Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Should junk food be taxed?
Replies
-
nobody is proposing taking away ANYTHING from ANYBODY.1
-
Packerjohn wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Back in the UK whilst I was still there the idea of a sugar tax was being proposed on drinks, confectionaries, pastries etc. The idea behind it was that with an obesity epidemic well in swing, the NHS was feeling the strain of treating patients who were termed obese. Because of the free health care provided in the UK, tax contributions and government spending is what pays essentially for healthcare. While in theory this may be a good idea to an extent, taxing sugar foods or "junk" is nothing short of another government money grabbing scheme. Not everyone who eats junk is a burden to the healthcare systems, and not everyone who is a burden to the healthcare system eats junk. The processed sugar that has crept into our food is not the fault of the end user, but rather the manufacturers who have created or helped develop this ongoing epidemic. It is they who should be punished financially, perhaps through similar standards adopted in the auto industry where requirements are needed to be met, not the citizens who enjoy a can of soda or chocolate bar. Whether tax is added to items or not, people will still use them. See high emission vehicles, fuel, alcohol, tobacco - tax is not a detterent. A complete overhaul of how processed foods are manufactured and the behaviour of manufacturers, advertised, how they are regulated, awareness of the health effects they produce etc is the best in a society's present obesity (health) epidemic.
I've been to the UK. Gas there is around double the US, most of the difference being tax. Compare the number of large pick-ups and SUVs on UK roads vs the US and tell me again how high gas prices aren't a deterrent.
In the UK, purchases of SUV's have surpassed all other vehicle categories and is now the most popular vehicle type on the road. Whether or not the gas prices are high, people are still driving. So, again, taxes are not a deterrent.0 -
svetskisampion wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Janejellyroll asked me for evidence as to what food consumption has a link to burdens on health services. My reply was think diabetes, not "diabetes is caused by sugar". The intake of unhealthy foods has a serious burden on health services due to the wide range of issues they create, to think otherwise is like saying alcohol has no burden on the health services. What you eat plays a big role in how your heart functions, how your blood sugar spikes, the impact on your stomach, mental fatigue, there are numerous studies on this in the UK and sugar has been identified to be the greatest cause of this.
If diabetes isn't caused by sugar, then what is the connection to food consumption?
Give a diabetic two spoons of sugar and we'll see the correlation. There are so many foods out there with hidden sugars which are the cause for so many health issues. If you think sugars and processed foods are not the leading cause for the health epidemics in the western world, you are entitled to that opinion. However I strongly believe what you shovel down your throat has the greater impact and I stand by that whole heartedly.
I see this 'hidden sugar' demon quoted a lot, but I don't understand where it comes from. Here in the US, the food label must contain the total amount of sugars that a given food serving contains (don't know if this is true in the UK or not), so where exactly is the sugar hiding? I know the ingredients may not say 'sugar', but the nutrition information still has the total sugars, so again, where is it hiding? And as an added bonus, sometime either this year or next, the food label will have to specify the ADDED sugars and not just the total sugar.
I don't think anyone is arguing that the quantity of food that you shovel down your throat is the leading cause of problems, just that foods in general should not be demonized because no single food is the cause of all the health issues (including sugar).
Ironically, the only foods that aren't labeled are unpackaged whole foods like fruits and vegetables and many self-proclaimed health nuts severely underestimate the amount of sugar in those, so technically...0 -
This content has been removed.
-
svetskisampion wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Back in the UK whilst I was still there the idea of a sugar tax was being proposed on drinks, confectionaries, pastries etc. The idea behind it was that with an obesity epidemic well in swing, the NHS was feeling the strain of treating patients who were termed obese. Because of the free health care provided in the UK, tax contributions and government spending is what pays essentially for healthcare. While in theory this may be a good idea to an extent, taxing sugar foods or "junk" is nothing short of another government money grabbing scheme. Not everyone who eats junk is a burden to the healthcare systems, and not everyone who is a burden to the healthcare system eats junk. The processed sugar that has crept into our food is not the fault of the end user, but rather the manufacturers who have created or helped develop this ongoing epidemic. It is they who should be punished financially, perhaps through similar standards adopted in the auto industry where requirements are needed to be met, not the citizens who enjoy a can of soda or chocolate bar. Whether tax is added to items or not, people will still use them. See high emission vehicles, fuel, alcohol, tobacco - tax is not a detterent. A complete overhaul of how processed foods are manufactured and the behaviour of manufacturers, advertised, how they are regulated, awareness of the health effects they produce etc is the best in a society's present obesity (health) epidemic.
I've been to the UK. Gas there is around double the US, most of the difference being tax. Compare the number of large pick-ups and SUVs on UK roads vs the US and tell me again how high gas prices aren't a deterrent.
In the UK, purchases of SUV's have surpassed all other vehicle categories and is now the most popular vehicle type on the road. Whether or not the gas prices are high, people are still driving. So, again, taxes are not a deterrent.
Take a look at the top 10 selling vehicles in the UK vs the US and let us know which you think has the higher fleet miles per gallon:
UK (note of the 10 vehicles listed 2 are SUVs)
http://www.carbuyer.co.uk/reviews/recommended/best-selling-cars
US
http://www.businessinsider.com/best-selling-cars-trucks-vehicle-america-2016-2017-1/#9-honda-accord-345225-29-121 -
no0
-
svetskisampion wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Back in the UK whilst I was still there the idea of a sugar tax was being proposed on drinks, confectionaries, pastries etc. The idea behind it was that with an obesity epidemic well in swing, the NHS was feeling the strain of treating patients who were termed obese. Because of the free health care provided in the UK, tax contributions and government spending is what pays essentially for healthcare. While in theory this may be a good idea to an extent, taxing sugar foods or "junk" is nothing short of another government money grabbing scheme. Not everyone who eats junk is a burden to the healthcare systems, and not everyone who is a burden to the healthcare system eats junk. The processed sugar that has crept into our food is not the fault of the end user, but rather the manufacturers who have created or helped develop this ongoing epidemic. It is they who should be punished financially, perhaps through similar standards adopted in the auto industry where requirements are needed to be met, not the citizens who enjoy a can of soda or chocolate bar. Whether tax is added to items or not, people will still use them. See high emission vehicles, fuel, alcohol, tobacco - tax is not a detterent. A complete overhaul of how processed foods are manufactured and the behaviour of manufacturers, advertised, how they are regulated, awareness of the health effects they produce etc is the best in a society's present obesity (health) epidemic.
I've been to the UK. Gas there is around double the US, most of the difference being tax. Compare the number of large pick-ups and SUVs on UK roads vs the US and tell me again how high gas prices aren't a deterrent.
In the UK, purchases of SUV's have surpassed all other vehicle categories and is now the most popular vehicle type on the road. Whether or not the gas prices are high, people are still driving. So, again, taxes are not a deterrent.
It's not "whether people are still driving", it's "are they using less fuel?". The answer seems to be yes.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/322458/sub_national_road_transport_consumption_factsheet_2012.pdf
Couldn't find a newer one, UK government pages are a bit of a clusterf*** to navigate through. But there's been a downwards trend in fuel consumption up to 2012 and I don't see why that shouldn't have continued.1 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »kristen6350 wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »kristen6350 wrote: »Well, since junk food doesn't make people fat, too much food does, I don't see why it would help.
Trust me, too much of anything will make one gain weight.
Nailed it!!
I mean, I can go to Chipolte and down a 1,200 calorie burrito stuffed with "healthy food" for lunch, plus a 500 calorie breakfast of eggs and veggies, then a 500 calorie dinner of grilled chicken and veggies EVERY DAY of my life. That's 2,200 calories a day. 300 calories over what my body needs. All of that extra food made me fat, but all of it is considered healthy. There wasn't one chip, cookie, candy, etc in that whole day. But guess what? I'm 40lbs overweight because I ate too much food and didn't burn off the extra 300 calories a day. I didn't eat junk, but I'm fat and I'm at risk of diabetes. Not because I was binging on carbs, because I ate too many calories.
A Chipotle burrito is anything but low carb. Unless you get a salad instead of a burrito, skip the rice, skip the beans... then it can be considered low carb.
Did she say it was low carb, or that she was low carb? I'm trying to understand why you are qualifying her statement, which was meant to support her stance (which I agree with, btw) that it isn't junk food that makes people fat, it is too many calories in general, regardless of their source.
"not because I was binging on carbs" after describing a meal that was a carb binge. I know she got rice and/or beans in her burrito for this, as the tortilla itself isn't quite a binge level of carbs and 1,200 calories shows that it had to have included at least beans (all other available ingredients even with the highest calorie meat still don't add up to 1,200 unless adding at least beans).
How is a single meal, even at 70-80% carbs, a "binge", especially in context of the other hypothetical meals described?
Erm, a 1200 calorie meal, made up of 70-80% of any single macro could easily be called a binge.
I call that a light dinner.1 -
Packerjohn wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Back in the UK whilst I was still there the idea of a sugar tax was being proposed on drinks, confectionaries, pastries etc. The idea behind it was that with an obesity epidemic well in swing, the NHS was feeling the strain of treating patients who were termed obese. Because of the free health care provided in the UK, tax contributions and government spending is what pays essentially for healthcare. While in theory this may be a good idea to an extent, taxing sugar foods or "junk" is nothing short of another government money grabbing scheme. Not everyone who eats junk is a burden to the healthcare systems, and not everyone who is a burden to the healthcare system eats junk. The processed sugar that has crept into our food is not the fault of the end user, but rather the manufacturers who have created or helped develop this ongoing epidemic. It is they who should be punished financially, perhaps through similar standards adopted in the auto industry where requirements are needed to be met, not the citizens who enjoy a can of soda or chocolate bar. Whether tax is added to items or not, people will still use them. See high emission vehicles, fuel, alcohol, tobacco - tax is not a detterent. A complete overhaul of how processed foods are manufactured and the behaviour of manufacturers, advertised, how they are regulated, awareness of the health effects they produce etc is the best in a society's present obesity (health) epidemic.
I've been to the UK. Gas there is around double the US, most of the difference being tax. Compare the number of large pick-ups and SUVs on UK roads vs the US and tell me again how high gas prices aren't a deterrent.
In the UK, purchases of SUV's have surpassed all other vehicle categories and is now the most popular vehicle type on the road. Whether or not the gas prices are high, people are still driving. So, again, taxes are not a deterrent.
Take a look at the top 10 selling vehicles in the UK vs the US and let us know which you think has the higher fleet miles per gallon:
UK (note of the 10 vehicles listed 2 are SUVs)
http://www.carbuyer.co.uk/reviews/recommended/best-selling-cars
US
http://www.businessinsider.com/best-selling-cars-trucks-vehicle-america-2016-2017-1/#9-honda-accord-345225-29-12
Also note that the number one vehicle in the UK is a, suprise suprise, SUV. As a whole, treating it in segments but not individual car brands, SUVS have become the go to for car buyers. The tax brackets one has to pay to get them on the road don't seem to put consumers off, nor does the duty levied on gas prices. Whether I drive a 1998 Honda civic or a 2017 Porsche Carrera, at the pumps I'm paying the same price per litre. Even if tax per litre was to increase (as has been the case and has been made out to be an environmental action and to act acts acts detterent), people still use and drive. It's the same for alcohol, the same for cigarettes, consumption is not halted. Just because you may catch the bus because of a hike in gas prices, that doesn't mean that the very next 100 people will. It's the same principle when talking about taxing junk foods or high sugar contented foodstuffs, that increase in price may affect a small percentile of the population, but the greater number of consumers will likely continue to purchase at the inflated price. In essence, what you may feel is a detterent, duties, VAT etc, is no more than government budget balancing.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
suzannesimmons3 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Back in the UK whilst I was still there the idea of a sugar tax was being proposed on drinks, confectionaries, pastries etc. The idea behind it was that with an obesity epidemic well in swing, the NHS was feeling the strain of treating patients who were termed obese. Because of the free health care provided in the UK, tax contributions and government spending is what pays essentially for healthcare. While in theory this may be a good idea to an extent, taxing sugar foods or "junk" is nothing short of another government money grabbing scheme. Not everyone who eats junk is a burden to the healthcare systems, and not everyone who is a burden to the healthcare system eats junk. The processed sugar that has crept into our food is not the fault of the end user, but rather the manufacturers who have created or helped develop this ongoing epidemic. It is they who should be punished financially, perhaps through similar standards adopted in the auto industry where requirements are needed to be met, not the citizens who enjoy a can of soda or chocolate bar. Whether tax is added to items or not, people will still use them. See high emission vehicles, fuel, alcohol, tobacco - tax is not a detterent. A complete overhaul of how processed foods are manufactured and the behaviour of manufacturers, advertised, how they are regulated, awareness of the health effects they produce etc is the best in a society's present obesity (health) epidemic.
I've been to the UK. Gas there is around double the US, most of the difference being tax. Compare the number of large pick-ups and SUVs on UK roads vs the US and tell me again how high gas prices aren't a deterrent.
In the UK, purchases of SUV's have surpassed all other vehicle categories and is now the most popular vehicle type on the road. Whether or not the gas prices are high, people are still driving. So, again, taxes are not a deterrent.
Take a look at the top 10 selling vehicles in the UK vs the US and let us know which you think has the higher fleet miles per gallon:
UK (note of the 10 vehicles listed 2 are SUVs)
http://www.carbuyer.co.uk/reviews/recommended/best-selling-cars
US
http://www.businessinsider.com/best-selling-cars-trucks-vehicle-america-2016-2017-1/#9-honda-accord-345225-29-12
Also note that the number one vehicle in the UK is a, suprise suprise, SUV. As a whole, treating it in segments but not individual car brands, SUVS have become the go to for car buyers. The tax brackets one has to pay to get them on the road don't seem to put consumers off, nor does the duty levied on gas prices. Whether I drive a 1998 Honda civic or a 2017 Porsche Carrera, at the pumps I'm paying the same price per litre. Even if tax per litre was to increase (as has been the case and has been made out to be an environmental action and to act acts acts detterent), people still use and drive. It's the same for alcohol, the same for cigarettes, consumption is not halted. Just because you may catch the bus because of a hike in gas prices, that doesn't mean that the very next 100 people will. It's the same principle when talking about taxing junk foods or high sugar contented foodstuffs, that increase in price may affect a small percentile of the population, but the greater number of consumers will likely continue to purchase at the inflated price. In essence, what you may feel is a detterent, duties, VAT etc, is no more than government budget balancing.svetskisampion wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Back in the UK whilst I was still there the idea of a sugar tax was being proposed on drinks, confectionaries, pastries etc. The idea behind it was that with an obesity epidemic well in swing, the NHS was feeling the strain of treating patients who were termed obese. Because of the free health care provided in the UK, tax contributions and government spending is what pays essentially for healthcare. While in theory this may be a good idea to an extent, taxing sugar foods or "junk" is nothing short of another government money grabbing scheme. Not everyone who eats junk is a burden to the healthcare systems, and not everyone who is a burden to the healthcare system eats junk. The processed sugar that has crept into our food is not the fault of the end user, but rather the manufacturers who have created or helped develop this ongoing epidemic. It is they who should be punished financially, perhaps through similar standards adopted in the auto industry where requirements are needed to be met, not the citizens who enjoy a can of soda or chocolate bar. Whether tax is added to items or not, people will still use them. See high emission vehicles, fuel, alcohol, tobacco - tax is not a detterent. A complete overhaul of how processed foods are manufactured and the behaviour of manufacturers, advertised, how they are regulated, awareness of the health effects they produce etc is the best in a society's present obesity (health) epidemic.
