<p>TatinG, you must be one of the lucky few who can’t tell the difference between sugar substitutes and sugar. Most people can tell the difference. Sugar substitutes, for most people, have an unpleasant aftertaste, because they are so sweet that even a few molecules left in the mouth after swallowing can still be tasted. So, no, artificially sweetened sodas don’t taste the same as sugared sodas. </p>
<p>(I claim I can tell the difference between sugar-sweetened Coke and Coke sweetened with high fructose corn syrup. I’m not sure I could actually tell that difference blindfolded, but I would have not a bit of trouble distinguishing delicious naturally sweetened Coke from nasty artificially sweetened Coke. Not a bit.)</p>
<p>I agree about water. I also like unsweetened ice tea. </p>
<p>I don’t want those sugar substitutes in my body. </p>
<p>Emilybee, great coca cola story.</p>
<p>I was in Berkeley today and nobody I talked to mentioned the tax. A few people asked me for money. I usually say no, but this old lady asked me. She had poor teeth. She asked me for $5. As I pulled out the $5 bill from my wallet, the old lady thought she saw a $10 bill in my wallet. Her eyesight failed her. It was a $20. She asked me for the $10. I said, “Lady. Be happy you are getting $5”. </p>
<p>Berkeley…what a place! I like Berkeley. Not as much as when I was younger. :)</p>
<p>I have to drink 48oz of water every day for a medical condition. No room left to drink anything else. I drink the filtered water straight from my frig. If I am out and need to buy water I like Fiji. Hate Evian - which is what I am stuck with buying at tennis tournaments. And they gouge you on top of it. </p>
<p>I’ve never been a big soda drinker but occasionally I will buy European Soda (orange or cranberry) to mix with vodka. </p>
<p>I am against soda and the soda tax! I think that it is highly unlikely that government policy, which has been a driver of bad nutrition is suddenly going to become an agent of positive change. We would probably be better off if we got government out of the nutrition game.</p>
<p>For example, does it make sense to have government providing subsidies and price supports to sugar producers and taxing sugar drinks? Personally, I would be very hesitant to take nutrition advice from the Berkeley City Council. It’s probably better than advice from registered dieticians as a group, but not by much.</p>
<p>I’m against these sorts of taxes because they are regressive taxes that disproportionately affect the poor. Plus, apple and grape juice are almost as unhealthy.</p>
<p>I’ve noticed references to “dehydrated cane juice” and “dehydrated beet juice” on labels lately. Just dumb.</p>
<p>This the new Coke Life for Mexico and the USA</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Fwiw, sales of Diet or Light Coke in Mexico are insignicant. The (sad) reality is that the stuff tastes MUCH better with the real sugar. The fake sugar, and especially that awful stevia, is just meh. </p>
<p>The bottom line? The key is in moderation. It is better to drink one every once in a while, but get the real one. One or two cokes every other month is still better than guzzling Diet Cokes and the likes all day long. </p>
<p>The plain bottled water in the US is almost always plain water of dubious origin that has been filtered to the extreme to be void of all minerals. Tests have shown that people CANNOT separate tap water from the bottle water, safe and except for the bad taste of the plastic bottles. And that is why I favor San Pellegrino and a couple of European imported sparkling waters. :)</p>
<p>I think the purpose of the tax is to send a message to the food industry, and I’m fine with that. If that makes the president of Coca Cola sleep a bit more restless at night - great. </p>
<p>Guess there will be zero sugary drink taxes for me. I pay my share of taxes via my wine purchases. There is nothing wrong with tap water - ours is great! Sometimes, I splurge on San Pellegrino. </p>
<p>As I understand it, the bottom has fallen out of soda sales in the last year or so. Coca Cola’s revenues and earnings are way down as sugar drinks become the bogeyman.</p>
<p>I don’t drink soda except maybe one or two a year. And I will only drink the ones in glass bottles from Mexico because the real sugar is the reason I like it.</p>
<p>Fake sweeteners are suspected of being very, very bad for you. FWIW. </p>
<p>Agree–why should we be subsidizing AND taxing sugar. This is like subsidizing and taxing tobacco and so many other things. It makes no sense to me and there are so many calories in so many things. Personally, I rather have pure sugar than substitutes or corn syrup or all sorts of other sweeteners. I am still within 10 pounds of my weight from age 12. </p>
<p>Folks need to move more and eat healthier and watch portion control. That will solve more problems than taxes, IMHO.</p>
<p>I have no problem with these types of taxes however there will be glaring contradictions on what gets taxed and what does not. When I was in college I worked at a tax agency providing answers to tax questions and it amazed me how the same items were treated differently. One example was Listerine and Scope. There was sales tax on mouthwash but not on antiseptics (this was back in 1980 so laws change). So we had people argue that Listerine was an antisepetic and not subject to the sales tax and our regulatory people agreed with them. Now I can tell you when the stores went to computerized systems almost every store taxed Listerine. We would get calls from some customers wanting us to investigate how much the store was stealing because they charged the tax on Listerine. </p>
<p>It still happens with items of all kinds today.</p>
<p>That is why I say low rate tax on everything.</p>
<p>@dstark …around CC, there are many pro-tax folks. (Ok, confession, I am pro HUGE cigarette taxes…make 'em as high as needed.)</p>
<p>Anyway, I don’t see how adding a penny tax is going to cause anyone to cut down on soda consumption. Is someone really going to select Coke Zero over regular Coke to save a few cents? The tax would have to be a dollar or more for people to really take notice. Heck, most men I know don’t even look at prices AT ALL when they grocery shop.</p>
<p>I didn’t read the whole article…are restaurants except? When you get “free refills” will they tax that? lol<br>
What about bars? will there be an added tax if you order a Jack and Coke? </p>
<p>"Why drink fully sugared sodas? The ones with the sugar substitute taste just as good.</p>
<p>TatinG, you must be one of the lucky few who can’t tell the difference between sugar substitutes and sugar. Most people can tell the difference. Sugar substitutes, for most people, have an unpleasant aftertaste, because they are so sweet that even a few molecules left in the mouth after swallowing can still be tasted. So, no, artificially sweetened sodas don’t taste the same as sugared sodas."</p>
<p>I’m not a big soda drinker in general, but I can’t tell much difference. I think you’re exaggerating that “most” people find an unpleasant aftertaste. The penetration of artificial sweeteners wouldn’t be as high as it is if that were the case. It’s roughly 80% (I know this through a work-related piece of research). </p>
<p>But most people I knew switched from sugared to artificially sweetened beck in the 1980s; it seems almost retro to have a “real” Coke! I know very few females who drink real Coke (or Pepsi). </p>
<p>I oppose cigarette taxes. I support a tax system that collects money to serve the public. I oppose any tax system that collects money to punish a behavior. If we don’t want people to smoke then ban the cigarette manufacturers and distributors. I have voted for many bond propositions in California.</p>