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
24

Replies

  • freda666
    freda666 Posts: 338 Member
    edited August 2020
    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.

  • freda666
    freda666 Posts: 338 Member
    edited August 2020
    watts6151 wrote: »
    watts6151 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.
  • watts6151
    watts6151 Posts: 1,004 Member
    freda78 wrote: »
    watts6151 wrote: »
    watts6151 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 passion
  • magnusthenerd
    magnusthenerd Posts: 1,207 Member
    Theoldguy1 wrote: »
    watts6151 wrote: »
    Theoldguy1 wrote: »
    watts6151 wrote: »
    watts6151 wrote: »
    watts6151 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
    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.
    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.
  • stevehenderson776
    stevehenderson776 Posts: 324 Member
    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.
  • stevehenderson776
    stevehenderson776 Posts: 324 Member
    freda78 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.
  • freda666
    freda666 Posts: 338 Member
    edited August 2020
    freda78 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.
  • freda666
    freda666 Posts: 338 Member
    edited August 2020
    Theoldguy1 wrote: »
    spyro88 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.
  • PWHF
    PWHF Posts: 221 Member
    edited August 2020
    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.
  • freda666
    freda666 Posts: 338 Member
    PWHF wrote: »
    they are under a lot of stress, underfunded and can't just prescribe antibiotics anymore...

    Can't prescribe antibiotics anymore???? This is news.

    What makes you say that?
  • PWHF
    PWHF Posts: 221 Member
    edited August 2020
    freda78 wrote: »
    PWHF wrote: »
    they are under a lot of stress, underfunded and can't just prescribe antibiotics anymore...

    Can't prescribe antibiotics anymore???? This is news.

    What makes you say that?

    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.
  • stevehenderson776
    stevehenderson776 Posts: 324 Member
    freda78 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.
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    freda78 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.
  • ccrdragon
    ccrdragon Posts: 3,378 Member
    Theoldguy1 wrote: »
    freda78 wrote: »
    Theoldguy1 wrote: »
    spyro88 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.
  • stevehenderson776
    stevehenderson776 Posts: 324 Member
    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.
  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,887 Member
    freda78 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.html
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    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.
  • stevehenderson776
    stevehenderson776 Posts: 324 Member
    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 B) 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.
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    Theoldguy1 wrote: »
    ccrdragon wrote: »
    Theoldguy1 wrote: »
    freda78 wrote: »
    Theoldguy1 wrote: »
    spyro88 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.
  • Lietchi
    Lietchi Posts: 7,222 Member
    edited August 2020
    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.)
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    Lietchi wrote: »
    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?
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    Theoldguy1 wrote: »
    Theoldguy1 wrote: »
    ccrdragon wrote: »
    Theoldguy1 wrote: »
    freda78 wrote: »
    Theoldguy1 wrote: »
    spyro88 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?
This discussion has been closed.