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.
Economic impact of overweight and obesity to surpass $4 trillion in 10 years
Options
Replies
-
We have to face facts there are s#itty foods. Many times I see on these forums there are no bad foods. News flash, there are. How do we fix this? How about a $0.25 tax on each gram of added sugar in a serving of a food? Would get the ball rolling2
-
Here is a picture of the testing of Gatorade at the University of Florida. What looks like a 230 pound or so college football player at practice drinking maybe 6-8 ounces. I had Gatorade back in the 70's it was great for replacing electrolytes but didn't taste very good. Now parents sent a liter bottle of full calorie Gatorade with their first graders to baseball/softball games where the kids get maybe 2 minute of strenuous exercise in a 90 minute game so they "stay hydrated"
0 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »We have to face facts there are s#itty foods. Many times I see on these forums there are no bad foods. News flash, there are. How do we fix this? How about a $0.25 tax on each gram of added sugar in a serving of a food? Would get the ball rolling
This is interesting. I’m trying to juggle the idea in my mind. What does this look like exactly? Like, at the check out counter? An invoice to the food companies?
This is what I’m hearing, tell me if I’m off base here, but you’re saying if you want added sugar you should personally pay for it and not everyone else, in the hopes it will minimize corporations from making, or people from buying, the foods they don’t need. Cause I’m totally open to that.
Question, isn’t this the same-ish as saying if you have weight related problems only you should have to pay for it, in terms of health care? But I like the pressure the tax would put on companies that make the food, even though we know it would only be passed down to the consumer. They would take a $.25 tax, call it $.50 and actually make money 🙄.
1 -
Taxing is a bad idea and we pay enough taxes, you don't want to get that ball rolling especially in this particular climate, and guess which demographic is going to be effected the most, the people that can't afford to buy fresh food on a calorie basis or don't have a close proximity to whole foods and there's many other obstacles for a lot people. And .25 for every gram is excessive anyway, that equates to 9 dollars for a 12 oz pop.4
-
Theoldguy1 wrote: »We have to face facts there are s#itty foods. Many times I see on these forums there are no bad foods. News flash, there are. How do we fix this? How about a $0.25 tax on each gram of added sugar in a serving of a food? Would get the ball rolling
This is interesting. I’m trying to juggle the idea in my mind. What does this look like exactly? Like, at the check out counter? An invoice to the food companies?
This is what I’m hearing, tell me if I’m off base here, but you’re saying if you want added sugar you should personally pay for it and not everyone else, in the hopes it will minimize corporations from making, or people from buying, the foods they don’t need. Cause I’m totally open to that.
Question, isn’t this the same-ish as saying if you have weight related problems only you should have to pay for it, in terms of health care? But I like the pressure the tax would put on companies that make the food, even though we know it would only be passed down to the consumer. They would take a $.25 tax, call it $.50 and actually make money 🙄.
An excise tax paid by the manufacturer to to government, same as currently done with alcohol and tobacco products.
As you suggest, pretty much a user fee.1 -
neanderthin wrote: »Taxing is a bad idea and we pay enough taxes, you don't want to get that ball rolling especially in this particular climate, and guess which demographic is going to be effected the most, the people that can't afford to buy fresh food on a calorie basis or don't have a close proximity to whole foods and there's many other obstacles for a lot people. And .25 for every gram is excessive anyway, that equates to 9 dollars for a 12 oz pop.
No taxes if you don't consume the product. Just like alcohol and tobacco. Frozen veggies are generally very low cost and guess what, no added sugar.
Fine if you don't like $0.25 per gram, call it $0.10. Or maybe the manufacturer gets rid of the obscene amount of sugar in a 12 oz Coke (novel idea). The point is to make it so expensive it changes behavior best case or worst case helps fund the health issues this stuff causes and/or subsidies for better nutrition for the poor.1 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »We have to face facts there are s#itty foods. Many times I see on these forums there are no bad foods. News flash, there are. How do we fix this? How about a $0.25 tax on each gram of added sugar in a serving of a food? Would get the ball rolling
Well, maybe (in the US) first stop subsidizing sugar production? It's a little fuzzy what the costs of the subsidies are (depending on things like whether we just count government outlay, or include increased costs to consumers, speculation about job losses, among other issues).
But it's at least billions of dollars a year. (American Enterprise Institute, a think tank which is generally perceived as center-right-ish, in 2017 estimated $1.2B in what they call the "welfare transfer" to growers/producers, and estimated something like $2.4-4B per year in costs to households.)
Source: https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Analysis-of-the-US-Sugar-Program.pdf?x85095
And guess what? The overall governmental sugar support programs tend to make sugar more expensive to the consumer, according to the US GAO (Government Accountability Office), not exactly a hotbed of radical rabble-rousing: "In 2022 U.S. consumers, including food manufacturers, paid twice the world price for sugar."
Source: https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-24-106144
So, stop subsidizing, maybe sugar gets cheaper. Gosh, maybe these policy issues are kinda complicated, eh?
Betcha taxation gets complicated, too. For sure, not gonna be popular. Funny how it works in a theoretically democratic republic (small d, small r) when someone tries something that ticks off not only powerful lobbies, but also the main mass of consumers.
1 -
Anybody remember what happened when New York made it illegal to sell soft drinks in a cup over a certain size (don't remember what that size was). It was a fiasco. People revolted. It got repealed. And that was just telling people they couldn't buy sodas in gigantic cups.
ETA: just looked it up, the limit was 16 ounces.2 -
sollyn23l2 wrote: »Anybody remember what happened when New York made it illegal to sell soft drinks in a cup over a certain size (don't remember what that size was). It was a fiasco. People revolted. It got repealed. And that was just telling people they couldn't buy sodas in gigantic cups.
I was just thinking about this yesterday!0 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »Many times I see on these forums there are no bad foods. News flash, there are.
The phrase “there are no bad foods” is not meant to say that all foods are equal in nutritional value. That is unarguably not true.
The phrase “there are no bad foods” is generally used in a situation where someone has ideas about foods that lead to problems. This is very common in the extreme restriction groups on the internet.
Or someone has sensory issues around taste and texture of foods. This is a common problem for autistic people.
No bad foods doesn’t mean ignore your body’s nutritional needs. In practice it’s actually the opposite.5 -
sollyn23l2 wrote: »Anybody remember what happened when New York made it illegal to sell soft drinks in a cup over a certain size (don't remember what that size was). It was a fiasco. People revolted. It got repealed. And that was just telling people they couldn't buy sodas in gigantic cups.
I was just thinking about this yesterday!
Washington State tried something similar. It was a disaster.
For one thing, it caused problems for businesses because some things were taxed and some weren’t.
And then there’s a problem with judging what even counts as soda or candy.
The devil, as always, is in the details.
1 -
sollyn23l2 wrote: »Anybody remember what happened when New York made it illegal to sell soft drinks in a cup over a certain size (don't remember what that size was). It was a fiasco. People revolted. It got repealed. And that was just telling people they couldn't buy sodas in gigantic cups.
ETA: just looked it up, the limit was 16 ounces.
Yeah its was a horrible idea. Being told you cant eat or drink whaever you want, however much you want is just ludicrous. Just about as ludicrous as people blaming everything and everyone but themselves for what they put in their body. There is someone who said, look in the mirror, what you see is what you earned. Good or bad its all yours. The government is notoriously bad at being responsible so i wouldn't want them in charge of anything like my personal responsibility. As a matter of fact there is nobody that will have your best interest as their priority more than ones self.5 -
sollyn23l2 wrote: »Anybody remember what happened when New York made it illegal to sell soft drinks in a cup over a certain size (don't remember what that size was). It was a fiasco. People revolted. It got repealed. And that was just telling people they couldn't buy sodas in gigantic cups.
ETA: just looked it up, the limit was 16 ounces.
Well isn't that too bad, people didn't like it. Do we as society want to pay the health costs of buckets of soft drinks and other crap foods? I sure don't. You do an excise tax paid by the manufacturer (which will be passed to the consumer, like alcohol) based on the grams of added sugar per serving. Pretty easy.1 -
sollyn23l2 wrote: »Anybody remember what happened when New York made it illegal to sell soft drinks in a cup over a certain size (don't remember what that size was). It was a fiasco. People revolted. It got repealed. And that was just telling people they couldn't buy sodas in gigantic cups.
ETA: just looked it up, the limit was 16 ounces.
Yeah its was a horrible idea. Being told you cant eat or drink whaever you want, however much you want is just ludicrous. Just about as ludicrous as people blaming everything and everyone but themselves for what they put in their body. There is someone who said, look in the mirror, what you see is what you earned. Good or bad its all yours. The government is notoriously bad at being responsible so i wouldn't want them in charge of anything like my personal responsibility. As a matter of fact there is nobody that will have your best interest as their priority more than ones self.
Nobody is telling you what you can or can't eat. Just if you choose to eat crap foods you contribute to health care costs associated with them. Just like nobody tells people they can't drink alcohol, they are just taxed on it.1 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »sollyn23l2 wrote: »Anybody remember what happened when New York made it illegal to sell soft drinks in a cup over a certain size (don't remember what that size was). It was a fiasco. People revolted. It got repealed. And that was just telling people they couldn't buy sodas in gigantic cups.
ETA: just looked it up, the limit was 16 ounces.
Yeah its was a horrible idea. Being told you cant eat or drink whaever you want, however much you want is just ludicrous. Just about as ludicrous as people blaming everything and everyone but themselves for what they put in their body. There is someone who said, look in the mirror, what you see is what you earned. Good or bad its all yours. The government is notoriously bad at being responsible so i wouldn't want them in charge of anything like my personal responsibility. As a matter of fact there is nobody that will have your best interest as their priority more than ones self.
Nobody is telling you what you can or can't eat. Just if you choose to eat crap foods you contribute to health care costs associated with them. Just like nobody tells people they can't drink alcohol, they are just taxed on it.
Eating crap food doesnt contribute to health care costs. Not being accountable for oneself with diet and exercise does. How'd prohibition work for alcohol consumption? How is taxing it working out? Has it helped out any with raising better health levels? Or has it just made rich people richer?.....i am healthier than the majority.....and i dont give a damn if while i eat grilled chicken and broccoli after a 3 hour workout if someone else stuffs their face with a Bic Mac Meal while playing video games. They arent changing just because it costs more, and that extra money for an $18 Big Mac Meal sure as hell isnt finding its way into lowering health care costs.2 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »sollyn23l2 wrote: »Anybody remember what happened when New York made it illegal to sell soft drinks in a cup over a certain size (don't remember what that size was). It was a fiasco. People revolted. It got repealed. And that was just telling people they couldn't buy sodas in gigantic cups.
ETA: just looked it up, the limit was 16 ounces.
Well isn't that too bad, people didn't like it. Do we as society want to pay the health costs of buckets of soft drinks and other crap foods? I sure don't. You do an excise tax paid by the manufacturer (which will be passed to the consumer, like alcohol) based on the grams of added sugar per serving. Pretty easy.
I mean, it's more that *corporations* didn't like it. Like it or not, corporations own America. What they say goes. We'd have to uproot the entire way the government works to change that. And that ain't happening.2 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »sollyn23l2 wrote: »Anybody remember what happened when New York made it illegal to sell soft drinks in a cup over a certain size (don't remember what that size was). It was a fiasco. People revolted. It got repealed. And that was just telling people they couldn't buy sodas in gigantic cups.
ETA: just looked it up, the limit was 16 ounces.
Yeah its was a horrible idea. Being told you cant eat or drink whaever you want, however much you want is just ludicrous. Just about as ludicrous as people blaming everything and everyone but themselves for what they put in their body. There is someone who said, look in the mirror, what you see is what you earned. Good or bad its all yours. The government is notoriously bad at being responsible so i wouldn't want them in charge of anything like my personal responsibility. As a matter of fact there is nobody that will have your best interest as their priority more than ones self.
Nobody is telling you what you can or can't eat. Just if you choose to eat crap foods you contribute to health care costs associated with them. Just like nobody tells people they can't drink alcohol, they are just taxed on it.
Eating crap food doesnt contribute to health care costs. Not being accountable for oneself with diet and exercise does. How'd prohibition work for alcohol consumption? How is taxing it working out? Has it helped out any with raising better health levels? Or has it just made rich people richer?.....i am healthier than the majority.....and i dont give a damn if while i eat grilled chicken and broccoli after a 3 hour workout if someone else stuffs their face with a Bic Mac Meal while playing video games. They arent changing just because it costs more, and that extra money for an $18 Big Mac Meal sure as hell isnt finding its way into lowering health care costs.
So eating crap food doesn't contribute to health care cost? Harvard says differently:
Full article: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/obesity-prevention-source/obesity-causes/#:~:text=lower the risk.-,Unhealthy Diets,the largest roles in obesity.
I didn't say anything about probation. I would propose a high national excise tax on added sugar in foods.
0 -
sollyn23l2 wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »sollyn23l2 wrote: »Anybody remember what happened when New York made it illegal to sell soft drinks in a cup over a certain size (don't remember what that size was). It was a fiasco. People revolted. It got repealed. And that was just telling people they couldn't buy sodas in gigantic cups.
ETA: just looked it up, the limit was 16 ounces.
Well isn't that too bad, people didn't like it. Do we as society want to pay the health costs of buckets of soft drinks and other crap foods? I sure don't. You do an excise tax paid by the manufacturer (which will be passed to the consumer, like alcohol) based on the grams of added sugar per serving. Pretty easy.
I mean, it's more that *corporations* didn't like it. Like it or not, corporations own America. What they say goes. We'd have to uproot the entire way the government works to change that. And that ain't happening.
Have no idea what you're talking about.0 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »sollyn23l2 wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »sollyn23l2 wrote: »Anybody remember what happened when New York made it illegal to sell soft drinks in a cup over a certain size (don't remember what that size was). It was a fiasco. People revolted. It got repealed. And that was just telling people they couldn't buy sodas in gigantic cups.
ETA: just looked it up, the limit was 16 ounces.
Well isn't that too bad, people didn't like it. Do we as society want to pay the health costs of buckets of soft drinks and other crap foods? I sure don't. You do an excise tax paid by the manufacturer (which will be passed to the consumer, like alcohol) based on the grams of added sugar per serving. Pretty easy.
I mean, it's more that *corporations* didn't like it. Like it or not, corporations own America. What they say goes. We'd have to uproot the entire way the government works to change that. And that ain't happening.
Have no idea what you're talking about.
I do. And she’s right.
It wasn’t individual people who rose up against extra sales tax on foods deemed unhealthy. It was corporations like grocery chains, as well as quickie mart places (some of which are sole proprietor but many are also corporations)
There were a couple reasons why these businesses hated such taxes. It complicated their business, and was in some ways confusing the customer, as well as some things being difficult to explain why one thing was taxed and a similar thing wasn’t.
As I said above.
The devil is in the details.
But it wasn’t individual people who overturned these laws. It was corporations.
1 -
MargaretYakoda wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »sollyn23l2 wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »sollyn23l2 wrote: »Anybody remember what happened when New York made it illegal to sell soft drinks in a cup over a certain size (don't remember what that size was). It was a fiasco. People revolted. It got repealed. And that was just telling people they couldn't buy sodas in gigantic cups.
ETA: just looked it up, the limit was 16 ounces.
Well isn't that too bad, people didn't like it. Do we as society want to pay the health costs of buckets of soft drinks and other crap foods? I sure don't. You do an excise tax paid by the manufacturer (which will be passed to the consumer, like alcohol) based on the grams of added sugar per serving. Pretty easy.
I mean, it's more that *corporations* didn't like it. Like it or not, corporations own America. What they say goes. We'd have to uproot the entire way the government works to change that. And that ain't happening.
Have no idea what you're talking about.
I do. And she’s right.
It wasn’t individual people who rose up against extra sales tax on foods deemed unhealthy. It was corporations like grocery chains, as well as quickie mart places (some of which are sole proprietor but many are also corporations)
There were a couple reasons why these businesses hated such taxes. It complicated their business, and was in some ways confusing the customer, as well as some things being difficult to explain why one thing was taxed and a similar thing wasn’t.
As I said above.
The devil is in the details.
But it wasn’t individual people who overturned these laws. It was corporations.
That is why I proposed an excise tax per gram of added sugar in a product (note the added sugar number includes actual sugar, corn syrup and anything else considered added sugar in the nutrition label calculation), I would propose an excise tax paid by the manufacture and passed on to the wholesaler/retailer/consumer in the form of higher prices. It doesn't impact the retailer except in the form a higher cost of goods sold. There are excise taxes on alcohol, cigarettes, etc. that the retailer or consumer never see broken out during their transactions.
From this IRS publication: https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/basic-things-all-businesses-should-know-about-excise-tax#:~:text=Excise taxes are independent of,collected by a third party.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 938 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions