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.
Is the U.S. Government about to try and tackle the Obesity Epidemic?
Replies
-
SuzySunshine99 wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »Combine this with a tax on hyperprocessed , energy dense, hyperpalatable foods.
Hey. I'm not obese or overweight. Why do I have to pay extra for my treats?
Don't get me started on the time our county tried to implement a "soda tax". They said to combat obesity, but it applied to zero-calorie diet sodas as well. It didn't last long before the outrage forced them to repeal it...people will tolerate a certain amount of government oversight, but you can pry my Coke Zero out of my cold, dead hands.
That's where I feel conversations like this always go: it starts out about obesity, but if we're just taxing hyper-processed foods like diet soda then it's clearly not about obesity, it's just more taxes.
I'm not opposed to more taxes per se, but let's be honest: if I'm paying taxes for zero calorie flavored liquids, it's not an anti-obesity measure.
10 -
janejellyroll wrote: »SuzySunshine99 wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »Combine this with a tax on hyperprocessed , energy dense, hyperpalatable foods.
Hey. I'm not obese or overweight. Why do I have to pay extra for my treats?
Don't get me started on the time our county tried to implement a "soda tax". They said to combat obesity, but it applied to zero-calorie diet sodas as well. It didn't last long before the outrage forced them to repeal it...people will tolerate a certain amount of government oversight, but you can pry my Coke Zero out of my cold, dead hands.
That's where I feel conversations like this always go: it starts out about obesity, but if we're just taxing hyper-processed foods like diet soda then it's clearly not about obesity, it's just more taxes.
I'm not opposed to more taxes per se, but let's be honest: if I'm paying taxes for zero calorie flavored liquids, it's not an anti-obesity measure.
I agree with your core point.
As a tiny quibble: I also think that legislation tends to be a bit broad-brush, and probably needs to be (sometimes) in order to create fairly bright lines that are manageable to implement.
As a bit of context, my state, decades back, was among the first to require a deposit on containers for certain beverages (officially had to do with reducing roadside litter, and was massively helpful in doing so). Creating clear rules was not necessarily easy, given the range of liquid-y things in cans/bottles that run a pretty smooth continuum from drinkable to eatable.
The rules (in my loose understanding) were that the deposit applied to carbonated beverages, not to still beverages. With the big companies, at first, it was "let the games begin", i.e., "how can we manipulate this in our favor?" At a small producer/marketer level, there was some confusion (if the apple cider has a little bit of fizz, sometimes, where does it fall?). Among consumers, there was some WTH: Sweetened teas or juices in aluminum cans, no deposit; soda pop or beer in exact same cans, deposit.
Things settled down eventually, and the same basic rules are still in effect. Personally, I'm still a little in the WTH camp about some of the consequences, but the law decently accomplished its goals, and everyone's used to it now.
In the "sweetened bevs" zone, I can imagine some of the same effects: Apple juice (sweet, but no added sugar) counts? Unsweetened cranberry juice? Sweetened with an artificial sweetener that's only slightly caloric? Sweetened with a "natural" ingredient that's frankly added to make the thing sweeter (e.g., white grape juice, often)? The baby shouldn't go out with the bathwater, but we might be willing to toss a bath toy or two, just to keep things simple.
I don't have a horse in this soda-tax race, but do feel that in general sidewalk quarterbacking legislation/regulation is probably quite a bit easier than formulating it in workable ways . . . at least that general concept is true in a lot of cases when us everyday folks have "common sense" opinions about many things done by genuine experts who have more information, knowledge, context.3 -
Money - sometimes in the form of taxes or credits - is one way the government uses to encourage particular behaviors. The results can be a bit of a mixed bag. I try to reduce my own sugar intake (and that includes the honey made from my neighborhood bees) and try to reuse and recycle as much as possible but could really do better.3
-
janejellyroll wrote: »SuzySunshine99 wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »Combine this with a tax on hyperprocessed , energy dense, hyperpalatable foods.
Hey. I'm not obese or overweight. Why do I have to pay extra for my treats?
Don't get me started on the time our county tried to implement a "soda tax". They said to combat obesity, but it applied to zero-calorie diet sodas as well. It didn't last long before the outrage forced them to repeal it...people will tolerate a certain amount of government oversight, but you can pry my Coke Zero out of my cold, dead hands.
That's where I feel conversations like this always go: it starts out about obesity, but if we're just taxing hyper-processed foods like diet soda then it's clearly not about obesity, it's just more taxes.
I'm not opposed to more taxes per se, but let's be honest: if I'm paying taxes for zero calorie flavored liquids, it's not an anti-obesity measure.
I agree with your core point.
As a tiny quibble: I also think that legislation tends to be a bit broad-brush, and probably needs to be (sometimes) in order to create fairly bright lines that are manageable to implement.
As a bit of context, my state, decades back, was among the first to require a deposit on containers for certain beverages (officially had to do with reducing roadside litter, and was massively helpful in doing so). Creating clear rules was not necessarily easy, given the range of liquid-y things in cans/bottles that run a pretty smooth continuum from drinkable to eatable.
The rules (in my loose understanding) were that the deposit applied to carbonated beverages, not to still beverages. With the big companies, at first, it was "let the games begin", i.e., "how can we manipulate this in our favor?" At a small producer/marketer level, there was some confusion (if the apple cider has a little bit of fizz, sometimes, where does it fall?). Among consumers, there was some WTH: Sweetened teas or juices in aluminum cans, no deposit; soda pop or beer in exact same cans, deposit.
Things settled down eventually, and the same basic rules are still in effect. Personally, I'm still a little in the WTH camp about some of the consequences, but the law decently accomplished its goals, and everyone's used to it now.
In the "sweetened bevs" zone, I can imagine some of the same effects: Apple juice (sweet, but no added sugar) counts? Unsweetened cranberry juice? Sweetened with an artificial sweetener that's only slightly caloric? Sweetened with a "natural" ingredient that's frankly added to make the thing sweeter (e.g., white grape juice, often)? The baby shouldn't go out with the bathwater, but we might be willing to toss a bath toy or two, just to keep things simple.
I don't have a horse in this soda-tax race, but do feel that in general sidewalk quarterbacking legislation/regulation is probably quite a bit easier than formulating it in workable ways . . . at least that general concept is true in a lot of cases when us everyday folks have "common sense" opinions about many things done by genuine experts who have more information, knowledge, context.
I agree that it would be impractically complicated to try to create a tax policy for beverages that successfully navigates all the various drinks we've created. I don't even think we'd have to -- I wouldn't object to a tax on flavored beverages as such, since they're a luxury item. I just bristle at it being touted as an anti-obesity measure when it includes so many things that aren't factors in weight gain.
It's just my natural contrariness coming out.4 -
One thing I see in the earlier comments that generally come up also in any such discussions is a conflation of what can be done as a society with what a particular individual can do.
If I am worried about the overall obesity rate in the US and how to reduce it, that's a different question than what I personally can do to lose weight, if I need to. Saying that there are cultural and other barriers or incentives that lead to the obesity rate in the country as a whole is NOT claiming that I need the culture to change in order to lose weight.
Unfortunately, I tend to be skeptical about most of the proposed solutions to the society obesity rate issues, although willing to try a number of them (including taxes). That said, the tax solutions tend to be so unpopular that I think it's unlikely they are really going to be an option in areas that aren't already lower than average consumers of the foods or drinks in question. The soda tax where I live (as Suzie noted) was a huge disaster and incredibly unpopular.
The proposals in the summary kshama posted seem reasonable and potentially helpful for some, to me (I did not read the whole bill).
I also think changes to make more places walking friendly would be nice. One thing I noticed (living in a walking friendly location) is that in a normal day I am reasonably active just from walking in connection with going to work and for errands (like going to the stores). That's something I had to make an effort to replace during the various lockdowns. And for me it was easy enough to replace (harder when the weather was bad), since where I live is reasonably safe and has nice sidewalks and pleasant places to walk (and normally parks, although they stupidly closed many of those for a time). I am aware that in some areas sidewalks don't exist. So infrastructure changes that address the walkability of areas that don't have that would be positive, although not necessarily a fix.5 -
One thing I see in the earlier comments that generally come up also in any such discussions is a conflation of what can be done as a society with what a particular individual can do.
If I am worried about the overall obesity rate in the US and how to reduce it, that's a different question than what I personally can do to lose weight, if I need to. Saying that there are cultural and other barriers or incentives that lead to the obesity rate in the country as a whole is NOT claiming that I need the culture to change in order to lose weight.
Unfortunately, I tend to be skeptical about most of the proposed solutions to the society obesity rate issues, although willing to try a number of them (including taxes). That said, the tax solutions tend to be so unpopular that I think it's unlikely they are really going to be an option in areas that aren't already lower than average consumers of the foods or drinks in question. The soda tax where I live (as Suzie noted) was a huge disaster and incredibly unpopular.
The proposals in the summary kshama posted seem reasonable and potentially helpful for some, to me (I did not read the whole bill).
I also think changes to make more places walking friendly would be nice. One thing I noticed (living in a walking friendly location) is that in a normal day I am reasonably active just from walking in connection with going to work and for errands (like going to the stores). That's something I had to make an effort to replace during the various lockdowns. And for me it was easy enough to replace (harder when the weather was bad), since where I live is reasonably safe and has nice sidewalks and pleasant places to walk (and normally parks, although they stupidly closed many of those for a time). I am aware that in some areas sidewalks don't exist. So infrastructure changes that address the walkability of areas that don't have that would be positive, although not necessarily a fix.
The challenge is infrastructure changes to make areas more walker friendly are astronomically expensive and would take decades to implement in the US. Now you can add these changes to new areas or those undergoing reconstruction but again talking decades to get significant changes. Even, then if there are nice sidewalks, it doesn't necessarily make the area safe. A whole other can of worms5 -
Hey folks,
There was a whole side-bar about disabilities in this thread, so I pulled those posts into their own discussion. If you'd like to continue that discussion, the thread is here: https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10838459/disabilities
Happy Thursday,
Em6 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »One thing I see in the earlier comments that generally come up also in any such discussions is a conflation of what can be done as a society with what a particular individual can do.
If I am worried about the overall obesity rate in the US and how to reduce it, that's a different question than what I personally can do to lose weight, if I need to. Saying that there are cultural and other barriers or incentives that lead to the obesity rate in the country as a whole is NOT claiming that I need the culture to change in order to lose weight.
Unfortunately, I tend to be skeptical about most of the proposed solutions to the society obesity rate issues, although willing to try a number of them (including taxes). That said, the tax solutions tend to be so unpopular that I think it's unlikely they are really going to be an option in areas that aren't already lower than average consumers of the foods or drinks in question. The soda tax where I live (as Suzie noted) was a huge disaster and incredibly unpopular.
The proposals in the summary kshama posted seem reasonable and potentially helpful for some, to me (I did not read the whole bill).
I also think changes to make more places walking friendly would be nice. One thing I noticed (living in a walking friendly location) is that in a normal day I am reasonably active just from walking in connection with going to work and for errands (like going to the stores). That's something I had to make an effort to replace during the various lockdowns. And for me it was easy enough to replace (harder when the weather was bad), since where I live is reasonably safe and has nice sidewalks and pleasant places to walk (and normally parks, although they stupidly closed many of those for a time). I am aware that in some areas sidewalks don't exist. So infrastructure changes that address the walkability of areas that don't have that would be positive, although not necessarily a fix.
The challenge is infrastructure changes to make areas more walker friendly are astronomically expensive and would take decades to implement in the US. Now you can add these changes to new areas or those undergoing reconstruction but again talking decades to get significant changes. Even, then if there are nice sidewalks, it doesn't necessarily make the area safe. A whole other can of worms
I actually (based on my own experience) believe this is one of the lesser issues. The biggest issue I see, is getting people to use the facilities when they are provided. I live in a major metropolitan area and there are 4 'linear parks' - walking/biking paths - that have well maintained concrete paths, a couple are tree lined providing shade during the heat of the day, they are cleaned regularly, the grass along the sides of the paths is mowed, the trees are pruned so that they don't present issues to the people using them, etc. There are entry points and exit points that are well marked and have places for people to park cars (for the ones who need to drive to the paths). The park service even comes out after heavy rains and removes any dirt/debris that gets washed onto the pathways. Yet, in my extensive use of the pathways (I much prefer to ride on the paths than on the streets, but that's a whole different conversation), I rarely see more than 15-20 people in a 1 hour riding session (and most of them are the same people each and every day). All of the paths that I use are completely contained in residential areas, most of them have houses that literally line the paths (easily a thousand or more homes across the 4 paths) and people ARE NOT using them.
I guess the point that I am trying to make is, why would a community invest the kind of money that this obviously takes to build and maintain if there will be no return on the investment? People know that exercise is good for them, but even if you provide safe and clean places for them to exercise, the vast majority of people do not take advantage of the offering.6 -
I expect that many communities build such things as it makes the community more desirable. We have multi-use paths where I live (some of which are very actively used), and I believe that's why they do it.
But on the whole, I think the percentage of people who intentionally exercise has always been rather low, so that's not really the change. The change is more about movement required/commonplace in daily life, and some of the reasons that's low now are ones that aren't inherently bad and aren't changing -- housework requires less physical effort, more people live in places where they don't routinely walk to do errands, there are more cars per person, and jobs are far less likely to be active.
Where I live, it can be easier to walk (or walk to public transit) to do errands, depending, or go to work than to drive, because being in a big city driving can be a hassle (pre covid it was faster for me to get to work in various other ways vs driving during rush hour) and parking is expensive. Some stores have parking lots (bigger grocery stores or big box stores), but many of the appealing little stores do not. My neighborhood is built around a small local shopping/restaurant district that many walk to and that typically has a lot of people using (including walking about). I also see plenty of people using just basic infrastructure like sidewalks and would hate to live somewhere without them, as that would seem inherently unwalkable (unless one was out in the country with paths, of course). I am by a somewhat less used biking path also (which I love) and I usually see a variety of people there on the weekend if the weather is nice, less otherwise, but I see many more people (on weekdays and even in bad weather) using things like bike lanes, since they are often using them as a form of transportation.
Anyway, I don't think -- as I said -- that such things are likely to have a huge effect, but the problem for me in thinking about these things is that I don't really have much hope for any of the "solutions" I've seen to the obesity rate. The proposals in the original post don't seem like bad ideas, but I wouldn't bet on them making a huge difference, vs making things easier for individuals who want to take advantage of them (which is fine with me, it's why I support requiring chains to list calories and nutrition information on food items from the grocery store).5 -
A couple of things that I find interesting, maybe even peculiar:
1. I completely understand the question about why communities would invest the essential big dollars in walking trails and such, when usage seems fairly light (here, probably not everywhere even in the US).
In my area, one answer - not the only one - is that for whatever reason, people do vote in favor of millage proposals (property tax increases) to maintain and improve trails in sufficient proportions that they pass. Why? Maybe more people use the facilities cumulatively (across time & places) than it seems from small experiential samples, maybe people like to think of themselves as trail-using active people but don't get around to doing it, maybe advocacy/advertising by actual users has an effect - no idea. But they pass.
Another answer is that (here) the funding authorities that have pools of money for infrastructure that includes trails, do seem to use surveys and public comment requests to get input on how to allocate money from those pools. I assume that cyclists, runners, birders, clubs of those, etc., organize to make sure that people who do those activities are going to hit those surveys/comment opportunities hard. One could consider that a bias, but I'm pretty sure it happens (based on "answer this survey" solicitations I've seen, for example).
2. I think that in some areas, there's possibly a maybe-sizeable minority of the female population who don't use trails out of safety fears, even though those fears are not well-founded. (Note: I am 100% *not* saying trails are safe everywhere, I'm saying they may be somewhat underutilized by anxious solo women even in places where they are reasonably safe.)
I'm saying this from talking with women I know, some of whom, IMO, are fearful substantially disproportionately to our local risks. I walk and cycle by myself routinely, and it's not unusual for peers to ask me "aren't you afraid to go on the trails alone?". Many (not all) of the women I see on the trails are not alone, but are with a man, another woman, or a dog. I'm also *not* assuming that those who aren't alone would fear being alone: There are plenty of social or practical reasons one might prefer to be on the trails with others. But women alone are a minority of the user population, and (without counting) it feels like there are fewer solo women than solo men.4 -
MargaretYakoda wrote: »For the people suggesting fast food restaurants be taxed?
Or that food stamps should not be able to purchase soda and candy?
1) It is impossible to write a law that will clearly define junk food. Or candy.
2) Poor people also deserve to have an occasional treat.
https://medium.com/the-establishment/poor-people-deserve-to-taste-something-other-than-shame-90eb3aceabf9
Poor people are surrounded by nutritional advice. However, food deserts are a real thing.
I once visited Washington DC. The grocery store closest to where we stayed (an AYH hostel) was the very first time I realized how bad a grocery store in a food desert is. And yes, they exist. Even our capital.
There were very few fresh vegetables. The oranges looked like they were leftovers from last year. Apples didn’t seem to exist. There were plenty of chips in single serve packets, though.
And then the advice to just put something in a crockpot to eat after you come home from work. Sounds easy.
… but it assumes you can afford a crock pot. Yes. I know they’re not expensive. But when you have essentially no money? It is a factor.
Assuming you found a crock pot, are you going to leave it alone for twelve or more hours while you’re on the bus to your second job? Maybe. Maybe not.
Can you trust the electricity will remain on that whole time? I know there were times I couldn’t be so sure.
So. You swing by McD’s after you pick up the kids from daycare. Exhausted. But at least the kids are fed.
Food banks don’t usually give you things that would benefit from being cooked for a long time in a crockpot anyhow. Just FYI.
Food banks are mostly cheap carbs. And vegetables that need work. Which is fine. But if you’ve just done a ten hour shift, and you still have to feed the kids? It’s unlikely you’re going to have the energy to slice up a bunch of carrots for dinner.
Chances are high it will be brand X Mac and cheese. Made with no butter. Because butter is expensive. And probably no milk either, unless you receive WIC benefits. Because milk is expensive. And very rarely handed out at food banks.
If you wind up having to rely on community feeds? Good luck. You eat what you get served. And then if you’re lucky you leave with an armload of bread. But probably not much to put on it.
I could go on and on and on….
But I won’t. I just wanted to say my piece.
Oh, which Washington D.C. youth hostel was it? I stayed at Hostel International 3 years ago when I backpacked D.C. I was within a 6-7 minute walk of 2 markets. Bost were not overly expensive. Had all the staples I could want and far cheaper than eating at D.C. fastfood places. Staples such as rice and beans. Yes, two simple, extremely cheap staples, have been the foundation of many diets in many countries. As we see in the less affluent nations, they still are. These staples with a few vegetables, can be a fully nutritious diet at low cost and low effort. They have a long shelf life and can meet almost all protein needs. 10 hrs and have to "feed" the kids. Yes, its rough. We also have free time to take advantage of media. Just look at how much time people spend watching t.v. or on social media. Time management is key. The people you speak of are not the majority in affluent countries, they are the minority. I could go on and on, but just wanted to say my piece.4 -
psychod787 wrote: »MargaretYakoda wrote: »For the people suggesting fast food restaurants be taxed?
Or that food stamps should not be able to purchase soda and candy?
1) It is impossible to write a law that will clearly define junk food. Or candy.
2) Poor people also deserve to have an occasional treat.
https://medium.com/the-establishment/poor-people-deserve-to-taste-something-other-than-shame-90eb3aceabf9
Poor people are surrounded by nutritional advice. However, food deserts are a real thing.
I once visited Washington DC. The grocery store closest to where we stayed (an AYH hostel) was the very first time I realized how bad a grocery store in a food desert is. And yes, they exist. Even our capital.
There were very few fresh vegetables. The oranges looked like they were leftovers from last year. Apples didn’t seem to exist. There were plenty of chips in single serve packets, though.
And then the advice to just put something in a crockpot to eat after you come home from work. Sounds easy.
… but it assumes you can afford a crock pot. Yes. I know they’re not expensive. But when you have essentially no money? It is a factor.
Assuming you found a crock pot, are you going to leave it alone for twelve or more hours while you’re on the bus to your second job? Maybe. Maybe not.
Can you trust the electricity will remain on that whole time? I know there were times I couldn’t be so sure.
So. You swing by McD’s after you pick up the kids from daycare. Exhausted. But at least the kids are fed.
Food banks don’t usually give you things that would benefit from being cooked for a long time in a crockpot anyhow. Just FYI.
Food banks are mostly cheap carbs. And vegetables that need work. Which is fine. But if you’ve just done a ten hour shift, and you still have to feed the kids? It’s unlikely you’re going to have the energy to slice up a bunch of carrots for dinner.
Chances are high it will be brand X Mac and cheese. Made with no butter. Because butter is expensive. And probably no milk either, unless you receive WIC benefits. Because milk is expensive. And very rarely handed out at food banks.
If you wind up having to rely on community feeds? Good luck. You eat what you get served. And then if you’re lucky you leave with an armload of bread. But probably not much to put on it.
I could go on and on and on….
But I won’t. I just wanted to say my piece.
Oh, which Washington D.C. youth hostel was it? I stayed at Hostel International 3 years ago when I backpacked D.C. I was within a 6-7 minute walk of 2 markets. Bost were not overly expensive. Had all the staples I could want and far cheaper than eating at D.C. fastfood places. Staples such as rice and beans. Yes, two simple, extremely cheap staples, have been the foundation of many diets in many countries. As we see in the less affluent nations, they still are. These staples with a few vegetables, can be a fully nutritious diet at low cost and low effort. They have a long shelf life and can meet almost all protein needs. 10 hrs and have to "feed" the kids. Yes, its rough. We also have free time to take advantage of media. Just look at how much time people spend watching t.v. or on social media. Time management is key. The people you speak of are not the majority in affluent countries, they are the minority. I could go on and on, but just wanted to say my piece.
This was 15 years ago. I don’t remember the name, but based on pics it might have been the DC International Hostel?
For sure it was cheap. The available grocery stores may have changed since then.
Big community dining room, which was a really good experience for the two teen boys we had with us. We stayed for a few days, and every evening there was a different set of school groups, from all over the wood. For two homeschooled boys from Tiny Town, Nowhere’sVille? It was literally amazing.
Speaking of staples like rice? In another thread, at another time, I might share my recipe for a quick, nutritionally complete, soup mix that is shelf stable for a decade, and can be used to feed people who don’t have any method of heating water.
Requires a dehydrator. Easy to make. And cheap. Very good for a family meal on a busy night, too.4 -
psychod787 wrote: »Combine this with a tax on hyperprocessed , energy dense, hyperpalatable foods.
Hey. I'm not obese or overweight. Why do I have to pay extra for my treats?
I keep hearing this statement in America. "For the greater good." I have been told to wear a mask and get vaccinated, even though I am at low risk, for the "greater good." So I did. So, yes. For the greater good you will have to pay more for treats.14 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »One thing I see in the earlier comments that generally come up also in any such discussions is a conflation of what can be done as a society with what a particular individual can do.
If I am worried about the overall obesity rate in the US and how to reduce it, that's a different question than what I personally can do to lose weight, if I need to. Saying that there are cultural and other barriers or incentives that lead to the obesity rate in the country as a whole is NOT claiming that I need the culture to change in order to lose weight.
Unfortunately, I tend to be skeptical about most of the proposed solutions to the society obesity rate issues, although willing to try a number of them (including taxes). That said, the tax solutions tend to be so unpopular that I think it's unlikely they are really going to be an option in areas that aren't already lower than average consumers of the foods or drinks in question. The soda tax where I live (as Suzie noted) was a huge disaster and incredibly unpopular.
The proposals in the summary kshama posted seem reasonable and potentially helpful for some, to me (I did not read the whole bill).
I also think changes to make more places walking friendly would be nice. One thing I noticed (living in a walking friendly location) is that in a normal day I am reasonably active just from walking in connection with going to work and for errands (like going to the stores). That's something I had to make an effort to replace during the various lockdowns. And for me it was easy enough to replace (harder when the weather was bad), since where I live is reasonably safe and has nice sidewalks and pleasant places to walk (and normally parks, although they stupidly closed many of those for a time). I am aware that in some areas sidewalks don't exist. So infrastructure changes that address the walkability of areas that don't have that would be positive, although not necessarily a fix.
The challenge is infrastructure changes to make areas more walker friendly are astronomically expensive and would take decades to implement in the US. Now you can add these changes to new areas or those undergoing reconstruction but again talking decades to get significant changes. Even, then if there are nice sidewalks, it doesn't necessarily make the area safe. A whole other can of worms
I actually (based on my own experience) believe this is one of the lesser issues. The biggest issue I see, is getting people to use the facilities when they are provided. I live in a major metropolitan area and there are 4 'linear parks' - walking/biking paths - that have well maintained concrete paths, a couple are tree lined providing shade during the heat of the day, they are cleaned regularly, the grass along the sides of the paths is mowed, the trees are pruned so that they don't present issues to the people using them, etc. There are entry points and exit points that are well marked and have places for people to park cars (for the ones who need to drive to the paths). The park service even comes out after heavy rains and removes any dirt/debris that gets washed onto the pathways. Yet, in my extensive use of the pathways (I much prefer to ride on the paths than on the streets, but that's a whole different conversation), I rarely see more than 15-20 people in a 1 hour riding session (and most of them are the same people each and every day). All of the paths that I use are completely contained in residential areas, most of them have houses that literally line the paths (easily a thousand or more homes across the 4 paths) and people ARE NOT using them.
I guess the point that I am trying to make is, why would a community invest the kind of money that this obviously takes to build and maintain if there will be no return on the investment? People know that exercise is good for them, but even if you provide safe and clean places for them to exercise, the vast majority of people do not take advantage of the offering.
Where do those paths go? It sounds like they're easy to access, what destinations do they serve?
Here in Seattle the most popular trail like you described is impossibly crowded. It goes by a university, many work places, and beautiful parks. There's another similar trail I like, which is shorter and goes by many house, but isn't useful for transportation and it's much less used. Even among people wanting to go for a walk with no specific destination in mind, they have other choices where to go and they mostly take those other choices.3 -
Another thing to keep in mind.
Well designed paths get cyclists off roads. Tax payers aren't doing that for the cyclists, it's for the drivers.7 -
NorthCascades wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »One thing I see in the earlier comments that generally come up also in any such discussions is a conflation of what can be done as a society with what a particular individual can do.
If I am worried about the overall obesity rate in the US and how to reduce it, that's a different question than what I personally can do to lose weight, if I need to. Saying that there are cultural and other barriers or incentives that lead to the obesity rate in the country as a whole is NOT claiming that I need the culture to change in order to lose weight.
Unfortunately, I tend to be skeptical about most of the proposed solutions to the society obesity rate issues, although willing to try a number of them (including taxes). That said, the tax solutions tend to be so unpopular that I think it's unlikely they are really going to be an option in areas that aren't already lower than average consumers of the foods or drinks in question. The soda tax where I live (as Suzie noted) was a huge disaster and incredibly unpopular.
The proposals in the summary kshama posted seem reasonable and potentially helpful for some, to me (I did not read the whole bill).
I also think changes to make more places walking friendly would be nice. One thing I noticed (living in a walking friendly location) is that in a normal day I am reasonably active just from walking in connection with going to work and for errands (like going to the stores). That's something I had to make an effort to replace during the various lockdowns. And for me it was easy enough to replace (harder when the weather was bad), since where I live is reasonably safe and has nice sidewalks and pleasant places to walk (and normally parks, although they stupidly closed many of those for a time). I am aware that in some areas sidewalks don't exist. So infrastructure changes that address the walkability of areas that don't have that would be positive, although not necessarily a fix.
The challenge is infrastructure changes to make areas more walker friendly are astronomically expensive and would take decades to implement in the US. Now you can add these changes to new areas or those undergoing reconstruction but again talking decades to get significant changes. Even, then if there are nice sidewalks, it doesn't necessarily make the area safe. A whole other can of worms
I actually (based on my own experience) believe this is one of the lesser issues. The biggest issue I see, is getting people to use the facilities when they are provided. I live in a major metropolitan area and there are 4 'linear parks' - walking/biking paths - that have well maintained concrete paths, a couple are tree lined providing shade during the heat of the day, they are cleaned regularly, the grass along the sides of the paths is mowed, the trees are pruned so that they don't present issues to the people using them, etc. There are entry points and exit points that are well marked and have places for people to park cars (for the ones who need to drive to the paths). The park service even comes out after heavy rains and removes any dirt/debris that gets washed onto the pathways. Yet, in my extensive use of the pathways (I much prefer to ride on the paths than on the streets, but that's a whole different conversation), I rarely see more than 15-20 people in a 1 hour riding session (and most of them are the same people each and every day). All of the paths that I use are completely contained in residential areas, most of them have houses that literally line the paths (easily a thousand or more homes across the 4 paths) and people ARE NOT using them.
I guess the point that I am trying to make is, why would a community invest the kind of money that this obviously takes to build and maintain if there will be no return on the investment? People know that exercise is good for them, but even if you provide safe and clean places for them to exercise, the vast majority of people do not take advantage of the offering.
Where do those paths go? It sounds like they're easy to access, what destinations do they serve?
Here in Seattle the most popular trail like you described is impossibly crowded. It goes by a university, many work places, and beautiful parks. There's another similar trail I like, which is shorter and goes by many house, but isn't useful for transportation and it's much less used. Even among people wanting to go for a walk with no specific destination in mind, they have other choices where to go and they mostly take those other choices.
It's strictly for rec and doesn't serve any shopping/business/education. There is another rec path on the other side of town, never been there on a weekday, but weekends that path is almost unusable for the number of people who are there. By contrast, the local path is usually desserted on weekends.NorthCascades wrote: »Another thing to keep in mind.
Well designed paths get cyclists off roads. Tax payers aren't doing that for the cyclists, it's for the drivers.
And the drivers around here are the primary reason I use the paths....2 -
Here in Australia we effectively have a tax on treat foods already.
Not directly to do with weight loss promotion though.
GST (goods and services tax, similar to VAT in UK) is added to all things.
But essential food items are exempt. Complicated list of what is exempt and what is not - but generally basic non prepared foods are exempt.
Ready made foods and non essential foods ( like soft drink) are not6 -
Many US states are similar, including mine.0
-
paperpudding wrote: »Here in Australia we effectively have a tax on treat foods already.
Not directly to do with weight loss promotion though.
GST (goods and services tax, similar to VAT in UK) is added to all things.
But essential food items are exempt. Complicated list of what is exempt and what is not - but generally basic non prepared foods are exempt.
Ready made foods and non essential foods ( like soft drink) are not
Much the same in Canada, also called the GST. On top of the Provincial Sales Tax (PST) which varies from province to province.
Most grocery food items are exempt, including multi-pack baked goods. But if I buy a single item baked good at a coffee shop it's taxed. So if it was important to me to avoid the tax, I'd be better off buying the dozen at a grocery store than just one.
I think there was more of a flap about taxing feminine hygiene products as "non-essential" than about snack foods though.5 -
side track comment - yes that has been an issue here too - the fact shaving cream, toilet paper and so on are exempt as essential products (which they are, of course) but tampons and pads are not.8
-
paperpudding wrote: »side track comment - yes that has been an issue here too - the fact shaving cream, toilet paper and so on are exempt as essential products (which they are, of course) but tampons and pads are not.
I have just convened an emergency meeting with the Council of the Patriarchy. We have put out an immediate stop action on the taxation of all feminine hygiene products!
All joking aside, they should tax razors and shaving cream as well. It is not essential to remove body hair.paperpudding wrote: »Here in Australia we effectively have a tax on treat foods already.
Not directly to do with weight loss promotion though.
GST (goods and services tax, similar to VAT in UK) is added to all things.
But essential food items are exempt. Complicated list of what is exempt and what is not - but generally basic non prepared foods are exempt.
Ready made foods and non essential foods ( like soft drink) are not
Much the same in Canada, also called the GST. On top of the Provincial Sales Tax (PST) which varies from province to province.
Most grocery food items are exempt, including multi-pack baked goods. But if I buy a single item baked good at a coffee shop it's taxed. So if it was important to me to avoid the tax, I'd be better off buying the dozen at a grocery store than just one.
I think there was more of a flap about taxing feminine hygiene products as "non-essential" than about snack foods though.
In my home state, there is no tax on fresh and unprepared foods at the grocery store. People are not allowed to buy hot, prepared foods with public assistance. Though, there are loopholes. They can buy prepackaged foods that are not to be eaten on site, snack cakes, and other junk foods.2 -
psychod787 wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »side track comment - yes that has been an issue here too - the fact shaving cream, toilet paper and so on are exempt as essential products (which they are, of course) but tampons and pads are not.
I have just convened an emergency meeting with the Council of the Patriarchy. We have put out an immediate stop action on the taxation of all feminine hygiene products!
All joking aside, they should tax razors and shaving cream as well. It is not essential to remove body hair.paperpudding wrote: »Here in Australia we effectively have a tax on treat foods already.
Not directly to do with weight loss promotion though.
GST (goods and services tax, similar to VAT in UK) is added to all things.
But essential food items are exempt. Complicated list of what is exempt and what is not - but generally basic non prepared foods are exempt.
Ready made foods and non essential foods ( like soft drink) are not
Much the same in Canada, also called the GST. On top of the Provincial Sales Tax (PST) which varies from province to province.
Most grocery food items are exempt, including multi-pack baked goods. But if I buy a single item baked good at a coffee shop it's taxed. So if it was important to me to avoid the tax, I'd be better off buying the dozen at a grocery store than just one.
I think there was more of a flap about taxing feminine hygiene products as "non-essential" than about snack foods though.
In my home state, there is no tax on fresh and unprepared foods at the grocery store. People are not allowed to buy hot, prepared foods with public assistance. Though, there are loopholes. They can buy prepackaged foods that are not to be eaten on site, snack cakes, and other junk foods.
This seems to imply that you think feminine hygiene products are not essential. Do you think a woman could hold down a job if for several days a month she either had to take leave (paid or not) or show up to work with growing blood stains on her clothing, leaving blood stains on chairs, carpet, etc.?4 -
Yes they are essential but plenty of products that are demmed essential are taxed as well, this is nothing new. In my province, shaving products, deodorants, hygiene products and so on are all taxable.
https://www.revenuquebec.ca/en/businesses/consumption-taxes/gsthst-and-qst/special-cases-gsthst-and-qst/food-services/grocery-and-convenience-stores/1 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »side track comment - yes that has been an issue here too - the fact shaving cream, toilet paper and so on are exempt as essential products (which they are, of course) but tampons and pads are not.
I have just convened an emergency meeting with the Council of the Patriarchy. We have put out an immediate stop action on the taxation of all feminine hygiene products!
All joking aside, they should tax razors and shaving cream as well. It is not essential to remove body hair.paperpudding wrote: »Here in Australia we effectively have a tax on treat foods already.
Not directly to do with weight loss promotion though.
GST (goods and services tax, similar to VAT in UK) is added to all things.
But essential food items are exempt. Complicated list of what is exempt and what is not - but generally basic non prepared foods are exempt.
Ready made foods and non essential foods ( like soft drink) are not
Much the same in Canada, also called the GST. On top of the Provincial Sales Tax (PST) which varies from province to province.
Most grocery food items are exempt, including multi-pack baked goods. But if I buy a single item baked good at a coffee shop it's taxed. So if it was important to me to avoid the tax, I'd be better off buying the dozen at a grocery store than just one.
I think there was more of a flap about taxing feminine hygiene products as "non-essential" than about snack foods though.
In my home state, there is no tax on fresh and unprepared foods at the grocery store. People are not allowed to buy hot, prepared foods with public assistance. Though, there are loopholes. They can buy prepackaged foods that are not to be eaten on site, snack cakes, and other junk foods.
This seems to imply that you think feminine hygiene products are not essential. Do you think a woman could hold down a job if for several days a month she either had to take leave (paid or not) or show up to work with growing blood stains on her clothing, leaving blood stains on chairs, carpet, etc.?
But... but... wimmen aren't supposed to be in the workforce, their place is barefoot and pregnant and in the kitchen.
No menstrual bleeding during pregnancy of course. And I guess if she bleeds all over the kitchen floor, it's her job to clean it up anyway.8 -
Shades of Monty Pythons ‘meaning of life’ there @ythannah.
Now I’ve a ‘every sperm is sacred’ worm in my head.
Cheers, h.
(Sorry for the detour. I can’t, choose not to, debate the subject as I’m not from the USA, h)4 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »side track comment - yes that has been an issue here too - the fact shaving cream, toilet paper and so on are exempt as essential products (which they are, of course) but tampons and pads are not.
I have just convened an emergency meeting with the Council of the Patriarchy. We have put out an immediate stop action on the taxation of all feminine hygiene products!
All joking aside, they should tax razors and shaving cream as well. It is not essential to remove body hair.paperpudding wrote: »Here in Australia we effectively have a tax on treat foods already.
Not directly to do with weight loss promotion though.
GST (goods and services tax, similar to VAT in UK) is added to all things.
But essential food items are exempt. Complicated list of what is exempt and what is not - but generally basic non prepared foods are exempt.
Ready made foods and non essential foods ( like soft drink) are not
Much the same in Canada, also called the GST. On top of the Provincial Sales Tax (PST) which varies from province to province.
Most grocery food items are exempt, including multi-pack baked goods. But if I buy a single item baked good at a coffee shop it's taxed. So if it was important to me to avoid the tax, I'd be better off buying the dozen at a grocery store than just one.
I think there was more of a flap about taxing feminine hygiene products as "non-essential" than about snack foods though.
In my home state, there is no tax on fresh and unprepared foods at the grocery store. People are not allowed to buy hot, prepared foods with public assistance. Though, there are loopholes. They can buy prepackaged foods that are not to be eaten on site, snack cakes, and other junk foods.
This seems to imply that you think feminine hygiene products are not essential. Do you think a woman could hold down a job if for several days a month she either had to take leave (paid or not) or show up to work with growing blood stains on her clothing, leaving blood stains on chairs, carpet, etc.?
ugghh..... I guess irony is lost on some people. Now, I guess I am going to be accused of mansplaining so anyways.. the first part was me speaking of the stupidity of the "pink" tax. No, female hygiene are essential. The second part was the point that is they were going to continue taxing female products, they should also tax mens. @ythannah , I don't really mix words these days, if I thought women belong in the kitchen pregnant, I would just say it........10 -
psychod787 wrote: »@ythannah , I don't really mix words these days, if I thought women belong in the kitchen pregnant, I would just say it........
I was being facetious in response to Lynn's point that lack of feminine hygiene products would make it impossible for women to work for periods (no pun intended) of time.
For the record: I work, I've never been pregnant, one of my favourite mugs says "I only have a kitchen because it came with the house", and I am frequently facetious.9 -
psychod787 wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »side track comment - yes that has been an issue here too - the fact shaving cream, toilet paper and so on are exempt as essential products (which they are, of course) but tampons and pads are not.
I have just convened an emergency meeting with the Council of the Patriarchy. We have put out an immediate stop action on the taxation of all feminine hygiene products!
All joking aside, they should tax razors and shaving cream as well. It is not essential to remove body hair.paperpudding wrote: »Here in Australia we effectively have a tax on treat foods already.
Not directly to do with weight loss promotion though.
GST (goods and services tax, similar to VAT in UK) is added to all things.
But essential food items are exempt. Complicated list of what is exempt and what is not - but generally basic non prepared foods are exempt.
Ready made foods and non essential foods ( like soft drink) are not
Much the same in Canada, also called the GST. On top of the Provincial Sales Tax (PST) which varies from province to province.
Most grocery food items are exempt, including multi-pack baked goods. But if I buy a single item baked good at a coffee shop it's taxed. So if it was important to me to avoid the tax, I'd be better off buying the dozen at a grocery store than just one.
I think there was more of a flap about taxing feminine hygiene products as "non-essential" than about snack foods though.
In my home state, there is no tax on fresh and unprepared foods at the grocery store. People are not allowed to buy hot, prepared foods with public assistance. Though, there are loopholes. They can buy prepackaged foods that are not to be eaten on site, snack cakes, and other junk foods.
This seems to imply that you think feminine hygiene products are not essential. Do you think a woman could hold down a job if for several days a month she either had to take leave (paid or not) or show up to work with growing blood stains on her clothing, leaving blood stains on chairs, carpet, etc.?
ugghh..... I guess irony is lost on some people. Now, I guess I am going to be accused of mansplaining so anyways.. the first part was me speaking of the stupidity of the "pink" tax. No, female hygiene are essential. The second part was the point that is they were going to continue taxing female products, they should also tax mens. @ythannah , I don't really mix words these days, if I thought women belong in the kitchen pregnant, I would just say it........
My apologies. I did say "seems to imply," in hopes that there was some other intent. I still think taxing something that you're defining as nonessential that men use doesn't make up for taxing something essential that women use.4 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »side track comment - yes that has been an issue here too - the fact shaving cream, toilet paper and so on are exempt as essential products (which they are, of course) but tampons and pads are not.
I have just convened an emergency meeting with the Council of the Patriarchy. We have put out an immediate stop action on the taxation of all feminine hygiene products!
All joking aside, they should tax razors and shaving cream as well. It is not essential to remove body hair.paperpudding wrote: »Here in Australia we effectively have a tax on treat foods already.
Not directly to do with weight loss promotion though.
GST (goods and services tax, similar to VAT in UK) is added to all things.
But essential food items are exempt. Complicated list of what is exempt and what is not - but generally basic non prepared foods are exempt.
Ready made foods and non essential foods ( like soft drink) are not
Much the same in Canada, also called the GST. On top of the Provincial Sales Tax (PST) which varies from province to province.
Most grocery food items are exempt, including multi-pack baked goods. But if I buy a single item baked good at a coffee shop it's taxed. So if it was important to me to avoid the tax, I'd be better off buying the dozen at a grocery store than just one.
I think there was more of a flap about taxing feminine hygiene products as "non-essential" than about snack foods though.
In my home state, there is no tax on fresh and unprepared foods at the grocery store. People are not allowed to buy hot, prepared foods with public assistance. Though, there are loopholes. They can buy prepackaged foods that are not to be eaten on site, snack cakes, and other junk foods.
This seems to imply that you think feminine hygiene products are not essential. Do you think a woman could hold down a job if for several days a month she either had to take leave (paid or not) or show up to work with growing blood stains on her clothing, leaving blood stains on chairs, carpet, etc.?
ugghh..... I guess irony is lost on some people. Now, I guess I am going to be accused of mansplaining so anyways.. the first part was me speaking of the stupidity of the "pink" tax. No, female hygiene are essential. The second part was the point that is they were going to continue taxing female products, they should also tax mens. @ythannah , I don't really mix words these days, if I thought women belong in the kitchen pregnant, I would just say it........
My apologies. I did say "seems to imply," in hopes that there was some other intent. I still think taxing something that you're defining as nonessential that men use doesn't make up for taxing something essential that women use.
https://www.amanet.org/articles/get-rid-of-those-pesky-weasel-words/ 😉1 -
Bàck to original question:
Government HAS made attempts to fix our obesity issues multiple times in my lifetime. They have had Presidents physical fitness stuff with certificates for participating, and Surgeon General's guidelines and PSAs, and how many times have we had a food pyramid? Oh, yeah..how about those food labels? Does it look like any of these have made a real difference?
Govt has given us alerts that eating fat makes us fat, passed laws against different foods and additives and sweeteners (Tab, anyone?), and then given official sanction to other foods and additives and sweeteners that they later warn us against. Milk, eggs, you know the drill- Bad for you, good for you.
Not sure exactly what the fix is, because there are too many underlying things that either directly cause the problems or exacerbate them.
Some can be fixed- like accessibility to information, medical care, and better foods, and making misleading labelling of food a crime. Some can only be discouraged, like laziness and giving sweet treats as rewards. And we can give encouragement and support to those who are making an effort.
As for those who choose to remain blind and deaf to common sense and efforts to help, well, you know the saying.
It is up to each of us to do the best we can- for ourselves, our family, and our fellow man. IMO, the more govt is involved in our daily lives, the more screwed up things get. They aren't doing a good enough job with my tax money for me to hand over my health and my children's future.2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions