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.
UK government obesity strategy
Options
Replies
-
LockdownLoser23 wrote: »LockdownLoser23 wrote: »Most uk GP’s haven’t a clue on nutrition
I went in with a raised ALT liver reading
The Dr informed me to cut my saturated fat
While stuffing his face with a bag of walkers crisps. When I pointed out my total fats are .75grams per kilo of body weight he seemed totally lost.
Only then did he check my bp which he said was perfect. Don’t think he appreciated me pointing out the amount of sat fat in his crisps
Love it - 'I saw one gp eating crisps and now "most UK Gp's haven't a clue on nutrition"...'..lol
An obese Dr stuffing his face attempting to tell me between mouthfuls I had it eat lower saturated fat diet, maybe slightly ironic 🤔
Maybe just write 'My GP doesn't have a clue' and not 'most GP's' - bit of a false claim and just because he is eating crisps doesn't mean he doesn't know about nutrition. You shouldn't discourage people from seeing their GP
It isn't a false claim, just one unsupported by a mere anecdote. For all the massive amounts of schooling doctors have, nutrition is a very small part. I don't know British standards, but in the US, a typical doctor or surgeon not specializing in a related area will get 2 weeks of nutrition training. Those 2 weeks are generally focused on severe malnutrition diseases like rickets, scurvy, and the like. Physicians are told to refer out to a dietician for a lot of the stuff.
You're also misrepresenting his evidence of his GP's knowledge. He didn't only say the GP was eating crisps, he also stated the GP didn't understand him stating his total fat intake as a factor of his body weight. There's also the less obviously stated fact that needs inference - his GP doesn't register obvious health cues because he thought register a high ATL meant someone had a bad diet when it is far more likely to be the result of resistance training in a person with his physique.
Isn't there a bit of irony in a false positive because physicians are used to looking for disease and so assumptive of dietary issues in the general population, they're ignorant of how actively pursuing fitness will throw off a common test?5 -
I am all in favour of people who want to lose weight being helped to do so but some of this strategy seems a bit off to me.
From what I have read a visit to the doctor will result in a "do you realise you are fat?" conversation. Perhaps there are one or two obese folks out there who are blissfully unaware of their state but I think for most of us we are very well aware that we are fat.
So to me, this is simply going to put people off seeking health care at all unless the "you are fat" conversation can lead to actual, genuine and useful help, rather than a lecture.
I have also read that one help option they will be able to offer is "cycling"and free access to a bike. This I find absolutely, completely and utterly, horrifying. There is no way on god's green earth anyone is going to get me on a bike and I have lost 7 stone. At 20 stone, the very suggestion would have sent me running for the hills as then even walking for more than a mile was an issue for me.
But the very thought of my huge fat bottom on a bike saddle......
So that one is truly bizarre and instead, in my opinion, they should be promoting walking and if they want to help us do this they can perhaps give out vouchers for money off decent shoes and waterproofs. And of course do more to keep cyclists off the pavements.
But in any case, as I think most of us who are actually trying and succeeding to lose weight conclude - exercise is a side show - at first I mean. What really matters is what we put into out mouths. Exercise is good for health but for losing weigh, until you can do more, it is going to lose you very little.
I have had doctors give me a "low fat diet sheet" before and it was completely pointless as it took no account of my personal needs, likes and dislikes, so of course it did me no good at all. Now, I have read they are thinking about offering subsidised Weight-Watchers for goodness sake. Sure, this works for some and my aunt swears by it every time she goes back to lose the weight she keeps putting back on.
What is wrong with good old fashioned calorie counting????? And people being taught about how losing weight actually works rather than pushing people in the direct of "points" which promotes the idea of categories of foods you can gorge on and other categories that are "naughty".
If the NHS really wants to help people they would be better offering subscriptions to THIS site. Or why not build their own centring on UK brands being calories counted?
I guess we will see and personally I am grateful that I started my personal weight lose adventure a year ago so I am at least no longer obese so am slightly outside of being caught up in this unless I choose to be.
4 -
LockdownLoser23 wrote: »LockdownLoser23 wrote: »Most uk GP’s haven’t a clue on nutrition
I went in with a raised ALT liver reading
The Dr informed me to cut my saturated fat
While stuffing his face with a bag of walkers crisps. When I pointed out my total fats are .75grams per kilo of body weight he seemed totally lost.
Only then did he check my bp which he said was perfect. Don’t think he appreciated me pointing out the amount of sat fat in his crisps
Love it - 'I saw one gp eating crisps and now "most UK Gp's haven't a clue on nutrition"...'..lol
An obese Dr stuffing his face attempting to tell me between mouthfuls I had it eat lower saturated fat diet, maybe slightly ironic 🤔
Maybe just write 'My GP doesn't have a clue' and not 'most GP's' - bit of a false claim and just because he is eating crisps doesn't mean he doesn't know about nutrition. You shouldn't discourage people from seeing their GP
Indeed - I do not see how a doctor eating crisps equates to him not understanding nutrition. Although I do think it is rather odd, unheard of in fact, for a UK doctor to be munching on food, and junk food at that, during a consultation. That would be all over The Daily Mail, surely?
Not saying it did not happen, but I do not see how in any shape or form that could be seen as a representative experience.
But all that aside, I believe part of the spending allocated to this particular NHS drive was to give GPs more training.4 -
LockdownLoser23 wrote: »LockdownLoser23 wrote: »Most uk GP’s haven’t a clue on nutrition
I went in with a raised ALT liver reading
The Dr informed me to cut my saturated fat
While stuffing his face with a bag of walkers crisps. When I pointed out my total fats are .75grams per kilo of body weight he seemed totally lost.
Only then did he check my bp which he said was perfect. Don’t think he appreciated me pointing out the amount of sat fat in his crisps
Love it - 'I saw one gp eating crisps and now "most UK Gp's haven't a clue on nutrition"...'..lol
An obese Dr stuffing his face attempting to tell me between mouthfuls I had it eat lower saturated fat diet, maybe slightly ironic 🤔
Maybe just write 'My GP doesn't have a clue' and not 'most GP's' - bit of a false claim and just because he is eating crisps doesn't mean he doesn't know about nutrition. You shouldn't discourage people from seeing their GP
Indeed - I do not see how a doctor eating crisps equates to him not understanding nutrition. Although I do think it is rather odd, unheard of in fact, for a UK doctor to be munching on food, and junk food at that, during a consultation. That would be all over The Daily Mail, surely?
Not saying it did not happen, but I do not see how in any shape or form that could be seen as a representative experience.
But all that aside, I believe part of the spending allocated to this particular NHS drive was to give GPs more training.
I did put a complaint in to The practice manager be fair, I detest locum Dr’s With a passion1 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »LockdownLoser23 wrote: »LockdownLoser23 wrote: »Most uk GP’s haven’t a clue on nutrition
I went in with a raised ALT liver reading
The Dr informed me to cut my saturated fat
While stuffing his face with a bag of walkers crisps. When I pointed out my total fats are .75grams per kilo of body weight he seemed totally lost.
Only then did he check my bp which he said was perfect. Don’t think he appreciated me pointing out the amount of sat fat in his crisps
Love it - 'I saw one gp eating crisps and now "most UK Gp's haven't a clue on nutrition"...'..lol
An obese Dr stuffing his face attempting to tell me between mouthfuls I had it eat lower saturated fat diet, maybe slightly ironic 🤔
Maybe just write 'My GP doesn't have a clue' and not 'most GP's' - bit of a false claim and just because he is eating crisps doesn't mean he doesn't know about nutrition. You shouldn't discourage people from seeing their GP
Well of all the Multiple Gp’s and hospital consultants I’ve seen Since leaving the forces not a single one had a clue about nutrition
Is that better
No offense, just curious. Do you have education/training in nutrition to objectively make that judgement or is is your impression?
None taken. I got my sports science degree a long time ago, same with my PTI courses. Never really used them, too busy focusing on my military career.
Currently trying to justify the time and cost Of going back to do my masters in nutrition, mainly to keep my brain active as financially it makes no sense
Thanks for the note and your service. Definitely have the background to make intelligent observations.
Personally I don't have much of a problem with a doctor not having extensive nutrition training. Should they have the ability to recognized problems caused by poor nutrition and general recommendations, and refer out when needed, sure. However see the specialist for nutrition guidance. Just like I wouldn't expect an orthopedic surgeon to do brain surgery. I would expect them to refer out to a specialist if during an orthopedic exam there appeared to be brain/nervous system issues present.
And IMO, despite what some people will say, the 2 weeks of nutrition training that in included in general med school studies is 2 weeks more than the vast majority of the population has
I generally agree, I just think with the increase of weight related health issues
And the strain it puts on the health service
That the front line/first port of call GP would benefit from more education in this field6 -
Are people actually commonly saying doctors don't know more about nutrition than the average member of the population at large? I think you're disagreeing with an argument no one is making because it is trivial.Theoldguy1 wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »LockdownLoser23 wrote: »LockdownLoser23 wrote: »Most uk GP’s haven’t a clue on nutrition
I went in with a raised ALT liver reading
The Dr informed me to cut my saturated fat
While stuffing his face with a bag of walkers crisps. When I pointed out my total fats are .75grams per kilo of body weight he seemed totally lost.
Only then did he check my bp which he said was perfect. Don’t think he appreciated me pointing out the amount of sat fat in his crisps
Love it - 'I saw one gp eating crisps and now "most UK Gp's haven't a clue on nutrition"...'..lol
An obese Dr stuffing his face attempting to tell me between mouthfuls I had it eat lower saturated fat diet, maybe slightly ironic 🤔
Maybe just write 'My GP doesn't have a clue' and not 'most GP's' - bit of a false claim and just because he is eating crisps doesn't mean he doesn't know about nutrition. You shouldn't discourage people from seeing their GP
Well of all the Multiple Gp’s and hospital consultants I’ve seen Since leaving the forces not a single one had a clue about nutrition
Is that better
No offense, just curious. Do you have education/training in nutrition to objectively make that judgement or is is your impression?
None taken. I got my sports science degree a long time ago, same with my PTI courses. Never really used them, too busy focusing on my military career.
Currently trying to justify the time and cost Of going back to do my masters in nutrition, mainly to keep my brain active as financially it makes no sense
Thanks for the note and your service. Definitely have the background to make intelligent observations.
Personally I don't have much of a problem with a doctor not having extensive nutrition training. Should they have the ability to recognized problems caused by poor nutrition and general recommendations, and refer out when needed, sure. However see the specialist for nutrition guidance. Just like I wouldn't expect an orthopedic surgeon to do brain surgery. I would expect them to refer out to a specialist if during an orthopedic exam there appeared to be brain/nervous system issues present.
And IMO, despite what some people will say, the 2 weeks of nutrition training that in included in general med school studies is 2 weeks more than the vast majority of the population has
The real problem is how much doctors are willing to believe their own authority and discernment versus the general populous. A general population person will try low carb, lose some water weight and say low carb worked for them. A doctor can try low carb, lose some water weight, and insist it works from some deep physiology they're ad hoc deluding themselves with.0 -
Seems to me that having national health insurance and an obesity epidemic is a recipe for disaster. I don't think trying to gently educate people about diet and exercise is the answer. The best option is probably to just put massive anti tobacco style sin taxes on calory dense food and sugary drinks. That way the people that will be causing the strain on the healthcare system will at least contribute more fairly to paying for it.3
-
stevehenderson776 wrote: »Seems to me that having national health insurance and an obesity epidemic is a recipe for disaster. I don't think trying to gently educate people about diet and exercise is the answer. The best option is probably to just put massive anti tobacco style sin taxes on calory dense food and sugary drinks. That way the people that will be causing the strain on the healthcare system will at least contribute more fairly to paying for it.
That is a difficult game to play because first as you are assuming that fat people are fat because they eat lots of donuts and pizza, and second you are not equally applying this punishment to people who for example participate in extreme sports.
You are also of course assuming that fat people do not already pay their fair share of taxes through employment etc.
So for me, personally, I would rather see people helped towards a better quality of life than punished for not having one already.10 -
That is a difficult game to play because first as you are assuming that fat people are fat because they eat lots of donuts and pizza, and second you are not equally applying this punishment to people who for example participate in extreme sports.
You are also of course assuming that fat people do not already pay their fair share of taxes through employment etc.
So for me, personally, I would rather see people helped towards a better quality of life than punished for not having one already.
If you're not obese because you eat lots of donuts and pizza and soda then a tax on donuts and pizza and soda shouldn't bother you at all. We put calories on restaurant menus years ago here to ABSOLUTELY NO EFFECT. A nice, gentle education campaign doesn't work if the population you're aiming to educate has their eyes closed and their fingers in their ears. Our heavy handed anti-smoking campaign on the other hand has worked wonders. You could say the same thing about smokers, that they pay their "fair share" of taxes through income tax, HST, etc, but you can't say that they take their "fair share" from our public healthcare system when they choose to make themselves less healthy than their peers. The sin taxes on cigarettes go to offset this disparity, like higher insurance rates for smokers would in countries with private coverage. This is no different. We've been trying to warn people about the dangers of obesity for decades and its only gotten much worse. It's time to try a more heavy handed approach, regardless of how it might inconvenience a few bodybuilders.3 -
stevehenderson776 wrote: »
If you're not obese because you eat lots of donuts and pizza and soda then a tax on donuts and pizza and soda shouldn't bother you at all. We put calories on restaurant menus years ago here to ABSOLUTELY NO EFFECT. A nice, gentle education campaign doesn't work if the population you're aiming to educate has their eyes closed and their fingers in their ears. Our heavy handed anti-smoking campaign on the other hand has worked wonders. You could say the same thing about smokers, that they pay their "fair share" of taxes through income tax, HST, etc, but you can't say that they take their "fair share" from our public healthcare system when they choose to make themselves less healthy than their peers. The sin taxes on cigarettes go to offset this disparity, like higher insurance rates for smokers would in countries with private coverage. This is no different. We've been trying to warn people about the dangers of obesity for decades and its only gotten much worse. It's time to try a more heavy handed approach, regardless of how it might inconvenience a few bodybuilders.
It is different, though.
Smoking is bad for everyone who smokes, even if only one cigarette a day. This has been scientifically proven many times over. There is no benefit of smoking other than to satiate an addiction.
Pizza, fizzy drinks, donuts - they are not inherently "bad". They are food. People should be able to eat them in moderation and treat themselves. If they are over indulging then they need education and support.10 -
It's also important to think about the wider impact of this idea of a tax on so called 'junk' foods.
For example, a low income family might go to a fast food restaurant once a fortnight. It's their treat - it's affordable and a way for them to get out as a family and spend time together.
This tax idea could make that financially unviable for them, when it is not doing them any harm and could actually be benefitting that family in terms of spending time together and having a treat.
Are there other options and things they could do? Sure. But why take that away from them if it's something they love to do?
This is not like smoking - it has much wider implications.5 -
Surprised no one has brought up the systemic reasons people tend to be overweight. If you've got a full time job, which most people do, that's 40 hours a week you're not home, plus's however long it takes to commute which can be more than an hour there and back for a lot of people. So that's not exactly a lot of time at home at the end of the day and this isn't even factoring in potentially weird work hours that can interfere with eating habits in lot of ways.
You can eat healthy for not a huge amount more than living on ready meals and jars of pasta sauce (in the UK at least). But it takes time. Time that most people would rather spend with their friends and families. Or that they have to spend caring for children or relatives with special needs or any number of other non work responsibilities. It's easier and quicker to grab a pizza out of the freezer than to make one from scratch even knowing that the frozen one will have a bunch of added sugar there to get you hooked.
Good legislation to clamp down on the crap that companies fill ready meals and convenience food with will do a lot more than some half hearted education campaign.
People eat crap food because they're stressed and knackered, so make the crap food less crap.8 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »It's also important to think about the wider impact of this idea of a tax on so called 'junk' foods.
For example, a low income family might go to a fast food restaurant once a fortnight. It's their treat - it's affordable and a way for them to get out as a family and spend time together.
This tax idea could make that financially unviable for them, when it is not doing them any harm and could actually be benefitting that family in terms of spending time together and having a treat.
Are there other options and things they could do? Sure. But why take that away from them if it's something they love to do?
This is not like smoking - it has much wider implications.
I'm not a UK resident but I know there are taxes on alcohol in the UK. A low income couple might enjoy a bottle of wine occasionally. They have to pay the tax, how is this proposal any different?
Alcohol and cigarettes are both in a different category. We like them but they are proven to be harmful/ bad for us. You can't say that a donut, or any food, is inherently bad - it's just food.
I'm also not sure how this would actually be implemented. It's easy to say that we should tax foods that are "bad" for us, but who decides what that means? If it's to do with a high fat or sugar content, are we going to tax things like butter, cheese, yoghurts and fruit? How about if I just buy a bag of sugar for baking or for my tea/coffee? Can I buy a rich tea biscuit but not a chocolate digestive? I don't see how would we actually decide which foods are going to be subject to this tax. We also do already have a tax on sugar drinks e.g. coca cola costs more than diet coke.
I just think going any further with taxing food is too much and what the government is doing now is a good step which doesn't go too far.5 -
stevehenderson776 wrote: »Seems to me that having national health insurance and an obesity epidemic is a recipe for disaster. I don't think trying to gently educate people about diet and exercise is the answer. The best option is probably to just put massive anti tobacco style sin taxes on calory dense food and sugary drinks. That way the people that will be causing the strain on the healthcare system will at least contribute more fairly to paying for it.
Doesn't everyone eat calorie-dense food? I'm within a normal weight range and off the top of my head I've got coconut milk, olive oil, sugar, flour, tortilla chips, protein bars, olives, pasta, vegan cream cheese, raisins, dried cranberries, and vegetable shortening in my home right now. What would be the point of taxing specifically items like this at a higher rate when EVERYONE eats them? It's just another way of having everyone pay for the health care costs associated with obesity (which I am not opposed to, but you specifically said it isn't your goal).5 -
stevehenderson776 wrote: »That is a difficult game to play because first as you are assuming that fat people are fat because they eat lots of donuts and pizza, and second you are not equally applying this punishment to people who for example participate in extreme sports.
You are also of course assuming that fat people do not already pay their fair share of taxes through employment etc.
So for me, personally, I would rather see people helped towards a better quality of life than punished for not having one already.
If you're not obese because you eat lots of donuts and pizza and soda then a tax on donuts and pizza and soda shouldn't bother you at all. We put calories on restaurant menus years ago here to ABSOLUTELY NO EFFECT. A nice, gentle education campaign doesn't work if the population you're aiming to educate has their eyes closed and their fingers in their ears. Our heavy handed anti-smoking campaign on the other hand has worked wonders. You could say the same thing about smokers, that they pay their "fair share" of taxes through income tax, HST, etc, but you can't say that they take their "fair share" from our public healthcare system when they choose to make themselves less healthy than their peers. The sin taxes on cigarettes go to offset this disparity, like higher insurance rates for smokers would in countries with private coverage. This is no different. We've been trying to warn people about the dangers of obesity for decades and its only gotten much worse. It's time to try a more heavy handed approach, regardless of how it might inconvenience a few bodybuilders.
You miss the point - if I am not obese through pizza I would not pay your tax but someone who is NOT fat but eats pizza will pay your tax. So not only is it is blunt instrument it is one that will generally miss the mark.
As for calories on restaurant menus - I am also pleased they are bringing in a requirement for this as I personally will find it extremely useful and at the moment only a few places make this info available.
Meanwhile, taxing cigarettes is not same as taxing food. Why? Because no one has to smoke and because we know smoking will shorten life, probably via cancer. We all however have to eat.
Finally - a heavy handed approach???? Which brings us back to your incorrect assertion that we all got fat through chocolate and pizza.
People simply need to be helped as there are lots of reasons people get to the sizes they do, not bullied, not taxed and certainly not sent to their room without any supper.3 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »It's also important to think about the wider impact of this idea of a tax on so called 'junk' foods.
For example, a low income family might go to a fast food restaurant once a fortnight. It's their treat - it's affordable and a way for them to get out as a family and spend time together.
This tax idea could make that financially unviable for them, when it is not doing them any harm and could actually be benefitting that family in terms of spending time together and having a treat.
Are there other options and things they could do? Sure. But why take that away from them if it's something they love to do?
This is not like smoking - it has much wider implications.
I'm not a UK resident but I know there are taxes on alcohol in the UK. A low income couple might enjoy a bottle of wine occasionally. They have to pay the tax, how is this proposal any different?
Wine is 100% optional - so again, different. For sure you could argue fast food is also optional but food is not.0 -
GPs are very very busy, especially now. It doesn't surprise me that they wouldn't have detailed knowledge about some subjects as they have a lot of general medical knowledge to cover. It also doesn't surprise me that we have overweight doctors eating crisps - they are under a lot of stress, underfunded and can't just prescribe antibiotics anymore...
IMO if they want to tackle obesity then they could make more noise about the obese going into lockdown in the event of a second wave:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/coronavirus-obesity-elderly-self-isolate-second-wave-a9661716.html
One thing our government and media are good at is spreading fear so they just need to play the overweight = 'high risk' category for Covid.2 -
Because of the superbugs that were a result of over use of antibiotics:
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/antibiotics/antibiotic-antimicrobial-resistance/#:~:text=The overuse of antibiotics in,Clostridium difficile (C.
Not saying they can't presrcibe them at all - but they are now the last resort.1 -
Finally - a heavy handed approach???? Which brings us back to your incorrect assertion that we all got fat through chocolate and pizza.
People simply need to be helped as there are lots of reasons people get to the sizes they do, not bullied, not taxed and certainly not sent to their room without any supper.
I'd love for you to point out specifically where I said "we all got fat through chocolate and pizza." For the life of me I can't remember ever in my life saying that so it would be interesting to see where I'm sleep posting opinions I don't have. ;-)
Why we DO get fat however, is through overeating; primarily of calorie-dense foods and drinks (which can include chocolate and pizza, sure). I'm sure some will say that "Hey, 0.35% of obese people are like that through rare genetic disorders and other reasons which don't fit into your generalisations!", but that's neither here nor there. When deciding public policy, you generalise. You don't make it all about the edge cases.
You make it out like I'm suggesting putting a 1000% tax on tortillas and white rice and making it impossible for everybody to afford any kind of food whatsoever, which is ridiculous. My problem is with the 2 litres of Coca-Cola you can get for $1 CAD, or the 3000 calorie bag of kettle chips for $2. And don't get me started on the childrens snack isle at the grocery stores where it's nothing but packets of sugary gummy treats at $2.99 for 2 dozen.
As for healthy weight people getting caught up in this tax? So be it. Frankly, we're going to need every cent we can get our hands on from keeping our healthcare system from collapsing because this country (Canada) is more concerned about people overfeeding their cats than overfeeding their children (and themselves). If I have to pay an extra 50% on a pair of 2 for 1 $10 pizzas and an extra 500% on a 2L bottle of pop then I'm absolutely fine with that. As should be anybody who cares about our healthcare system. When you have a national healthcare system, then like it or not, obesity is no longer a private matter when it reaches epidemic levels. It requires a solution that goes well beyond putting calories on menus and putting PSA's out about the dangers of obesity that we've been ignoring since the 1970's.4 -
stevehenderson776 wrote: »Finally - a heavy handed approach???? Which brings us back to your incorrect assertion that we all got fat through chocolate and pizza.
People simply need to be helped as there are lots of reasons people get to the sizes they do, not bullied, not taxed and certainly not sent to their room without any supper.
I'd love for you to point out specifically where I said "we all got fat through chocolate and pizza." For the life of me I can't remember ever in my life saying that so it would be interesting to see where I'm sleep posting opinions I don't have. ;-)
Why we DO get fat however, is through overeating; primarily of calorie-dense foods and drinks (which can include chocolate and pizza, sure). I'm sure some will say that "Hey, 0.35% of obese people are like that through rare genetic disorders and other reasons which don't fit into your generalisations!", but that's neither here nor there. When deciding public policy, you generalise. You don't make it all about the edge cases.
You make it out like I'm suggesting putting a 1000% tax on tortillas and white rice and making it impossible for everybody to afford any kind of food whatsoever, which is ridiculous. My problem is with the 2 litres of Coca-Cola you can get for $1 CAD, or the 3000 calorie bag of kettle chips for $2. And don't get me started on the childrens snack isle at the grocery stores where it's nothing but packets of sugary gummy treats at $2.99 for 2 dozen.
As for healthy weight people getting caught up in this tax? So be it. Frankly, we're going to need every cent we can get our hands on from keeping our healthcare system from collapsing because this country (Canada) is more concerned about people overfeeding their cats than overfeeding their children (and themselves). If I have to pay an extra 50% on a pair of 2 for 1 $10 pizzas and an extra 500% on a 2L bottle of pop then I'm absolutely fine with that. As should be anybody who cares about our healthcare system. When you have a national healthcare system, then like it or not, obesity is no longer a private matter when it reaches epidemic levels. It requires a solution that goes well beyond putting calories on menus and putting PSA's out about the dangers of obesity that we've been ignoring since the 1970's.
Can you clarify -- your initial statement was about taxing "calorie dense" food, but you don't want to tax rice and tortillas? It might help if you explain exactly what you have in mind, because people are responding to the statement about calorie dense foods, but you seem to be thinking of a very specific class of calorie dense foods.2 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »It's also important to think about the wider impact of this idea of a tax on so called 'junk' foods.
For example, a low income family might go to a fast food restaurant once a fortnight. It's their treat - it's affordable and a way for them to get out as a family and spend time together.
This tax idea could make that financially unviable for them, when it is not doing them any harm and could actually be benefitting that family in terms of spending time together and having a treat.
Are there other options and things they could do? Sure. But why take that away from them if it's something they love to do?
This is not like smoking - it has much wider implications.
I'm not a UK resident but I know there are taxes on alcohol in the UK. A low income couple might enjoy a bottle of wine occasionally. They have to pay the tax, how is this proposal any different?
Wine is 100% optional - so again, different. For sure you could argue fast food is also optional but food is not.
High calorie, low nutritional value food is 100% optional, just like wine, no difference.
And again, you are driving a thumb-tack with a sledgehammer! I can have a veggie/chicken pizza (which is not low nutrition) and you would punish me for having this because it is considered 'fast food'. Same argument goes for the person who gets a grilled chicken sandwich on a whole wheat bun with veggies from their favorite 'to go' place.4 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Can you clarify -- your initial statement was about taxing "calorie dense" food, but you don't want to tax rice and tortillas? It might help if you explain exactly what you have in mind, because people are responding to the statement about calorie dense foods, but you seem to be thinking of a very specific class of calorie dense foods.
I don't have a specific tax bill ready for committee, unfortunately lol. My point is that policy makers with the capacity for research that our Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Health have should be able to come up with a tax policy that's able to classify and tax certain foods/drinks at certain rates; and that this money should go to our strained healthcare budget.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »stevehenderson776 wrote: »Finally - a heavy handed approach???? Which brings us back to your incorrect assertion that we all got fat through chocolate and pizza.
People simply need to be helped as there are lots of reasons people get to the sizes they do, not bullied, not taxed and certainly not sent to their room without any supper.
I'd love for you to point out specifically where I said "we all got fat through chocolate and pizza." For the life of me I can't remember ever in my life saying that so it would be interesting to see where I'm sleep posting opinions I don't have. ;-)
Why we DO get fat however, is through overeating; primarily of calorie-dense foods and drinks (which can include chocolate and pizza, sure). I'm sure some will say that "Hey, 0.35% of obese people are like that through rare genetic disorders and other reasons which don't fit into your generalisations!", but that's neither here nor there. When deciding public policy, you generalise. You don't make it all about the edge cases.
You make it out like I'm suggesting putting a 1000% tax on tortillas and white rice and making it impossible for everybody to afford any kind of food whatsoever, which is ridiculous. My problem is with the 2 litres of Coca-Cola you can get for $1 CAD, or the 3000 calorie bag of kettle chips for $2. And don't get me started on the childrens snack isle at the grocery stores where it's nothing but packets of sugary gummy treats at $2.99 for 2 dozen.
As for healthy weight people getting caught up in this tax? So be it. Frankly, we're going to need every cent we can get our hands on from keeping our healthcare system from collapsing because this country (Canada) is more concerned about people overfeeding their cats than overfeeding their children (and themselves). If I have to pay an extra 50% on a pair of 2 for 1 $10 pizzas and an extra 500% on a 2L bottle of pop then I'm absolutely fine with that. As should be anybody who cares about our healthcare system. When you have a national healthcare system, then like it or not, obesity is no longer a private matter when it reaches epidemic levels. It requires a solution that goes well beyond putting calories on menus and putting PSA's out about the dangers of obesity that we've been ignoring since the 1970's.
Can you clarify -- your initial statement was about taxing "calorie dense" food, but you don't want to tax rice and tortillas? It might help if you explain exactly what you have in mind, because people are responding to the statement about calorie dense foods, but you seem to be thinking of a very specific class of calorie dense foods.
Apparently the UK currently has a tax on sugary sodas, and it looks like this one would be focused on foods that are both sweet and high fat: https://www.foodingredientsfirst.com/news/uk-health-campaigners-call-for-sweeping-calorie-tax-on-processed-foods.html1 -
stevehenderson776 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Can you clarify -- your initial statement was about taxing "calorie dense" food, but you don't want to tax rice and tortillas? It might help if you explain exactly what you have in mind, because people are responding to the statement about calorie dense foods, but you seem to be thinking of a very specific class of calorie dense foods.
I don't have a specific tax bill ready for committee, unfortunately lol. My point is that policy makers with the capacity for research that our Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Health have should be able to come up with a tax policy that's able to classify and tax certain foods/drinks at certain rates; and that this money should go to our strained healthcare budget.
So you support it, but you can't share what "it" is? This makes debate somewhat difficult, but if you're saying we should just trust whatever the government comes up with, then there is a chance that they could determine that rice and tortillas should be more heavily taxed. For proposals like this, the specifics do matter. They will be impacting the finances of people who may already be struggling to afford food.3 -
janejellyroll wrote: »So you support it, but you can't share what "it" is? This makes debate somewhat difficult, but if you're saying we should just trust whatever the government comes up with, then there is a chance that they could determine that rice and tortillas should be more heavily taxed. For proposals like this, the specifics do matter. They will be impacting the finances of people who may already be struggling to afford food.
That's why we have representative democracy. So the government can come up with specific policies from the publics broad strokes opinions. You can't say that "Well, unless you can list the specific tax rates of every food in existence then you can't POSSIBLY argue intelligently about a proposed tax." That's not a fair thing to ask of me, because it would quite literally take a multi-year committee of hundreds of politicians, statisticians, dietitians, doctors, industry leaders, lobby groups, etc to come up with the answer. Hell, they might even do it in such a way where your favourite foods come down in price. They could for instance replace sales tax on food with whatever formula they come up with; in effect making things like fruits and vegetables tax free. There are all sorts of interesting models to consider when it comes to this type of tax. What I can't do is tell you, "Well I think tortillas should be taxed at 15% and milk at 30% and white bread at 35%, etc, etc, etc." I think that, in broad strokes, there are junk foods and calorie dense foods/drinks that should be taxed at excise rates to A) discourage people from buying them in such large quantities, and
help pay for our overburdened healthcare system. Hell, put an alcohol style tax on soft drinks in Canada alone and you'll bring in almost $10 billion a year. 1 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »It's also important to think about the wider impact of this idea of a tax on so called 'junk' foods.
For example, a low income family might go to a fast food restaurant once a fortnight. It's their treat - it's affordable and a way for them to get out as a family and spend time together.
This tax idea could make that financially unviable for them, when it is not doing them any harm and could actually be benefitting that family in terms of spending time together and having a treat.
Are there other options and things they could do? Sure. But why take that away from them if it's something they love to do?
This is not like smoking - it has much wider implications.
I'm not a UK resident but I know there are taxes on alcohol in the UK. A low income couple might enjoy a bottle of wine occasionally. They have to pay the tax, how is this proposal any different?
Wine is 100% optional - so again, different. For sure you could argue fast food is also optional but food is not.
High calorie, low nutritional value food is 100% optional, just like wine, no difference.
And again, you are driving a thumb-tack with a sledgehammer! I can have a veggie/chicken pizza (which is not low nutrition) and you would punish me for having this because it is considered 'fast food'. Same argument goes for the person who gets a grilled chicken sandwich on a whole wheat bun with veggies from their favorite 'to go' place.
My comment was I was fine with taxing high calorie nutrient poor food. If the pizza or chicken sandwich you mention was not high calorie/low nutrient food (based on the definition established) it would not be taxed regardless of the source.
So the idea is that menu items at the same restaurant will have variable tax rates? That seems . . . difficult to implement.3 -
I think we need to distinguish what this tax is supposed to accomplish before judging if it's 'bad' or 'good':
- extra revenue (to be used for compensating the cost of healthcare for obese people), preferably from those who are draining healthcare ressources (or will in the future)
- a dissuasive effect (keeping people away from certain foods/drinks because they are 'bad' and/or contribute to obesity)
For extra revenue, it's clear that it won't hit the mark fully (those causing a 'drain on healthcare resources' or who will in the future) since not all obese people eat/drink these foods; and these foods/drinks are not only consumed by obese people putting a strain on the healthcare system. Whether or not that strategy is justified... I have no idea how well this kind of tax hits its mark, and it will depend highly on what foods and drinks are taxed. But if you want extra revenu, the tax shouldn't be so high that it deters people from buying these foods/drinks, so you basically want them to keep on consuming/maintain their bad habits in order to create revenue, which I personally find a bit 'iffy' morally speaking.
For a dissuasive effect, I'm going to guess that the price increase would have to be pretty drastic. And in case of an actual dissuasive effect, the revenue from this tax would obviously decrease over time. Are there examples where this has worked? I don't know, but as a policy maker I would look at similar taxes elsewhere to see if it's a viable option for long-term changes in behavior before creating these types of taxes.
(Side note, but in case of big price changes, an island has one major advantage: it's not so easy to find your food/drinks elsewhere. In Belgium, where I live, these taxe increases invariably end up providing a lower revenue than intended simply because our country is so small that we can cross the border to buy more cheaply abroad.)1 -
I think we need to distinguish what this tax is supposed to accomplish before judging if it's 'bad' or 'good':
- extra revenue (to be used for compensating the cost of healthcare for obese people), preferably from those who are draining healthcare ressources (or will in the future)
- a dissuasive effect (keeping people away from certain foods/drinks because they are 'bad' and/or contribute to obesity)
For extra revenue, it's clear that it won't hit the mark fully (those causing a 'drain on healthcare resources' or who will in the future) since not all obese people eat/drink these foods; and these foods/drinks are not only consumed by obese people putting a strain on the healthcare system. Whether or not that strategy is justified... I have no idea how well this kind of tax hits its mark, and it will depend highly on what foods and drinks are taxed. But if you want extra revenu, the tax shouldn't be so high that it deters people from buying these foods/drinks, so you basically want them to keep on consuming/maintain their bad habits in order to create revenue, which I personally find a bit 'iffy' morally speaking.
For a dissuasive effect, I'm going to guess that the price increase would have to be pretty drastic. And in case of an actual dissuasive effect, the revenue from this tax would obviously decrease over time. Are there examples where this has worked? I don't know, but as a policy maker I would look at similar taxes elsewhere to see if it's a viable option for long-term changes in behavior before creating these types of taxes.
(Side note, but in case of big price changes, an island has one major advantage: it's not so easy to find your food/drinks elsewhere. In Belgium, where I live, these taxe increases invariably end up providing a lower revenue than intended simply because our country is so small that we can cross the border to buy more cheaply abroad.)
I am not an expert (clearly!), but I think people contemplating these types of taxes are thinking of cigarette taxes as an example. The goal of the tax on tobacco is to accomplish both the objective of gathering additional money from specific consumers of a product to help fund treating diseases that are a consequence of using the product and to increase the price of an item with the intent of making it harder for individuals to justify the continued use of the item.
This, of course, has been combined with warning labels, much more information about the harm associated with smoking, generally shrinking the number of public and private spaces where people are allowed to smoke, and eliminating much of the neutral/favorable depictions of smoking in the media, so it's impossible to look at these in a vacuum.
The main difference between a tobacco tax and a tax on food is that you can target smokers with a tax on cigarettes in a way that it is impossible to target the obese with a tax on food.
Almost any type of proposed tax on specific food items is going to wind up 1) excluding the obese who are using foods outside of the stigmatized group to feed themselves and 2) include the non-obese who maintain a normal body weight while consuming stigmatized foods.
It's also going to be a political/logistical quagmire to determine which foods are included. Even if you set aside the impact of various lobbies (which you can't really do, so it's just a thought experiment), the thought of having the government determine which foods should be taxed is really daunting. Are pork rinds a fatty snack food that should be taxed or are they a protein-rich smart choice for a keto diet? Is my sugar-sweetened greek yogurt a good addition to a healthy breakfast or a risk factor for eventual diabetes? Am I getting a tax exemption for my Swedish Fish candy if I can prove I'm only eating them as fuel for my long runs? If I swing through Taco Bell, do I get taxes waived for my first two fresco bean burritos and only pay taxes on the third and fourth unless I can prove I'm buying food to pay more than one person?4 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »It's also important to think about the wider impact of this idea of a tax on so called 'junk' foods.
For example, a low income family might go to a fast food restaurant once a fortnight. It's their treat - it's affordable and a way for them to get out as a family and spend time together.
This tax idea could make that financially unviable for them, when it is not doing them any harm and could actually be benefitting that family in terms of spending time together and having a treat.
Are there other options and things they could do? Sure. But why take that away from them if it's something they love to do?
This is not like smoking - it has much wider implications.
I'm not a UK resident but I know there are taxes on alcohol in the UK. A low income couple might enjoy a bottle of wine occasionally. They have to pay the tax, how is this proposal any different?
Wine is 100% optional - so again, different. For sure you could argue fast food is also optional but food is not.
High calorie, low nutritional value food is 100% optional, just like wine, no difference.
And again, you are driving a thumb-tack with a sledgehammer! I can have a veggie/chicken pizza (which is not low nutrition) and you would punish me for having this because it is considered 'fast food'. Same argument goes for the person who gets a grilled chicken sandwich on a whole wheat bun with veggies from their favorite 'to go' place.
My comment was I was fine with taxing high calorie nutrient poor food. If the pizza or chicken sandwich you mention was not high calorie/low nutrient food (based on the definition established) it would not be taxed regardless of the source.
So the idea is that menu items at the same restaurant will have variable tax rates? That seems . . . difficult to implement.
Not really, at least 2 ways to do it.- Excise tax on the products as produced by the manufacturer similar to excise taxes on alcohol in the US. manufacturer pays. May be a bit tricky with things that can be "healthy" or "unhealthy" depending on how they are prepared but takes care of thing like sugary drinks, purchased cookies, cakes, chips, etc.
- Most states have different tax rates on food vs other items purchased at a grocery store or supercenter, they seem to have fixed the issue.
That doesn't address the proposal to charge extra taxes for some pizzas/sandwiches, but not others, when they're coming from the same restaurant. That was the situation, not whether or not we can charge different tax rates for food and non-food from the same store.
If a restaurant sells a grilled chicken sandwich and a fried chicken sandwich, should they both be hit with the extra taxes? If not, how would that be administered?2
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 396.5K Introduce Yourself
- 44.2K Getting Started
- 260.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.3K Food and Nutrition
- 47.6K Recipes
- 232.8K Fitness and Exercise
- 449 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.3K Motivation and Support
- 8.3K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.5K Chit-Chat
- 2.6K Fun and Games
- 4.5K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 18 MyFitnessPal Academy
- 1.4K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions