Pepsi And Coca Cola Pouring $1.4 Billion In Pakistan

[MBT 3000]

That is another great idea.

sugar tax?

They should be taxed enough to cover all the budget of health ministry.

that would be a lot, wonder if they are willing to pay that much

 

[BATMAN]

that would be a lot, wonder if they are willing to pay that much

They can but they would prefer to bribe PTI and get out cheaply.

 

[VCheng]

sugar tax?

Call it by whichever name you wish, but it will be effective only if prohibitively high.

 

[Lincoln]

Drinking soda is a voluntary choice. Don't like it? Don't drink it. Simple!

Funny man, you are okay with a drink that is clearly not good for health to simply be just because they are investing in a lot of money? We do have scientific proof of its bad effects on health, and they aren't just ordinary, they are plenty specially if you drink more than 1 can a day which addicted people do.

Not saying it should be banned because it's clearly not a life and death situation, but it should be treated in a fashion similar to Energy drinks. Have a look at this full report.

https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/heal/Publications/soft-drinks-report.pdf

Incase you're lazy, here are some excerpts.

Preliminary research suggests an association between soft drink consumption and bone mineral density and bone fractures in children and adults (Petridou et al. 1997; Wyshak 2000; McGartland et al. 2003).

Soft drink consumption can lead to the displacement of healthier food and beverage choices. A high level of soft drink consumption is associated with lower intakes of a number of vitamins and minerals, and dietary fibre (Harnack et al. 1999; Ballew et al. 2000).

Soft drinks contain large amounts of sugar and are highly acidic, properties which contribute to enamel erosion and dental caries. In the 2003 report on Diet, Nutrition and Chronic Disease (Joint WHO/FAO Expert Consultation 2003), WHO found the evidence for the association between soft drink and fruit juice consumption and risk of dental erosion to be “probable” and the evidence of free sugars contributing to dental caries to be “convincing”.

Data from the Framingham Heart Study in the US showed that consumption of greater than or equal to 1 soft drink per day (350 ml) was associated with, in addition to an increased risk of obesity, …

There have been a number of recent reports of detectable levels of benzene in soft drinks. The presence of the preservative sodium benzoate and ascorbic acid in drinks can react to produce benzene (Gardnet and Lawrence 1993), especially in the presence of light and heat. These reports have caused concern as benzene is a known carcinogen.

Table 4: Summary of health implications of excessive soft drink consumption

- Displacement of healthier foods from the diet leading to poorer diet quality
- Dental caries and dental erosion n Bone fractures, low bone density, osteoporosis, hypocalcemia
- Disturbed sleep patterns, bedwetting and anxiety (younger children)*
- Headache, fatigue, decreased alertness, depressed mood and irritability*
- Chronic disease including metabolic syndrome, high blood pressure
- Possible adverse effects due to Benzene

*caffeine-containing soft drinks

You are basically ruining the future and current generations, all for a meager billion $.

I get it that it's already a norm, but if you are allowing them to invest so much, there is no doubt they will put in a lot, and a lot, of money in brand marketing, and unless you put limits, you are helping them promote products that can be detrimental to health if consumed a lot, and a lot here implies more than like half a can.

So, what you aren't considering here is that it's simply not as simple as 'don't like it, don't drink it'. They are going to exploit the easily influenced mind of children, and with the amount of caffeine and other 'natural flavors' they use, they are making these people become literally addicted to these drinks. So... yeah.

 

[VCheng]

Funny man, you are okay with a drink that is clearly not good for health to simply be just because they are investing in a lot of money? We do have scientific proof of its bad effects on health, and they aren't just ordinary, they are plenty specially if you drink more than 1 can a day which addicted people do.

No.

I an merely saying that it is up to individuals how and what they feed themselves.

(Did you know that drinking excessive water can cause death too?)

 

[Cookie Monster]

Drinking soda is a voluntary choice. Don't like it? Don't drink it. Simple!

It's true...but there needs to be more awareness. I grew up in Pak...and generally ppl don't know all the possible problems that can occur with frequent soda drinking. In fact those who are aware of the dangers of regular soda make the "healthier choice" by drinking diet soda(which of course has its own problems).

It's kind of like cigarettes...yes it's a voluntary choice too but way back when there was less awareness of its consequences, a lot more ppl smoked. Now with more awareness it's comparatively less.

The investment is welcome...and obviously these companies will be aiming to up their sales and try to get their products to as many ppl as possible since profit is their end goal. With little awareness it will cost the Pakistani ppl more money(for example higher diabetes occurrence and therefore money spent on treatment) than this investment will be worth. So what it should be is that the government should welcome this investment but at the same time up the efforts to spread awareness...so in the long run it ends up benefitting the country rather than harming it.

 

[VCheng]

It's true...but there needs to be more awareness. I grew up in Pak...and generally ppl don't know all the possible problems that can occur with frequent soda drinking. In fact those who are aware of the dangers of regular soda make the "healthier choice" by drinking diet soda(which of course has its own problems).

It's kind of like cigarettes...yes it's a voluntary choice too but way back when there was less awareness of its consequences, a lot more ppl smoked. Now with more awareness it's comparatively less.

The investment is welcome...and obviously these companies will be aiming to up their sales and try to get their products to as many ppl as possible since profit is their end goal. With little awareness it will cost the Pakistani ppl more money(for example higher diabetes occurrence and therefore money spent on treatment) than this investment will be worth. So what it should be is that the government should welcome this investment but at the same time up the efforts to spread awareness...so in the long run it ends up benefitting the country rather than harming it.

Awareness and educational campaigns are great ideas and must be there for people to make better and informed choices about their food. But, in the end, it is up to them to choose.

 

[GHALIB]

True.

Views expressed on PDF are not a true reflection of consumption levels of fizzy drinks in Pakistan. People buy and consume these drinks every day (much of Pakistan).

Those who think that juices and other drinks of color are absolutely safe - need a serious wake up call. Even Tea is not good for your health due to caffeine levels.

Milk is mostly prone to be mixing of unconsumable things.

 

[Lincoln]

No.

I an merely saying that it is up to individuals how and what they feed themselves.

(Did you know that drinking excessive water can cause death too?)

Read what I said again, again and again and get it through your head.

Excessive water means many, many, and many litres in very little time, like a few hours.

Excessive soft drink though implies 1 can, that is all, literally, and people easily chuck two 500ml bottles a day.

' I get it that it's already a norm, but if you are allowing them to invest so much, there is no doubt they will put in a lot, and a lot, of money in brand marketing, and unless you put limits, you are helping them promote products that can be detrimental to health if consumed a lot, and a lot here implies more than like half a can.

So, what you aren't considering here is that it's simply not as simple as 'don't like it, don't drink it'. They are going to exploit the easily influenced mind of children, and with the amount of caffeine and other 'natural flavors' they use, they are making these people become literally addicted to these drinks. So... yeah. '

 

[GHALIB]

Biggest threat to health is unclean water, period. Trumps everything else in damaging your body.

People should rather worry about high levels of arsenic in water. It is underestimated POISON.

That's true, level of arsenic is rising in groUnd water .

 

[Verve]

But, in the end, it is up to them to choose.

No, any responsible Government should choose what is suitable for public consumption.

 

[VCheng]

Read what I said again, again and again and get it through your head.

Excessive water means many, many, and many litres in very little time, like a few hours.

Excessive soft drink though implies 1 can, that is all, literally, and people easily chuck two 500ml bottles a day.

' I get it that it's already a norm, but if you are allowing them to invest so much, there is no doubt they will put in a lot, and a lot, of money in brand marketing, and unless you put limits, you are helping them promote products that can be detrimental to health if consumed a lot, and a lot here implies more than like half a can.

So, what you aren't considering here is that it's simply not as simple as 'don't like it, don't drink it'. They are going to exploit the easily influenced mind of children, and with the amount of caffeine and other 'natural flavors' they use, they are making these people become literally addicted to these drinks. So... yeah. '

No, any responsible Government should choose what is suitable for public consumption.

Why single out sodas for such government oversight? If we want an all-encompassing nanny state, then why not include high cholesterol foods such as oils, fat and butter, or eggs or too much red meat? How about desserts and other sugary foods? Or how about overall limits on caloric intake? Prescribed upper and lower limits for BMI?

Or we could trust individuals with the freedom to make choices for themselves. Someone may want to drink soda but not eat desserts. Others may avoid sodas and eat a lot of Nirala mithai. Why do we want to prescribe for others when all we should be doing is looking at ourselves?

 

[Verve]

Why single out sodas for such government oversight? If we want an all-encompassing nanny state, then why not include high cholesterol foods such as oils, fat and butter, or eggs or too much red meat? How about desserts and other sugary foods? Or how about overall limits on caloric intake? Prescribed upper and lower limits for BMI?

Or we could trust individuals with the freedom to make choices for themselves. Someone may want to drink soda but not eat desserts. Others may avoid sodas and eat a lot of Nirala mithai. Why do we want to prescribe for others when all we should be doing is looking at ourselves?

Gov should put a limit on the quantity of sugar in these drinks. If a person wants to drink 20 a day then fine, but the quantity of sugar in each drink should be regulated.

Butter etc in small quantities are not harmful, even if same quantity is taken per day for let's say 10 years. Drink one full sugar coke a day for 10 years and the damage will be far worse! So your comparison is way off the mark. Try again.

 

[VCheng]

Gov should put a limit on the quantity of sugar in these drinks. If a person wants to drink 20 a day then fine, but the quantity of sugar in each drink should be regulated.

Butter etc in small quantities are not harmful, even if same quantity is taken per day for let's say 10 years. Drink one full sugar coke a day for 10 years and the damage will be far worse! So your comparison is way off the mark. Try again.

But the basic issue remains: Should it be up to government to prescribe such limits or should it be up to the people themselves on how to best feed themselves?

 

[Lincoln]

But the basic issue remains: Should it be up to government to prescribe such limits or should it be up to the people themselves on how to best feed themselves?

No one is saying to put a ban. Force the company to put same markers as energy drinks.