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
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »*waves* as I've pointed out, Australia does tax junk food, in a way. We have a Goods and Services Tax of 10% that applies to anything not on the exempt list. It came in in 2000.
In general, the exemptions are:- bread and bread rolls without icing or filling
- cooking ingredients such as flour, sugar and cake mixes
- fats and oils for cooking
- milk, cream, cheese and eggs
- spices and sauces
- fruit juice containing at least 90% by volume of juice
- bottled drinking water
- tea and coffee (unless it's ready to drink)
- baby food and infant formula
- meats for people to eat (except prepared meals or snacks)
- fruit, vegetables, fish and soup
- spreads, such as honey, jam and peanut butter
- breakfast cereals
- rice, cooked or uncooked (but not hot).
In that time, "based on figures from the National Health Survey and/or Australian Health Survey the prevalence of overweight and obesity increased from 56.3% in 1995 to 61.2% in 2007–2008 and 62.8% in 2011–2012. This was attributed largely to an increase in the level of obesity from 18.7% to 27.5% over the period, with the proportion of overweight adults remaining similar (35.3–37.6%)."
So a 10% tax has done absolutely nothing for the rise of obesity in Australia. And 10% is not an insignificant amount. If people want it, they make it work. Not to mention supermarkets still run major specials on "junk" every single week because they can offset the costs.
Interesting, Mexico has seen a significant reduction in soda sales with a 10% tax.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/22/upshot/soda-sales-fall-further-in-mexicos-second-year-of-taxing-them.html
When it's just not being exempted from a normal tax vs. a special tax it seems to make no difference.
The Australia situation doesn't sound much different from Chicago before the soda tax experiment (which was obviously bungled). Total sales tax in Chicago = 10.25% on most things. However, for non prepared food, non candy I think it's only 2.25% (and only 1% in IL outside of Chicago? Our stupid system is confusing so I never remember these details and I don't look at it on my receipt normally which is evidence that people may not notice it that much). Pre the soda tax the regular 10.25% tax applied to soda, as well as prepared foods, restaurant foods, and candy, plus there was already a smaller (additional) soda tax that no one seemed to think or care about.
So if that's what you are talking about it clearly has not made a difference here, or in the various other places that don't exempt certain limited food items from the sales tax but otherwise do exempt food (which is a common approach).
Like I said, I don't think it is psychologically the same thing, but I also think it has to be a quite high tax (above what you are used to paying for goods) to be given a test. The cigarette tax is quite high, for example. (And obviously we aren't going to place a high tax on "junk food" generally, for lots of reasons, so I think it's rather a non starter.
Re Mexico, soda sales have been generally declining in the US without a tax, so I wonder if Mexico's results control for shifts that might have happened anyway, and I wonder if replacement products increased. I don't know enough about their experiment, though, or what was specifically included under the tax.
Interestingly, in Australia our cigarettes are taxed up the wazoo. We have the most expensive tobacco in the world - I'm talking a pack of 30 cigarettes is $35 including the tax a rate of 66%.
Adult smokers in Australia? 14.5%. Adult smokers in the USA? 15.1%.
Doesn't look like taxing the hell out of cigarettes has discouraged that many people from smoking - though both countries have seen reductions in numbers of smokers in the last 2 decades.
Our cigarette taxes are very high too, and I do think that the taxes have played a role. There are studies that suggest this, and I have anecdotal evidence for it too (I never have smoked, but I know people who say they were motivated to get around to quitting because it's so crazy expensive -- I won't claim that is actual evidence, but it does shape how I think about it).
I would have argued that the liquor tax is totally ineffective (but fine with me anyway, since it's a voluntary tax and there are overall negative externalities from alcohol), but there's evidence that it does have an effect, see here: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/03/the-wages-of-sin-taxes/474327/
(And liquor taxes are comparably quite high: https://www.illinoispolicy.org/chicagos-total-effective-tax-rate-on-liquor-is-28/)
Hmm... I wonder if it is more that, at a certain level, raising tax even more ceases to be effective at deterrence?0 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »*waves* as I've pointed out, Australia does tax junk food, in a way. We have a Goods and Services Tax of 10% that applies to anything not on the exempt list. It came in in 2000.
In general, the exemptions are:- bread and bread rolls without icing or filling
- cooking ingredients such as flour, sugar and cake mixes
- fats and oils for cooking
- milk, cream, cheese and eggs
- spices and sauces
- fruit juice containing at least 90% by volume of juice
- bottled drinking water
- tea and coffee (unless it's ready to drink)
- baby food and infant formula
- meats for people to eat (except prepared meals or snacks)
- fruit, vegetables, fish and soup
- spreads, such as honey, jam and peanut butter
- breakfast cereals
- rice, cooked or uncooked (but not hot).
In that time, "based on figures from the National Health Survey and/or Australian Health Survey the prevalence of overweight and obesity increased from 56.3% in 1995 to 61.2% in 2007–2008 and 62.8% in 2011–2012. This was attributed largely to an increase in the level of obesity from 18.7% to 27.5% over the period, with the proportion of overweight adults remaining similar (35.3–37.6%)."
So a 10% tax has done absolutely nothing for the rise of obesity in Australia. And 10% is not an insignificant amount. If people want it, they make it work. Not to mention supermarkets still run major specials on "junk" every single week because they can offset the costs.
Interesting, Mexico has seen a significant reduction in soda sales with a 10% tax.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/22/upshot/soda-sales-fall-further-in-mexicos-second-year-of-taxing-them.html
I wonder how much it has to do with disposable income?
In Australia, the average household net-adjusted disposable income per capita is USD 33 138 a year, more than the OECD average of USD 29 016 a year.
In Mexico, the average household net-adjusted disposable income per capita is USD 12 806 a year, less than the OECD average of USD 29 016 a year.
Both countries have the same gap between the richest and poorest – the top 20% of the population earn more than five times as much as the bottom 20%.
Countries with more disposable income are less affected by incremental tax.
I've also never grocery shopped in Mexico, but in Australia the vast, vast majority of people shop at large chain supermarkets, where you never pay full price for soda - it's always on sale. Same with convenience stores, there's always a "2 for X" deal or something.
Thing is, really - people get used to the tax, or the shops work around it. It's not like it slaps you in the face every time you go to buy the item. It normalises, and people consume as normal.
In the US the poor have the highest rates of obesity so a reduction in soda consumption due to a tax (along with removing soda from SNAP eligibility lists) would potentially result in a reduction of consumption by this group.
Some taxing bodies have a certain amount per ounce of soda, eliminating the impact of discounts on the tax imposed.
Mmm... but if the product is on sale, the amount of tax is reduced.
I also note that in Australia shelf prices are already inclusive of tax. You have nothing showing you how much of your purchase price is tax, so nothing to stand out. 30 can cube of Coke $20 on the shelf? That's what you pay at the register.
Not if you set the tax at a certain amount per ounce of product. I believe the Cook County tax that is being rolled back was $.01 per ounce or $1.44 on a 12 pack of 12 oz cans regardless of the sale price of the product.
Shelf prices in the US generally are not inclusive of tax. If it was desired you could require the tax amount to be posted as an addition to the sale price if the tax was per ounce.0 -
bgctrinity wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »bgctrinity wrote: »Junk food is taxed. Taxed by our health. You won't get away with eating it forever, then you will certainly be paying for it physically and financially.
Care to add any context or dosage to these vague statements?
You want context on junk food being bad for you? Uh... yeah this forum doesn't have enough room for all of the proof on the "vague" inclination of junk food being bad for your health. Go ahead and google it when you have a LOT of time free. If you need "context or dosage" on hospital bills costing you money, then you clearly don't live in the USA and your profile is lying. Again, quick google of US health care costs will give you more than enough proof.
So in any quantity, and any frequency, "junk food" is bad for my health? How exactly does the consumption of these foods, in the context of an otherwise balanced and calorie controlled diet, negatively impact my health? What's your definition of junk food, as it's about as vague a term as "clean eating"? I live in the US. I'm not sure what a quick google of health care costs is going to provide as far as clairification on your point... not that quick google searches are proof of anything really, unless you are inclined to believe cats built the pyramids and there never was a moon landing.3 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »saying that Australian taxes are only 2% more than in the US so that's the cost of health care to the tax payer is, of course, absurd
Gosh, I sure hope that's not what you thought I was saying.
I was simply making mention of the fact that the two nations in the discussion are very similarly taxed. Only one or two spots away from each other in any world taxation chart I found.
@suzannesimmons3 Agreed, the lady tax is ridiculous. I can't believe they haven't fixed that yet.
0 -
suzannesimmons3 wrote: »HeidiCooksSupper wrote: »A well considered and defined tax with a designation of the proceeds for public health education and scientific research into human nutrition? Why not? We now pick and choose what to tax and what not to tax. How about taxing sugared sodas but not toilet paper, sanitary supplies, etc.?
I love how the government decided my sanitary towels were a luxury item.
I'm in Ontario, Canada. I think it's been a couple years now but they took the taxes off pads and such here. There was a petition and a couple months after that it was a thing.0 -
False. The government has no moral responsibility to parent the populace. The government's responsibility is to ensure security and provide a free market. As for how I live my life, even if I eat myself into a grave, it's none of the government's business.The government has a moral responsibility to intervene any way possible.
Yeah, freedom is totally a problem that needs to be eradicated.More control over school lunches, more PT in the school curriculum, punitive taxes on junk food, fast food, and soda, tax penalties for obesity, tax credits for good health. All of it. I support all of it. At a national level.
So your logic is that the state and local governments can't be trusted so let's trust the federal government to make our decisions for us. The same federal government that is equally incompetent and corrupt as any state government except with bigger guns.State and local governments are incompetent, corrupt, and fickle, and generally can't be trusted to tie their own shoes let alone protect their citizens.
Ok.
4 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »*waves* as I've pointed out, Australia does tax junk food, in a way. We have a Goods and Services Tax of 10% that applies to anything not on the exempt list. It came in in 2000.
In general, the exemptions are:- bread and bread rolls without icing or filling
- cooking ingredients such as flour, sugar and cake mixes
- fats and oils for cooking
- milk, cream, cheese and eggs
- spices and sauces
- fruit juice containing at least 90% by volume of juice
- bottled drinking water
- tea and coffee (unless it's ready to drink)
- baby food and infant formula
- meats for people to eat (except prepared meals or snacks)
- fruit, vegetables, fish and soup
- spreads, such as honey, jam and peanut butter
- breakfast cereals
- rice, cooked or uncooked (but not hot).
In that time, "based on figures from the National Health Survey and/or Australian Health Survey the prevalence of overweight and obesity increased from 56.3% in 1995 to 61.2% in 2007–2008 and 62.8% in 2011–2012. This was attributed largely to an increase in the level of obesity from 18.7% to 27.5% over the period, with the proportion of overweight adults remaining similar (35.3–37.6%)."
So a 10% tax has done absolutely nothing for the rise of obesity in Australia. And 10% is not an insignificant amount. If people want it, they make it work. Not to mention supermarkets still run major specials on "junk" every single week because they can offset the costs.
Interesting, Mexico has seen a significant reduction in soda sales with a 10% tax.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/22/upshot/soda-sales-fall-further-in-mexicos-second-year-of-taxing-them.html
And, as noted in the article, the impact was largely seen among the poorest communities.
Yet the obesity rate in Mexico continues to rise. Interesting.
Does it matter that the tax "works" in reducing consumption of a particular food if it doesn't work to curb the obesity epidemic by lowering calorie intake overall?
I'd argue that it doesn't.4 -
Americas obesity problem has become a national security threat.
A 2014 study found that an appalling 71% of 17-24 year olds were ineligible for military service. Mostly because they were too fat.
America's widespread obesity problems, poor access to healthcare, and overall toxic lifestyle choices are a drain on our economy and a real threat to our security.
America is fat. Fat as *kitten*. The government has a moral responsibility to intervene any way possible. More control over school lunches, more PT in the school curriculum, punitive taxes on junk food, fast food, and soda, tax penalties for obesity, tax credits for good health. All of it. I support all of it. At a national level. State and local governments are incompetent, corrupt, and fickle, and generally can't be trusted to tie their own shoes let alone protect their citizens.
...but honest at the federal level?
If you don't trust a system why would you grant it more power?1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »*waves* as I've pointed out, Australia does tax junk food, in a way. We have a Goods and Services Tax of 10% that applies to anything not on the exempt list. It came in in 2000.
In general, the exemptions are:- bread and bread rolls without icing or filling
- cooking ingredients such as flour, sugar and cake mixes
- fats and oils for cooking
- milk, cream, cheese and eggs
- spices and sauces
- fruit juice containing at least 90% by volume of juice
- bottled drinking water
- tea and coffee (unless it's ready to drink)
- baby food and infant formula
- meats for people to eat (except prepared meals or snacks)
- fruit, vegetables, fish and soup
- spreads, such as honey, jam and peanut butter
- breakfast cereals
- rice, cooked or uncooked (but not hot).
In that time, "based on figures from the National Health Survey and/or Australian Health Survey the prevalence of overweight and obesity increased from 56.3% in 1995 to 61.2% in 2007–2008 and 62.8% in 2011–2012. This was attributed largely to an increase in the level of obesity from 18.7% to 27.5% over the period, with the proportion of overweight adults remaining similar (35.3–37.6%)."
So a 10% tax has done absolutely nothing for the rise of obesity in Australia. And 10% is not an insignificant amount. If people want it, they make it work. Not to mention supermarkets still run major specials on "junk" every single week because they can offset the costs.
Interesting, Mexico has seen a significant reduction in soda sales with a 10% tax.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/22/upshot/soda-sales-fall-further-in-mexicos-second-year-of-taxing-them.html
When it's just not being exempted from a normal tax vs. a special tax it seems to make no difference.
The Australia situation doesn't sound much different from Chicago before the soda tax experiment (which was obviously bungled). Total sales tax in Chicago = 10.25% on most things. However, for non prepared food, non candy I think it's only 2.25% (and only 1% in IL outside of Chicago? Our stupid system is confusing so I never remember these details and I don't look at it on my receipt normally which is evidence that people may not notice it that much). Pre the soda tax the regular 10.25% tax applied to soda, as well as prepared foods, restaurant foods, and candy, plus there was already a smaller (additional) soda tax that no one seemed to think or care about.
So if that's what you are talking about it clearly has not made a difference here, or in the various other places that don't exempt certain limited food items from the sales tax but otherwise do exempt food (which is a common approach).
Like I said, I don't think it is psychologically the same thing, but I also think it has to be a quite high tax (above what you are used to paying for goods) to be given a test. The cigarette tax is quite high, for example. (And obviously we aren't going to place a high tax on "junk food" generally, for lots of reasons, so I think it's rather a non starter.
Re Mexico, soda sales have been generally declining in the US without a tax, so I wonder if Mexico's results control for shifts that might have happened anyway, and I wonder if replacement products increased. I don't know enough about their experiment, though, or what was specifically included under the tax.
Interestingly, in Australia our cigarettes are taxed up the wazoo. We have the most expensive tobacco in the world - I'm talking a pack of 30 cigarettes is $35 including the tax a rate of 66%.
Adult smokers in Australia? 14.5%. Adult smokers in the USA? 15.1%.
Doesn't look like taxing the hell out of cigarettes has discouraged that many people from smoking - though both countries have seen reductions in numbers of smokers in the last 2 decades.
Our cigarette taxes are very high too, and I do think that the taxes have played a role. There are studies that suggest this, and I have anecdotal evidence for it too (I never have smoked, but I know people who say they were motivated to get around to quitting because it's so crazy expensive -- I won't claim that is actual evidence, but it does shape how I think about it).
I would have argued that the liquor tax is totally ineffective (but fine with me anyway, since it's a voluntary tax and there are overall negative externalities from alcohol), but there's evidence that it does have an effect, see here: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/03/the-wages-of-sin-taxes/474327/
(And liquor taxes are comparably quite high: https://www.illinoispolicy.org/chicagos-total-effective-tax-rate-on-liquor-is-28/)
My mother quit in the early 1990s after 30 odd years of smoking for that reason. She was on a very limited budget. She could not afford it anymore.
I think higher prices on some junk food can work. I will but diet pop when it is on sale (also on a low budget) but I will not buy the more expensive drinks (besides the fact that they are sugary which I avoid for my health reasons). The nice teas or kombucha or even energy drinks cost too much for me. For someone with more disposable income, I doubt it would make a difference.0 -
My experience with smoking has been the opposite. Those I know who have quit including myself did so for health reasons. The prices didn't change anything, the horrid pictures on the packets didn't do anything, the quit ads on TV legit made me feel like having a smoke. The only thing that had any impact at all was general social pressure to quit. And the only regulation based changes that added any positive weight to my decision were the ones that limited the areas I was allowed to smoke in. Being a smoker and catching a plane in my country is a massive pain in the kitten. Airports have these tiny little smoking areas which are like a human ashtray. You squeeze in there with a crazy amount of people all desperately chugging away like chimneys trying to get that last hit before boarding. And in some cases, just trying to get some nicotine in you fast so you can get out of the rank stench of the smokers area lol. The desperation and human misery was real.
The people I know who still smoke, don't like the prices but they aren't anywhere near to quitting because of them.2 -
Back in the UK whilst I was still there the idea of a sugar tax was being proposed on drinks, confectionaries, pastries etc. The idea behind it was that with an obesity epidemic well in swing, the NHS was feeling the strain of treating patients who were termed obese. Because of the free health care provided in the UK, tax contributions and government spending is what pays essentially for healthcare. While in theory this may be a good idea to an extent, taxing sugar foods or "junk" is nothing short of another government money grabbing scheme. Not everyone who eats junk is a burden to the healthcare systems, and not everyone who is a burden to the healthcare system eats junk. The processed sugar that has crept into our food is not the fault of the end user, but rather the manufacturers who have created or helped develop this ongoing epidemic. It is they who should be punished financially, perhaps through similar standards adopted in the auto industry where requirements are needed to be met, not the citizens who enjoy a can of soda or chocolate bar. Whether tax is added to items or not, people will still use them. See high emission vehicles, fuel, alcohol, tobacco - tax is not a detterent. A complete overhaul of how processed foods are manufactured and the behaviour of manufacturers, advertised, how they are regulated, awareness of the health effects they produce etc is the best in a society's present obesity (health) epidemic.0
-
svetskisampion wrote: »Back in the UK whilst I was still there the idea of a sugar tax was being proposed on drinks, confectionaries, pastries etc. The idea behind it was that with an obesity epidemic well in swing, the NHS was feeling the strain of treating patients who were termed obese. Because of the free health care provided in the UK, tax contributions and government spending is what pays essentially for healthcare. While in theory this may be a good idea to an extent, taxing sugar foods or "junk" is nothing short of another government money grabbing scheme. Not everyone who eats junk is a burden to the healthcare systems, and not everyone who is a burden to the healthcare system eats junk. The processed sugar that has crept into our food is not the fault of the end user, but rather the manufacturers who have created or helped develop this ongoing epidemic. It is they who should be punished financially, perhaps through similar standards adopted in the auto industry where requirements are needed to be met, not the citizens who enjoy a can of soda or chocolate bar. Whether tax is added to items or not, people will still use them. See high emission vehicles, fuel, alcohol, tobacco - tax is not a detterent. A complete overhaul of how processed foods are manufactured and the behaviour of manufacturers, advertised, how they are regulated, awareness of the health effects they produce etc is the best in a society's present obesity (health) epidemic.
No to every bit of this. Processed sugar does not of itself cause problems. All you want to do here is to relieve the end consumer of their responsibility in what and how much they shove into their mouths and that will NEVER solve the problems of obesity any where on this planet.
The foods are NOT the problem - people shoveling way too much of the foods into their pie-holes is the problem and no amount of government regulation is going to solve that problem, unless you want to go the extreme of having nannies wandering the streets slapping food out of people's hands, or the converse - allowing people to only eat in government approved spaces where only regulated amounts of foods are handed to each person to consume (and just imagine the black-market such a scheme would create!).2 -
svetskisampion wrote: »Back in the UK whilst I was still there the idea of a sugar tax was being proposed on drinks, confectionaries, pastries etc. The idea behind it was that with an obesity epidemic well in swing, the NHS was feeling the strain of treating patients who were termed obese. Because of the free health care provided in the UK, tax contributions and government spending is what pays essentially for healthcare. While in theory this may be a good idea to an extent, taxing sugar foods or "junk" is nothing short of another government money grabbing scheme. Not everyone who eats junk is a burden to the healthcare systems, and not everyone who is a burden to the healthcare system eats junk. The processed sugar that has crept into our food is not the fault of the end user, but rather the manufacturers who have created or helped develop this ongoing epidemic. It is they who should be punished financially, perhaps through similar standards adopted in the auto industry where requirements are needed to be met, not the citizens who enjoy a can of soda or chocolate bar. Whether tax is added to items or not, people will still use them. See high emission vehicles, fuel, alcohol, tobacco - tax is not a detterent. A complete overhaul of how processed foods are manufactured and the behaviour of manufacturers, advertised, how they are regulated, awareness of the health effects they produce etc is the best in a society's present obesity (health) epidemic.
No to every bit of this. Processed sugar does not of itself cause problems. All you want to do here is to relieve the end consumer of their responsibility in what and how much they shove into their mouths and that will NEVER solve the problems of obesity any where on this planet.
The foods are NOT the problem - people shoveling way too much of the foods into their pie-holes is the problem and no amount of government regulation is going to solve that problem, unless you want to go the extreme of having nannies wandering the streets slapping food out of people's hands, or the converse - allowing people to only eat in government approved spaces where only regulated amounts of foods are handed to each person to consume (and just imagine the black-market such a scheme would create!).
I would say food is the problem.
Eating a sugar packed processed meal which doesn't fulfill you in the slightest yet absorbs a whole lot of your rda calorie intake versus a meal which is nutrient packed and delivers the correct energy in a fraction of your rda. If you was to overeat on both of those, I would hazard a guess the processed and sugar laden foods would do you more damage. To reiterate, choice of food is a problem, less so consumption, especially if we were to factor in individuals activity levels.1 -
It's completely pointless trying to talk economics to some of you people.
What an individual does is completely meaningless in the context of macro economics and tax policy. It doesn't matter if any given individual eats fewer calories if the price of calorie dense, nutrient poor, junk food and candy.
What matters is that if you have a population of 300 million people, and you increase the price of candy, soda, chips, and fast food by 5%, 10%, or 20%, consumption of those products ACROSS THE ENTIRE POPULATION will decrease.
You can't target that any given individual will eat 200 fewer calories a day, or week. But you can pretty reasonably target that a population of 100,000 people will eat 20,000,000 fewer calories.
Imagine a basket of food goods, weighted according to price and caloric content. Calorie bombs like candy are both caloricaly dense, and cheap. Make them less cheap, and you will lower their weight in the imaginary basket, and increase the balance of better foods.
This is all the more reason that the tax needs to be imposed at the highest level. To apply to the greatest number of people possible, and to limit the ability of people to simply go across state or city boarders to avoid it.3 -
I would be equally in favor of tax credits or rebates given on healthy foods.
As it is the cheapest, most easily accessible, food is also the least healthy. While the healthiest food is comparatively more expensive.
Either make unhealthy food more expensive, or healthy food less expensive. I really don't care.0 -
svetskisampion wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Back in the UK whilst I was still there the idea of a sugar tax was being proposed on drinks, confectionaries, pastries etc. The idea behind it was that with an obesity epidemic well in swing, the NHS was feeling the strain of treating patients who were termed obese. Because of the free health care provided in the UK, tax contributions and government spending is what pays essentially for healthcare. While in theory this may be a good idea to an extent, taxing sugar foods or "junk" is nothing short of another government money grabbing scheme. Not everyone who eats junk is a burden to the healthcare systems, and not everyone who is a burden to the healthcare system eats junk. The processed sugar that has crept into our food is not the fault of the end user, but rather the manufacturers who have created or helped develop this ongoing epidemic. It is they who should be punished financially, perhaps through similar standards adopted in the auto industry where requirements are needed to be met, not the citizens who enjoy a can of soda or chocolate bar. Whether tax is added to items or not, people will still use them. See high emission vehicles, fuel, alcohol, tobacco - tax is not a detterent. A complete overhaul of how processed foods are manufactured and the behaviour of manufacturers, advertised, how they are regulated, awareness of the health effects they produce etc is the best in a society's present obesity (health) epidemic.
No to every bit of this. Processed sugar does not of itself cause problems. All you want to do here is to relieve the end consumer of their responsibility in what and how much they shove into their mouths and that will NEVER solve the problems of obesity any where on this planet.
The foods are NOT the problem - people shoveling way too much of the foods into their pie-holes is the problem and no amount of government regulation is going to solve that problem, unless you want to go the extreme of having nannies wandering the streets slapping food out of people's hands, or the converse - allowing people to only eat in government approved spaces where only regulated amounts of foods are handed to each person to consume (and just imagine the black-market such a scheme would create!).
I would say food is the problem.
Eating a sugar packed processed meal which doesn't fulfill you in the slightest yet absorbs a whole lot of your rda calorie intake versus a meal which is nutrient packed and delivers the correct energy in a fraction of your rda. If you was to overeat on both of those, I would hazard a guess the processed and sugar laden foods would do you more damage. To reiterate, choice of food is a problem, less so consumption, especially if we were to factor in individuals activity levels.
Here's the thing though: "Sugar packed" and "processed" don't mean that a meal isn't fulfilling or that it doesn't meet nutritional needs. It's true that there are high sugar meals or meals with processed foods that I might not find fulfilling or that wouldn't meet my needs, but there are also high sugar meals or meals with processed foods that I might find very fulfilling or that would meet my nutritional needs. It's also possible to create an unprocessed and/or low sugar meal that is very unfulfilling or that doesn't meet nutritional needs.
When you say that overeating the first kind of meal will cause more "damage" than overeating the second kind of meal, what do you mean, specifically, by "damage"? Do you mean weight gain? Because excess energy will cause weight gain in both cases. Or are you referring to some other kind of damage?
No matter what food one is choosing, eating more than one can use will result in weight gain.
0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Back in the UK whilst I was still there the idea of a sugar tax was being proposed on drinks, confectionaries, pastries etc. The idea behind it was that with an obesity epidemic well in swing, the NHS was feeling the strain of treating patients who were termed obese. Because of the free health care provided in the UK, tax contributions and government spending is what pays essentially for healthcare. While in theory this may be a good idea to an extent, taxing sugar foods or "junk" is nothing short of another government money grabbing scheme. Not everyone who eats junk is a burden to the healthcare systems, and not everyone who is a burden to the healthcare system eats junk. The processed sugar that has crept into our food is not the fault of the end user, but rather the manufacturers who have created or helped develop this ongoing epidemic. It is they who should be punished financially, perhaps through similar standards adopted in the auto industry where requirements are needed to be met, not the citizens who enjoy a can of soda or chocolate bar. Whether tax is added to items or not, people will still use them. See high emission vehicles, fuel, alcohol, tobacco - tax is not a detterent. A complete overhaul of how processed foods are manufactured and the behaviour of manufacturers, advertised, how they are regulated, awareness of the health effects they produce etc is the best in a society's present obesity (health) epidemic.
No to every bit of this. Processed sugar does not of itself cause problems. All you want to do here is to relieve the end consumer of their responsibility in what and how much they shove into their mouths and that will NEVER solve the problems of obesity any where on this planet.
The foods are NOT the problem - people shoveling way too much of the foods into their pie-holes is the problem and no amount of government regulation is going to solve that problem, unless you want to go the extreme of having nannies wandering the streets slapping food out of people's hands, or the converse - allowing people to only eat in government approved spaces where only regulated amounts of foods are handed to each person to consume (and just imagine the black-market such a scheme would create!).
I would say food is the problem.
Eating a sugar packed processed meal which doesn't fulfill you in the slightest yet absorbs a whole lot of your rda calorie intake versus a meal which is nutrient packed and delivers the correct energy in a fraction of your rda. If you was to overeat on both of those, I would hazard a guess the processed and sugar laden foods would do you more damage. To reiterate, choice of food is a problem, less so consumption, especially if we were to factor in individuals activity levels.
Here's the thing though: "Sugar packed" and "processed" don't mean that a meal isn't fulfilling or that it doesn't meet nutritional needs. It's true that there are high sugar meals or meals with processed foods that I might not find fulfilling or that wouldn't meet my needs, but there are also high sugar meals or meals with processed foods that I might find very fulfilling or that would meet my nutritional needs. It's also possible to create an unprocessed and/or low sugar meal that is very unfulfilling or that doesn't meet nutritional needs.
When you say that overeating the first kind of meal will cause more "damage" than overeating the second kind of meal, what do you mean, specifically, by "damage"? Do you mean weight gain? Because excess energy will cause weight gain in both cases. Or are you referring to some other kind of damage?
No matter what food one is choosing, eating more than one can use will result in weight gain.
the problem is less with meals and more with snacks that people supplement meals with, because they're cheap and accessible.
potato chips, candy, soft drinks, etc.
I love sour patch kids, but they have absolutely no value to me nutritionally. They are the emptiest of empty calories. They don't impact how much or how little I eat before, after, or with, and they can easily add 600-1000 calories into a days consumption.
If the price of a bag of sour patch kids increased 20%, you can bet that over the course of a year I would have eaten less of them. The average of all those individual purchasing decisions would have been affected.1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Back in the UK whilst I was still there the idea of a sugar tax was being proposed on drinks, confectionaries, pastries etc. The idea behind it was that with an obesity epidemic well in swing, the NHS was feeling the strain of treating patients who were termed obese. Because of the free health care provided in the UK, tax contributions and government spending is what pays essentially for healthcare. While in theory this may be a good idea to an extent, taxing sugar foods or "junk" is nothing short of another government money grabbing scheme. Not everyone who eats junk is a burden to the healthcare systems, and not everyone who is a burden to the healthcare system eats junk. The processed sugar that has crept into our food is not the fault of the end user, but rather the manufacturers who have created or helped develop this ongoing epidemic. It is they who should be punished financially, perhaps through similar standards adopted in the auto industry where requirements are needed to be met, not the citizens who enjoy a can of soda or chocolate bar. Whether tax is added to items or not, people will still use them. See high emission vehicles, fuel, alcohol, tobacco - tax is not a detterent. A complete overhaul of how processed foods are manufactured and the behaviour of manufacturers, advertised, how they are regulated, awareness of the health effects they produce etc is the best in a society's present obesity (health) epidemic.
No to every bit of this. Processed sugar does not of itself cause problems. All you want to do here is to relieve the end consumer of their responsibility in what and how much they shove into their mouths and that will NEVER solve the problems of obesity any where on this planet.
The foods are NOT the problem - people shoveling way too much of the foods into their pie-holes is the problem and no amount of government regulation is going to solve that problem, unless you want to go the extreme of having nannies wandering the streets slapping food out of people's hands, or the converse - allowing people to only eat in government approved spaces where only regulated amounts of foods are handed to each person to consume (and just imagine the black-market such a scheme would create!).
I would say food is the problem.
Eating a sugar packed processed meal which doesn't fulfill you in the slightest yet absorbs a whole lot of your rda calorie intake versus a meal which is nutrient packed and delivers the correct energy in a fraction of your rda. If you was to overeat on both of those, I would hazard a guess the processed and sugar laden foods would do you more damage. To reiterate, choice of food is a problem, less so consumption, especially if we were to factor in individuals activity levels.
Here's the thing though: "Sugar packed" and "processed" don't mean that a meal isn't fulfilling or that it doesn't meet nutritional needs. It's true that there are high sugar meals or meals with processed foods that I might not find fulfilling or that wouldn't meet my needs, but there are also high sugar meals or meals with processed foods that I might find very fulfilling or that would meet my nutritional needs. It's also possible to create an unprocessed and/or low sugar meal that is very unfulfilling or that doesn't meet nutritional needs.
When you say that overeating the first kind of meal will cause more "damage" than overeating the second kind of meal, what do you mean, specifically, by "damage"? Do you mean weight gain? Because excess energy will cause weight gain in both cases. Or are you referring to some other kind of damage?
No matter what food one is choosing, eating more than one can use will result in weight gain.
When mentioning damage it is in reference to general health, which has an effect on an individuals burden on health services. This is what I was trying to portray in my initial comment, using the UK's healthcare system and why a tax on sugar proposed in the UK is in theory a good idea, yet somewhat not the right idea either. It's because targeting the end user is the easy option for governments rather than overhauling and chasing after manufacturers of processed foods who have had an impact on health and obesity epidemics. To clarify, I oppose a "junk food/sugar" tax as it will not act as a detterent. Instead efforts should be made to impose regulations on what goes in the food we eat.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Back in the UK whilst I was still there the idea of a sugar tax was being proposed on drinks, confectionaries, pastries etc. The idea behind it was that with an obesity epidemic well in swing, the NHS was feeling the strain of treating patients who were termed obese. Because of the free health care provided in the UK, tax contributions and government spending is what pays essentially for healthcare. While in theory this may be a good idea to an extent, taxing sugar foods or "junk" is nothing short of another government money grabbing scheme. Not everyone who eats junk is a burden to the healthcare systems, and not everyone who is a burden to the healthcare system eats junk. The processed sugar that has crept into our food is not the fault of the end user, but rather the manufacturers who have created or helped develop this ongoing epidemic. It is they who should be punished financially, perhaps through similar standards adopted in the auto industry where requirements are needed to be met, not the citizens who enjoy a can of soda or chocolate bar. Whether tax is added to items or not, people will still use them. See high emission vehicles, fuel, alcohol, tobacco - tax is not a detterent. A complete overhaul of how processed foods are manufactured and the behaviour of manufacturers, advertised, how they are regulated, awareness of the health effects they produce etc is the best in a society's present obesity (health) epidemic.
No to every bit of this. Processed sugar does not of itself cause problems. All you want to do here is to relieve the end consumer of their responsibility in what and how much they shove into their mouths and that will NEVER solve the problems of obesity any where on this planet.
The foods are NOT the problem - people shoveling way too much of the foods into their pie-holes is the problem and no amount of government regulation is going to solve that problem, unless you want to go the extreme of having nannies wandering the streets slapping food out of people's hands, or the converse - allowing people to only eat in government approved spaces where only regulated amounts of foods are handed to each person to consume (and just imagine the black-market such a scheme would create!).
I would say food is the problem.
Eating a sugar packed processed meal which doesn't fulfill you in the slightest yet absorbs a whole lot of your rda calorie intake versus a meal which is nutrient packed and delivers the correct energy in a fraction of your rda. If you was to overeat on both of those, I would hazard a guess the processed and sugar laden foods would do you more damage. To reiterate, choice of food is a problem, less so consumption, especially if we were to factor in individuals activity levels.
Here's the thing though: "Sugar packed" and "processed" don't mean that a meal isn't fulfilling or that it doesn't meet nutritional needs. It's true that there are high sugar meals or meals with processed foods that I might not find fulfilling or that wouldn't meet my needs, but there are also high sugar meals or meals with processed foods that I might find very fulfilling or that would meet my nutritional needs. It's also possible to create an unprocessed and/or low sugar meal that is very unfulfilling or that doesn't meet nutritional needs.
When you say that overeating the first kind of meal will cause more "damage" than overeating the second kind of meal, what do you mean, specifically, by "damage"? Do you mean weight gain? Because excess energy will cause weight gain in both cases. Or are you referring to some other kind of damage?
No matter what food one is choosing, eating more than one can use will result in weight gain.
the problem is less with meals and more with snacks that people supplement meals with, because they're cheap and accessible.
potato chips, candy, soft drinks, etc.
I love sour patch kids, but they have absolutely no value to me nutritionally. They are the emptiest of empty calories. They don't impact how much or how little I eat before, after, or with, and they can easily add 600-1000 calories into a days consumption.
If the price of a bag of sour patch kids increased 20%, you can bet that over the course of a year I would have eaten less of them. The average of all those individual purchasing decisions would have been affected.
I absolutely agree that *some* high sugar or processed foods are not very filling (or lack nutrients beyond perhaps carbohydrates and/or fat). I'm just challenging the blanket statement that knowing a meal that is high sugar and/or processed is sufficient information to determine that it will be unfulfilling or will fail to meet someone's nutritional needs.
A meal (or large snack) of Sour Patch Kids would be unfulfilling for most people, I imagine, and would also compromise someone's ability to meet their nutritional needs (if it took up a big enough proportion of someone's daily calories).
0 -
This conversation has also mostly revolved around the effect of a tax on consumers. But another equally important factor is the effect it would have on suppliers and retailers. If you tax unhealthy food more than healthy food you reduced demand for it, because you've increased it's cost. The simplest, most reliable equation in all of economics.
This makes it less profitable for companies to manufacture and for retailers to sell. As a result, manufacturers would put more money into the development and marketing of products that are not taxed, because the margins become better. They would also have an economic incentive to make their food more nutritious if possible, in order to avoid having their product taxed.2
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
- 931 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions