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
-
jmbmilholland wrote: »elisa123gal wrote: »I vote for regulating the food manufacturing industry. Tax them… make the m put clear prominent labels with calorie counts..fat counts.. and chemicals and preservatives. Then the problem would fix itself.
Also, In Europe they do this.. regulate the food industry strictly. You don't see fat folks in Europe.. and i know they walk a lot..but the food matters too.
Oh look, my Splenda appears to have some sort of label on it. HUH--wonder what that could be?
Yeah, but they should have to list the chemicals too!!2 -
Russellb97 wrote: »Russellb97 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Russellb97 wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »Russellb97 wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »I guess the question is would we agree to tax it if there is impact on obesity / weight? The link isn't particularly strong, despite people's opinions.
From pure correlation, if we want people to lose weight, we should be subsidizing soda, sweat snacks, and salty snacks. Sweat snacks in particular.
foodpsychology.cornell.edu/discoveries/junk-food-blame
Though it does say for 95% of Americans there is no relationship between eating those foods and BMI
Yes, but the thing they're most linked to - if anything - is underweight, rather than overweight. So move away from being overweight to being normal weight by eating more sweat and salty snacks, but stop before you hit underweight. Makes sense, doesn't it?
I found that odd too
A couple of thoughts;
1. Underweight people don't have a messed up RMR from years of dieting like us and so can eat more.
2. In the past when I'd restrict the foods I craved, I would often eat several "healthy" things trying satisfy my craving and ate more calories than if I just had the darn donut to begin with.
Most under weight people have lower RMR than overweight people. It's quite difficult to maintain underweight status. I'm normal weight (bmi20) and my bmr is 1300 which isn't super high and i have to eat less calories to maintain than someone who weighs more than me. Bmr lowers as your weight lowers. I don't know why you think underweight eat more than overweight?
Well on paper they should but total weight isn't as important as LBM for RMR and also many studies have shown that dieting can drop RMR far beyond was predicted with weight loss and can stay damaged even after the weight has come back.
I eat more calories in an average week now at 200lbs and maintaining then 13 years ago when I was 300lbs and gaining.
In fact I never adjusted down my calorie goals which I originally based on my RMR at 300lbs.
Metabolic damage like that isn't typical and has really only been demonstrated in cases of extreme (and rapid) weight loss the likes of what is seen on Biggest Loser.
The BL was quite extreme but it does happen to most dieters.
The study below is a less extreme example but the MA drop in calories burned through resting metabolism would compute to about 10-15lbs of fat annually. That's just using the first 6 months of MA and I'm 99.9% sure that the rate of RMR drop is gradually increasing every week and month while dieting. The point is, food is still not the cause of obesity.
Intervention Participants were randomized to 1 of 4 groups for 6 months: control (weight maintenance diet); calorie restriction (25% calorie restriction of baseline energy requirements); calorie restriction with exercise (12.5% calorie restriction plus 12.5% increase in energy expenditure by structured exercise); very low-calorie diet (890 kcal/d until 15% weight reduction, followed by a weight maintenance diet).
Main Outcome Measures Body composition; dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate (DHEAS), glucose, and insulin levels; protein carbonyls; DNA damage; 24-hour energy expenditure; and core body temperature.
Results Mean (SEM) weight change at 6 months in the 4 groups was as follows: controls, −1.0% (1.1%); calorie restriction, −10.4% (0.9%); calorie restriction with exercise, −10.0% (0.8%); and very low-calorie diet, −13.9% (0.7%). At 6 months, fasting insulin levels were significantly reduced from baseline in the intervention groups (all P<.01), whereas DHEAS and glucose levels were unchanged. Core body temperature was reduced in the calorie restriction and calorie restriction with exercise groups (both P<.05). After adjustment for changes in body composition, sedentary 24-hour energy expenditure was unchanged in controls, but decreased in the calorie restriction (−135 kcal/d [42 kcal/d]), calorie restriction with exercise (−117 kcal/d [52 kcal/d]), and very low-calorie diet (−125 kcal/d [35 kcal/d]) groups (all P<.008). These “metabolic adaptations” (~ 6% more than expected based on loss of metabolic mass) were statistically different from controls (P<.05). Protein carbonyl concentrations were not changed from baseline to month 6 in any group, whereas DNA damage was also reduced from baseline in all intervention groups (P <.005).
Conclusions Our findings suggest that 2 biomarkers of longevity (fasting insulin level and body temperature) are decreased by prolonged calorie restriction in humans and support the theory that metabolic rate is reduced beyond the level expected from reduced metabolic body mass. Studies of longer duration are required to determine if calorie restriction attenuates the aging process in humans.
Effect of 6-Month Calorie Restriction on Biomarkers of Longevity, Metabolic Adaptation, and Oxidative Stress in Overweight Individuals
A Randomized Controlled Trial FREE
Leonie K. Heilbronn, PhD; Lilian de Jonge, PhD; Madlyn I. Frisard, PhD; James P. DeLany, PhD; D. Enette Larson-Meyer, PhD; Jennifer Rood, PhD; Tuong Nguyen, BSE; Corby K. Martin, PhD; Julia Volaufova, PhD; Marlene M. Most, PhD; Frank L. Greenway, PhD; Steven R. Smith, MD; Walter A. Deutsch, PhD; Donald A. Williamson, PhD; Eric Ravussin, PhD; for the Pennington CALERIE Team
[+] Author Affiliations
JAMA. 2006;295(13):1539-1548. doi:10.1001/jama.295.13.1539.
This isn't completely applicable to overweight and obese people losing weight. This is using people that are at a normal weight and getting them to live below their set point. If it is the Ravussin study I'm familiar with, none of the participants were allowed to start the plan with BMI greater than 28.5.
Studies have shown metabolic adaptations and not shown it, and on review, it seems to kick in when dieting below certain body fat levels.
There's studies showing MA happens in obese, overweight and normal weight and none of us have a *set-bodyfat that's hogwash. The "set-point" refers to energy homeostasis and metabolic adaptation at some degree happens when we are constantly under-feeding our bodies. The good news is leptin the hormone that is the driver for MA can be manipulated with daily energy balance.
*It is more difficult to lose bodyfat at low bodyfat percentages. I can easily maintain my BF between 10-12% however the few times I dropped to 8-9% it was like "dieting" again to maintain and not fun at all.
If there's a study that shows strong evidence for metabolic adaptation (not just adaptive thermogensis while dieting) for dieters at above 25% body fat, please post it instead of people who are intentionally living on in calorie reductions to force them below their normal weight.
Human beings do have set points and settling points. You just said we don't, then proceeded to list the mechanisms that govern them. If you want to contradict yourself, go ahead, but don't pretend you're discussing what I said by assuming some definition of set point I didn't give and then saying that thing doesn't exist.
And leptin is one mechanism in set point. It is a very strong one, but calling it the driver is oversimplifying things.
Sorry Vegeta "hogwash" wasn't directed at you or your statement. Just the general notion of what set-point is. I know for a fact that I don't have a set weight becasue I've been over 300lbs and lost, plateau'd and regained dozen of times which would look like a set-weight but when I purposefully manipulated daily energy balance I lost 100lbs without a single plateau. The only times in the past 12 years I've struggled is when I get my BF% under 9% which is more about very low bf% then weight.0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »jmbmilholland wrote: »elisa123gal wrote: »I vote for regulating the food manufacturing industry. Tax them… make the m put clear prominent labels with calorie counts..fat counts.. and chemicals and preservatives. Then the problem would fix itself.
Also, In Europe they do this.. regulate the food industry strictly. You don't see fat folks in Europe.. and i know they walk a lot..but the food matters too.
Oh look, my Splenda appears to have some sort of label on it. HUH--wonder what that could be?
Yeah, but they should have to list the chemicals too!!
They should be forced to put it in a bigger bag so they can list everything in 72-point font. Maybe THEN people would stop being fat!
Personally, I would find it to be very appropriate if only the people who can't pronounce the ingredients would be taxed at a 100% rate. That would solve a lot of problems (health and education) in one fell swoop. If we're going to be inflicting our personal weird preferences on the population as a whole, I think everyone who hasn't passed a college level chemistry course and received an A should be taxed.3 -
"Organic" foods typically cost more to produce because they have lower yields, more difficulty with controlling loss, higher cost inputs, and require significantly more manual labor. Not because of some conspiracy to defraud consumers.
People who want to feel good about themselves because their food is grown like it's 1910 pay for that feeling, as they should. The rest of us can enjoy the financial and environmental benefits of modern agricultural practices, which require fewer inputs into farming and gives greater yields, all while minimizing runoff .
Most of what the politically manipulated call "agriculture subsidies" are the payments made through the crop insurance program. Farmers pay significant premiums to participate in crop insurance, which only insures against catastrophic crop loss. It's a darned good thing that only a tiny percentage of farms experience catastrophic loss in any year, which is why a very small percentage of farmers get payments through this program. The vast majority of claims are for weather-related losses. Although the cost to the government varies from year to year, historically, farmer- paid premiums have covered over 96% of payments made.
5 -
A bottle of water should not cost more than a can of pop (chemicals & sugar). Its cheaper for families to eat crappy processed food than actual whole foods.......and then we wonder why so many are over weight and unhealthy. So then the government spends more money to do studies and educate us. Just make what we need available and reasonably priced.1
-
Educate them masses! That's what I vote for.
I have family members who until recently didn't even realize that eating "simple" biscuits with their tea during brunch and supper time (not including regular meals) was throwing them off 400-500 cals a day. Let alone the days a pizza is ordered with individual dip for each person.
Damn, people still think that green tea will make them lose weight if they have it after pizza. What the heck is in green tea? hydrochloric acid that would just dissolve everything and make you lighter?
How about them "cleanse" threads lol ?
Ignorance should be taxed not the foods. Although most just never got a chance to see/learn things properly so once again Educate them.0 -
bigrednewfie wrote: »A bottle of water should not cost more than a can of pop (chemicals & sugar). Its cheaper for families to eat crappy processed food than actual whole foods.......and then we wonder why so many are over weight and unhealthy. So then the government spends more money to do studies and educate us. Just make what we need available and reasonably priced.
A 24 pack of water costs $5. Price is not a driver.3 -
Nah I'd prefer the government stop subsidizing corn, wheat, and sugar and those savings should go to tax cuts for local small farmers.1
-
bigrednewfie wrote: »A bottle of water should not cost more than a can of pop (chemicals & sugar). Its cheaper for families to eat crappy processed food than actual whole foods.......and then we wonder why so many are over weight and unhealthy. So then the government spends more money to do studies and educate us. Just make what we need available and reasonably priced.
Water doesn't cost more than soda. You can fill an entire bathtub for just pennies. If someone is paying as much for water as they are for soda, they are an idiot.
2 -
bigrednewfie wrote: »A bottle of water should not cost more than a can of pop (chemicals & sugar). Its cheaper for families to eat crappy processed food than actual whole foods.......and then we wonder why so many are over weight and unhealthy. So then the government spends more money to do studies and educate us. Just make what we need available and reasonably priced.
Your inability to grocery shop isn't my problem. We have no issue buying reasonably priced healthy foods. I've seen post after post on here about people complaining about how hard and difficult this is. It's not. People are just lazy and want it handed to them. Just like everything else in life. Go figure it out. It's not that difficult.7 -
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »bigrednewfie wrote: »A bottle of water should not cost more than a can of pop (chemicals & sugar). Its cheaper for families to eat crappy processed food than actual whole foods.......and then we wonder why so many are over weight and unhealthy. So then the government spends more money to do studies and educate us. Just make what we need available and reasonably priced.
Your inability to grocery shop isn't my problem. We have no issue buying reasonably priced healthy foods. I've seen post after post on here about people complaining about how hard and difficult this is. It's not. People are just lazy and want it handed to them. Just like everything else in life. Go figure it out. It's not that difficult.
but if we let government run our lives everything will be better!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 -
-
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »bigrednewfie wrote: »A bottle of water should not cost more than a can of pop (chemicals & sugar). Its cheaper for families to eat crappy processed food than actual whole foods.......and then we wonder why so many are over weight and unhealthy. So then the government spends more money to do studies and educate us. Just make what we need available and reasonably priced.
Your inability to grocery shop isn't my problem. We have no issue buying reasonably priced healthy foods. I've seen post after post on here about people complaining about how hard and difficult this is. It's not. People are just lazy and want it handed to them. Just like everything else in life. Go figure it out. It's not that difficult.
but if we let government run our lives everything will be better!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
They have done such a spanking good job too!0 -
bigrednewfie wrote: »A bottle of water should not cost more than a can of pop (chemicals & sugar). Its cheaper for families to eat crappy processed food than actual whole foods.......and then we wonder why so many are over weight and unhealthy. So then the government spends more money to do studies and educate us. Just make what we need available and reasonably priced.
A bottle of water costs more that a bottle of pop simply because marketing has convinced some consumers that it's better than what comes from most faucets.2 -
No. However, healthy choices and organic foods should be affordable.0
-
Nah I'd prefer the government stop subsidizing corn, wheat, and sugar and those savings should go to tax cuts for local small farmers.
Everyone gets all warm and fuzzy about the small local farms. Nothing wrong with this but fact is the small local farms cannot feed the US not to mention our contribution to feeding the rest of the world.2 -
Worst. Idea. Ever!0
-
In the UK where every nationals health is paid for by the Tax payer YES Absolutely!!
Unfortunately people are too ignorant to understand the importance of a healthy diet, ussually those people are the ones on benefits or in low wages. Make foods that as a product as a whole, add up to HALF or MORE of your daily calorie intake more expensive, and use that to subsidize or reduce taxes on healthier foods. This will increase incentive for family to buy healthy and reduce the likelyhood of requiring NHS treatment.
EDIT: How ignorant of me, id like to further add, its not just ignorance that pushes poorer familys to unhealthier foods. Its time, when both parents are working flat out, its far easier to stick a pizza in the oven then it is to cook properly. pre-made meals arent much help either as they're full of sugar and salt.
which causes diabetes and heart problems when not used in moderation.
If my country wants to be able to maintain our precious Free Medical Treatment for ALL policy, this is something we need to consider to combat BALLOONING costs.
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
- 934 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions