• 60d@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    4 days ago

    The craziest thing about chocolate is that Donald J. Trump is in the Epstein files.

  • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 days ago

    The rising price of most sweets and the continued decrease in quality is the greatest disincentive to buying them.

    I’m not a regular consumer of candy bars, but I saw that the price of a regular Snickers bar at a grocery store checkout is now about $2 each. Meanwhile in that same store you can get a box of brownie mix for about $2, 2 eggs will cost you about 60 cents and a quarter cup of vegetable oil will cost you about 10 cents for a total of about $2.70 yielding an entire tray of 15 brownies (or 18 cents per brownie). I get that part of that the candy bar is paying for convenience, but the differential is just too high now unless you just down have a kitchen available to you.

    • BigMikeInAustin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      This is true.

      This is the basis for taxing high sugar convenience food. It was done for cigarettes, and today, consumers overwhelmingly see it as a good program. (Of course tobacco companies lobbied hard against it)

      Should there be a line on which products governments deincentivise? High sugar convenience foods have their purpose, but does it outweigh increasing obesity? Should we instead subsidize healthy foods? Or both together?

      • SaltySalamander@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        4 days ago

        Gov’t should subsidize healthy food. Gov’t shouldn’t, however, make non-healthy food astronomically pricey. People should have affordable options for both. Like it or not, government making things artificially expensive in order to disincentivise people from buying the thing is a form of authoritarianism.

        • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 days ago

          Like it or not, government making things artificially expensive in order to disincentivize people from buying the thing is a form of authoritarianism.

          I’m struggling to think of any scenario I would agree with your statement and I’m not coming up with anything. Further, I think your statement is dangerous because it dilutes the actual dangers and restrictions an authoritarian government would put in place.

          Gov’t should subsidize healthy food.

          Wouldn’t that meet your definition of authoritarianism because it is causing non-healthy food to be proportionally more expensive?

      • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 days ago

        This is the basis for taxing high sugar convenience food. It was done for cigarettes, and today, consumers overwhelmingly see it as a good program. (Of course tobacco companies lobbied hard against it)

        You’re referring to so called “sin taxes”. I’m aware those exist for cigarettes of course, and I know some places have them for sugary drinks, but I’m not aware of any sin taxes on sweet food. I know many places that do not have sales tax food have exclusions that put candy back under regular sales tax, but those aren’t sin taxes, and the sales tax percentage (usually at or under 10%) wouldn’t come close to the sugar drink sin taxes I’ve seen (which are closer to 50%). In my state there’s no sin tax on sugary anything, only the rules that mean that candy bars would have regular sales tax applied (about 7% in my area).

        Can you cite a particular sin tax or situation where there is excessive taxation specifically on candy?

  • UltraMagnus0001@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    4 days ago

    They already put so little cocoa in their candy bars it’s not considered chocolate and it has more harmful metals than other chocolate manufacturers.

    • Rekhyt@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      4 days ago

      Frustratingly the article does not say, but based on the other numbers in the article, I think they are talking in terms of percentage, likely 15-20%

    • BigMikeInAustin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 days ago

      Hershey’s has had many reasons to be boycotted over the decades. I’m not aware of any of those reasons being corrected by the company.

      I am completely against what Israel is doing to Palestine and against the colonization and genocide being done.

      This instance of Hershey’s doing business in Israel is a very weak reason to boycott. There are many other obvious reasons to boycott Hershey’s.

      • SoupBrick@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 days ago

        I am just glad that the price increase means less money toward the company from people who just bought it because it was cheap.

        Feel free to add more information if you want to educate others.