Obesity a disease?

Matt_Wild

Food goes into my mouth through my own choice. I feed myself as an adult. I'm not sure how one can classify this as a disease, simply my own lifestyle choice. No one is forced to eat anything other than what they choose ))

Charlottesometimes23

By the dictionary definition it is a disease


dis·ease [dih-zeez] Show IPA noun, verb, dis·eased, dis·eas·ing.
noun
1.
a disordered or incorrectly functioning organ, part, structure, or system of the body resulting from the effect of genetic or developmental errors, infection, poisons, nutritional deficiency or imbalance, toxicity, or unfavorable environmental factors; illness; sickness; ailment.
2.
any abnormal condition in a plant that interferes with its vital physiological processes, caused by pathogenic microorganisms, parasites, unfavorable environmental, genetic, or nutritional factors, etc.
3.
any harmful, depraved, or morbid condition, as of the mind or society: His fascination with executions is a disease.
4.
decomposition of a material under special circumstances: tin disease.

Numbers 1 and 2 sound pretty good.

I don't see a problem with calling obesity a disease and I certainly don't see a problem with heavy taxes on certain foods. I feel the same way about booze and cigs. User pays...

Who gets to define what's a 'bad' food?

It's not so much about good and bad food, it's more about energy dense, nutrient poor fast food that's cheap and attractive. There was a part in the movie 'Food Inc' that really hit a nerve with me. It showed how some low income families can only afford fast food and consequently it makes up the bulk of their diet. If fresh food was more affordable and available, and fast food was more expensive, perhaps it could made some difference in their choices.

ETA. I just found this article. https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2010/193/8/taxing-junk-food-applying-logic-henry-tax-review-food

NoelleS85

What's next? Smoking a disease? Drinking.....wait that's already classed as one.


What about this....... IT IS YOUR OWN fault you are fat......


Take some responsibility for YOUR own actions....regardless of what it is.

Lots of bla in this thread but this ^^. Tired of people blaming everything for them being fat except for themselves. "Fast food readily available and cheap" is not the reason why you're fat. Anyone could easily get cocaine on the street corner - you becoming an addict is your own dumb fault. You being obese is your own dumb fault.

momzeeee

By the dictionary definition it is a disease


dis·ease [dih-zeez] Show IPA noun, verb, dis·eased, dis·eas·ing.
noun
1.
a disordered or incorrectly functioning organ, part, structure, or system of the body resulting from the effect of genetic or developmental errors, infection, poisons, nutritional deficiency or imbalance, toxicity, or unfavorable environmental factors; illness; sickness; ailment.
2.
any abnormal condition in a plant that interferes with its vital physiological processes, caused by pathogenic microorganisms, parasites, unfavorable environmental, genetic, or nutritional factors, etc.
3.
any harmful, depraved, or morbid condition, as of the mind or society: His fascination with executions is a disease.
4.
decomposition of a material under special circumstances: tin disease.

Numbers 1 and 2 sound pretty good.

I don't see a problem with calling obesity a disease and I certainly don't see a problem with heavy taxes on certain foods. I feel the same way about booze and cigs. User pays...

Who gets to define what's a 'bad' food?

It's not so much about good and bad food, it's more about energy dense, nutrient poor fast food that's cheap and attractive. There was a part in the movie 'Food Inc' that really hit a nerve with me. It showed how some low income families can only afford fast food and consequently it makes up the bulk of their diet. If fresh food was more affordable and available, and fast food was more expensive, perhaps it could made some difference.

Ah, the beauty of subsidies-things like sugar, corn and wheat are subsidized while fruit and vegetables are not. There's an interesting overview of subsidies on Wikepdiea-

-Peer-reviewed research suggests that any effects of U.S. farm policies on U.S. obesity patterns must have been negligible.[46] However, some critics argue that the artificially low prices resulting from subsidies create unhealthy incentives for consumers. For example, in the USA, cane sugar has been replaced with cheap corn syrup, making high-sugar food cheaper;[47] beet and cane sugar are subject to subsidies, price controls, and import tariffs that distort the prices of these products as well.

The lower price of energy-dense foods such as grains and sugars could be one reason why low-income people and food insecure people in industrialized countries are more vulnerable to being overweight and obese.[48] In fact it has been found that meat and dairy production receive 63% of subsidies in the United States, as well as sugar subsidies for unhealthy foods, which contribute to heart disease, obesity and diabetes, with enormous costs for the health sector.[49]

Market distortions due to subsidies have led to an increase in corn fed cattle rather than grass fed.[50] Corn fed cattle require more antibiotics and their beef has a higher fat content.[50]-

So, should the people be taxed for what the federal government has set up as our food system? Personally, I think the whole 'fat tax' wouldn't change anything. The change has got to come from much higher up.

bulbadoof

Why are we connecting classifying it as a disease with giving people an excuse to do it? How is that relevant at all? If anything, I think the awareness that carelessly eating and being overweight is potentially life-threatening and hard to undo will help people (and their doctors) to emphasize prevention strategies. Making it a medical issue instead of a social one will make it easier for your doctor to say 'you are at risk for becoming obese, which could cause severe complications. Let's re-assess your diet and exercise habits and try to nip this in the bud.'

A lot of diseases are preventable, treatable, and even reversible if caught early enough with minimal pharmaceutical help - very few are completely unavoidable. To think that obesity being classified as a disease will get people to "give up" trying to manage their weight because "well, I'm already sick, might as well wait for the doctor to fix it for me" is like thinking that people will stop brushing their teeth at the first sign of a cavity because "well, I've already got it, might as well wait for the dentist to fix it for me." It's highly unlikely that increasing awareness of the risk factors will decrease the chance that people at risk will do something about it. It's actually a little silly to me.

Delicate

Yes it is, it is a result of an over indulgence not everyone will get

Not everyone who smokes gets lung cancer, which is a disease
Not everyone who drinks becomes an alchoholic or gets a fatty liver, which is a disease

so why wouldnt being obese as a result from over eating not be treated the same?

by rights, all are preventable, and all should be considered diseases, just cause its something you can see doesnt mean it should be treated differently.

JustJennie1

Yes it is, it is a result of an over indulgence not everyone will get

Not everyone who smokes gets lung cancer, which is a disease
Not everyone who drinks becomes an alchoholic or gets a fatty liver, which is a disease

so why wouldnt being obese as a result from over eating not be treated the same?

by rights, all are preventable, and all should be considered diseases, just cause its something you can see doesnt mean it should be treated differently.

A person can go through treatments and stop smoking or drinking. One can not go through treatments to stop eating. This is just going to be an excuse to put more burden on the tax payers to pay for their medical care and disability claims because it's now a 'disease'.

It's ridiculous.

toutmonpossible

By the dictionary definition it is a disease


dis·ease [dih-zeez] Show IPA noun, verb, dis·eased, dis·eas·ing.
noun
1.
a disordered or incorrectly functioning organ, part, structure, or system of the body resulting from the effect of genetic or developmental errors, infection, poisons, nutritional deficiency or imbalance, toxicity, or unfavorable environmental factors; illness; sickness; ailment.
2.
any abnormal condition in a plant that interferes with its vital physiological processes, caused by pathogenic microorganisms, parasites, unfavorable environmental, genetic, or nutritional factors, etc.
3.
any harmful, depraved, or morbid condition, as of the mind or society: His fascination with executions is a disease.
4.
decomposition of a material under special circumstances: tin disease.

According to the New York Times story:

"To some extent, the question of whether obesity is a disease or not is a semantic one, since there is not even a universally agreed upon definition of what constitutes a disease. And the A.M.A.’s decision has no legal authority."

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/19/business/ama-recognizes-obesity-as-a-disease.html

If this move means that doctors and insurance companies will take obesity more seriously, I'm all for it.

JustJennie1

If this move means that doctors and insurance companies will take obesity more seriously, I'm all for it.

More seriously than what? Telling a person what they need to do to lose weight? What more can a doctor do besides wire a persons mouth shut so they can't eat?

The only thing an insurance company "taking it seriously" will do is cause premiums to go up for everyone else.

How can no one see the fact that calling obesity a "disease" relieves all responsibility from the person who is obese? Now instead of them saying it's their genes, or their metabolism for their excuse they can say they're suffering from a disease and there's nothing they can do about it. This announcement from the AMA has really made it easy for people to take no responsibility for their weight issues.

The burden is now on the healthy people who will have to pay for all the care, taxes, insurance etc. for the obese "disease".

carbons2k

I don't see a problem with calling obesity a disease and I certainly don't see a problem with heavy taxes on certain foods. I feel the same way about booze and cigs. User pays...

Why should I have to pay more taxes if I feel like having some chips instead of an apple, or If its the 4th of july and Im having a few, or if I decide to smoke in my own house or car? Do you work for Michael Bloomberg?

I think if obesity is labeled a disease AND is covered by insurance so that people can get medical coverage to help them it may trigger something in someones head that says 'hey I can eat this and that bc im covered if i become obese'. I think people should take responsibility for their own actions and take the necessary steps to losing the weight. Cancer, Leukemia... these are diseases and are out of the control of preventing and should be classified as such.

Charlottesometimes23

So, should the people be taxed for what the federal government has set up as our food system? Personally, I think the whole 'fat tax' wouldn't change anything. The change has got to come from much higher up.

Maybe you're right, I don't know....it makes sense to me. I think that there should be more to it than just individual responsibility, like others have posted. Individual responsibility isn't working because obesity rates aren't reducing.

I see that the World Health Organisation has published a Bulletin reviewing the evidence for this type of tax having an effect. http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/88/8/09-070987/en/

toutmonpossible

If this move means that doctors and insurance companies will take obesity more seriously, I'm all for it.

More seriously than what? Telling a person what they need to do to lose weight? What more can a doctor do besides wire a persons mouth shut so they can't eat?

The only thing an insurance company "taking it seriously" will do is cause premiums to go up for everyone else.

How can no one see the fact that calling obesity a "disease" relieves all responsibility from the person who is obese? Now instead of them saying it's their genes, or their metabolism for their excuse they can say they're suffering from a disease and there's nothing they can do about it. This announcement from the AMA has really made it easy for people to take no responsibility for their weight issues.

The burden is now on the healthy people who will have to pay for all the care, taxes, insurance etc. for the obese "disease".

As a healthy, never-overweight person I think it's more complex than that. But some of your concerns certainly did occur to me. If obesity is in fact a disease, that finding supports action against companies who receive subsidies for producing food that is unhealthy. it creates impetus for more money for P.E. programs in schools and throughout life. Perhaps insurance companies will charge overweight people for not controlling those aspects of the disease over which they have power. There may not be any meaningful change for decades, but it's a start. Or it may be the continuation of an important debate.

carbons2k

Now you want to raise insurance premiums for 'fat' people? So ive gotta pay X amount of MORE dollars for insurance bc im over weight. Thats totally fair.

I think people need to understand that not 2 people are the same. 100% of the people of the Earth are not going to be perfect. We all come in all shapes and sizes.

I think labeling obesity a disease maybe the government or some other agency should step in and find ways to cut down the about of crap in food. Within 3 blocks of my house theres a burger king, McDonalds, Wednys and a taco bell. I can eat 1 thing from one of those places and would have met my caloric intake for the day. A 400 calorie burger is 99 cents when a salad is 5 bucks. I think these are the things to change before labeling being fat a disease.

I still hold true that its the "users" discretion and RESPONSIBILITY what they decide to eat and more or less their fault why theyre in the obese category to begin with.

Sorry if im being harsh, my idea was not to offend anyone and the reason why we're all on this site is bc we realized we need to make a change (myself included) and we're doing something about it and I am proud of each and everyone of you!

pluckabee

Demonising foods to the point of allowing our government to actually tax the purchase of them is completely ridiculous.

You get fat from eating too much, not eating certain foods. It would be absolutely insane to allow this, it simply cannot be regulated. You can't just say 'tax bad food'. What is a bad food? Who decides? To be able to regulate it you are going to need clear rules and with clear rules, food companies are going to try and do what they can to still make a profit within regulations and what we are going to see are processed foods that aren't technically 'bad' under the regulations but are still not healthful and could trick people into eating too much because they think it's a healthy food so you can eat as much as you want.

The main excuse I hear that even makes any sense at all is tat by taxing fast food, it's no longer the cheaper option for poorer families to get everybody fed. But, doesn't that just make ALL food choices expensive? If you want to subsidise healthier foods from the tax this really needs to be emphasised because it seems to just be an assumption that this will happen but no one is talking about the details of this half, which is MORE important than just taking away fast food options. How exactly is this going to help poorer people access fresh foods? How does it solve the problem that poor people, who often work very long hours or more than 1 job and have very little time to prepare fresh meals for their family daily?

Delicate

Each of those people will have problems around their associated items for the rest of their life, the only thing is, eating is a necessity where as drinking and smoking, are not.

However finding the emotional crutch people have with food/booze/cigarettes, will lead to them making better decisions.

Having food as a reward for good behaviour is stupid, which is what alot of us are taught from a young age, so you associate food with happy just like people associate alchohol with happy. Most food problems are caused by mental health in the patient, ie anorexia, bulimia or obesity -> obsession with food

It should be just as easy to go and get 'healthy food' than 'unhealthy food' (cause moderation doesnt appear to be working) it should be cheaper than the 'unhealthy food' too.

I already get 30% of my pay taken for insurance and tax. i have PCOS its a disease however doesnt relieve me of responsibility for what goes into my body, it was actually the tipping point to make me think better of it.

Insurance companies are looking any reason to increase premiums without paying out.

Charlottesometimes23

I don't see a problem with calling obesity a disease and I certainly don't see a problem with heavy taxes on certain foods. I feel the same way about booze and cigs. User pays...

Why should I have to pay more taxes if I feel like having some chips instead of an apple, or If its the 4th of july and Im having a few, or if I decide to smoke in my own house or car? Do you work for Michael Bloomberg?

No, should I apply for a job?

I don't mind paying more for chips if it means that the apple is cheaper for someone who could only ever afford chips. I love chips, but I would hate to have to eat them most of the time because I couldn't afford much else. They would lose their appeal pretty quickly.

shannashannabobana

I certainly don't see a problem with heavy taxes on certain foods.

Do you really trust the government to decide which foods are 'bad'? These are the eggs are good/eggs are bad, fat is evil no some fats are good, eat margarine no margarine will kill you people. These are the people who told me to replace meat and fat with pasta. They are also the people whose direct subsidies of corn led to the awesomeness of HFCS in everything we buy. I do NOT trust their dietary advice and I certainly don't trust them to decide what to tax. They'd probably make grass fed butter more expensive and soy cheaper. Ugh.

I think obesity is a kind of fat storage disease, in that some people have insulin resistance issues that are kicked off in part by what they eat. But it's a curable type of disease so I'm not sure what designating it a disease would mean long term. It's probably all about money.

SteveJWatson

Great - now we have solved this one, can we slash the tax on beer please?

Its my favourite vice and its just to damn expensive to get properly drunk these days.

Yours,

A lush.

JustJennie1

I don't see a problem with calling obesity a disease and I certainly don't see a problem with heavy taxes on certain foods. I feel the same way about booze and cigs. User pays...

Why should I have to pay more taxes if I feel like having some chips instead of an apple, or If its the 4th of july and Im having a few, or if I decide to smoke in my own house or car? Do you work for Michael Bloomberg?

No, should I apply for a job?

I don't mind paying more for chips if it means that the apple is cheaper for someone who could only ever afford chips. I love chips, but I would hate to have to eat them most of the time because I couldn't afford much else. They would lose their appeal pretty quickly.

Raising the price on junk food isn't going to deter those who are obese from buying and eating it. The price for cigarettes is astronomical yet it doesn't stop people from smoking.

sharpdagger

As a doctor, (haven't read the article), I'm supportive of it being a disease. Why?

-Body in a state of disordered function
-Genetic predispositions
-Contributes to some serious health effects (diabetes, hypertension, high cholesterol, cardiovascular disease, sleep apnea, increased risk of cancer, effects on the fetus while pregnant, etc).

Just because there may be different genetic predispositions doesn't mean that choices and environment can't affect it. They most certainly do. We could say the same about diabetes, hypertension, hypercholesterolemia etc.

I see some negative posts looking for an agenda to tax more. I hope they don't tax more.

I'm sure there is an agenda...but it may be:
-Getting more funding to educate the public more and for more research
-Having people take obesity more seriously
-Requiring insurance companies to pay for certain anti-obesity measures when a person is sincerely trying to combat obesity
-requiring companies to provide us with more information so we can make healthy choices
-Policies to address obesity sooner in kids (schools, parents, programs, doctors, kid's self view)
-and more.

There are tons of things we call diseases. I really think it should be as simple as "not inevitable disordered body function". If it is an inevitable process (even disordered compared to prime state), then I wouldn't call it a disease...unless it occurred earlier than what is considered normal and that earlier could have been delayed OR has consequences that must now be addressed.