both have sugar!!”
I really don’t understand what you’re not getting about this. No one’s confused about sugar in apples versus juice. No one is confused about serving sizes. Move past that.
The question was are there exact standards. Is it based upon sugar content? Is it just all liquids? What’s your criteria? You said what’s healthy but that is so incredibly subjective I don’t know why you’d even bother writing it. You could find a dietitian to say you shouldn’t eat basically everything. Absolutely grapes. I’m not saying that. It seems like you’re not saying that. Which is why I’m confused because earlier your criteria, high sugar low fiber, would seem to exclude them.
You said what’s healthy but that is so incredibly subjective I don’t know why you’d even bother writing it
Maybe I’m fucking crazy but I’d say dietitians know enough to determine whether or not juice has a nutritional value similar to soda or not, ie, how healthy it is. Are you seriously so checked out that you think it’s not possible to tell if food is good to eat or not?
You could find a dietitian to say you shouldn’t eat basically everything.
Are you sure you aren’t confusing dietitians and nutritionists?
Yes that’s why I wouldn’t tax them extra, however you seem to be advocating for a tax on anything with sugar. So why the change? You say yourself they’ve still sugar in it so why not tax them according to your logic?
To put another way, if the presence of sugar isn’t enough to justify the tax on its own, as long as the form is somrwhat different, then why not accept the difference between added sugar and no added sugar? That’s just as meaningful a difference.
I have no idea what you’re trying to advocate for here, but a dietitian isn’t going to tell you that apple juice and an apple are the same, because they’re not; a single serving of apple juice isn’t even made from a single apple. Fruit is healthy to eat, juice is not a health drink. If you’re taxing for health it makes sense to tax the unhealthy things and not the healthy ones.
I’m not really advocating for anything other than pointing out that your argument is inconsistent. Is it about the sugar or not? If not then you’ve already accepted that there are different definitions and clearly juice is a different definition than a soft drink. Your arbitrarily deciding what’s okay and not okay from what I can see of your argument. Adding healthy is even worse. That’s an extremely subjective argument.
What about grapes? They’re extremely high in sugar and relatively low in fiber. Is that okay? Do you see what I’m saying? There’s no consistency to go on here.
I literally just explained to you why the sugar in an apple is not identical to the sugar in a serving of apple juice, if you don’t want to acknowledge it I can’t make you.
Find me a dietitian that says grapes are bad for you 🤷♂️ Rules lawyering how biology works doesn’t actually work, the soda is still worse for you than fruit even if you go “ah ah ah, but you both have sugar!!”
I really don’t understand what you’re not getting about this. No one’s confused about sugar in apples versus juice. No one is confused about serving sizes. Move past that.
The question was are there exact standards. Is it based upon sugar content? Is it just all liquids? What’s your criteria? You said what’s healthy but that is so incredibly subjective I don’t know why you’d even bother writing it. You could find a dietitian to say you shouldn’t eat basically everything. Absolutely grapes. I’m not saying that. It seems like you’re not saying that. Which is why I’m confused because earlier your criteria, high sugar low fiber, would seem to exclude them.
Maybe I’m fucking crazy but I’d say dietitians know enough to determine whether or not juice has a nutritional value similar to soda or not, ie, how healthy it is. Are you seriously so checked out that you think it’s not possible to tell if food is good to eat or not?
Are you sure you aren’t confusing dietitians and nutritionists?