I've been to the UK. Gas there is around double the US, most of the difference being tax. Compare the number of large pick-ups and SUVs on UK roads vs the US and tell me again how high gas prices aren't a deterrent.
In the UK, purchases of SUV's have surpassed all other vehicle categories and is now the most popular vehicle type on the road. Whether or not the gas prices are high, people are still driving. So, again, taxes are not a deterrent.
Take a look at the top 10 selling vehicles in the UK vs the US and let us know which you think has the higher fleet miles per gallon:
UK (note of the 10 vehicles listed 2 are SUVs)
http://www.carbuyer.co.uk/reviews/recommended/best-selling-cars
US
http://www.businessinsider.com/best-selling-cars-trucks-vehicle-america-2016-2017-1/#9-honda-accord-345225-29-12
Also note that the number one vehicle in the UK is a, suprise suprise, SUV. As a whole, treating it in segments but not individual car brands, SUVS have become the go to for car buyers. The tax brackets one has to pay to get them on the road don't seem to put consumers off, nor does the duty levied on gas prices. Whether I drive a 1998 Honda civic or a 2017 Porsche Carrera, at the pumps I'm paying the same price per litre. Even if tax per litre was to increase (as has been the case and has been made out to be an environmental action and to act acts acts detterent), people still use and drive. It's the same for alcohol, the same for cigarettes, consumption is not halted. Just because you may catch the bus because of a hike in gas prices, that doesn't mean that the very next 100 people will. It's the same principle when talking about taxing junk foods or high sugar contented foodstuffs, that increase in price may affect a small percentile of the population, but the greater number of consumers will likely continue to purchase at the inflated price. In essence, what you may feel is a detterent, duties, VAT etc, is no more than government budget balancing.
The number one selling car is a ford fiesta that's NOT an suv
Have you even looked at the link Packerjohn provided?0 -
This content has been removed.
-
suzannesimmons3 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Back in the UK whilst I was still there the idea of a sugar tax was being proposed on drinks, confectionaries, pastries etc. The idea behind it was that with an obesity epidemic well in swing, the NHS was feeling the strain of treating patients who were termed obese. Because of the free health care provided in the UK, tax contributions and government spending is what pays essentially for healthcare. While in theory this may be a good idea to an extent, taxing sugar foods or "junk" is nothing short of another government money grabbing scheme. Not everyone who eats junk is a burden to the healthcare systems, and not everyone who is a burden to the healthcare system eats junk. The processed sugar that has crept into our food is not the fault of the end user, but rather the manufacturers who have created or helped develop this ongoing epidemic. It is they who should be punished financially, perhaps through similar standards adopted in the auto industry where requirements are needed to be met, not the citizens who enjoy a can of soda or chocolate bar. Whether tax is added to items or not, people will still use them. See high emission vehicles, fuel, alcohol, tobacco - tax is not a detterent. A complete overhaul of how processed foods are manufactured and the behaviour of manufacturers, advertised, how they are regulated, awareness of the health effects they produce etc is the best in a society's present obesity (health) epidemic.
I've been to the UK. Gas there is around double the US, most of the difference being tax. Compare the number of large pick-ups and SUVs on UK roads vs the US and tell me again how high gas prices aren't a deterrent.
In the UK, purchases of SUV's have surpassed all other vehicle categories and is now the most popular vehicle type on the road. Whether or not the gas prices are high, people are still driving. So, again, taxes are not a deterrent.
Take a look at the top 10 selling vehicles in the UK vs the US and let us know which you think has the higher fleet miles per gallon:
UK (note of the 10 vehicles listed 2 are SUVs)
http://www.carbuyer.co.uk/reviews/recommended/best-selling-cars
US
http://www.businessinsider.com/best-selling-cars-trucks-vehicle-america-2016-2017-1/#9-honda-accord-345225-29-12
Also note that the number one vehicle in the UK is a, suprise suprise, SUV. As a whole, treating it in segments but not individual car brands, SUVS have become the go to for car buyers. The tax brackets one has to pay to get them on the road don't seem to put consumers off, nor does the duty levied on gas prices. Whether I drive a 1998 Honda civic or a 2017 Porsche Carrera, at the pumps I'm paying the same price per litre. Even if tax per litre was to increase (as has been the case and has been made out to be an environmental action and to act acts acts detterent), people still use and drive. It's the same for alcohol, the same for cigarettes, consumption is not halted. Just because you may catch the bus because of a hike in gas prices, that doesn't mean that the very next 100 people will. It's the same principle when talking about taxing junk foods or high sugar contented foodstuffs, that increase in price may affect a small percentile of the population, but the greater number of consumers will likely continue to purchase at the inflated price. In essence, what you may feel is a detterent, duties, VAT etc, is no more than government budget balancing.svetskisampion wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Back in the UK whilst I was still there the idea of a sugar tax was being proposed on drinks, confectionaries, pastries etc. The idea behind it was that with an obesity epidemic well in swing, the NHS was feeling the strain of treating patients who were termed obese. Because of the free health care provided in the UK, tax contributions and government spending is what pays essentially for healthcare. While in theory this may be a good idea to an extent, taxing sugar foods or "junk" is nothing short of another government money grabbing scheme. Not everyone who eats junk is a burden to the healthcare systems, and not everyone who is a burden to the healthcare system eats junk. The processed sugar that has crept into our food is not the fault of the end user, but rather the manufacturers who have created or helped develop this ongoing epidemic. It is they who should be punished financially, perhaps through similar standards adopted in the auto industry where requirements are needed to be met, not the citizens who enjoy a can of soda or chocolate bar. Whether tax is added to items or not, people will still use them. See high emission vehicles, fuel, alcohol, tobacco - tax is not a detterent. A complete overhaul of how processed foods are manufactured and the behaviour of manufacturers, advertised, how they are regulated, awareness of the health effects they produce etc is the best in a society's present obesity (health) epidemic.
I've been to the UK. Gas there is around double the US, most of the difference being tax. Compare the number of large pick-ups and SUVs on UK roads vs the US and tell me again how high gas prices aren't a deterrent.
In the UK, purchases of SUV's have surpassed all other vehicle categories and is now the most popular vehicle type on the road. Whether or not the gas prices are high, people are still driving. So, again, taxes are not a deterrent.
Take a look at the top 10 selling vehicles in the UK vs the US and let us know which you think has the higher fleet miles per gallon:
UK (note of the 10 vehicles listed 2 are SUVs)
http://www.carbuyer.co.uk/reviews/recommended/best-selling-cars
US
http://www.businessinsider.com/best-selling-cars-trucks-vehicle-america-2016-2017-1/#9-honda-accord-345225-29-12
Also note that the number one vehicle in the UK is a, suprise suprise, SUV. As a whole, treating it in segments but not individual car brands, SUVS have become the go to for car buyers. The tax brackets one has to pay to get them on the road don't seem to put consumers off, nor does the duty levied on gas prices. Whether I drive a 1998 Honda civic or a 2017 Porsche Carrera, at the pumps I'm paying the same price per litre. Even if tax per litre was to increase (as has been the case and has been made out to be an environmental action and to act acts acts detterent), people still use and drive. It's the same for alcohol, the same for cigarettes, consumption is not halted. Just because you may catch the bus because of a hike in gas prices, that doesn't mean that the very next 100 people will. It's the same principle when talking about taxing junk foods or high sugar contented foodstuffs, that increase in price may affect a small percentile of the population, but the greater number of consumers will likely continue to purchase at the inflated price. In essence, what you may feel is a detterent, duties, VAT etc, is no more than government budget balancing.
If your talking about the nissan It's a 1.2L 70mpg vehicle.....
http://europe.autonews.com/article/20170811/ANE/170739935?template=mobile02&X-IgnoreUserAgent=1
http://www.ipswichstar.co.uk/news/one-in-four-sales-suvs-as-european-car-market-booms-1-4860594
https://maxxia.co.uk/blog/rise-of-the-suv/
0 -
suzannesimmons3 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »suzannesimmons3 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Back in the UK whilst I was still there the idea of a sugar tax was being proposed on drinks, confectionaries, pastries etc. The idea behind it was that with an obesity epidemic well in swing, the NHS was feeling the strain of treating patients who were termed obese. Because of the free health care provided in the UK, tax contributions and government spending is what pays essentially for healthcare. While in theory this may be a good idea to an extent, taxing sugar foods or "junk" is nothing short of another government money grabbing scheme. Not everyone who eats junk is a burden to the healthcare systems, and not everyone who is a burden to the healthcare system eats junk. The processed sugar that has crept into our food is not the fault of the end user, but rather the manufacturers who have created or helped develop this ongoing epidemic. It is they who should be punished financially, perhaps through similar standards adopted in the auto industry where requirements are needed to be met, not the citizens who enjoy a can of soda or chocolate bar. Whether tax is added to items or not, people will still use them. See high emission vehicles, fuel, alcohol, tobacco - tax is not a detterent. A complete overhaul of how processed foods are manufactured and the behaviour of manufacturers, advertised, how they are regulated, awareness of the health effects they produce etc is the best in a society's present obesity (health) epidemic.
I've been to the UK. Gas there is around double the US, most of the difference being tax. Compare the number of large pick-ups and SUVs on UK roads vs the US and tell me again how high gas prices aren't a deterrent.
In the UK, purchases of SUV's have surpassed all other vehicle categories and is now the most popular vehicle type on the road. Whether or not the gas prices are high, people are still driving. So, again, taxes are not a deterrent.
Take a look at the top 10 selling vehicles in the UK vs the US and let us know which you think has the higher fleet miles per gallon:
UK (note of the 10 vehicles listed 2 are SUVs)
http://www.carbuyer.co.uk/reviews/recommended/best-selling-cars
US
http://www.businessinsider.com/best-selling-cars-trucks-vehicle-america-2016-2017-1/#9-honda-accord-345225-29-12
Also note that the number one vehicle in the UK is a, suprise suprise, SUV. As a whole, treating it in segments but not individual car brands, SUVS have become the go to for car buyers. The tax brackets one has to pay to get them on the road don't seem to put consumers off, nor does the duty levied on gas prices. Whether I drive a 1998 Honda civic or a 2017 Porsche Carrera, at the pumps I'm paying the same price per litre. Even if tax per litre was to increase (as has been the case and has been made out to be an environmental action and to act acts acts detterent), people still use and drive. It's the same for alcohol, the same for cigarettes, consumption is not halted. Just because you may catch the bus because of a hike in gas prices, that doesn't mean that the very next 100 people will. It's the same principle when talking about taxing junk foods or high sugar contented foodstuffs, that increase in price may affect a small percentile of the population, but the greater number of consumers will likely continue to purchase at the inflated price. In essence, what you may feel is a detterent, duties, VAT etc, is no more than government budget balancing.svetskisampion wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Back in the UK whilst I was still there the idea of a sugar tax was being proposed on drinks, confectionaries, pastries etc. The idea behind it was that with an obesity epidemic well in swing, the NHS was feeling the strain of treating patients who were termed obese. Because of the free health care provided in the UK, tax contributions and government spending is what pays essentially for healthcare. While in theory this may be a good idea to an extent, taxing sugar foods or "junk" is nothing short of another government money grabbing scheme. Not everyone who eats junk is a burden to the healthcare systems, and not everyone who is a burden to the healthcare system eats junk. The processed sugar that has crept into our food is not the fault of the end user, but rather the manufacturers who have created or helped develop this ongoing epidemic. It is they who should be punished financially, perhaps through similar standards adopted in the auto industry where requirements are needed to be met, not the citizens who enjoy a can of soda or chocolate bar. Whether tax is added to items or not, people will still use them. See high emission vehicles, fuel, alcohol, tobacco - tax is not a detterent. A complete overhaul of how processed foods are manufactured and the behaviour of manufacturers, advertised, how they are regulated, awareness of the health effects they produce etc is the best in a society's present obesity (health) epidemic.
I've been to the UK. Gas there is around double the US, most of the difference being tax. Compare the number of large pick-ups and SUVs on UK roads vs the US and tell me again how high gas prices aren't a deterrent.
In the UK, purchases of SUV's have surpassed all other vehicle categories and is now the most popular vehicle type on the road. Whether or not the gas prices are high, people are still driving. So, again, taxes are not a deterrent.
Take a look at the top 10 selling vehicles in the UK vs the US and let us know which you think has the higher fleet miles per gallon:
UK (note of the 10 vehicles listed 2 are SUVs)
http://www.carbuyer.co.uk/reviews/recommended/best-selling-cars
US
http://www.businessinsider.com/best-selling-cars-trucks-vehicle-america-2016-2017-1/#9-honda-accord-345225-29-12
Also note that the number one vehicle in the UK is a, suprise suprise, SUV. As a whole, treating it in segments but not individual car brands, SUVS have become the go to for car buyers. The tax brackets one has to pay to get them on the road don't seem to put consumers off, nor does the duty levied on gas prices. Whether I drive a 1998 Honda civic or a 2017 Porsche Carrera, at the pumps I'm paying the same price per litre. Even if tax per litre was to increase (as has been the case and has been made out to be an environmental action and to act acts acts detterent), people still use and drive. It's the same for alcohol, the same for cigarettes, consumption is not halted. Just because you may catch the bus because of a hike in gas prices, that doesn't mean that the very next 100 people will. It's the same principle when talking about taxing junk foods or high sugar contented foodstuffs, that increase in price may affect a small percentile of the population, but the greater number of consumers will likely continue to purchase at the inflated price. In essence, what you may feel is a detterent, duties, VAT etc, is no more than government budget balancing.
The number one selling car is a ford fiesta that's NOT an suv
Have you even looked at the link Packerjohn provided?
Depending on which car magazine site you look at it will give you different "top selling" cars.
It's still only a 1.2L 70mpg vehicle....hardly a gas guzzler.
Your response to me was that SUV's where not the leading market share in the UK as mentioned above. I am simply debunking your opinion based on statistics I've seen to date.2 -
@ccrdragon Lets say for arguments sake that added sugars are neither good nor bad. They simply represent a quantity of sugar the consumer should simply accommodate in their dietary plans.
My issue, leaving any concerns about the type of highly processed sugars they put in things is simply the trend towards putting sugar in more and more products. As someone with DB2 who is trying to make healthy food choices. It's become quite apparent to me that very few things on my supermarket shelf have not had sugars added. And I'm not talking about candy bars and shortbread here. I mean savory things like salt and vinegar potato chips have sugar added now. Both sugar and salt are being widely used as flavor enhancers, even in foods that never traditionally needed them to be perfectly yummy.
Ok so sure, food manufacturers are in the business of selling food. They do focus groups. Give people unlabeled samples and the people consistently choose the samples with added sugar and salt. And based on that, until there is some reason to stop doing it, they are going to keep adding sugar and salt to everything. And based on the obesity numbers, clearly a high number of consumers have little to no ability to make healthy choices. Thats why in my previous post I suggest rather than trying to tax consumers on food choices, we put a value on the impact of too much flavour enhancer in a given product and put pressure on the industry itself to make some healthy choices.
1 -
@ccrdragon Lets say for arguments sake that added sugars are neither good nor bad. They simply represent a quantity of sugar the consumer should simply accommodate in their dietary plans.
My issue, leaving any concerns about the type of highly processed sugars they put in things is simply the trend towards putting sugar in more and more products. As someone with DB2 who is trying to make healthy food choices. It's become quite apparent to me that very few things on my supermarket shelf have not had sugars added. And I'm not talking about candy bars and shortbread here. I mean savory things like salt and vinegar potato chips have sugar added now. Both sugar and salt are being widely used as flavor enhancers, even in foods that never traditionally needed them to be perfectly yummy.
Ok so sure, food manufacturers are in the business of selling food. They do focus groups. Give people unlabeled samples and the people consistently choose the samples with added sugar and salt. And based on that, until there is some reason to stop doing it, they are going to keep adding sugar and salt to everything. And based on the obesity numbers, clearly a high number of consumers have little to no ability to make healthy choices. Thats why in my previous post I suggest rather than trying to tax consumers on food choices, we put a value on the impact of too much flavour enhancer in a given product and put pressure on the industry itself to make some healthy choices.
I totally agree with this and you have managed to say what I have been trying to say much more clearly. Kudos for a clear and concise insight.0 -
svetskisampion wrote: »suzannesimmons3 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »suzannesimmons3 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Back in the UK whilst I was still there the idea of a sugar tax was being proposed on drinks, confectionaries, pastries etc. The idea behind it was that with an obesity epidemic well in swing, the NHS was feeling the strain of treating patients who were termed obese. Because of the free health care provided in the UK, tax contributions and government spending is what pays essentially for healthcare. While in theory this may be a good idea to an extent, taxing sugar foods or "junk" is nothing short of another government money grabbing scheme. Not everyone who eats junk is a burden to the healthcare systems, and not everyone who is a burden to the healthcare system eats junk. The processed sugar that has crept into our food is not the fault of the end user, but rather the manufacturers who have created or helped develop this ongoing epidemic. It is they who should be punished financially, perhaps through similar standards adopted in the auto industry where requirements are needed to be met, not the citizens who enjoy a can of soda or chocolate bar. Whether tax is added to items or not, people will still use them. See high emission vehicles, fuel, alcohol, tobacco - tax is not a detterent. A complete overhaul of how processed foods are manufactured and the behaviour of manufacturers, advertised, how they are regulated, awareness of the health effects they produce etc is the best in a society's present obesity (health) epidemic.
I've been to the UK. Gas there is around double the US, most of the difference being tax. Compare the number of large pick-ups and SUVs on UK roads vs the US and tell me again how high gas prices aren't a deterrent.
In the UK, purchases of SUV's have surpassed all other vehicle categories and is now the most popular vehicle type on the road. Whether or not the gas prices are high, people are still driving. So, again, taxes are not a deterrent.
Take a look at the top 10 selling vehicles in the UK vs the US and let us know which you think has the higher fleet miles per gallon:
UK (note of the 10 vehicles listed 2 are SUVs)
http://www.carbuyer.co.uk/reviews/recommended/best-selling-cars
US
http://www.businessinsider.com/best-selling-cars-trucks-vehicle-america-2016-2017-1/#9-honda-accord-345225-29-12
Also note that the number one vehicle in the UK is a, suprise suprise, SUV. As a whole, treating it in segments but not individual car brands, SUVS have become the go to for car buyers. The tax brackets one has to pay to get them on the road don't seem to put consumers off, nor does the duty levied on gas prices. Whether I drive a 1998 Honda civic or a 2017 Porsche Carrera, at the pumps I'm paying the same price per litre. Even if tax per litre was to increase (as has been the case and has been made out to be an environmental action and to act acts acts detterent), people still use and drive. It's the same for alcohol, the same for cigarettes, consumption is not halted. Just because you may catch the bus because of a hike in gas prices, that doesn't mean that the very next 100 people will. It's the same principle when talking about taxing junk foods or high sugar contented foodstuffs, that increase in price may affect a small percentile of the population, but the greater number of consumers will likely continue to purchase at the inflated price. In essence, what you may feel is a detterent, duties, VAT etc, is no more than government budget balancing.svetskisampion wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Back in the UK whilst I was still there the idea of a sugar tax was being proposed on drinks, confectionaries, pastries etc. The idea behind it was that with an obesity epidemic well in swing, the NHS was feeling the strain of treating patients who were termed obese. Because of the free health care provided in the UK, tax contributions and government spending is what pays essentially for healthcare. While in theory this may be a good idea to an extent, taxing sugar foods or "junk" is nothing short of another government money grabbing scheme. Not everyone who eats junk is a burden to the healthcare systems, and not everyone who is a burden to the healthcare system eats junk. The processed sugar that has crept into our food is not the fault of the end user, but rather the manufacturers who have created or helped develop this ongoing epidemic. It is they who should be punished financially, perhaps through similar standards adopted in the auto industry where requirements are needed to be met, not the citizens who enjoy a can of soda or chocolate bar. Whether tax is added to items or not, people will still use them. See high emission vehicles, fuel, alcohol, tobacco - tax is not a detterent. A complete overhaul of how processed foods are manufactured and the behaviour of manufacturers, advertised, how they are regulated, awareness of the health effects they produce etc is the best in a society's present obesity (health) epidemic.
I've been to the UK. Gas there is around double the US, most of the difference being tax. Compare the number of large pick-ups and SUVs on UK roads vs the US and tell me again how high gas prices aren't a deterrent.
In the UK, purchases of SUV's have surpassed all other vehicle categories and is now the most popular vehicle type on the road. Whether or not the gas prices are high, people are still driving. So, again, taxes are not a deterrent.
Take a look at the top 10 selling vehicles in the UK vs the US and let us know which you think has the higher fleet miles per gallon:
UK (note of the 10 vehicles listed 2 are SUVs)
http://www.carbuyer.co.uk/reviews/recommended/best-selling-cars
US
http://www.businessinsider.com/best-selling-cars-trucks-vehicle-america-2016-2017-1/#9-honda-accord-345225-29-12
Also note that the number one vehicle in the UK is a, suprise suprise, SUV. As a whole, treating it in segments but not individual car brands, SUVS have become the go to for car buyers. The tax brackets one has to pay to get them on the road don't seem to put consumers off, nor does the duty levied on gas prices. Whether I drive a 1998 Honda civic or a 2017 Porsche Carrera, at the pumps I'm paying the same price per litre. Even if tax per litre was to increase (as has been the case and has been made out to be an environmental action and to act acts acts detterent), people still use and drive. It's the same for alcohol, the same for cigarettes, consumption is not halted. Just because you may catch the bus because of a hike in gas prices, that doesn't mean that the very next 100 people will. It's the same principle when talking about taxing junk foods or high sugar contented foodstuffs, that increase in price may affect a small percentile of the population, but the greater number of consumers will likely continue to purchase at the inflated price. In essence, what you may feel is a detterent, duties, VAT etc, is no more than government budget balancing.
The number one selling car is a ford fiesta that's NOT an suv
Have you even looked at the link Packerjohn provided?
Depending on which car magazine site you look at it will give you different "top selling" cars.
It's still only a 1.2L 70mpg vehicle....hardly a gas guzzler.
Your response to me was that SUV's where not the leading market share in the UK as mentioned above. I am simply debunking your opinion based on statistics I've seen to date.
you're just going to ignore the pesky fact that in the timeframe during which SUVs grew in popularity, very recently, gas prices were decreasing? A point which seems to validate the hypothesis that when prices fall people consume more.0 -
svetskisampion wrote: »suzannesimmons3 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »suzannesimmons3 wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Back in the UK whilst I was still there the idea of a sugar tax was being proposed on drinks, confectionaries, pastries etc. The idea behind it was that with an obesity epidemic well in swing, the NHS was feeling the strain of treating patients who were termed obese. Because of the free health care provided in the UK, tax contributions and government spending is what pays essentially for healthcare. While in theory this may be a good idea to an extent, taxing sugar foods or "junk" is nothing short of another government money grabbing scheme. Not everyone who eats junk is a burden to the healthcare systems, and not everyone who is a burden to the healthcare system eats junk. The processed sugar that has crept into our food is not the fault of the end user, but rather the manufacturers who have created or helped develop this ongoing epidemic. It is they who should be punished financially, perhaps through similar standards adopted in the auto industry where requirements are needed to be met, not the citizens who enjoy a can of soda or chocolate bar. Whether tax is added to items or not, people will still use them. See high emission vehicles, fuel, alcohol, tobacco - tax is not a detterent. A complete overhaul of how processed foods are manufactured and the behaviour of manufacturers, advertised, how they are regulated, awareness of the health effects they produce etc is the best in a society's present obesity (health) epidemic.
I've been to the UK. Gas there is around double the US, most of the difference being tax. Compare the number of large pick-ups and SUVs on UK roads vs the US and tell me again how high gas prices aren't a deterrent.
In the UK, purchases of SUV's have surpassed all other vehicle categories and is now the most popular vehicle type on the road. Whether or not the gas prices are high, people are still driving. So, again, taxes are not a deterrent.
Take a look at the top 10 selling vehicles in the UK vs the US and let us know which you think has the higher fleet miles per gallon:
UK (note of the 10 vehicles listed 2 are SUVs)
http://www.carbuyer.co.uk/reviews/recommended/best-selling-cars
US
http://www.businessinsider.com/best-selling-cars-trucks-vehicle-america-2016-2017-1/#9-honda-accord-345225-29-12
Also note that the number one vehicle in the UK is a, suprise suprise, SUV. As a whole, treating it in segments but not individual car brands, SUVS have become the go to for car buyers. The tax brackets one has to pay to get them on the road don't seem to put consumers off, nor does the duty levied on gas prices. Whether I drive a 1998 Honda civic or a 2017 Porsche Carrera, at the pumps I'm paying the same price per litre. Even if tax per litre was to increase (as has been the case and has been made out to be an environmental action and to act acts acts detterent), people still use and drive. It's the same for alcohol, the same for cigarettes, consumption is not halted. Just because you may catch the bus because of a hike in gas prices, that doesn't mean that the very next 100 people will. It's the same principle when talking about taxing junk foods or high sugar contented foodstuffs, that increase in price may affect a small percentile of the population, but the greater number of consumers will likely continue to purchase at the inflated price. In essence, what you may feel is a detterent, duties, VAT etc, is no more than government budget balancing.svetskisampion wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Back in the UK whilst I was still there the idea of a sugar tax was being proposed on drinks, confectionaries, pastries etc. The idea behind it was that with an obesity epidemic well in swing, the NHS was feeling the strain of treating patients who were termed obese. Because of the free health care provided in the UK, tax contributions and government spending is what pays essentially for healthcare. While in theory this may be a good idea to an extent, taxing sugar foods or "junk" is nothing short of another government money grabbing scheme. Not everyone who eats junk is a burden to the healthcare systems, and not everyone who is a burden to the healthcare system eats junk. The processed sugar that has crept into our food is not the fault of the end user, but rather the manufacturers who have created or helped develop this ongoing epidemic. It is they who should be punished financially, perhaps through similar standards adopted in the auto industry where requirements are needed to be met, not the citizens who enjoy a can of soda or chocolate bar. Whether tax is added to items or not, people will still use them. See high emission vehicles, fuel, alcohol, tobacco - tax is not a detterent. A complete overhaul of how processed foods are manufactured and the behaviour of manufacturers, advertised, how they are regulated, awareness of the health effects they produce etc is the best in a society's present obesity (health) epidemic.
I've been to the UK. Gas there is around double the US, most of the difference being tax. Compare the number of large pick-ups and SUVs on UK roads vs the US and tell me again how high gas prices aren't a deterrent.
In the UK, purchases of SUV's have surpassed all other vehicle categories and is now the most popular vehicle type on the road. Whether or not the gas prices are high, people are still driving. So, again, taxes are not a deterrent.
Take a look at the top 10 selling vehicles in the UK vs the US and let us know which you think has the higher fleet miles per gallon:
UK (note of the 10 vehicles listed 2 are SUVs)
http://www.carbuyer.co.uk/reviews/recommended/best-selling-cars
US
http://www.businessinsider.com/best-selling-cars-trucks-vehicle-america-2016-2017-1/#9-honda-accord-345225-29-12
Also note that the number one vehicle in the UK is a, suprise suprise, SUV. As a whole, treating it in segments but not individual car brands, SUVS have become the go to for car buyers. The tax brackets one has to pay to get them on the road don't seem to put consumers off, nor does the duty levied on gas prices. Whether I drive a 1998 Honda civic or a 2017 Porsche Carrera, at the pumps I'm paying the same price per litre. Even if tax per litre was to increase (as has been the case and has been made out to be an environmental action and to act acts acts detterent), people still use and drive. It's the same for alcohol, the same for cigarettes, consumption is not halted. Just because you may catch the bus because of a hike in gas prices, that doesn't mean that the very next 100 people will. It's the same principle when talking about taxing junk foods or high sugar contented foodstuffs, that increase in price may affect a small percentile of the population, but the greater number of consumers will likely continue to purchase at the inflated price. In essence, what you may feel is a detterent, duties, VAT etc, is no more than government budget balancing.
The number one selling car is a ford fiesta that's NOT an suv
Have you even looked at the link Packerjohn provided?
Depending on which car magazine site you look at it will give you different "top selling" cars.
It's still only a 1.2L 70mpg vehicle....hardly a gas guzzler.
Your response to me was that SUV's where not the leading market share in the UK as mentioned above. I am simply debunking your opinion based on statistics I've seen to date.
you're just going to ignore the pesky fact that in the timeframe during which SUVs grew in popularity, very recently, gas prices were decreasing? A point which seems to validate the hypothesis that when prices fall people consume more.
In that same timeframe, new taxes were introduced on registering new vehicles in the UK. So yes I will ignore a slight decrease in gas prices, because they are far outweighed by the added cost of actually purchasing and paying to register a vehicle.0 -
@ccrdragon Lets say for arguments sake that added sugars are neither good nor bad. They simply represent a quantity of sugar the consumer should simply accommodate in their dietary plans.
My issue, leaving any concerns about the type of highly processed sugars they put in things is simply the trend towards putting sugar in more and more products. As someone with DB2 who is trying to make healthy food choices. It's become quite apparent to me that very few things on my supermarket shelf have not had sugars added. And I'm not talking about candy bars and shortbread here. I mean savory things like salt and vinegar potato chips have sugar added now. Both sugar and salt are being widely used as flavor enhancers, even in foods that never traditionally needed them to be perfectly yummy.
Ok so sure, food manufacturers are in the business of selling food. They do focus groups. Give people unlabeled samples and the people consistently choose the samples with added sugar and salt. And based on that, until there is some reason to stop doing it, they are going to keep adding sugar and salt to everything. And based on the obesity numbers, clearly a high number of consumers have little to no ability to make healthy choices. Thats why in my previous post I suggest rather than trying to tax consumers on food choices, we put a value on the impact of too much flavour enhancer in a given product and put pressure on the industry itself to make some healthy choices.
I think this is a good idea, but without a fundamental change in the attitudes of the consumer, the food industries will not (or cannot) change. The consumers drive the market, not the other way around.
I would also disagree that consumers have little to no ability to make healthy choices - they have the ability, but most people are lazy and will take the easy or convenient choice - we live in a society that demands instant satisfaction and instant results, so the approach of having the food manufacturers make changes is viable but it will take time to get people to adjust to new things and new tastes. Maybe not the solution for the current generation, but definitely possible for the next generation.1 -
My suggestion would be in the form of a financial incentive system, based on putting an actual price on the health impacts of something like salt for example. I'm just spitballing here. But we have good evidence that sodium is a significant contributing factor to raised blood pressure, and raised blood pressure has a significant link to rates of heart disease. In my country, heart disease is listed as the single leading cause of death. In the time it takes me to write this, two people will die from it.
So if we take a look at the money spent both treating and researching cardiovascular illness we should with minimal difficulty be able to arrive at a number that represents the cost to the nation of high sodium diets. It won't be perfect maths. But if we were to agree that putting extra salt into a can of food simply to increase sales and profits was a socially irresponsible thing to do. Then the companies who do this should be exposed to the cost that society will bear in dealing with it.
If Germany's example with packaging products is anything to go by. Some companies will simply make salty food and pass those costs on to the consumer. But most will suddenly start marketing low sodium foods as if it's the greatest thing since sliced bread. New, heart smart tomato soup and just about everything else will populate the shelves in no time.1 -
I agree with several, that the government already plays to big a role in our life. I also agree that more taxes is not the way to go. Those funds always end up, eventually, reallocated. I also agree that making manufactures be the police of societies health by paying for or forcing their products to fit better health standards is not how the US, a successfully based capitalism country should operate. Freedom for people to make their own choices is also a concept embraced in the US and we all enjoy it. I also agree that we cant stop people from making constant bad choices that put their health at risk.
I do advocate people living with their own choices...and that includes non govt provided health care (which we all pay taxes to support) for self inflicted things like obesity. The government is not faceless people who have free money to throw around to other people doing dumb things...it is us...we the people, we all have a face. I am not OK constantly paying hard earned money to support people with health issue and in some cases living expenses because their self inflicted problems also prevent them from working. Please note---I said self inflicted. I am not advocating we stop helping all disabled people nor want to start a discussion on the specific definition of self inflicted...this is a concept.
I would rather know that my taxes paid for enough resources to keep ALL of us safe from "Rocket Man" and those kinds of crazies bent on destroying the US, than help one person bent on destroying their own life with chronic bad life decisions. If you exercise free choice...you live by your choices.1 -
ent3rsandman wrote: »I think we should educate people on the benefits of a healthy lifestyle, rather than demonize an unhealthy one. Personally, I would prefer to hear "you can spend an extra 20 years with your loved ones" rather than "hey fatty, your appearance is as awful as your life expectancy, and now we're going to fine you for having no self control".
People that want to improve their situation tend to do so with positivity egging them on. I didn't lose weight because I hated myself; I lost weight because I was bored eating food that made me feel and look sub-optimal, and knew I could do better if I just tried. My friends that got into lifting didn't start because they were afraid of being scrawny; they just saw how it affected the mental and physical state of their more athletic peers and wanted a taste of that happiness. Very few people on this forum befriend users that are going to mock them. Rather, they'd prefer to add users that have been in similar situations because they'll be empathetic to their plight. MOST people want (and some people need) positive reinforcement to change. It is not common to want to hear that you are sinking towards rock bottom.
On top of that, junk food has helped many "hardgainers" that have the opposite problem. No need to take away their vice because our culture just happens to put hyperpalatable foods on a pedestal.
@ent3rsandman thanks for the great points you made.1 -
My suggestion would be in the form of a financial incentive system, based on putting an actual price on the health impacts of something like salt for example. I'm just spitballing here. But we have good evidence that sodium is a significant contributing factor to raised blood pressure, and raised blood pressure has a significant link to rates of heart disease. In my country, heart disease is listed as the single leading cause of death. In the time it takes me to write this, two people will die from it.
So if we take a look at the money spent both treating and researching cardiovascular illness we should with minimal difficulty be able to arrive at a number that represents the cost to the nation of high sodium diets. It won't be perfect maths. But if we were to agree that putting extra salt into a can of food simply to increase sales and profits was a socially irresponsible thing to do. Then the companies who do this should be exposed to the cost that society will bear in dealing with it.
If Germany's example with packaging products is anything to go by. Some companies will simply make salty food and pass those costs on to the consumer. But most will suddenly start marketing low sodium foods as if it's the greatest thing since sliced bread. New, heart smart tomato soup and just about everything else will populate the shelves in no time.
We already have this in our supermarkets in the US (there are almost as many low-sodium options on pre-packaged foods as regular sodium)... guess what - people don't buy it unless their doctor has recommended that they eat a low sodium diet and they choose to comply with the doctor's recommendations ... goes back to my previous point - consumers drive the market and until we can change the attitudes of the consumers, real change will not be affected.0 -
My issue, leaving any concerns about the type of highly processed sugars they put in things is simply the trend towards putting sugar in more and more products.
Is this an ongoing trend?
Wouldn't a demand for products without added sugar weigh against it? (Indeed, I think that's one thing the US hopes for with the shift to nutrition labels that identify added sugar.)As someone with DB2 who is trying to make healthy food choices. It's become quite apparent to me that very few things on my supermarket shelf have not had sugars added. And I'm not talking about candy bars and shortbread here. I mean savory things like salt and vinegar potato chips have sugar added now. Both sugar and salt are being widely used as flavor enhancers, even in foods that never traditionally needed them to be perfectly yummy.
I always find this to be an odd claim. Yes, some chips have sugar, I expect, but even though I rarely consume chips I look at the packages out of curiosity off and on, and the ones I have looked at have no added sugar.
Almost nothing I buy regularly has added sugar except for things that everyone knows does (ice cream) or in a few cases an amount I consider minimal given serving size (sriracha, an occasional BBQ/powder -- and those need the sugar -- and smoked salmon (again using a tiny bit of sugar is tradition). And yes, I know how to spot sugar in all its forms.Ok so sure, food manufacturers are in the business of selling food. They do focus groups. Give people unlabeled samples and the people consistently choose the samples with added sugar and salt. And based on that, until there is some reason to stop doing it, they are going to keep adding sugar and salt to everything.
Yes, it's a cheap way to make a product tasty, so absent consumer pressure to the contrary or a reason to avoid it (trying to get some helpful marketing label), they are going to appeal to consumer preference/sales.
Yet there are many products that seem to be low salt these days, or are labeled (and really are) sugar free.
And there's the option of simply mostly cooking from whole foods or ingredients (like dried pasta, plain greek yogurt, canned beans -- which do come in low sodium), so on, that are not going to have sugar added. It's not like there are not alternatives, or that they are hard to find. (Indeed, recommending that you mostly approach eating and cooking this way is the basis for the Brazil guidelines that everyone seems to praise so.)And based on the obesity numbers, clearly a high number of consumers have little to no ability to make healthy choices. Thats why in my previous post I suggest rather than trying to tax consumers on food choices, we put a value on the impact of too much flavour enhancer in a given product and put pressure on the industry itself to make some healthy choices.
What is your specific proposal? Edit: Sorry, I asked for your proposal before seeing that you had already posted it. I will read and respond to that post.0 -
My suggestion would be in the form of a financial incentive system, based on putting an actual price on the health impacts of something like salt for example. I'm just spitballing here. But we have good evidence that sodium is a significant contributing factor to raised blood pressure, and raised blood pressure has a significant link to rates of heart disease.
Setting aside any debate over sodium, and the fact that there are a huge variety of low sodium options available (and you can avoid the issue by cooking from whole foods), the UK has a program to address this that I mentioned upthread. Here's more information: http://www.actiononsalt.org.uk/UK Salt Reduction Programme/145617.html
"Salt reduction was made a public health priority in the early 2000’s by the Food Standards Agency (FSA). At the time, the FSA, an independent body, was completely responsible for nutrition, and together with CASH, they laid out a set of achievable targets on over 80 food categories for the food industry to voluntarily adhere to. This was in line with public awareness campaigns such as ‘Sid the Slug’ ‘Check the Label’ and ‘Is Your Food Full of it?’. All members of the food industry were encouraged to agree to the salt targets and work towards them within an acceptable timeframe. New and lower targets were then set a couple of years later, with a deadline of 2012 in which to achieve them. This approach of resetting targets every 2 years was executed so as to achieve the UK recommendation of 6g a day by 2015.
In 2011 under the new coalition government responsibility was moved away from the FSA and given to the Department of Health, whereby the set up the Public Health Responsibility Deal, under where the salt targets currently lie.
Salt reduction has been a real success here in the UK, with many food products now 20-40% lower in salt than they were 10 years ago...."
So something like that?But if we were to agree that putting extra salt into a can of food simply to increase sales and profits was a socially irresponsible thing to do. Then the companies who do this should be exposed to the cost that society will bear in dealing with it.
This--unlike the UK approach discussed above or the labeling approach used, especially the one in the UK--sounds like, simply, a tax on added salt. (Which IMO is justifiable under a negative externalities approach if we decide that added salt is a real issue, but I'm not sure how it's different from the tax approach.)
For the record, canned goods historically have been high sodium because it's a preservative. That particular use of sodium is NOT a new thing, and probably there are many more no or low sodium options for canned goods. (I look at sodium because I prefer to get my extra sodium from salt I add myself or foods that inherently have it and that I love, like olives, pickles, cheese, and have not had any issue finding no sodium added canned tomatoes, for example.)0 -
lisawolfinger wrote: »I do advocate people living with their own choices...and that includes non govt provided health care (which we all pay taxes to support) for self inflicted things like obesity.
So obese 68-year-old man who has worked hard all his life and paid taxes for Medicare gets heart disease. You don't know if he would have gotten the problem if not obese -- maybe, my grandfather had open-heart surgery and subsequently died of a heart attack at 72, and he was not obese (he was a retired farmer who was active most of his life, and probably just got genetically unlucky).
Does this 68-year-old man not get treatment unless he pays out of pocket in your world?2 -
@lemurcat12 looks like you already found some great reading there. If you find yourself looking for any other data driven policy discussion, Have a look at the discussions in Sth Africa leading up to them placing hard sodium limits in 2016. And the work of Prof Bruce Neal https://www.georgeinstitute.org/people/bruce-neal
I don't claim to be an expert, I'm just an insomniac with an interest in dietary health who stays up late reading too much. I do look for scientific publications based on credible data, as I'm not a big fan of woo. But you'll forgive me for not sitting here citing references
I have an aversion to unpaid work.
To address a couple of things you've said. Yes, I've definitely observed sugar being added to savory products that I have been eating for a long time. The most obvious one to me was salt and vinegar crisps. I tasted the change and was surprised by the labelling. My insight into the process used by manufacturers is courtesy of a friend who is a food scientist for a large milling company that produces many processed foods. Which is why I don't actually blame manufacturers for their choices.. They ask people which flavors they prefer then make the one the focus groups pick.
I'm glad you and @ccrdragon feel that you have ample low sodium options on the shelf. Thats great and I wish my country was similar. The last statistics I have for the increase of sodium in processed foods was 2.25% per year across the board here.
And finally, I think the measures taken by both UK and SA are good, but I prefer the incentive based system to hard limits.1 -
My insight into the process used by manufacturers is courtesy of a friend who is a food scientist for a large milling company that produces many processed foods. Which is why I don't actually blame manufacturers for their choices.. They ask people which flavors they prefer then make the one the focus groups pick.
Pretty good book that discusses this sort of thing is Salt, Sugar, Fat, by Michael Moss.2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »My insight into the process used by manufacturers is courtesy of a friend who is a food scientist for a large milling company that produces many processed foods. Which is why I don't actually blame manufacturers for their choices.. They ask people which flavors they prefer then make the one the focus groups pick.
Pretty good book that discusses this sort of thing is Salt, Sugar, Fat, by Michael Moss.
Wow, a times bestseller from a Pulitzer Prize winner. I will definitely be checking that out, thanks.2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lisawolfinger wrote: »I do advocate people living with their own choices...and that includes non govt provided health care (which we all pay taxes to support) for self inflicted things like obesity.
So obese 68-year-old man who has worked hard all his life and paid taxes for Medicare gets heart disease. You don't know if he would have gotten the problem if not obese -- maybe, my grandfather had open-heart surgery and subsequently died of a heart attack at 72, and he was not obese (he was a retired farmer who was active most of his life, and probably just got genetically unlucky).
Does this 68-year-old man not get treatment unless he pays out of pocket in your world?
"self inflicted things like obesity" could easily be continued "and sports injuries". In fact, cause and effect is much more apparent there - for instance, no way would I break my ankle playing tennis if I hadn't been playing tennis. Do I get a hip replacement if I've walked too much on mine? What about mental health - is that a cause or effect? It sounds nice, but you'd probably spend as much on appeals and dealing with emergencies (assuming we're not for leaving people to die on the street no matter how self inflicted) as you might save. Sometimes it really is cheaper to bite the bullet and pay for something to get a long term saving.
How about a yearly check up, including nutrition advice and bespoke calorie recommendations? For years I justified some things by comparing them to the "2000kcal" figure for typical women, never bothered to calculate mine. 2000kcal means I maintain well into the obese range. (That wasn't the main reason I gained weight, but it didn't help either). It might be interesting for doctors to be able to issue "prescriptions" for diet/exercise/lifestyle recommendations, something formal to help the message stick. Maybe that already happens though? I almost never go to the doctor...1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions