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.
Is the U.S. Government about to try and tackle the Obesity Epidemic?
Options
Replies
-
psychod787 wrote: »Came by this today. https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/596/text?r=5&s=1
I wonder if this passes, what the reaction will be?
If the government (aka Congress) could not "tackle" the Covid-19 epidemic, masks wearing, quarantine and vaccination, I doubt it that they would pass any bill to tackle obesity. I hope that I am wrong.4 -
psychod787 wrote: »Came by this today. https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/596/text?r=5&s=1
I wonder if this passes, what the reaction will be?
I don't think this is as big a change as you think it is. I haven't actually read the underlying legislation that would be modified, but this certainly reads as though various treatments to address obesity are already eligible for coverage by program(s) under the Social Security Act, and this bill would merely expand the kinds of medical professionals who can be paid for providing those services, IF the patient is referred to them by a physician or primary care provider, AND IF the service is provided on-site (doctor's office, hospital out-patient, or community facility) -- which frankly seems like a step back after a year in which we learned that various health services can be provided remotely (video chats, etc.). It also apparently makes some modification to when certain obesity drugs can be covered, but I'm too lazy to go look at the underlying statute to suss that out.4 -
cmriverside wrote: »I'm in for a 30% tax on fast food. Put it directly into the Medicare/Medicaid system.
There IS help. Remaining ever-the-victim is a personal decision.
Wouldn't it be better and more cost-effective to put the revenues from the fast food tax into providing healthy, ready-to-eat food and safe exercise spaces for low-income people? Instead of letting them suffer the bad health outcomes and then pay to treat chronic diseases and emergency recurring situations resulting from the chronic diseases?4 -
For the people suggesting fast food restaurants be taxed?
Or that food stamps should not be able to purchase soda and candy?
1) It is impossible to write a law that will clearly define junk food. Or candy.
2) Poor people also deserve to have an occasional treat.
https://medium.com/the-establishment/poor-people-deserve-to-taste-something-other-than-shame-90eb3aceabf9
Poor people are surrounded by nutritional advice. However, food deserts are a real thing.
I once visited Washington DC. The grocery store closest to where we stayed (an AYH hostel) was the very first time I realized how bad a grocery store in a food desert is. And yes, they exist. Even our capital.
There were very few fresh vegetables. The oranges looked like they were leftovers from last year. Apples didn’t seem to exist. There were plenty of chips in single serve packets, though.
And then the advice to just put something in a crockpot to eat after you come home from work. Sounds easy.
… but it assumes you can afford a crock pot. Yes. I know they’re not expensive. But when you have essentially no money? It is a factor.
Assuming you found a crock pot, are you going to leave it alone for twelve or more hours while you’re on the bus to your second job? Maybe. Maybe not.
Can you trust the electricity will remain on that whole time? I know there were times I couldn’t be so sure.
So. You swing by McD’s after you pick up the kids from daycare. Exhausted. But at least the kids are fed.
Food banks don’t usually give you things that would benefit from being cooked for a long time in a crockpot anyhow. Just FYI.
Food banks are mostly cheap carbs. And vegetables that need work. Which is fine. But if you’ve just done a ten hour shift, and you still have to feed the kids? It’s unlikely you’re going to have the energy to slice up a bunch of carrots for dinner.
Chances are high it will be brand X Mac and cheese. Made with no butter. Because butter is expensive. And probably no milk either, unless you receive WIC benefits. Because milk is expensive. And very rarely handed out at food banks.
If you wind up having to rely on community feeds? Good luck. You eat what you get served. And then if you’re lucky you leave with an armload of bread. But probably not much to put on it.
I could go on and on and on….
But I won’t. I just wanted to say my piece.9 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »I'm in for a 30% tax on fast food. Put it directly into the Medicare/Medicaid system.
There IS help. Remaining ever-the-victim is a personal decision.
Wouldn't it be better and more cost-effective to put the revenues from the fast food tax into providing healthy, ready-to-eat food and safe exercise spaces for low-income people? Instead of letting them suffer the bad health outcomes and then pay to treat chronic diseases and emergency recurring situations resulting from the chronic diseases?
When I lived in BC I noticed there were exercise areas in practically every park. Chin-up bars. Balance beams. Running tracks. It was really nice. Every neighborhood had such a park in easy walking distance.
I suspect it has something to do with universal healthcare. Not directly. But it definitely serves the BC government to keep healthcare costs down, and providing easy access to exercise helps that goal.2 -
This certainly is an interesting discussion. There are as many circumstances for obesity as there are obese people and one piece of legislation or a few ideas cannot tackle each one. I think there has to be a multi-faceted approach that tackles as many "groups" as possible as each one has unique factors they face toward getting healthy. Low income groups face financial and potential safety issues that need to be addressed. Some groups do maybe need a kick in the pants somehow. Others need professional support either with a dietician or therapist or both. Everyone here has an opinion on the factors they themselves have experienced or are causes they feel strongly about. None of them are wrong or more/less important than others. I actually think intervention by the government should be more focused on those who need the most help, not those who just need to find some discipline (and yes, there are many of us that just need to get off our butts and do the work)4
-
"Obesity is like any other mental health issue. IF and WHEN someone WANTS help, they can find it."
Not so fast. I have some of the best health insurance available and no where to use it because I live in a very rural area. There have been times where I wanted help and was unable to find it. And if you are physically or emotionally unwell you won't have the energy to do much.
I wish we could separate the health issues of obesity from the focus on appearance.4 -
Can I suggest that this thread really belongs in the Debate forum? It would be nice if heated arguments about what governments should do and how other people should behave were kept to that forum, IMHO.7
-
merchddefaid wrote: »Can I suggest that this thread really belongs in the Debate forum? It would be nice if heated arguments about what governments should do and how other people should behave were kept to that forum, IMHO.
You can go to the first post in this thread and Flag > Report > Other and request that it be moved.
I considered doing that myself but was curious to see if we'd get more participants in this discussion here in General.0 -
I've gone ahead and moved this to our Debate section per request.
Please continue to observe our Community guidelines while debating; Personal attacks or any other breach of our guidelines will not be tolerated. You can review the site's guidelines at the following link:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/welcome/guidelines
Love each other!8 -
MargaretYakoda wrote: »It might be useful to look at rich countries who don't have an obesity epidemic like us, say Japan or South Korea. It may be something in the culture, like how fat shaming is socially accepted, to the point where fat people are almost ostracized in society.
Also the US is much worse than any other western countries, obesity rates in northern European countries are much less, also certain countries in southern Europe.
Oooffff. No
Promoting fat shaming is not a good solution. Yikes. Wow. Yuck. No.
Especially because the countries they are mentioning (Japan and S. Korea) have such a culture of conformity, that it has led to abnormally high (and it remains high) statistics concerning suicide. The majority of suicides are from an inability to perform, to be the perfect citizen according to parents and peers.
Also, Japan specifically has a "fat tax" that applies to companies who have employees who are overweight and a "burden" on the health care system.
I'd also mention that Japan has abysmal mental health facilities and treatment options. You have depression? Too bad, better suck it up and deal with it on your own since finding someone to talk to, let alone someone to prescribe you medication (should you be one of those who need it) is insanely hard.
And while none of that is on topic in regards to OP's post, I really wish people would stop holding up Japan as a country to emulate. They have so many, many issues of their own that negatively impact huge swaths of their population.
Oh, also, Japan had a growing obesity problem when I was living there from 2011 - 2014 and it's getting worse, particularly in middle aged men. Same with S. Korea. They are starting to see an increase in the same issues as we have here, a lot of it stemming from working long hours, riding public transit instead of walking and unlimited access to cheap, pre-prepared heavily caloric foods (cakes, cookies, fried foods, etc.). The government mandated health incentive (making companies pay a "tax" for each overweight employee that taxes the system) has not dramatically helped avoid it, either.5 -
MargaretYakoda wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »Japan has an obesity rate of 4%, the US has a morbid obesity rate of 8%.
Also who prevents anyone from walking? You can choose to walk or you can choose not to walk. If you live in a big city, it's often better to walk instead spending so much money on a car.
Are we saying there's a culture that is against walking ?
It's an individual choice, I think.
Edit : And yes individualism vs collectivism is the most important aspect.
No doubt that walking in a larger city is easier. Compared to Japan, America is far more spread out. I live in a rural area, and for me to walk to the store would be nearly 9 miles round trip. So, we have a car culture. In a more urban environment, Japanese walk to public transport, to the market... ect ect. Yes, there is a culture against walking in America... Just look at the people who stand on an escalator vs. taking the stairs. The stairs would be quicker sometimes, yet many choose to not take them. Watch people trying to get a parking spot at a store, many will drive around for a good while until they find a "close" spot. If they had just parked further away, they would have been in the store quicker. So yes, there is a culture against physical activity in America......
Never mind the store, how about the people that do that *kitten* at the gym?
Personally I look for where the furthest car is parked, then park 100 ft. further away. Hate door dings on my vehicles.
Disabled people use gyms too.
Just sayin’
Yes. But I see the same thing at my rowing club, where *I know* that specific people are not mobility disabled. (I know whose cars those are.) Folks park close to the boathouse, then do a vigorous full-body workout on the water. Even at times when we've encouraged them to park in the parking lot a few hundred yards away, that's been true. It's curious. We've given up - created more parking near the boathouse.
Off topic 🤪 .... I just want more info on the rowing club. I know nothing about the sport but Im quite curious about it. I think its definitely something I'd enjoy.1 -
Their suicide rate is not particularly astronomic compared to other countries, you can see for yourself : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate
And suicide is a multifaceted problem, I know because in the province I live in we've had some of the worst suicide rates in the world.
The United States also has a big suicide problem, let's not forget that.
3 -
Fidgetbrain wrote: »Japan has an obesity rate of 4%, the US has a morbid obesity rate of 8%.
Also who prevents anyone from walking? You can choose to walk or you can choose not to walk. If you live in a big city, it's often better to walk instead spending so much money on a car.
Are we saying there's a culture that is against walking ? It's an individual choice, I think.
Edit : And yes individualism vs collectivism is the most important aspect.
I’m not American but I’m sure you guys have similar problems with most places being super inaccessible for walkers and cyclists. We have no separate bike lanes in most places and a lot of drivers are very aggressive towards cyclists. A lot of more rural areas don’t even have footpaths or streetlights!
They are very agressive towards walkers as well, particularly in the province of Quebec where we have probably the worst drivers in North America, no respect for anyone at all.
But I still walk 30 mins to work everyday, I don't even bother with public transport. I don't have a car and I don't even pay for public transport. I live 2 minutes away from the grocery store, the gym and anything you can think of. I guess i'm lucky.
A lot of cities, particularly in the Western US aren't really walkable unless you're literally downtown or in a student area. Many Western cities are urban sprawl that don't even have good public transit. I swap between two office buildings for work...one is 10 miles from my home and the other is 30 miles from my home but still considered to be in the "metro". I've bike commuted to my 10 mile office as an experiment, but it requires me to ride along side two busy highways to get there with cars going 60 MPH passed me...not remotely safe or pleasant and it's not even a bike lane, it's the shoulder of the highway. The nearest grocery store is four miles away and while I don't walk that, I have used my bike when I'm not having to pick up a full load of groceries. The nearest commercial anything from my residence is at least 4 miles in any direction except for a local pizza joint and brewery.
I would love to be able to walk or ride for commute, but there are places that just aren't set up for it. My BIL and SIL live in Connecticut and walk and take the train everywhere...that's just not something that exists in the SW USA. The only time I've ever been able to do it was when I lived in the University area of ABQ which has plenty of commercial mixed with residential and downtown ABQ is an easy 15 minute bus ride. Other than that, the ABQ metro area is a huge sprawl. You aren't going much of anywhere without a car.8 -
NoLimitFemme wrote: »MargaretYakoda wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »Japan has an obesity rate of 4%, the US has a morbid obesity rate of 8%.
Also who prevents anyone from walking? You can choose to walk or you can choose not to walk. If you live in a big city, it's often better to walk instead spending so much money on a car.
Are we saying there's a culture that is against walking ? It's an individual choice, I think.
Edit : And yes individualism vs collectivism is the most important aspect.
No doubt that walking in a larger city is easier. Compared to Japan, America is far more spread out. I live in a rural area, and for me to walk to the store would be nearly 9 miles round trip. So, we have a car culture. In a more urban environment, Japanese walk to public transport, to the market... ect ect. Yes, there is a culture against walking in America... Just look at the people who stand on an escalator vs. taking the stairs. The stairs would be quicker sometimes, yet many choose to not take them. Watch people trying to get a parking spot at a store, many will drive around for a good while until they find a "close" spot. If they had just parked further away, they would have been in the store quicker. So yes, there is a culture against physical activity in America......
Never mind the store, how about the people that do that *kitten* at the gym?
Personally I look for where the furthest car is parked, then park 100 ft. further away. Hate door dings on my vehicles.
Disabled people use gyms too.
Just sayin’
Yes. But I see the same thing at my rowing club, where *I know* that specific people are not mobility disabled. (I know whose cars those are.) Folks park close to the boathouse, then do a vigorous full-body workout on the water. Even at times when we've encouraged them to park in the parking lot a few hundred yards away, that's been true. It's curious. We've given up - created more parking near the boathouse.
Off topic 🤪 .... I just want more info on the rowing club. I know nothing about the sport but Im quite curious about it. I think its definitely something I'd enjoy.
Happy to talk about it @NoLimitFemme, but it's off-topic on this thread. Send me a friend request and PM me about it, or start a thread in the Exercise part of the Community and tag me, or something like that. 🙂4 -
psychod787 wrote: »Combine this with a tax on hyperprocessed , energy dense, hyperpalatable foods.
Hey. I'm not obese or overweight. Why do I have to pay extra for my treats?
8 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »Combine this with a tax on hyperprocessed , energy dense, hyperpalatable foods.
Hey. I'm not obese or overweight. Why do I have to pay extra for my treats?
Maybe the same reason you pay extra for your alcohol, even though you're not an alcoholic?
Ha! I'm a non-drinker.
Extra taxes on booze here go to the government coffers. It's possible that some of the money trickles down indirectly to addiction services but there definitely isn't a direct funding pathway.3 -
psychod787 wrote: »Combine this with a tax on hyperprocessed , energy dense, hyperpalatable foods.
Hey. I'm not obese or overweight. Why do I have to pay extra for my treats?
Don't get me started on the time our county tried to implement a "soda tax". They said to combat obesity, but it applied to zero-calorie diet sodas as well. It didn't last long before the outrage forced them to repeal it...people will tolerate a certain amount of government oversight, but you can pry my Coke Zero out of my cold, dead hands.6 -
psychod787 wrote: »Combine this with a tax on hyperprocessed , energy dense, hyperpalatable foods.
Hey. I'm not obese or overweight. Why do I have to pay extra for my treats?
I don't have children but have no problem paying taxes to fund schools.12 -
kshama2001 wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »Combine this with a tax on hyperprocessed , energy dense, hyperpalatable foods.
Hey. I'm not obese or overweight. Why do I have to pay extra for my treats?
I don't have children but have no problem paying taxes to fund schools.
Even the childless suffer with a poorly educated electorate.10 -
kshama2001 wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »Combine this with a tax on hyperprocessed , energy dense, hyperpalatable foods.
Hey. I'm not obese or overweight. Why do I have to pay extra for my treats?
I don't have children but have no problem paying taxes to fund schools.
I don't have children either but I'm happy to educate the doctors, nurses and personal support workers who will be looking after me in my dotage.
We already have a treat tax here anyway. I pay tax on a single muffin purchased to consume with my cup of coffee, yet a six-pack of muffins from the same vendor is deemed "grocery = essential" and is not taxed.4 -
Fidgetbrain wrote: »Japan has an obesity rate of 4%, the US has a morbid obesity rate of 8%.
Also who prevents anyone from walking? You can choose to walk or you can choose not to walk. If you live in a big city, it's often better to walk instead spending so much money on a car.
Are we saying there's a culture that is against walking ? It's an individual choice, I think.
Edit : And yes individualism vs collectivism is the most important aspect.
I’m not American but I’m sure you guys have similar problems with most places being super inaccessible for walkers and cyclists. We have no separate bike lanes in most places and a lot of drivers are very aggressive towards cyclists. A lot of more rural areas don’t even have footpaths or streetlights!
Where I live (midsized US city, Great Lakes state) there are many areas that are both reasonable safe to walk (crime-wise and traffic-wise), with reasonable facilities for walking (sidewalks, cut curbs, pedestrian signals at intersections, etc.) . . . and very nearly no one walking. That's true even in areas where residential areas are fairly close to business areas (i.e., within a few-block radius). Hardly anyone walks, as a form of transportation. In commercial (detached mall type) areas, it's common to see someone drive a car across the parking area from one store to another, maybe a hundred or two meters, rather than parking and walking across the lot, even when most people aren't buying un-carry-able things.
Why? I'm sure it's complicated. But I think it's not a walking culture, as a generality.
It really depends on where one lives, though. I think there's a walking culture where I live. I didn't have a car for years and know plenty of people who don't now.2 -
Fidgetbrain wrote: »Japan has an obesity rate of 4%, the US has a morbid obesity rate of 8%.
Also who prevents anyone from walking? You can choose to walk or you can choose not to walk. If you live in a big city, it's often better to walk instead spending so much money on a car.
Are we saying there's a culture that is against walking ? It's an individual choice, I think.
Edit : And yes individualism vs collectivism is the most important aspect.
I’m not American but I’m sure you guys have similar problems with most places being super inaccessible for walkers and cyclists. We have no separate bike lanes in most places and a lot of drivers are very aggressive towards cyclists. A lot of more rural areas don’t even have footpaths or streetlights!
Where I live (midsized US city, Great Lakes state) there are many areas that are both reasonable safe to walk (crime-wise and traffic-wise), with reasonable facilities for walking (sidewalks, cut curbs, pedestrian signals at intersections, etc.) . . . and very nearly no one walking. That's true even in areas where residential areas are fairly close to business areas (i.e., within a few-block radius). Hardly anyone walks, as a form of transportation. In commercial (detached mall type) areas, it's common to see someone drive a car across the parking area from one store to another, maybe a hundred or two meters, rather than parking and walking across the lot, even when most people aren't buying un-carry-able things.
Why? I'm sure it's complicated. But I think it's not a walking culture, as a generality.
It really depends on where one lives, though. I think there's a walking culture where I live. I didn't have a car for years and know plenty of people who don't now.
Of course. I could've phrased that better. I meant to be saying that where I live is not a walking culture, generally . . . not that nowhere in the US has a walking culture.
The main point was that even though here we have the facilities in some parts of my urban area so that it's reasonably walkable (unlike where the person I was responding to lives, seemingly), people here don't generally walk anyway. In a nearby neighborhood where I lived previously, one neighbor was a recreational runner . . . but would drive to the party store that was around a block away (ultra low traffic route), which I found kind of baffling.
As an aside: I'm in Michigan, which I think perhaps still has a stronger "car culture" due to its history. In this city (as in several others in the state) the auto companies were one of the major employers, every employee owned at least one of their employer's cars, some still see buying non-domestic cars as bad behavior, etc. Voluntarily not driving would be considered fairly eccentric by many; not being able to afford a car seen as quite economically unfortunate. For most of my married life, we owned only one car, and that was considered mildly eccentric by many people, since we could've afforded two.1 -
SuzySunshine99 wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »Combine this with a tax on hyperprocessed , energy dense, hyperpalatable foods.
Hey. I'm not obese or overweight. Why do I have to pay extra for my treats?
Don't get me started on the time our county tried to implement a "soda tax". They said to combat obesity, but it applied to zero-calorie diet sodas as well. It didn't last long before the outrage forced them to repeal it...people will tolerate a certain amount of government oversight, but you can pry my Coke Zero out of my cold, dead hands.
That's where I feel conversations like this always go: it starts out about obesity, but if we're just taxing hyper-processed foods like diet soda then it's clearly not about obesity, it's just more taxes.
I'm not opposed to more taxes per se, but let's be honest: if I'm paying taxes for zero calorie flavored liquids, it's not an anti-obesity measure.
10 -
janejellyroll wrote: »SuzySunshine99 wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »Combine this with a tax on hyperprocessed , energy dense, hyperpalatable foods.
Hey. I'm not obese or overweight. Why do I have to pay extra for my treats?
Don't get me started on the time our county tried to implement a "soda tax". They said to combat obesity, but it applied to zero-calorie diet sodas as well. It didn't last long before the outrage forced them to repeal it...people will tolerate a certain amount of government oversight, but you can pry my Coke Zero out of my cold, dead hands.
That's where I feel conversations like this always go: it starts out about obesity, but if we're just taxing hyper-processed foods like diet soda then it's clearly not about obesity, it's just more taxes.
I'm not opposed to more taxes per se, but let's be honest: if I'm paying taxes for zero calorie flavored liquids, it's not an anti-obesity measure.
I agree with your core point.
As a tiny quibble: I also think that legislation tends to be a bit broad-brush, and probably needs to be (sometimes) in order to create fairly bright lines that are manageable to implement.
As a bit of context, my state, decades back, was among the first to require a deposit on containers for certain beverages (officially had to do with reducing roadside litter, and was massively helpful in doing so). Creating clear rules was not necessarily easy, given the range of liquid-y things in cans/bottles that run a pretty smooth continuum from drinkable to eatable.
The rules (in my loose understanding) were that the deposit applied to carbonated beverages, not to still beverages. With the big companies, at first, it was "let the games begin", i.e., "how can we manipulate this in our favor?" At a small producer/marketer level, there was some confusion (if the apple cider has a little bit of fizz, sometimes, where does it fall?). Among consumers, there was some WTH: Sweetened teas or juices in aluminum cans, no deposit; soda pop or beer in exact same cans, deposit.
Things settled down eventually, and the same basic rules are still in effect. Personally, I'm still a little in the WTH camp about some of the consequences, but the law decently accomplished its goals, and everyone's used to it now.
In the "sweetened bevs" zone, I can imagine some of the same effects: Apple juice (sweet, but no added sugar) counts? Unsweetened cranberry juice? Sweetened with an artificial sweetener that's only slightly caloric? Sweetened with a "natural" ingredient that's frankly added to make the thing sweeter (e.g., white grape juice, often)? The baby shouldn't go out with the bathwater, but we might be willing to toss a bath toy or two, just to keep things simple.
I don't have a horse in this soda-tax race, but do feel that in general sidewalk quarterbacking legislation/regulation is probably quite a bit easier than formulating it in workable ways . . . at least that general concept is true in a lot of cases when us everyday folks have "common sense" opinions about many things done by genuine experts who have more information, knowledge, context.3 -
Money - sometimes in the form of taxes or credits - is one way the government uses to encourage particular behaviors. The results can be a bit of a mixed bag. I try to reduce my own sugar intake (and that includes the honey made from my neighborhood bees) and try to reuse and recycle as much as possible but could really do better.3
-
janejellyroll wrote: »SuzySunshine99 wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »Combine this with a tax on hyperprocessed , energy dense, hyperpalatable foods.
Hey. I'm not obese or overweight. Why do I have to pay extra for my treats?
Don't get me started on the time our county tried to implement a "soda tax". They said to combat obesity, but it applied to zero-calorie diet sodas as well. It didn't last long before the outrage forced them to repeal it...people will tolerate a certain amount of government oversight, but you can pry my Coke Zero out of my cold, dead hands.
That's where I feel conversations like this always go: it starts out about obesity, but if we're just taxing hyper-processed foods like diet soda then it's clearly not about obesity, it's just more taxes.
I'm not opposed to more taxes per se, but let's be honest: if I'm paying taxes for zero calorie flavored liquids, it's not an anti-obesity measure.
I agree with your core point.
As a tiny quibble: I also think that legislation tends to be a bit broad-brush, and probably needs to be (sometimes) in order to create fairly bright lines that are manageable to implement.
As a bit of context, my state, decades back, was among the first to require a deposit on containers for certain beverages (officially had to do with reducing roadside litter, and was massively helpful in doing so). Creating clear rules was not necessarily easy, given the range of liquid-y things in cans/bottles that run a pretty smooth continuum from drinkable to eatable.
The rules (in my loose understanding) were that the deposit applied to carbonated beverages, not to still beverages. With the big companies, at first, it was "let the games begin", i.e., "how can we manipulate this in our favor?" At a small producer/marketer level, there was some confusion (if the apple cider has a little bit of fizz, sometimes, where does it fall?). Among consumers, there was some WTH: Sweetened teas or juices in aluminum cans, no deposit; soda pop or beer in exact same cans, deposit.
Things settled down eventually, and the same basic rules are still in effect. Personally, I'm still a little in the WTH camp about some of the consequences, but the law decently accomplished its goals, and everyone's used to it now.
In the "sweetened bevs" zone, I can imagine some of the same effects: Apple juice (sweet, but no added sugar) counts? Unsweetened cranberry juice? Sweetened with an artificial sweetener that's only slightly caloric? Sweetened with a "natural" ingredient that's frankly added to make the thing sweeter (e.g., white grape juice, often)? The baby shouldn't go out with the bathwater, but we might be willing to toss a bath toy or two, just to keep things simple.
I don't have a horse in this soda-tax race, but do feel that in general sidewalk quarterbacking legislation/regulation is probably quite a bit easier than formulating it in workable ways . . . at least that general concept is true in a lot of cases when us everyday folks have "common sense" opinions about many things done by genuine experts who have more information, knowledge, context.
I agree that it would be impractically complicated to try to create a tax policy for beverages that successfully navigates all the various drinks we've created. I don't even think we'd have to -- I wouldn't object to a tax on flavored beverages as such, since they're a luxury item. I just bristle at it being touted as an anti-obesity measure when it includes so many things that aren't factors in weight gain.
It's just my natural contrariness coming out.4 -
One thing I see in the earlier comments that generally come up also in any such discussions is a conflation of what can be done as a society with what a particular individual can do.
If I am worried about the overall obesity rate in the US and how to reduce it, that's a different question than what I personally can do to lose weight, if I need to. Saying that there are cultural and other barriers or incentives that lead to the obesity rate in the country as a whole is NOT claiming that I need the culture to change in order to lose weight.
Unfortunately, I tend to be skeptical about most of the proposed solutions to the society obesity rate issues, although willing to try a number of them (including taxes). That said, the tax solutions tend to be so unpopular that I think it's unlikely they are really going to be an option in areas that aren't already lower than average consumers of the foods or drinks in question. The soda tax where I live (as Suzie noted) was a huge disaster and incredibly unpopular.
The proposals in the summary kshama posted seem reasonable and potentially helpful for some, to me (I did not read the whole bill).
I also think changes to make more places walking friendly would be nice. One thing I noticed (living in a walking friendly location) is that in a normal day I am reasonably active just from walking in connection with going to work and for errands (like going to the stores). That's something I had to make an effort to replace during the various lockdowns. And for me it was easy enough to replace (harder when the weather was bad), since where I live is reasonably safe and has nice sidewalks and pleasant places to walk (and normally parks, although they stupidly closed many of those for a time). I am aware that in some areas sidewalks don't exist. So infrastructure changes that address the walkability of areas that don't have that would be positive, although not necessarily a fix.5 -
Hey folks,
There was a whole side-bar about disabilities in this thread, so I pulled those posts into their own discussion. If you'd like to continue that discussion, the thread is here: https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10838459/disabilities
Happy Thursday,
Em6 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »One thing I see in the earlier comments that generally come up also in any such discussions is a conflation of what can be done as a society with what a particular individual can do.
If I am worried about the overall obesity rate in the US and how to reduce it, that's a different question than what I personally can do to lose weight, if I need to. Saying that there are cultural and other barriers or incentives that lead to the obesity rate in the country as a whole is NOT claiming that I need the culture to change in order to lose weight.
Unfortunately, I tend to be skeptical about most of the proposed solutions to the society obesity rate issues, although willing to try a number of them (including taxes). That said, the tax solutions tend to be so unpopular that I think it's unlikely they are really going to be an option in areas that aren't already lower than average consumers of the foods or drinks in question. The soda tax where I live (as Suzie noted) was a huge disaster and incredibly unpopular.
The proposals in the summary kshama posted seem reasonable and potentially helpful for some, to me (I did not read the whole bill).
I also think changes to make more places walking friendly would be nice. One thing I noticed (living in a walking friendly location) is that in a normal day I am reasonably active just from walking in connection with going to work and for errands (like going to the stores). That's something I had to make an effort to replace during the various lockdowns. And for me it was easy enough to replace (harder when the weather was bad), since where I live is reasonably safe and has nice sidewalks and pleasant places to walk (and normally parks, although they stupidly closed many of those for a time). I am aware that in some areas sidewalks don't exist. So infrastructure changes that address the walkability of areas that don't have that would be positive, although not necessarily a fix.
The challenge is infrastructure changes to make areas more walker friendly are astronomically expensive and would take decades to implement in the US. Now you can add these changes to new areas or those undergoing reconstruction but again talking decades to get significant changes. Even, then if there are nice sidewalks, it doesn't necessarily make the area safe. A whole other can of worms
I actually (based on my own experience) believe this is one of the lesser issues. The biggest issue I see, is getting people to use the facilities when they are provided. I live in a major metropolitan area and there are 4 'linear parks' - walking/biking paths - that have well maintained concrete paths, a couple are tree lined providing shade during the heat of the day, they are cleaned regularly, the grass along the sides of the paths is mowed, the trees are pruned so that they don't present issues to the people using them, etc. There are entry points and exit points that are well marked and have places for people to park cars (for the ones who need to drive to the paths). The park service even comes out after heavy rains and removes any dirt/debris that gets washed onto the pathways. Yet, in my extensive use of the pathways (I much prefer to ride on the paths than on the streets, but that's a whole different conversation), I rarely see more than 15-20 people in a 1 hour riding session (and most of them are the same people each and every day). All of the paths that I use are completely contained in residential areas, most of them have houses that literally line the paths (easily a thousand or more homes across the 4 paths) and people ARE NOT using them.
I guess the point that I am trying to make is, why would a community invest the kind of money that this obviously takes to build and maintain if there will be no return on the investment? People know that exercise is good for them, but even if you provide safe and clean places for them to exercise, the vast majority of people do not take advantage of the offering.6
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 396.5K Introduce Yourself
- 44.2K Getting Started
- 260.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.3K Food and Nutrition
- 47.6K Recipes
- 232.8K Fitness and Exercise
- 449 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.7K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.3K Motivation and Support
- 8.3K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.5K Chit-Chat
- 2.6K Fun and Games
- 4.5K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 18 MyFitnessPal Academy
- 1.4K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions