Health experts have thrown their support behind the proposal, which aligns with long-standing recommendations from the World Health Organization.

Researchers suggest money generated from the proposed tax could be used to strengthen oral health services, improving access and cutting costs at the dentist.

  • shirro@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    13 hours ago

    Not going to happen. The ALP is losing strugglers to One Nation across the country. They feel abandoned and have a perception Labor is out of touch with cost of living and in the pocket of lobbyists and big business.

    To be very clear I think One Nation are full of shit and people putting their trust in them are being scammed and are putting our whole country in danger. But with the cost of petrol and smokes and rent and food and stagnant wages, living standards are going down for many people. I don’t think they are going to see any regressive tax as a positive. A policy like this will only sell well amongst affluent educated Labor and Greens voters and they aren’t the ones deserting Labor. Free dental on the other hand is a winner.

    • arbilp3@aussie.zoneOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 hours ago

      I agree with your last comment.

      Do you really think that if the govt committed to free/cheaper dental care when putting up the price of soft drinks people would jack up?

  • bananabenana@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    14 hours ago

    While I support this, why do none of these studies or articles talk about carbonic acid, which is what makes soft drink fizzy? This directly erodes enamel and causes tooth decay. By simply rinsing your mouth with water after soft drinks, you massively reduce the amount of time your teeth are exposed to acid. Same for orange juice etc. This also work for the sugar in the drink - dilution in action.

    • arbilp3@aussie.zoneOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 hours ago

      There are studies on carbonic acid in soft drinks. I know because your comment sparked me into looking it up.

      As far as I’m concerned, another reason to not drink carbonated drinks. Better and cheaper to filter water at home and take your own bottle with you.

  • eremophila@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    1 day ago

    Annual dental checks, and necessary procedures being covered by medicare would be more beneficial.

    • arbilp3@aussie.zoneOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      The revenue from the tax could go precisely to the services you mention.

      Also less sugar would help with a lot of other health issues like diabetes, obesity etc.

      • eremophila@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        17 hours ago

        I don’t have an issue with the prices going up on soft drinks, but it would achieve very little unless it was (as you suggest) used to fund medicare dental.

        The government cannot be trusted though, if they really were genuine, dental medicare could easily be funded, there are currently another few very, very obvious places taxpayer money is going to, where it shouldn’t be.

        • arbilp3@aussie.zoneOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 hours ago

          They would not have a leg to stand on if they put up the soft drink tax and then not implement better dental care as the medical/dental profession and the rest of us are seeking, but I understand where you’re coming from.

          Worse case scenario: the govt doesn’t do anything to improve access to dental care, there would still be positive health outcomes. Overseas they’ve found that putting up the price has reduced consumption of these drinks which in turn has reduced some obesity and dental caries, particualarly in the young.

          • eremophila@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            9 hours ago

            The price of cigarettes increased dramatically decades ago, to a much higher price point than soft drinks ever will. That definitely stopped/helped some people from smoking, but many others continued, and many more have taken it up since.

            If the government were serious, advertising these drinks would be banned as a 1st step. The 2nd step would be banning the drinks themselves, which would have to flow onto other items that fit in the same category.

            The government is, as per usual, completely full of sh*t though.

            • arbilp3@aussie.zoneOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 hours ago

              I agree with you. It’s just capitalism is a beast. No govt would dare, not even a more progressive mob like the Greens if they were in power.

      • buddascrayon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        15 hours ago

        Illinois tried this a few years back to help shore up budget shortfalls. Number one, it didn’t bring in very much revenue. Number two, literally everyone hated it because it is a tax on poor people.

        It was killed, I believe in less than a year.

      • geematic@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 day ago

        “Suggest” and “could be used” are weasel words already. When they’re spoken by researchers with no say in how the budget is spent, i cant help feeling sceptical.

        More likely it gets lost into general revenue with only some big media buys and ad campaigns to show for it; (with message variations of “Govt good😀, Sugar bad☹️” )

        • arbilp3@aussie.zoneOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 hours ago

          We can’t know for sure and it’s also up to us to support the research and and demand better dental care services.

          • arbilp3@aussie.zoneOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            10 hours ago

            They’re pretty dodgy too. Our palates have been conditioned by the processed food and drink industries to seek overly sweet foods and drinks (let alone all the other chemicals they put into what goes into our mouths). All of these make the so-called food and drinks addictive which leads to exactly where they want us to be.

    • Fleur_@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      Yeah I smoke a pack a day and its all good because I keep going back to my doctor and he let’s me know I am actively harming myself and wasting both his time and taxpayer money by continuing to live an unhealthy life

      • eremophila@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        17 hours ago

        They aren’t the same thing, and your erm ‘argument’ appears to be against dental being included in medicare, which it very obviously should have been for a long time, or are you just arguing against medicare completely?

        I very, very rarely consume soft drinks, and I don’t smoke. I do have teeth and lungs.

  • Dionysus@leminal.space
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    22 hours ago

    The losses for dentists and sugar manufacturers would be immense and lead to the destruction of countless paying jobs for the dental staff, farmers, factory workers.

    —Some capitalist probably

  • buddascrayon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    16 minutes ago

    A tax on sugary drinks is literally a poor tax. You’re taxing poor people for one of the few pleasures they have in life that they can afford easily.

    You know what would improve dental health across the board? Offering free dental insurance to every man woman and child in the country. You know what would stop people from having to buy sugary drinks so often? Fully fund food stamps across the board. Give people the ability to buy healthy whole foods to feed to their kids.

    Edit: My mistake in not realizing this article was about Australia. My point still stands though. A tax on sugary drinks is only going to punish poor people unnecessarily and not lead to a dramatic reduction in soft drink consumption. It was tried here in my state and failed spectacularly.

  • kalpol@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    21 hours ago

    This just means more corn syrup. A lot of things are sweet, and way worse for you than sugar.

    • arbilp3@aussie.zoneOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 hours ago

      Sugary drinks would include those sweetened by corn syrup (fructose) and from cane sugar (sucrose). They would be taxed no matter the source. Most fizzy sweet drinks have an excess of sugar no matter where it comes from.

      • kalpol@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        14 hours ago

        Is it though? Legally? My point is that the law has to be explicit about what is taxed. Manufacturers will figure out ways around it and we will just end up paying more for sugar to make our banana bread or whatever.

        • yistdaj@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 hour ago

          Yes, corn syrup is a sugar. It shows up as such, by law, in nutrition tables.

          Sugar is a broad category referring to many different compounds. If it’s a carbohydrate that is sweet and dissolves in water, it’s a sugar.