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
-
Socialist countries do not tell you what to eat either.6 -
Socialist countries do not tell you what to eat either.
You really don't understand Socialism. People in Venezuela were being arrested for having beef. What would you call that?3 -
Socialist countries do not tell you what to eat either.
But there is much higher potential for them to decree what is produced and/or imported so indirectly they do.3 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Skip the chicken? As in order a chicken sandwich, hold the chicken? Order something else off the menu? I'm not sure what you're proposing exactly.
Or do you mean we should skip the chicken in discussing the tax scenario and we wouldn't put additional taxes on chicken sandwiches at all, regardless of how they're prepared?
I get what you're saying with the boldest list, but it seems to be based on the presumption that sweet foods contribute to obesity (and should be taxed), but savory foods are nutrient-rich enough that they shouldn't be subject to additional taxes. However, a food can be nutrient-dense and still contribute to obesity. I can have a 100 calorie sweet granola bar or 100 calories of Gatorade and still easily meet my calorie goals. If I go to a restaurant and have 1,500 calories of chicken enchiladas or pasta alfredo with chicken, I will struggle to meet my calorie goals. So why would we automatically tax the granola bar and leave the other items on the list alone?
However the items I bolded are going to be on any honest list of high calorie, nutrient poor foods. Why not look at the significant few instead of discussing the trivial many when determining tax options?
There are nutrient dense versions of the no-bolded items not so much with bolded ones.
Chicken enchiladas and pasta with chicken are literally on the list of calorie-heavy hitters that YOU provided. That's not the "trivial many," they are literally among the significant few. So again, why tax just part of the list? The problem isn't that people aren't getting their nutritional needs met. The problem is that they're consuming too many calories.
Insisting that people get their "too many" calories from nutrient-dense sources is ignoring the literal problem.
If I'm consuming 3,000 calories a day from a diet of chicken enchiladas, bread, and beef jerky my weight isn't going to be lower than if I'm consuming 3,000 calories a day and also including a bowl of ice cream and a soda.5 -
Socialist countries do not tell you what to eat either.
You really don't understand Socialism. People in Venezuela were being arrested for having beef. What would you call that?
Beef, in and of itself, isn't illegal in Venezuela. I feel like you're leaving out a key part of the story.5 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »
Socialist countries do not tell you what to eat either.
But there is much higher potential for them to decree what is produced and/or imported so indirectly they do.
In the US, we have all sorts of restrictions on what can be produced and imported. This is something all kinds of governments do, not a special feature of socialism.
Have you tried to import something into the US without governmental approval? Even as a private citizen with no intent to resell or distribute, we don't have the freedom to bring whatever we want into the country.
5 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Skip the chicken? As in order a chicken sandwich, hold the chicken? Order something else off the menu? I'm not sure what you're proposing exactly.
Or do you mean we should skip the chicken in discussing the tax scenario and we wouldn't put additional taxes on chicken sandwiches at all, regardless of how they're prepared?
I get what you're saying with the boldest list, but it seems to be based on the presumption that sweet foods contribute to obesity (and should be taxed), but savory foods are nutrient-rich enough that they shouldn't be subject to additional taxes. However, a food can be nutrient-dense and still contribute to obesity. I can have a 100 calorie sweet granola bar or 100 calories of Gatorade and still easily meet my calorie goals. If I go to a restaurant and have 1,500 calories of chicken enchiladas or pasta alfredo with chicken, I will struggle to meet my calorie goals. So why would we automatically tax the granola bar and leave the other items on the list alone?
However the items I bolded are going to be on any honest list of high calorie, nutrient poor foods. Why not look at the significant few instead of discussing the trivial many when determining tax options?
There are nutrient dense versions of the no-bolded items not so much with bolded ones.
Chicken enchiladas and pasta with chicken are literally on the list of calorie-heavy hitters that YOU provided. That's not the "trivial many," they are literally among the significant few. So again, why tax just part of the list? The problem isn't that people aren't getting their nutritional needs met. The problem is that they're consuming too many calories.
Insisting that people get their "too many" calories from nutrient-dense sources is ignoring the literal problem.
If I'm consuming 3,000 calories a day from a diet of chicken enchiladas, bread, and beef jerky my weight isn't going to be lower than if I'm consuming 3,000 calories a day and also including a bowl of ice cream and a soda.
I'm not disagreeing with you in any way (I agree), just extending the conversation.
I think one of the things people lose sight of, in thinking about this, is how (relatively) small the overage is, on average. The trendlines of the "obesity crisis" suggest that in the US, average adults gain something like 1-2 pounds per year**. (Sure, individuals vary, lots. It's an average. And people who stay at a healthy weight are in that average, so the actual gainers - who are increasing as a percent of population BTW - are gaining faster.)
1-2 pounds per year is 10-20 calories over maintenance daily, on average. That's it. Is that even one McDonald's french fry, since the small size is IIRC around 220 calories? It's something around 2 ounces (60 ml) of coke. It's probably in the vicinity of a 180-pound person walking for around 2 tenths of a mile.
These discussions sometimes seem to posit some humans swilling at a trough of impossibly non-satiating junk taste-rigged junk food while strapped into their La-Z-Boy (often it's someone *else* 😆 - even in this thread, some of the tax rhetoric is about how "they" ought to pay for "their" health costs.) Trust me - since I've done it - it's possible to gradually gain to the point of obesity while eating satiating, nutrient-dense foods as the overwhelming majority of one's diet.
Though it's ridiculously hard/complicated to figure out how to do it at a population level (it's multi-faceted), it's useful to keep in mind that if we could get the average person moving 50-100 calories more, and eating 50-100 calories less, daily, we start to see average bodyweight slowly decline.
It's a big problem, as a social problem (social costs). It's a big problem, in terms of figuring out how to solve it. But the actual average individual behavioral change is not that huge, even if you assume the people actually gaining weight (throw out non-gainers from the data), the calorie numbers are not generally thousands per day, but probably lower hundreds.
How much complexity is it worth inserting into the world, for that? What are the most cost-efficient public/governmental actions that could accomplish it?
On the one hand, a high tax on certain things might be more appealing, since the calorie shifts needed are pretty small. But overall, I'm still a skeptic on complicated tax schemes as the best (most cost-efficient) bet. I certainly don't think that high cost measure is the place to start.
(Cost: IMO many people also tend to underestimate the society-wide costs of complying with complex new regulations - not just the cost of the government administrative bureaucracy, but also the costs to those regulated in lawyers to analyze regulations, compliance planning and training, computer system changes, etc.. Sometimes complex regulations are necessary, sure. This time? I'm unpersuaded.)
** For example, see this survey article about the obesity crisis: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3228640/
It's older (2011) but the obesity crisis had already been ongoing for multiple decades at that point, so the basics are still sound. Below is a relevant quote, and folks can visit its footnote 48 for more on the specific point I mentioned.Hill et al. have argued that the obesity epidemic arose from gradual yearly weight gain in the population produced from a slight, consistent degree of positive energy balance (i.e. energy intake exceeding energy expenditure). (48) Using longitudinal and cross-sectional data sets, they found that the average U.S. adult has gained an average of 1–2 pounds per year for the last 2–3 decades. Hill et al. (48) concluded that that weight gain in 90% of the adult population is due to a positive energy balance of 100 kcal/day or less. They further suggested that small behavior changes that impact daily energy balance by a little as 100 kcal/day could help prevent further excessive weight gain in the population.6 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »
Socialist countries do not tell you what to eat either.
But there is much higher potential for them to decree what is produced and/or imported so indirectly they do.
In the US, we have all sorts of restrictions on what can be produced and imported. This is something all kinds of governments do, not a special feature of socialism.
Have you tried to import something into the US without governmental approval? Even as a private citizen with no intent to resell or distribute, we don't have the freedom to bring whatever we want into the country.
Of course in the US we have restrictions Note my original comment (especially the bolded on more socialistic countries vs the US.
"But there is much higher potential for them to decree what is produced and/or imported so indirectly they do."1 -
Socialist countries do not tell you what to eat either.
You really don't understand Socialism. People in Venezuela were being arrested for having beef. What would you call that?
I live in what many Americans would consider to be a "socialist country" what with the NHS and all that so, with respect, I probably have more of a clue than you seem to if that really is your best, go-to example.5 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »
Socialist countries do not tell you what to eat either.
But there is much higher potential for them to decree what is produced and/or imported so indirectly they do.
Perhaps but it depends on the country as, for example, state support is pretty much outlawed in EU member states but many of those member state are never-the-less "socialist".
But that is hardly the same as telling the people what to eat.
And of course even the USA bans foods, Kinder eggs and haggis being examples of that.2 -
Socialist countries do not tell you what to eat either.
You really don't understand Socialism. People in Venezuela were being arrested for having beef. What would you call that?
I live in what many Americans would consider to be a "socialist country" what with the NHS and all that so, with respect, I probably have more of a clue than you seem to if that really is your best, go-to example.
Outside of silly partisan rhetoric (under which mainstream Dems are "socialist" too), I really don't think people here consider the UK or Canada "socialist."3 -
Kinder eggs are in the US. Several years back, my grocery store had a promotion, giving one away to each customer. It was good (of course it was good; it had chocolate!), but I never purchased any later. Now haggis...I’m not too sure.1
-
MaggieGirl135 wrote: »Kinder eggs are in the US. Several years back, my grocery store had a promotion, giving one away to each customer. It was good (of course it was good; it had chocolate!), but I never purchased any later. Now haggis...I’m not too sure.
Kinder eggs in the US are different from Kinder eggs elsewhere, I believe. I read that the US wouldn't let them be sold with the toy encased inside a shell of chocolate, the form I gather they are sold in abroad. US was concerned that kids would swallow the toy.2 -
No question the US regulates food (which I think is generally good) and subsidizes crops, but regulating toy presence in food is somewhat different.0
-
Calorie counts on restaurant menus would be great for me personally, although they would have to be accurate. I hope it applies to takeaway menus too (I haven't had a takeaway in years, but many do). If I can calorie count every meal, then I don't think its onerous for even small restaurants to do it.
That said, I got fat on my own home cooking (mostly), so I don't think its all about processed and restaurant food.
It's all very well to encourage cycling, but the UK desperately needs more and better cycle paths.
I'm disappointed that there wasn't more about funding obesity research. I'm not 100% sure we have the full story of what has changed in the last 50 years to create this epidemic. And I would like to see more money for research into the microbiome, therapies that could mimic some of the apparent hormonal effects of bariatrics surgery without the surgery (or with less drastic surgery) etc.
Let's be honest, living healthily can take a lot of time - exercise and meal prep especially. For that we need to work less. The sooner the robots come and take all of our jobs, the better. But I think all UK political parties are wedded to an ideology of "hard work".
Overall, I don't know what it will take for a country to really turn back the obesity epidemic. No country has done it yet, as far as I know. I suspect that we need to re-evaluate our libertarianism to create an environment that is conducive to weight stability - either that or accept that the problem is going to get worse and worse at a population level. Liberty is important, but some liberties (voting, free speech, etc.) are more important than others, and the fundamental truth is that our brains did not evolve for an environment of abundant, calorie dense, hyper-palatable processed foods that can be obtained without physical effort.1 -
Let's be honest, living healthily can take a lot of time - exercise and meal prep especially. For that we need to work less. The sooner the robots come and take all of our jobs, the better. But I think all UK political parties are wedded to an ideology of "hard work".
To be honest for most the idea that living health takes a lot of time is not as issue. Take a look at how much non-work time the average person spends in front of a screen (shows, games, etc). It's how many people CHOOSE to use their time.
Also IMO, nothing wrong with "hard work". It tends to build resiliency and other good personality traits. The "robots taking over our jobs" isn't going to fix the obesity issue. Just look what has happened since most work became more automated.
2 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »
Let's be honest, living healthily can take a lot of time - exercise and meal prep especially. For that we need to work less. The sooner the robots come and take all of our jobs, the better. But I think all UK political parties are wedded to an ideology of "hard work".
To be honest for most the idea that living health takes a lot of time is not as issue. Take a look at how much non-work time the average person spends in front of a screen (shows, games, etc). It's how many people CHOOSE to use their time.
Also IMO, nothing wrong with "hard work". It tends to build resiliency and other good personality traits. The "robots taking over our jobs" isn't going to fix the obesity issue. Just look what has happened since most work became more automated.
I can only speak from my own personal experience. Time certainly is an issue, and I watch very little TV etc. (basically zero during the week, a little bit at weekends.). Being macho and expecting people to have no downtime is part of the problem. It might work for some people, but it's not going to help us solve obesity on a populations level.
I don't have a problem with hard work. Exercise is hard work, and I'd like to have more time for it, rather than being stuck on my *kitten* in front of a desk. In the 1930s Keynes thought we would all be working 15 hour weeks by now. What the hell happened?3 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »
Let's be honest, living healthily can take a lot of time - exercise and meal prep especially. For that we need to work less. The sooner the robots come and take all of our jobs, the better. But I think all UK political parties are wedded to an ideology of "hard work".
To be honest for most the idea that living health takes a lot of time is not as issue. Take a look at how much non-work time the average person spends in front of a screen (shows, games, etc). It's how many people CHOOSE to use their time.
Also IMO, nothing wrong with "hard work". It tends to build resiliency and other good personality traits. The "robots taking over our jobs" isn't going to fix the obesity issue. Just look what has happened since most work became more automated.
I can only speak from my own personal experience. Time certainly is an issue, and I watch very little TV etc. (basically zero during the week, a little bit at weekends.). Being macho and expecting people to have no downtime is part of the problem. It might work for some people, but it's not going to help us solve obesity on a populations level.
I don't have a problem with hard work. Exercise is hard work, and I'd like to have more time for it, rather than being stuck on my *kitten* in front of a desk. In the 1930s Keynes thought we would all be working 15 hour weeks by now. What the hell happened?
I was was speaking about most. Per the site below the average hours worked in the US is 41.5, the UK 41.8.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/average-work-week-by-country
The average adult in the US (I'd guess the UK is similar ) spends 4.5 hours watching shows and movies. This doesn't count looking at social media, electronic games, etc.
https://www.cnn.com/2016/06/30/health/americans-screen-time-nielsen/index.html
Again it's a matter of priorities.0 -
Ok, but berating people for watching too much Netflix isn't a government policy. The only thing governments can do is find ways to make it easier to get/stay thin, or harder to get/stay fat. (If you're opposed to that, the basically you're ideologically opposed to governments having obesity policies.)
I guess you could argue that more free time would just lead to more Netflix. You might be right. I do wonder though if all that veg out is to do with people being exhausted from work.
All I can say is that for me, if I could work a bit less it would make a massive difference . I'm working on it.1 -
Ok, but berating people for watching too much Netflix isn't a government policy. The only thing governments can do is find ways to make it easier to get/stay thin, or harder to get/stay fat. (If you're opposed to that, the basically you're ideologically opposed to governments having obesity policies.)
I guess you could argue that more free time would just lead to more Netflix. You might be right. I do wonder though if all that veg out is to do with people being exhausted from work.
All I can say is that for me, if I could work a bit less it would make a massive difference . I'm working on it.
My point it that for many the excuse of no time for exercise/meal prep is more how they prioritize their lives as opposed to a lack of time
1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 392 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 926 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions