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?
Options
Replies
-
Carlos_421 wrote: »This whole thread just makes me weep for America.
Care to expand upon that, or was it intentionally vague?1 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »This whole thread just makes me weep for America.
Care to expand upon that, or was it intentionally vague?
He's, too sexy for this thread....1 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »This whole thread just makes me weep for America.
Me too.0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »This whole thread just makes me weep for America.
Care to expand upon that, or was it intentionally vague?
I'm too weepy to talk about it.3 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »This whole thread just makes me weep for America.
Care to expand upon that, or was it intentionally vague?
He's, too sexy for this thread....
1 -
When I saw the OP, I assumed this would be a short and obvious thread. I can't believe how many people honestly think the government has a responsibility to determine what foods are "healthy" and to put effort into corralling people into choosing those foods. And honestly think people will stop eating the way they eat because of a tax.
It is the individual's responsibility to feed themselves and to do so in an educated manner. It is a parent's responsibility to teach their children how to feed themselves properly. Eating is, possibly literally, the most basic and important skill any living thing needs to acquire. If that is too much to ask of the average American, and we can't do it without the government's forceful participation, that certainly calls for some weeping
9 -
for fricken sakes. doesn't the government get enough of your money? sheesh.4
-
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »The whole idea of "hidden" sugar in things like ketchup baffles me. There is sugar in ketchup. It's part of the recipe. It's an ingredient. If you don't know there's sugar in ketchup, then it's your ignorance of how to make ketchup that's too blame, not the hidden sugars. And not that i expect everyone to know how to make ketchup, but the fact that we no longer need to make our own and can conveniently buy it from the store doesn't make its ingredients suddenly nefarious.
I originally used the term "hidden sugar" in this context:
How about taxing based on added sugars? Would get the main items that any third grader would classify as junk food like pop, candy, cookies, etc. Might also get manufacturers to reduce the amount of "hidden" sugars in things like ketchup, sauces, etc.
Agree anyone can find the sugar in an item by looking at the ingredient list (that is why I put "hidden" in the quotation marks). However, most don't and consumers can get much additional sugar (calories) in the diet from things that many would not expect to have sugar.
Also, I'm not sure people can taste the "hidden sugars" in many item. Many people have grown up eating foods that have extra sugar added in the processing and don't "taste" the sugar since they've never had the food without it.
While I get your point, I don't see what more could be done. Well, short of forcing companies to change their labeling to big black boxes with white letters that say "all the sugar!! Diabeetus!! Do not eat unless you want the beetus!!", which would be completely false, and still probably wouldn't dissuade most who eat these things.
The information is clearly on the label. If consumers practice willful ignorance, or just don't care, there's nothing you can do about it.
A label with Paula Deen's photo required on all items with any added sugar?
Hmmm, maybe. Though, if the crap they put on cigarette packs in some places didn't work, I doubt that will either. Though admittedly, Paula Deen's face is almost as horrifying as a lung tumor.
Interesting, but there is a different drive to these things. Smokers who are addicted are trying to fuel a very specific (nicotine) addiction. On the other hand, people who are hungry buying food could probably fulfill that hunger with any one of a variety of foods. Now we all know that product packaging is designed for specific marketing purposes. This is evident in colors used on packages, shapes and lines, and even mascots (Tony the Tiger, the Trix rabbit) and celebrities (whichever athlete is currently on Wheaties). I believe putting Paula Deen's image on a food item would promote that food item to a particular audience just as putting <insert athlete name here> promotes Wheaties to a particular audience.1 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »The whole idea of "hidden" sugar in things like ketchup baffles me. There is sugar in ketchup. It's part of the recipe. It's an ingredient. If you don't know there's sugar in ketchup, then it's your ignorance of how to make ketchup that's too blame, not the hidden sugars. And not that i expect everyone to know how to make ketchup, but the fact that we no longer need to make our own and can conveniently buy it from the store doesn't make its ingredients suddenly nefarious.
I originally used the term "hidden sugar" in this context:
How about taxing based on added sugars? Would get the main items that any third grader would classify as junk food like pop, candy, cookies, etc. Might also get manufacturers to reduce the amount of "hidden" sugars in things like ketchup, sauces, etc.
Agree anyone can find the sugar in an item by looking at the ingredient list (that is why I put "hidden" in the quotation marks). However, most don't and consumers can get much additional sugar (calories) in the diet from things that many would not expect to have sugar.
Also, I'm not sure people can taste the "hidden sugars" in many item. Many people have grown up eating foods that have extra sugar added in the processing and don't "taste" the sugar since they've never had the food without it.
While I get your point, I don't see what more could be done. Well, short of forcing companies to change their labeling to big black boxes with white letters that say "all the sugar!! Diabeetus!! Do not eat unless you want the beetus!!", which would be completely false, and still probably wouldn't dissuade most who eat these things.
The information is clearly on the label. If consumers practice willful ignorance, or just don't care, there's nothing you can do about it.
A label with Paula Deen's photo required on all items with any added sugar?
Hmmm, maybe. Though, if the crap they put on cigarette packs in some places didn't work, I doubt that will either. Though admittedly, Paula Deen's face is almost as horrifying as a lung tumor.
Interesting, but there is a different drive to these things. Smokers who are addicted are trying to fuel a very specific (nicotine) addiction. On the other hand, people who are hungry buying food could probably fulfill that hunger with any one of a variety of foods. Now we all know that product packaging is designed for specific marketing purposes. This is evident in colors used on packages, shapes and lines, and even mascots (Tony the Tiger, the Trix rabbit) and celebrities (whichever athlete is currently on Wheaties). I believe putting Paula Deen's image on a food item would promote that food item to a particular audience just as putting <insert athlete name here> promotes Wheaties to a particular audience.
The Paula Deen thing was a joke, because diabeetus. Plus I was under the impression this thread was a place where ridiculously unrealistic suggestions were being put forward, like trying to legally classify junk food and tax it. Paula Deen was my contribution... My bad.6 -
mskessler89 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »The whole idea of "hidden" sugar in things like ketchup baffles me. There is sugar in ketchup. It's part of the recipe. It's an ingredient. If you don't know there's sugar in ketchup, then it's your ignorance of how to make ketchup that's too blame, not the hidden sugars. And not that i expect everyone to know how to make ketchup, but the fact that we no longer need to make our own and can conveniently buy it from the store doesn't make its ingredients suddenly nefarious.
I originally used the term "hidden sugar" in this context:
How about taxing based on added sugars? Would get the main items that any third grader would classify as junk food like pop, candy, cookies, etc. Might also get manufacturers to reduce the amount of "hidden" sugars in things like ketchup, sauces, etc.
Agree anyone can find the sugar in an item by looking at the ingredient list (that is why I put "hidden" in the quotation marks). However, most don't and consumers can get much additional sugar (calories) in the diet from things that many would not expect to have sugar.
Also, I'm not sure people can taste the "hidden sugars" in many item. Many people have grown up eating foods that have extra sugar added in the processing and don't "taste" the sugar since they've never had the food without it.
While I get your point, I don't see what more could be done. Well, short of forcing companies to change their labeling to big black boxes with white letters that say "all the sugar!! Diabeetus!! Do not eat unless you want the beetus!!", which would be completely false, and still probably wouldn't dissuade most who eat these things.
The information is clearly on the label. If consumers practice willful ignorance, or just don't care, there's nothing you can do about it.
A label with Paula Deen's photo required on all items with any added sugar?
Hmmm, maybe. Though, if the crap they put on cigarette packs in some places didn't work, I doubt that will either. Though admittedly, Paula Deen's face is almost as horrifying as a lung tumor.
Interesting, but there is a different drive to these things. Smokers who are addicted are trying to fuel a very specific (nicotine) addiction. On the other hand, people who are hungry buying food could probably fulfill that hunger with any one of a variety of foods. Now we all know that product packaging is designed for specific marketing purposes. This is evident in colors used on packages, shapes and lines, and even mascots (Tony the Tiger, the Trix rabbit) and celebrities (whichever athlete is currently on Wheaties). I believe putting Paula Deen's image on a food item would promote that food item to a particular audience just as putting <insert athlete name here> promotes Wheaties to a particular audience.
The Paula Deen thing was a joke, because diabeetus. Plus I was under the impression this thread was a place where ridiculously unrealistic suggestions were being put forward, like trying to legally classify junk food and tax it. Paula Deen was my contribution... My bad.
If it makes you feel any better, I laughed, and not in a sad trombone way either.1 -
NO. Too much government in our lives already.4
-
When I saw the OP, I assumed this would be a short and obvious thread. I can't believe how many people honestly think the government has a responsibility to determine what foods are "healthy" and to put effort into corralling people into choosing those foods. And honestly think people will stop eating the way they eat because of a tax.
It is the individual's responsibility to feed themselves and to do so in an educated manner. It is a parent's responsibility to teach their children how to feed themselves properly. Eating is, possibly literally, the most basic and important skill any living thing needs to acquire. If that is too much to ask of the average American, and we can't do it without the government's forceful participation, that certainly calls for some weeping
Since 2/3 of the US population is overweight, 1/3 is obese and 30% of the population is expected to have diabetes by 2050, it's pretty obvious the typical American doesn't know *kitten* about feeding themselves in an educated manner.
If a tax would help with curtail the current eating habits and/or help fund education/medical care for obesity related issues, I'd say why not.1 -
Packerjohn wrote: »When I saw the OP, I assumed this would be a short and obvious thread. I can't believe how many people honestly think the government has a responsibility to determine what foods are "healthy" and to put effort into corralling people into choosing those foods. And honestly think people will stop eating the way they eat because of a tax.
It is the individual's responsibility to feed themselves and to do so in an educated manner. It is a parent's responsibility to teach their children how to feed themselves properly. Eating is, possibly literally, the most basic and important skill any living thing needs to acquire. If that is too much to ask of the average American, and we can't do it without the government's forceful participation, that certainly calls for some weeping
Since 2/3 of the US population is overweight, 1/3 is obese and 30% of the population is expected to have diabetes by 2050, it's pretty obvious the typical American doesn't know *kitten* about feeding themselves in an educated manner.
If a tax would help with curtail the current eating habits and/or help fund education/medical care for obesity related issues, I'd say why not.
In my opinion, it won't and it won't. And people continually expecting the government to step in and "help" us take care of ourselves is, in my opinion, a big reason why so many people don't know how to take care of themselves.12 -
Packerjohn wrote: »When I saw the OP, I assumed this would be a short and obvious thread. I can't believe how many people honestly think the government has a responsibility to determine what foods are "healthy" and to put effort into corralling people into choosing those foods. And honestly think people will stop eating the way they eat because of a tax.
It is the individual's responsibility to feed themselves and to do so in an educated manner. It is a parent's responsibility to teach their children how to feed themselves properly. Eating is, possibly literally, the most basic and important skill any living thing needs to acquire. If that is too much to ask of the average American, and we can't do it without the government's forceful participation, that certainly calls for some weeping
Since 2/3 of the US population is overweight, 1/3 is obese and 30% of the population is expected to have diabetes by 2050, it's pretty obvious the typical American doesn't know *kitten* about feeding themselves in an educated manner.
If a tax would help with curtail the current eating habits and/or help fund education/medical care for obesity related issues, I'd say why not.
In my opinion, it won't and it won't. And people continually expecting the government to step in and "help" us take care of ourselves is, in my opinion, a big reason why so many people don't know how to take care of themselves.
Something about roads and intentions comes to mind.3 -
Packerjohn wrote: »When I saw the OP, I assumed this would be a short and obvious thread. I can't believe how many people honestly think the government has a responsibility to determine what foods are "healthy" and to put effort into corralling people into choosing those foods. And honestly think people will stop eating the way they eat because of a tax.
It is the individual's responsibility to feed themselves and to do so in an educated manner. It is a parent's responsibility to teach their children how to feed themselves properly. Eating is, possibly literally, the most basic and important skill any living thing needs to acquire. If that is too much to ask of the average American, and we can't do it without the government's forceful participation, that certainly calls for some weeping
Since 2/3 of the US population is overweight, 1/3 is obese and 30% of the population is expected to have diabetes by 2050, it's pretty obvious the typical American doesn't know *kitten* about feeding themselves in an educated manner.
If a tax would help with curtail the current eating habits and/or help fund education/medical care for obesity related issues, I'd say why not.
In my opinion, it won't and it won't. And people continually expecting the government to step in and "help" us take care of ourselves is, in my opinion, a big reason why so many people don't know how to take care of themselves.
So how are you proposing paying for the medical costs of obesity? Remember 50% of healthcare spending is funded by the US government. It's a dollars and cents think for the government to reduce healthcare costs.0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »When I saw the OP, I assumed this would be a short and obvious thread. I can't believe how many people honestly think the government has a responsibility to determine what foods are "healthy" and to put effort into corralling people into choosing those foods. And honestly think people will stop eating the way they eat because of a tax.
It is the individual's responsibility to feed themselves and to do so in an educated manner. It is a parent's responsibility to teach their children how to feed themselves properly. Eating is, possibly literally, the most basic and important skill any living thing needs to acquire. If that is too much to ask of the average American, and we can't do it without the government's forceful participation, that certainly calls for some weeping
Since 2/3 of the US population is overweight, 1/3 is obese and 30% of the population is expected to have diabetes by 2050, it's pretty obvious the typical American doesn't know *kitten* about feeding themselves in an educated manner.
If a tax would help with curtail the current eating habits and/or help fund education/medical care for obesity related issues, I'd say why not.
In my opinion, it won't and it won't. And people continually expecting the government to step in and "help" us take care of ourselves is, in my opinion, a big reason why so many people don't know how to take care of themselves.
So how are you proposing paying for the medical costs of obesity? Remember 50% of healthcare spending is funded by the US government. It's a dollars and cents think for the government to reduce healthcare costs.
/raises hand
Oh oh, pick me, pick me.
Stop subsidizing people's bad decisions. There, I just solved most of our debt problem in thirty seconds.4 -
The government doesn't fund squat. Taxpayers do. Too bad there are fewer and fewer productive ones due to our burgeoning culture of dependency, driven by those who seek to create dependents to retain and expand their power.6
-
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »When I saw the OP, I assumed this would be a short and obvious thread. I can't believe how many people honestly think the government has a responsibility to determine what foods are "healthy" and to put effort into corralling people into choosing those foods. And honestly think people will stop eating the way they eat because of a tax.
It is the individual's responsibility to feed themselves and to do so in an educated manner. It is a parent's responsibility to teach their children how to feed themselves properly. Eating is, possibly literally, the most basic and important skill any living thing needs to acquire. If that is too much to ask of the average American, and we can't do it without the government's forceful participation, that certainly calls for some weeping
Since 2/3 of the US population is overweight, 1/3 is obese and 30% of the population is expected to have diabetes by 2050, it's pretty obvious the typical American doesn't know *kitten* about feeding themselves in an educated manner.
If a tax would help with curtail the current eating habits and/or help fund education/medical care for obesity related issues, I'd say why not.
In my opinion, it won't and it won't. And people continually expecting the government to step in and "help" us take care of ourselves is, in my opinion, a big reason why so many people don't know how to take care of themselves.
So how are you proposing paying for the medical costs of obesity? Remember 50% of healthcare spending is funded by the US government. It's a dollars and cents think for the government to reduce healthcare costs.
/raises hand
Oh oh, pick me, pick me.
Stop subsidizing people's bad decisions. There, I just solved most of our debt problem in thirty seconds.
Fine by me. Now the big question how to get congress and the POTUS to go along with us.0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »When I saw the OP, I assumed this would be a short and obvious thread. I can't believe how many people honestly think the government has a responsibility to determine what foods are "healthy" and to put effort into corralling people into choosing those foods. And honestly think people will stop eating the way they eat because of a tax.
It is the individual's responsibility to feed themselves and to do so in an educated manner. It is a parent's responsibility to teach their children how to feed themselves properly. Eating is, possibly literally, the most basic and important skill any living thing needs to acquire. If that is too much to ask of the average American, and we can't do it without the government's forceful participation, that certainly calls for some weeping
Since 2/3 of the US population is overweight, 1/3 is obese and 30% of the population is expected to have diabetes by 2050, it's pretty obvious the typical American doesn't know *kitten* about feeding themselves in an educated manner.
If a tax would help with curtail the current eating habits and/or help fund education/medical care for obesity related issues, I'd say why not.
In my opinion, it won't and it won't. And people continually expecting the government to step in and "help" us take care of ourselves is, in my opinion, a big reason why so many people don't know how to take care of themselves.
So how are you proposing paying for the medical costs of obesity? Remember 50% of healthcare spending is funded by the US government. It's a dollars and cents think for the government to reduce healthcare costs.
/raises hand
Oh oh, pick me, pick me.
Stop subsidizing people's bad decisions. There, I just solved most of our debt problem in thirty seconds.
Fine by me. Now the big question how to get congress and the POTUS to go along with us.
Not going to happen. Unfortunately, the elderly vote pretty hard, and any time you talk about cutting health expenditures, they seem to automatically assume that we are cranking up the "death panel", even if specific legislation has nothing to do with them as a whole. It would be career suicide.1 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »When I saw the OP, I assumed this would be a short and obvious thread. I can't believe how many people honestly think the government has a responsibility to determine what foods are "healthy" and to put effort into corralling people into choosing those foods. And honestly think people will stop eating the way they eat because of a tax.
It is the individual's responsibility to feed themselves and to do so in an educated manner. It is a parent's responsibility to teach their children how to feed themselves properly. Eating is, possibly literally, the most basic and important skill any living thing needs to acquire. If that is too much to ask of the average American, and we can't do it without the government's forceful participation, that certainly calls for some weeping
Since 2/3 of the US population is overweight, 1/3 is obese and 30% of the population is expected to have diabetes by 2050, it's pretty obvious the typical American doesn't know *kitten* about feeding themselves in an educated manner.
If a tax would help with curtail the current eating habits and/or help fund education/medical care for obesity related issues, I'd say why not.
In my opinion, it won't and it won't. And people continually expecting the government to step in and "help" us take care of ourselves is, in my opinion, a big reason why so many people don't know how to take care of themselves.
So how are you proposing paying for the medical costs of obesity? Remember 50% of healthcare spending is funded by the US government. It's a dollars and cents think for the government to reduce healthcare costs.
/raises hand
Oh oh, pick me, pick me.
Stop subsidizing people's bad decisions. There, I just solved most of our debt problem in thirty seconds.
Actually, I think replacing "people's" with "Congress'" would be much more effective.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 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
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 916 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions