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
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketchup_as_a_vegetable
It's really absurd to use these things to say the gov't can't address issues relating to obesity and nutrition given that those involved in the decisions being mocked (in the Reagan admin and Congress in 2011) are basically also claiming that the gov't should not do anything. The point was to decrease requirements for school lunches (largely by people who thought the fed gov't should not have any say on the nutrition content of school lunches, not people who think that ketchup is extra nutritious).1 -
I think we should educate people on the benefits of a healthy lifestyle, rather than demonize an unhealthy one. Personally, I would prefer to hear "you can spend an extra 20 years with your loved ones" rather than "hey fatty, your appearance is as awful as your life expectancy, and now we're going to fine you for having no self control".
People that want to improve their situation tend to do so with positivity egging them on. I didn't lose weight because I hated myself; I lost weight because I was bored eating food that made me feel and look sub-optimal, and knew I could do better if I just tried. My friends that got into lifting didn't start because they were afraid of being scrawny; they just saw how it affected the mental and physical state of their more athletic peers and wanted a taste of that happiness. Very few people on this forum befriend users that are going to mock them. Rather, they'd prefer to add users that have been in similar situations because they'll be empathetic to their plight. MOST people want (and some people need) positive reinforcement to change. It is not common to want to hear that you are sinking towards rock bottom.
On top of that, junk food has helped many "hardgainers" that have the opposite problem. No need to take away their vice because our culture just happens to put hyperpalatable foods on a pedestal.4 -
we should both champion a healthy lifestyle and demonize an unhealthy one. A carrot and a stick is more effecting that just one or the other in isolation.1
-
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.
I've been to the UK. Gas there is around double the US, most of the difference being tax. Compare the number of large pick-ups and SUVs on UK roads vs the US and tell me again how high gas prices aren't a deterrent.2 -
AdamAthletic wrote: »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.
Nobody is denying that any food excess is bad for you, simply that no food is 'junk'.
Any food is made up from any/all protein/fats/carbs.
A simple thought experiment;
People have lost weight on a diet completely made up of twinkies. In this case, were twinkies 'junk'?
People bring up that *kitten* all the time. How sustainable is that? Not relevant to discussion.1 -
-
Alluminati wrote: »I wish we could tax stupid. We'd be rich!
We already do. It's called a lottery.6 -
Packerjohn wrote: »
Mitt, is that you?0 -
ent3rsandman wrote: »On top of that, junk food has helped many "hardgainers" that have the opposite problem. No need to take away their vice because our culture just happens to put hyperpalatable foods on a pedestal.
And how many hard gainers are there out there as opposed to people that are overweight or obese (the correct answer is very few)? For true hardgainers there are many calorie dense foods that are also nutritious.0 -
nobody is proposing taking away ANYTHING from ANYBODY.1
-
Packerjohn 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.
I've been to the UK. Gas there is around double the US, most of the difference being tax. Compare the number of large pick-ups and SUVs on UK roads vs the US and tell me again how high gas prices aren't a deterrent.
In the UK, purchases of SUV's have surpassed all other vehicle categories and is now the most popular vehicle type on the road. Whether or not the gas prices are high, people are still driving. So, again, taxes are not a deterrent.0 -
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).
Ironically, the only foods that aren't labeled are unpackaged whole foods like fruits and vegetables and many self-proclaimed health nuts severely underestimate the amount of sugar in those, so technically...0 -
svetskisampion wrote: »Packerjohn 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.
I've been to the UK. Gas there is around double the US, most of the difference being tax. Compare the number of large pick-ups and SUVs on UK roads vs the US and tell me again how high gas prices aren't a deterrent.
In the UK, purchases of SUV's have surpassed all other vehicle categories and is now the most popular vehicle type on the road. Whether or not the gas prices are high, people are still driving. So, again, taxes are not a deterrent.
Take a look at the top 10 selling vehicles in the UK vs the US and let us know which you think has the higher fleet miles per gallon:
UK (note of the 10 vehicles listed 2 are SUVs)
http://www.carbuyer.co.uk/reviews/recommended/best-selling-cars
US
http://www.businessinsider.com/best-selling-cars-trucks-vehicle-america-2016-2017-1/#9-honda-accord-345225-29-121 -
no0
-
svetskisampion wrote: »Packerjohn 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.
I've been to the UK. Gas there is around double the US, most of the difference being tax. Compare the number of large pick-ups and SUVs on UK roads vs the US and tell me again how high gas prices aren't a deterrent.
In the UK, purchases of SUV's have surpassed all other vehicle categories and is now the most popular vehicle type on the road. Whether or not the gas prices are high, people are still driving. So, again, taxes are not a deterrent.
It's not "whether people are still driving", it's "are they using less fuel?". The answer seems to be yes.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/322458/sub_national_road_transport_consumption_factsheet_2012.pdf
Couldn't find a newer one, UK government pages are a bit of a clusterf*** to navigate through. But there's been a downwards trend in fuel consumption up to 2012 and I don't see why that shouldn't have continued.1 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »kristen6350 wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »kristen6350 wrote: »Well, since junk food doesn't make people fat, too much food does, I don't see why it would help.
Trust me, too much of anything will make one gain weight.
Nailed it!!
I mean, I can go to Chipolte and down a 1,200 calorie burrito stuffed with "healthy food" for lunch, plus a 500 calorie breakfast of eggs and veggies, then a 500 calorie dinner of grilled chicken and veggies EVERY DAY of my life. That's 2,200 calories a day. 300 calories over what my body needs. All of that extra food made me fat, but all of it is considered healthy. There wasn't one chip, cookie, candy, etc in that whole day. But guess what? I'm 40lbs overweight because I ate too much food and didn't burn off the extra 300 calories a day. I didn't eat junk, but I'm fat and I'm at risk of diabetes. Not because I was binging on carbs, because I ate too many calories.
A Chipotle burrito is anything but low carb. Unless you get a salad instead of a burrito, skip the rice, skip the beans... then it can be considered low carb.
Did she say it was low carb, or that she was low carb? I'm trying to understand why you are qualifying her statement, which was meant to support her stance (which I agree with, btw) that it isn't junk food that makes people fat, it is too many calories in general, regardless of their source.
"not because I was binging on carbs" after describing a meal that was a carb binge. I know she got rice and/or beans in her burrito for this, as the tortilla itself isn't quite a binge level of carbs and 1,200 calories shows that it had to have included at least beans (all other available ingredients even with the highest calorie meat still don't add up to 1,200 unless adding at least beans).
How is a single meal, even at 70-80% carbs, a "binge", especially in context of the other hypothetical meals described?
Erm, a 1200 calorie meal, made up of 70-80% of any single macro could easily be called a binge.
I call that a light dinner.1 -
Packerjohn wrote: »svetskisampion wrote: »Packerjohn 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.
I've been to the UK. Gas there is around double the US, most of the difference being tax. Compare the number of large pick-ups and SUVs on UK roads vs the US and tell me again how high gas prices aren't a deterrent.
In the UK, purchases of SUV's have surpassed all other vehicle categories and is now the most popular vehicle type on the road. Whether or not the gas prices are high, people are still driving. So, again, taxes are not a deterrent.
Take a look at the top 10 selling vehicles in the UK vs the US and let us know which you think has the higher fleet miles per gallon:
UK (note of the 10 vehicles listed 2 are SUVs)
http://www.carbuyer.co.uk/reviews/recommended/best-selling-cars
US
http://www.businessinsider.com/best-selling-cars-trucks-vehicle-america-2016-2017-1/#9-honda-accord-345225-29-12
Also note that the number one vehicle in the UK is a, suprise suprise, SUV. As a whole, treating it in segments but not individual car brands, SUVS have become the go to for car buyers. The tax brackets one has to pay to get them on the road don't seem to put consumers off, nor does the duty levied on gas prices. Whether I drive a 1998 Honda civic or a 2017 Porsche Carrera, at the pumps I'm paying the same price per litre. Even if tax per litre was to increase (as has been the case and has been made out to be an environmental action and to act acts acts detterent), people still use and drive. It's the same for alcohol, the same for cigarettes, consumption is not halted. Just because you may catch the bus because of a hike in gas prices, that doesn't mean that the very next 100 people will. It's the same principle when talking about taxing junk foods or high sugar contented foodstuffs, that increase in price may affect a small percentile of the population, but the greater number of consumers will likely continue to purchase at the inflated price. In essence, what you may feel is a detterent, duties, VAT etc, is no more than government budget balancing.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 938 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions