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
-
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.
Maybe so, but cost push inflation in the western world does very little due to the vast amount of competition. Brand name becomes expensive, consumer moves to supermarket own brand. The R&D of new products would be far too costly for something like a bar of chocolate. Taxes would simply create brand loyalty for some, consumer movement to cheaper goods for others. It wouldn't necessarily act as a detterent.0 -
svetskisampion wrote: »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.
Over-eating sugar does not damage your health any more that overeating protein does - that is the problem with the whole basis of your argument.3 -
svetskisampion wrote: »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.
Over-eating sugar does not damage your health any more that overeating protein does - that is the problem with the whole basis of your argument.
Ok.0 -
svetskisampion wrote: »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.
What evidence is there that diet composition (that is, where calories come from) plays a greater role in use of health services than overall quantity (that is, number of calories over and above what one needs, calories that create excess body weight)?
If I maintain a healthy body weight but have some candy a few times a week, what evidence is there that I (speaking on a population level) will have more expensive health outcomes than someone who avoids candy but is obese?
You're arguing that the "damage" in food comes from what we eat, regardless of body weight -- not from carrying extra weight (if I understand you correctly) and I'm not sure what evidence supports that.1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »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.
What evidence is there that diet composition (that is, where calories come from) plays a greater role in use of health services than overall quantity (that is, number of calories over and above what one needs, calories that create excess body weight)?
If I maintain a healthy body weight but have some candy a few times a week, what evidence is there that I (speaking on a population level) will have more expensive health outcomes than someone who avoids candy but is obese?
You're arguing that the "damage" in food comes from what we eat, regardless of body weight -- not from carrying extra weight (if I understand you correctly) and I'm not sure what evidence supports that.
Think diabetes.3 -
svetskisampion wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »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.
What evidence is there that diet composition (that is, where calories come from) plays a greater role in use of health services than overall quantity (that is, number of calories over and above what one needs, calories that create excess body weight)?
If I maintain a healthy body weight but have some candy a few times a week, what evidence is there that I (speaking on a population level) will have more expensive health outcomes than someone who avoids candy but is obese?
You're arguing that the "damage" in food comes from what we eat, regardless of body weight -- not from carrying extra weight (if I understand you correctly) and I'm not sure what evidence supports that.
Think diabetes.
Do you think that diabetes is caused by the foods that a person eats?3 -
svetskisampion wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »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.
What evidence is there that diet composition (that is, where calories come from) plays a greater role in use of health services than overall quantity (that is, number of calories over and above what one needs, calories that create excess body weight)?
If I maintain a healthy body weight but have some candy a few times a week, what evidence is there that I (speaking on a population level) will have more expensive health outcomes than someone who avoids candy but is obese?
You're arguing that the "damage" in food comes from what we eat, regardless of body weight -- not from carrying extra weight (if I understand you correctly) and I'm not sure what evidence supports that.
Think diabetes.
Diabetes is not caused by sugar intake. It has a lot of causal factors with excess weight being the number 1 issue.2 -
Janejellyroll asked me for evidence as to what food consumption has a link to burdens on health services. My reply was think diabetes, not "diabetes is caused by sugar". The intake of unhealthy foods has a serious burden on health services due to the wide range of issues they create, to think otherwise is like saying alcohol has no burden on the health services. What you eat plays a big role in how your heart functions, how your blood sugar spikes, the impact on your stomach, mental fatigue, there are numerous studies on this in the UK and sugar has been identified to be the greatest cause of this.2
-
svetskisampion wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »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.
What evidence is there that diet composition (that is, where calories come from) plays a greater role in use of health services than overall quantity (that is, number of calories over and above what one needs, calories that create excess body weight)?
If I maintain a healthy body weight but have some candy a few times a week, what evidence is there that I (speaking on a population level) will have more expensive health outcomes than someone who avoids candy but is obese?
You're arguing that the "damage" in food comes from what we eat, regardless of body weight -- not from carrying extra weight (if I understand you correctly) and I'm not sure what evidence supports that.
Think diabetes.
On a population level, who is more likely to have diabetes -- those with excess weight or those in a normal weight range who sometimes eat high sugar foods?0 -
svetskisampion wrote: »Janejellyroll asked me for evidence as to what food consumption has a link to burdens on health services. My reply was think diabetes, not "diabetes is caused by sugar". The intake of unhealthy foods has a serious burden on health services due to the wide range of issues they create, to think otherwise is like saying alcohol has no burden on the health services. What you eat plays a big role in how your heart functions, how your blood sugar spikes, the impact on your stomach, mental fatigue, there are numerous studies on this in the UK and sugar has been identified to be the greatest cause of this.
If diabetes isn't caused by sugar, then what is the connection to food consumption?0 -
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.
2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Janejellyroll asked me for evidence as to what food consumption has a link to burdens on health services. My reply was think diabetes, not "diabetes is caused by sugar". The intake of unhealthy foods has a serious burden on health services due to the wide range of issues they create, to think otherwise is like saying alcohol has no burden on the health services. What you eat plays a big role in how your heart functions, how your blood sugar spikes, the impact on your stomach, mental fatigue, there are numerous studies on this in the UK and sugar has been identified to be the greatest cause of this.
If diabetes isn't caused by sugar, then what is the connection to food consumption?
Give a diabetic two spoons of sugar and we'll see the correlation. There are so many foods out there with hidden sugars which are the cause for so many health issues. If you think sugars and processed foods are not the leading cause for the health epidemics in the western world, you are entitled to that opinion. However I strongly believe what you shovel down your throat has the greater impact and I stand by that whole heartedly.3 -
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.
Maybe. But is that going to lead to weight loss?
One likely possibility is that people who occasionally buy a soda or candy will decide that it was worth a splurge at 50 cents and not at $1, and stop, but most likely those are people who don't care much about such things and could well be the people eating them within their calories.
For the people who eat LOTS of fast food or candy or soda or whatever, they will be annoyed about the increase, but will they quit? Even with a price increase, those are extremely cheap vices (in the short term) compared to just about any other vice.
Plus, there are indulgent foods that would not be included, and you'd get some switching to those, likely.
I don't see any real likelihood that it would result in people overeating less.
More significantly -- and I mentioned this before -- this is politically a non starter, so what's the point? On the federal level, you could not pass even a soda tax. And if you tried to pass an "unhealthy food tax," not only is the very concept political anathema for a majority, but no one could agree on what foods to be included and how the tax should be applied (on calories?).3 -
svetskisampion wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »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.
What evidence is there that diet composition (that is, where calories come from) plays a greater role in use of health services than overall quantity (that is, number of calories over and above what one needs, calories that create excess body weight)?
If I maintain a healthy body weight but have some candy a few times a week, what evidence is there that I (speaking on a population level) will have more expensive health outcomes than someone who avoids candy but is obese?
You're arguing that the "damage" in food comes from what we eat, regardless of body weight -- not from carrying extra weight (if I understand you correctly) and I'm not sure what evidence supports that.
Think diabetes.
She said the person has a healthy weight and occasional candy. So diabetes is not an issue.
(Diabetes is not exclusively found in overweight people, but the vast majority who get diabetes are overweight or obese, even more so if we aren't talking about old people, and societally the increase in obesity goes along with the increase in diabetes.)2 -
svetskisampion wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Janejellyroll asked me for evidence as to what food consumption has a link to burdens on health services. My reply was think diabetes, not "diabetes is caused by sugar". The intake of unhealthy foods has a serious burden on health services due to the wide range of issues they create, to think otherwise is like saying alcohol has no burden on the health services. What you eat plays a big role in how your heart functions, how your blood sugar spikes, the impact on your stomach, mental fatigue, there are numerous studies on this in the UK and sugar has been identified to be the greatest cause of this.
If diabetes isn't caused by sugar, then what is the connection to food consumption?
Give a diabetic two spoons of sugar and we'll see the correlation. There are so many foods out there with hidden sugars which are the cause for so many health issues. If you think sugars and processed foods are not the leading cause for the health epidemics in the western world, you are entitled to that opinion. However I strongly believe what you shovel down your throat has the greater impact and I stand by that whole heartedly.
If you give someone who already has diabetes two spoonfuls of sugar, of course you're going to see a certain result.
But you seem to be arguing something different -- that sugar actually causes people to develop health problems, even if they are within a healthy weight. What evidence do you have for that?
How did you determine that "hidden sugars" (which aren't a thing in the US, by the way, we have ingredient labels on our foods) cause health problems and that it isn't excess weight?
You can stand by your opinion all you want, that's your right. I'm asking if you have any evidence to support that opinion that you can share with the rest of us.3 -
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.
You can possibly work with manufacturers to encourage them to make products less problematic from a nutrition standpoint, which has been done (I think in the UK) re salt content, for example. You can go after specific harmful ingredients (like transfats), but I'm not aware of anything currently in that category.
Basically, you need a proposed format for how the tax would work and how the manufacturers could avoid it. It's sounding too vague to me now.0 -
svetskisampion wrote: »Janejellyroll asked me for evidence as to what food consumption has a link to burdens on health services. My reply was think diabetes, not "diabetes is caused by sugar". The intake of unhealthy foods has a serious burden on health services due to the wide range of issues they create, to think otherwise is like saying alcohol has no burden on the health services. What you eat plays a big role in how your heart functions, how your blood sugar spikes, the impact on your stomach, mental fatigue, there are numerous studies on this in the UK and sugar has been identified to be the greatest cause of this.
Not inherently, without considering dosage and context.
Only in excess dosages and outside the context of a healthy diet.
That was why janejellyroll asked about someone who was normal weight and eating a healthy diet.
Also, why are "processed foods" inherently bad. Do you know what all is encompassed in that category?0 -
the question was only "should junk food be taxed."
The answer is unequivocally "yes." Junk food consumption has negative externalities, therefore it should be taxed.
CAN junk food be taxed? Likely the answer is no. There are too many interested aligned against it, and face it, American in particular LOVE being fat, disgusting, slovenly *kitten*. It's our brand.
As for how you could practically pass and implement such a tax. I don't know. But I bet there are a few PhDs out there that have done more research on the topic and could propose some good ideas.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Janejellyroll asked me for evidence as to what food consumption has a link to burdens on health services. My reply was think diabetes, not "diabetes is caused by sugar". The intake of unhealthy foods has a serious burden on health services due to the wide range of issues they create, to think otherwise is like saying alcohol has no burden on the health services. What you eat plays a big role in how your heart functions, how your blood sugar spikes, the impact on your stomach, mental fatigue, there are numerous studies on this in the UK and sugar has been identified to be the greatest cause of this.
If diabetes isn't caused by sugar, then what is the connection to food consumption?
Give a diabetic two spoons of sugar and we'll see the correlation. There are so many foods out there with hidden sugars which are the cause for so many health issues. If you think sugars and processed foods are not the leading cause for the health epidemics in the western world, you are entitled to that opinion. However I strongly believe what you shovel down your throat has the greater impact and I stand by that whole heartedly.
If you give someone who already has diabetes two spoonfuls of sugar, of course you're going to see a certain result.
But you seem to be arguing something different -- that sugar actually causes people to develop health problems, even if they are within a healthy weight. What evidence do you have for that?
How did you determine that "hidden sugars" (which aren't a thing in the US, by the way, we have ingredient labels on our foods) cause health problems and that it isn't excess weight?
You can stand by your opinion all you want, that's your right. I'm asking if you have any evidence to support that opinion that you can share with the rest of us.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/8514091/Junk-food-Britain-costs-the-NHS-more-than-cigarettes-or-alcohol.html1 -
svetskisampion wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Janejellyroll asked me for evidence as to what food consumption has a link to burdens on health services. My reply was think diabetes, not "diabetes is caused by sugar". The intake of unhealthy foods has a serious burden on health services due to the wide range of issues they create, to think otherwise is like saying alcohol has no burden on the health services. What you eat plays a big role in how your heart functions, how your blood sugar spikes, the impact on your stomach, mental fatigue, there are numerous studies on this in the UK and sugar has been identified to be the greatest cause of this.
If diabetes isn't caused by sugar, then what is the connection to food consumption?
Give a diabetic two spoons of sugar and we'll see the correlation. There are so many foods out there with hidden sugars which are the cause for so many health issues. If you think sugars and processed foods are not the leading cause for the health epidemics in the western world, you are entitled to that opinion. However I strongly believe what you shovel down your throat has the greater impact and I stand by that whole heartedly.
I see this 'hidden sugar' demon quoted a lot, but I don't understand where it comes from. Here in the US, the food label must contain the total amount of sugars that a given food serving contains (don't know if this is true in the UK or not), so where exactly is the sugar hiding? I know the ingredients may not say 'sugar', but the nutrition information still has the total sugars, so again, where is it hiding? And as an added bonus, sometime either this year or next, the food label will have to specify the ADDED sugars and not just the total sugar.
I don't think anyone is arguing that the quantity of food that you shovel down your throat is the leading cause of problems, just that foods in general should not be demonized because no single food is the cause of all the health issues (including sugar).3
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 395 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
- 959 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions