Pepsi Free - Week 2

courtesy of my blog: http://cjferrara.blogspot.com/

Get it? Pepsi Free? Second week has past of my Lenten Fast; giving up Pepsi specifically, and High Fructose Corn Syrup in general. In my other posts (http://cjferrara.blogspot.com/2010/02/hfcs-free-week-1.html ) I explain the purpose of this experiment, but please understand, gentle reader, that mainly, it's for Lent. I actually, in reality, don't buy any of the propaganda surrounding HFCS and the supposed dangers of it. From what I have found in research, HFCS is basically, a slightly sweeter, more soluble, tastier form of simple table sugar, and any health risks from HFCS are IDENTICAL to that of sugar. "In large quantities, it can lead to diabedes." Yeah, same with sugar.

I'm personally infuriated with our idiot Governor, David Paterson, and his proposed Soda tax, for which I recently caught the tail end of an advertisement. He proposes a tax on "sugared" sodas like Pepsi, Coke, Mountain Dew, etc, but not on diet sodas. His cockamamie plan is to use this just like the tax on cigarettes: to generate revenue for the state, and to discourage "unhealthy behavior."

I really don't support using a tax of any kind in order to manipulate behavior. This includes tax CUTS, credits, and breaks for favorable behavior. To me it's a bit Orwellian. Politicians can't physically manipulate my behavior, all they can do is make it worth my while to do what they say.

First of all, I have never, in considering whether to smoke or not, or to get married or not, or to have children or not, or any of the hundreds of things that are taxed or credited; thought about the fact that there would be a tax involved. "Hey, why don't we get married, we'll get a break on our taxes." "Gee, I'd like to take up smoking, but why pay all that tax." I honestly feel very, very sorry for people who do.

Second, If the tax is meant to generate much needed revenue for the state, (it is!) and this particular tax is meant to discourage the behavior that is going to be taxed, then the goal here is to NOT collect that tax. If Paterson's dream comes true, and people stop drinking soda, and they, in turn, stop paying that tax, and then New York makes no more money than before.

Don't get me wrong. I don't really mind paying taxes. I believe that in order for government to do the things they need to do, they need money. If I can help by paying my FAIR share of taxes, then so be it. And I expect everyone else to do the same. EVERYONE else. You hear that Wesley Snipes?

My other main problem with this particular tax, and my thesis for this collection of blog entries, is that Diet sodas are actually WORSE for you than sugared sodas. To prove it, here's my next investigation...

For lunch today, I wanted more than just a water, which I've been drinking instead of Pepsi. I chose an Iced Tea. I looked at Lipton Brisk, and what are the first two ingredients? Water and High Fructose Corn Syrup. I then looked at Snapple... Water, sugar, Citric Acid (or lemon), Tea and natural flavors. Just for hugs and chuckles, I checked out DIET Snapple. Same list of ingredients except for the sugar being replaced with Aspartame, and the addition of Potassium Citrate, and Malic Acid. What I want to know is... What are these two mystery ingredients? And why do they need to be added to diet beverages. Are they in diet sodas? and do THEY affect the body in any way?

More to come. If you know the answers off hand, or have more time to research, then please feel free to comment!