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.
Economic impact of overweight and obesity to surpass $4 trillion in 10 years
Replies
-
sollyn23l2 wrote: »Anybody remember what happened when New York made it illegal to sell soft drinks in a cup over a certain size (don't remember what that size was). It was a fiasco. People revolted. It got repealed. And that was just telling people they couldn't buy sodas in gigantic cups.
I was just thinking about this yesterday!
Washington State tried something similar. It was a disaster.
For one thing, it caused problems for businesses because some things were taxed and some weren’t.
And then there’s a problem with judging what even counts as soda or candy.
The devil, as always, is in the details.
1 -
sollyn23l2 wrote: »Anybody remember what happened when New York made it illegal to sell soft drinks in a cup over a certain size (don't remember what that size was). It was a fiasco. People revolted. It got repealed. And that was just telling people they couldn't buy sodas in gigantic cups.
ETA: just looked it up, the limit was 16 ounces.
Yeah its was a horrible idea. Being told you cant eat or drink whaever you want, however much you want is just ludicrous. Just about as ludicrous as people blaming everything and everyone but themselves for what they put in their body. There is someone who said, look in the mirror, what you see is what you earned. Good or bad its all yours. The government is notoriously bad at being responsible so i wouldn't want them in charge of anything like my personal responsibility. As a matter of fact there is nobody that will have your best interest as their priority more than ones self.5 -
sollyn23l2 wrote: »Anybody remember what happened when New York made it illegal to sell soft drinks in a cup over a certain size (don't remember what that size was). It was a fiasco. People revolted. It got repealed. And that was just telling people they couldn't buy sodas in gigantic cups.
ETA: just looked it up, the limit was 16 ounces.
Well isn't that too bad, people didn't like it. Do we as society want to pay the health costs of buckets of soft drinks and other crap foods? I sure don't. You do an excise tax paid by the manufacturer (which will be passed to the consumer, like alcohol) based on the grams of added sugar per serving. Pretty easy.1 -
sollyn23l2 wrote: »Anybody remember what happened when New York made it illegal to sell soft drinks in a cup over a certain size (don't remember what that size was). It was a fiasco. People revolted. It got repealed. And that was just telling people they couldn't buy sodas in gigantic cups.
ETA: just looked it up, the limit was 16 ounces.
Yeah its was a horrible idea. Being told you cant eat or drink whaever you want, however much you want is just ludicrous. Just about as ludicrous as people blaming everything and everyone but themselves for what they put in their body. There is someone who said, look in the mirror, what you see is what you earned. Good or bad its all yours. The government is notoriously bad at being responsible so i wouldn't want them in charge of anything like my personal responsibility. As a matter of fact there is nobody that will have your best interest as their priority more than ones self.
Nobody is telling you what you can or can't eat. Just if you choose to eat crap foods you contribute to health care costs associated with them. Just like nobody tells people they can't drink alcohol, they are just taxed on it.1 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »sollyn23l2 wrote: »Anybody remember what happened when New York made it illegal to sell soft drinks in a cup over a certain size (don't remember what that size was). It was a fiasco. People revolted. It got repealed. And that was just telling people they couldn't buy sodas in gigantic cups.
ETA: just looked it up, the limit was 16 ounces.
Yeah its was a horrible idea. Being told you cant eat or drink whaever you want, however much you want is just ludicrous. Just about as ludicrous as people blaming everything and everyone but themselves for what they put in their body. There is someone who said, look in the mirror, what you see is what you earned. Good or bad its all yours. The government is notoriously bad at being responsible so i wouldn't want them in charge of anything like my personal responsibility. As a matter of fact there is nobody that will have your best interest as their priority more than ones self.
Nobody is telling you what you can or can't eat. Just if you choose to eat crap foods you contribute to health care costs associated with them. Just like nobody tells people they can't drink alcohol, they are just taxed on it.
Eating crap food doesnt contribute to health care costs. Not being accountable for oneself with diet and exercise does. How'd prohibition work for alcohol consumption? How is taxing it working out? Has it helped out any with raising better health levels? Or has it just made rich people richer?.....i am healthier than the majority.....and i dont give a damn if while i eat grilled chicken and broccoli after a 3 hour workout if someone else stuffs their face with a Bic Mac Meal while playing video games. They arent changing just because it costs more, and that extra money for an $18 Big Mac Meal sure as hell isnt finding its way into lowering health care costs.2 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »sollyn23l2 wrote: »Anybody remember what happened when New York made it illegal to sell soft drinks in a cup over a certain size (don't remember what that size was). It was a fiasco. People revolted. It got repealed. And that was just telling people they couldn't buy sodas in gigantic cups.
ETA: just looked it up, the limit was 16 ounces.
Well isn't that too bad, people didn't like it. Do we as society want to pay the health costs of buckets of soft drinks and other crap foods? I sure don't. You do an excise tax paid by the manufacturer (which will be passed to the consumer, like alcohol) based on the grams of added sugar per serving. Pretty easy.
I mean, it's more that *corporations* didn't like it. Like it or not, corporations own America. What they say goes. We'd have to uproot the entire way the government works to change that. And that ain't happening.2 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »sollyn23l2 wrote: »Anybody remember what happened when New York made it illegal to sell soft drinks in a cup over a certain size (don't remember what that size was). It was a fiasco. People revolted. It got repealed. And that was just telling people they couldn't buy sodas in gigantic cups.
ETA: just looked it up, the limit was 16 ounces.
Yeah its was a horrible idea. Being told you cant eat or drink whaever you want, however much you want is just ludicrous. Just about as ludicrous as people blaming everything and everyone but themselves for what they put in their body. There is someone who said, look in the mirror, what you see is what you earned. Good or bad its all yours. The government is notoriously bad at being responsible so i wouldn't want them in charge of anything like my personal responsibility. As a matter of fact there is nobody that will have your best interest as their priority more than ones self.
Nobody is telling you what you can or can't eat. Just if you choose to eat crap foods you contribute to health care costs associated with them. Just like nobody tells people they can't drink alcohol, they are just taxed on it.
Eating crap food doesnt contribute to health care costs. Not being accountable for oneself with diet and exercise does. How'd prohibition work for alcohol consumption? How is taxing it working out? Has it helped out any with raising better health levels? Or has it just made rich people richer?.....i am healthier than the majority.....and i dont give a damn if while i eat grilled chicken and broccoli after a 3 hour workout if someone else stuffs their face with a Bic Mac Meal while playing video games. They arent changing just because it costs more, and that extra money for an $18 Big Mac Meal sure as hell isnt finding its way into lowering health care costs.
So eating crap food doesn't contribute to health care cost? Harvard says differently:
Full article: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/obesity-prevention-source/obesity-causes/#:~:text=lower the risk.-,Unhealthy Diets,the largest roles in obesity.
I didn't say anything about probation. I would propose a high national excise tax on added sugar in foods.
0 -
sollyn23l2 wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »sollyn23l2 wrote: »Anybody remember what happened when New York made it illegal to sell soft drinks in a cup over a certain size (don't remember what that size was). It was a fiasco. People revolted. It got repealed. And that was just telling people they couldn't buy sodas in gigantic cups.
ETA: just looked it up, the limit was 16 ounces.
Well isn't that too bad, people didn't like it. Do we as society want to pay the health costs of buckets of soft drinks and other crap foods? I sure don't. You do an excise tax paid by the manufacturer (which will be passed to the consumer, like alcohol) based on the grams of added sugar per serving. Pretty easy.
I mean, it's more that *corporations* didn't like it. Like it or not, corporations own America. What they say goes. We'd have to uproot the entire way the government works to change that. And that ain't happening.
Have no idea what you're talking about.0 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »sollyn23l2 wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »sollyn23l2 wrote: »Anybody remember what happened when New York made it illegal to sell soft drinks in a cup over a certain size (don't remember what that size was). It was a fiasco. People revolted. It got repealed. And that was just telling people they couldn't buy sodas in gigantic cups.
ETA: just looked it up, the limit was 16 ounces.
Well isn't that too bad, people didn't like it. Do we as society want to pay the health costs of buckets of soft drinks and other crap foods? I sure don't. You do an excise tax paid by the manufacturer (which will be passed to the consumer, like alcohol) based on the grams of added sugar per serving. Pretty easy.
I mean, it's more that *corporations* didn't like it. Like it or not, corporations own America. What they say goes. We'd have to uproot the entire way the government works to change that. And that ain't happening.
Have no idea what you're talking about.
I do. And she’s right.
It wasn’t individual people who rose up against extra sales tax on foods deemed unhealthy. It was corporations like grocery chains, as well as quickie mart places (some of which are sole proprietor but many are also corporations)
There were a couple reasons why these businesses hated such taxes. It complicated their business, and was in some ways confusing the customer, as well as some things being difficult to explain why one thing was taxed and a similar thing wasn’t.
As I said above.
The devil is in the details.
But it wasn’t individual people who overturned these laws. It was corporations.
1 -
MargaretYakoda wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »sollyn23l2 wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »sollyn23l2 wrote: »Anybody remember what happened when New York made it illegal to sell soft drinks in a cup over a certain size (don't remember what that size was). It was a fiasco. People revolted. It got repealed. And that was just telling people they couldn't buy sodas in gigantic cups.
ETA: just looked it up, the limit was 16 ounces.
Well isn't that too bad, people didn't like it. Do we as society want to pay the health costs of buckets of soft drinks and other crap foods? I sure don't. You do an excise tax paid by the manufacturer (which will be passed to the consumer, like alcohol) based on the grams of added sugar per serving. Pretty easy.
I mean, it's more that *corporations* didn't like it. Like it or not, corporations own America. What they say goes. We'd have to uproot the entire way the government works to change that. And that ain't happening.
Have no idea what you're talking about.
I do. And she’s right.
It wasn’t individual people who rose up against extra sales tax on foods deemed unhealthy. It was corporations like grocery chains, as well as quickie mart places (some of which are sole proprietor but many are also corporations)
There were a couple reasons why these businesses hated such taxes. It complicated their business, and was in some ways confusing the customer, as well as some things being difficult to explain why one thing was taxed and a similar thing wasn’t.
As I said above.
The devil is in the details.
But it wasn’t individual people who overturned these laws. It was corporations.
That is why I proposed an excise tax per gram of added sugar in a product (note the added sugar number includes actual sugar, corn syrup and anything else considered added sugar in the nutrition label calculation), I would propose an excise tax paid by the manufacture and passed on to the wholesaler/retailer/consumer in the form of higher prices. It doesn't impact the retailer except in the form a higher cost of goods sold. There are excise taxes on alcohol, cigarettes, etc. that the retailer or consumer never see broken out during their transactions.
From this IRS publication: https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/basic-things-all-businesses-should-know-about-excise-tax#:~:text=Excise taxes are independent of,collected by a third party.
0 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »MargaretYakoda wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »sollyn23l2 wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »sollyn23l2 wrote: »Anybody remember what happened when New York made it illegal to sell soft drinks in a cup over a certain size (don't remember what that size was). It was a fiasco. People revolted. It got repealed. And that was just telling people they couldn't buy sodas in gigantic cups.
ETA: just looked it up, the limit was 16 ounces.
Well isn't that too bad, people didn't like it. Do we as society want to pay the health costs of buckets of soft drinks and other crap foods? I sure don't. You do an excise tax paid by the manufacturer (which will be passed to the consumer, like alcohol) based on the grams of added sugar per serving. Pretty easy.
I mean, it's more that *corporations* didn't like it. Like it or not, corporations own America. What they say goes. We'd have to uproot the entire way the government works to change that. And that ain't happening.
Have no idea what you're talking about.
I do. And she’s right.
It wasn’t individual people who rose up against extra sales tax on foods deemed unhealthy. It was corporations like grocery chains, as well as quickie mart places (some of which are sole proprietor but many are also corporations)
There were a couple reasons why these businesses hated such taxes. It complicated their business, and was in some ways confusing the customer, as well as some things being difficult to explain why one thing was taxed and a similar thing wasn’t.
As I said above.
The devil is in the details.
But it wasn’t individual people who overturned these laws. It was corporations.
That is why I proposed an excise tax per gram of added sugar in a product (note the added sugar number includes actual sugar, corn syrup and anything else considered added sugar in the nutrition label calculation), I would propose an excise tax paid by the manufacture and passed on to the wholesaler/retailer/consumer in the form of higher prices. It doesn't impact the retailer except in the form a higher cost of goods sold. There are excise taxes on alcohol, cigarettes, etc. that the retailer or consumer never see broken out during their transactions.
From this IRS publication: https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/basic-things-all-businesses-should-know-about-excise-tax#:~:text=Excise taxes are independent of,collected by a third party.
I understand this, and theoretically its a good idea. But really, what has this excise tax on the already taxed items like alcohol, cigarettes, etc done to make the people healthier or lower health care costs? Consumption is still high and health care hasnt gotten any cheaper. So, doing it for crap food will just make the govt fatter as well as doing nothing for its people?1 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »MargaretYakoda wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »sollyn23l2 wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »sollyn23l2 wrote: »Anybody remember what happened when New York made it illegal to sell soft drinks in a cup over a certain size (don't remember what that size was). It was a fiasco. People revolted. It got repealed. And that was just telling people they couldn't buy sodas in gigantic cups.
ETA: just looked it up, the limit was 16 ounces.
Well isn't that too bad, people didn't like it. Do we as society want to pay the health costs of buckets of soft drinks and other crap foods? I sure don't. You do an excise tax paid by the manufacturer (which will be passed to the consumer, like alcohol) based on the grams of added sugar per serving. Pretty easy.
I mean, it's more that *corporations* didn't like it. Like it or not, corporations own America. What they say goes. We'd have to uproot the entire way the government works to change that. And that ain't happening.
Have no idea what you're talking about.
I do. And she’s right.
It wasn’t individual people who rose up against extra sales tax on foods deemed unhealthy. It was corporations like grocery chains, as well as quickie mart places (some of which are sole proprietor but many are also corporations)
There were a couple reasons why these businesses hated such taxes. It complicated their business, and was in some ways confusing the customer, as well as some things being difficult to explain why one thing was taxed and a similar thing wasn’t.
As I said above.
The devil is in the details.
But it wasn’t individual people who overturned these laws. It was corporations.
That is why I proposed an excise tax per gram of added sugar in a product (note the added sugar number includes actual sugar, corn syrup and anything else considered added sugar in the nutrition label calculation), I would propose an excise tax paid by the manufacture and passed on to the wholesaler/retailer/consumer in the form of higher prices. It doesn't impact the retailer except in the form a higher cost of goods sold. There are excise taxes on alcohol, cigarettes, etc. that the retailer or consumer never see broken out during their transactions.
From this IRS publication: https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/basic-things-all-businesses-should-know-about-excise-tax#:~:text=Excise taxes are independent of,collected by a third party.
And when it comes to sugar, this will be opposed by the majority at every level: Manufacturers, distributors, retailers, and the general public.
Tobacco, alcohol, and recreational drugs have at least segments of society (decent sized, organized ones) that support regulating or taxing those things, who think that reduced use is a good thing.
I don't think the same exists for sugar. Could it? Probably. But it doesn't now.
An excise tax might work to some extent if it could - poof! - just come into being, and somehow be irrevocable. (I'm not saying I think it IS a great idea, BTW, I'm reserving judgement.)
But it's not going to happen, with no organized support, and widespread organized opposition.
"Solutions" that can't happen aren't solutions.0 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »MargaretYakoda wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »sollyn23l2 wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »sollyn23l2 wrote: »Anybody remember what happened when New York made it illegal to sell soft drinks in a cup over a certain size (don't remember what that size was). It was a fiasco. People revolted. It got repealed. And that was just telling people they couldn't buy sodas in gigantic cups.
ETA: just looked it up, the limit was 16 ounces.
Well isn't that too bad, people didn't like it. Do we as society want to pay the health costs of buckets of soft drinks and other crap foods? I sure don't. You do an excise tax paid by the manufacturer (which will be passed to the consumer, like alcohol) based on the grams of added sugar per serving. Pretty easy.
I mean, it's more that *corporations* didn't like it. Like it or not, corporations own America. What they say goes. We'd have to uproot the entire way the government works to change that. And that ain't happening.
Have no idea what you're talking about.
I do. And she’s right.
It wasn’t individual people who rose up against extra sales tax on foods deemed unhealthy. It was corporations like grocery chains, as well as quickie mart places (some of which are sole proprietor but many are also corporations)
There were a couple reasons why these businesses hated such taxes. It complicated their business, and was in some ways confusing the customer, as well as some things being difficult to explain why one thing was taxed and a similar thing wasn’t.
As I said above.
The devil is in the details.
But it wasn’t individual people who overturned these laws. It was corporations.
That is why I proposed an excise tax per gram of added sugar in a product (note the added sugar number includes actual sugar, corn syrup and anything else considered added sugar in the nutrition label calculation), I would propose an excise tax paid by the manufacture and passed on to the wholesaler/retailer/consumer in the form of higher prices. It doesn't impact the retailer except in the form a higher cost of goods sold. There are excise taxes on alcohol, cigarettes, etc. that the retailer or consumer never see broken out during their transactions.
From this IRS publication: https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/basic-things-all-businesses-should-know-about-excise-tax#:~:text=Excise taxes are independent of,collected by a third party.
I understand this, and theoretically its a good idea. But really, what has this excise tax on the already taxed items like alcohol, cigarettes, etc done to make the people healthier or lower health care costs? Consumption is still high and health care hasnt gotten any cheaper. So, doing it for crap food will just make the govt fatter as well as doing nothing for its people?
So could I ask what you would propose as a solution (assuming you believe this is an issue)?
Actually high taxes on tobacco have reduced consumption: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6147505/0 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »MargaretYakoda wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »sollyn23l2 wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »sollyn23l2 wrote: »Anybody remember what happened when New York made it illegal to sell soft drinks in a cup over a certain size (don't remember what that size was). It was a fiasco. People revolted. It got repealed. And that was just telling people they couldn't buy sodas in gigantic cups.
ETA: just looked it up, the limit was 16 ounces.
Well isn't that too bad, people didn't like it. Do we as society want to pay the health costs of buckets of soft drinks and other crap foods? I sure don't. You do an excise tax paid by the manufacturer (which will be passed to the consumer, like alcohol) based on the grams of added sugar per serving. Pretty easy.
I mean, it's more that *corporations* didn't like it. Like it or not, corporations own America. What they say goes. We'd have to uproot the entire way the government works to change that. And that ain't happening.
Have no idea what you're talking about.
I do. And she’s right.
It wasn’t individual people who rose up against extra sales tax on foods deemed unhealthy. It was corporations like grocery chains, as well as quickie mart places (some of which are sole proprietor but many are also corporations)
There were a couple reasons why these businesses hated such taxes. It complicated their business, and was in some ways confusing the customer, as well as some things being difficult to explain why one thing was taxed and a similar thing wasn’t.
As I said above.
The devil is in the details.
But it wasn’t individual people who overturned these laws. It was corporations.
That is why I proposed an excise tax per gram of added sugar in a product (note the added sugar number includes actual sugar, corn syrup and anything else considered added sugar in the nutrition label calculation), I would propose an excise tax paid by the manufacture and passed on to the wholesaler/retailer/consumer in the form of higher prices. It doesn't impact the retailer except in the form a higher cost of goods sold. There are excise taxes on alcohol, cigarettes, etc. that the retailer or consumer never see broken out during their transactions.
From this IRS publication: https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/basic-things-all-businesses-should-know-about-excise-tax#:~:text=Excise taxes are independent of,collected by a third party.
And when it comes to sugar, this will be opposed by the majority at every level: Manufacturers, distributors, retailers, and the general public.
Tobacco, alcohol, and recreational drugs have at least segments of society (decent sized, organized ones) that support regulating or taxing those things, who think that reduced use is a good thing.
I don't think the same exists for sugar. Could it? Probably. But it doesn't now.
An excise tax might work to some extent if it could - poof! - just come into being, and somehow be irrevocable. (I'm not saying I think it IS a great idea, BTW, I'm reserving judgement.)
But it's not going to happen, with no organized support, and widespread organized opposition.
"Solutions" that can't happen aren't solutions.
So could I ask what you would propose as a solution (assuming you believe this is an issue)?0 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »MargaretYakoda wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »sollyn23l2 wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »sollyn23l2 wrote: »Anybody remember what happened when New York made it illegal to sell soft drinks in a cup over a certain size (don't remember what that size was). It was a fiasco. People revolted. It got repealed. And that was just telling people they couldn't buy sodas in gigantic cups.
ETA: just looked it up, the limit was 16 ounces.
Well isn't that too bad, people didn't like it. Do we as society want to pay the health costs of buckets of soft drinks and other crap foods? I sure don't. You do an excise tax paid by the manufacturer (which will be passed to the consumer, like alcohol) based on the grams of added sugar per serving. Pretty easy.
I mean, it's more that *corporations* didn't like it. Like it or not, corporations own America. What they say goes. We'd have to uproot the entire way the government works to change that. And that ain't happening.
Have no idea what you're talking about.
I do. And she’s right.
It wasn’t individual people who rose up against extra sales tax on foods deemed unhealthy. It was corporations like grocery chains, as well as quickie mart places (some of which are sole proprietor but many are also corporations)
There were a couple reasons why these businesses hated such taxes. It complicated their business, and was in some ways confusing the customer, as well as some things being difficult to explain why one thing was taxed and a similar thing wasn’t.
As I said above.
The devil is in the details.
But it wasn’t individual people who overturned these laws. It was corporations.
That is why I proposed an excise tax per gram of added sugar in a product (note the added sugar number includes actual sugar, corn syrup and anything else considered added sugar in the nutrition label calculation), I would propose an excise tax paid by the manufacture and passed on to the wholesaler/retailer/consumer in the form of higher prices. It doesn't impact the retailer except in the form a higher cost of goods sold. There are excise taxes on alcohol, cigarettes, etc. that the retailer or consumer never see broken out during their transactions.
From this IRS publication: https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/basic-things-all-businesses-should-know-about-excise-tax#:~:text=Excise taxes are independent of,collected by a third party.
And when it comes to sugar, this will be opposed by the majority at every level: Manufacturers, distributors, retailers, and the general public.
Tobacco, alcohol, and recreational drugs have at least segments of society (decent sized, organized ones) that support regulating or taxing those things, who think that reduced use is a good thing.
I don't think the same exists for sugar. Could it? Probably. But it doesn't now.
An excise tax might work to some extent if it could - poof! - just come into being, and somehow be irrevocable. (I'm not saying I think it IS a great idea, BTW, I'm reserving judgement.)
But it's not going to happen, with no organized support, and widespread organized opposition.
"Solutions" that can't happen aren't solutions.
So could I ask what you would propose as a solution (assuming you believe this is an issue)?
I think it's an issue. If I had a solution, I'd propose one. I don't have one.
Earlier, I said that what I perceived has worked best with alcohol and tobacco's bad consequences was high cost, punishment, and shame/ostracism.
I don't think those are a good plan in this case, for various reasons. <== Please read that again, I'm not advocating punishment or shame/ostracism for overeating. I'm saying that I think that's mainly what actually reduced smoking (especially) and alcohol *abuse* (somewhat).
Taxes were the mechanisms to increase costs, generally. (I think it had more impact on tobacco use than alcohol use.) The difference in cost (in real terms) of a pack of cigarettes now, vs. (say) in the 1960s, is huge.
Inflation adjusted cost of a pack of cigarettes was reportedly about $1.44 per pack (USD) in the 1954. In 2017, it was $5.35 per pack. (That's the most recent estimate I could find from a mainstream-ish source, here: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/price-pack-cigarettes-were-born-195150077.html ).
Punishment applied to abuse of alcohol. In my youth, drunk driving was not in punished in the way it is now, even when it led to horrifying consequences. Often there were no consequences, except a wrecked car. Groups like MADD had an effect on legislation. Various interventions increased social pressure not to drive drunk. People still do it, obviously, but it's not nearly as socially accepted a thing as it was decades back (so that's a shame/ostracism dimension).
Ostracism/shame seemed like a big reason people I knew quit smoking, in addition to high cost. Schools used tobacco education to get kids to question and criticize their parents. Publicity about second-hand smoke created social pressure to limit smoking in public places, making smoking increasingly inconvenient, and frowned upon by the growing community of non-smokers. At my workplace, smokers were first relegated to private offices, then to special smoking rooms with filtering technology, then to outdoors at least X feet from buildings, and now it's forbidden on the whole campus. In restaurants here, it was a similar squeeze: Smoking areas, then only smoking outside, then X distance from the building's entrances/exits.
It used to be cool to smoke. In most social sets, it's now very much not cool. That kind of stuff matters, when it comes to people's behavior (at a mass level).
I think those things would either not be implementable when it comes to "bad food", or would be very inappropriate for various reasons.
I personally find it morally and ethically unacceptable to shame fat people. I think food choices are very much influenced by education, income, and other factors that would effectively punish different groups selectively for unacceptable reasons.
I don't know how to make "bad food" less cool, in the face of all the advertising that suggests that's what all the happy, pretty people eat. The tolerance for using schoolkids' education as social leverage has decreased hugely in recent decades. I don't think taxes (of sufficient impact) could be passed.
The one area I think is interesting enough to keep an eye on is the effect of GLP-1 drugs. I also think there are some ethical concerns in this (too complicated to try to express here), but there seems to be some fracturing amongst fat-acceptance influencers, some of whom are now choosing to take these drugs and lose weight. Right now, the prices of these are too high. If they come down, we might see more social pressure to take the drugs (more to look cute, probably, somewhat to feel better or be healthier, less to save the country on health care costs).
I think this is a problem, but a really hard one, in public policy terms. Complicating the situation is that I think there's myth-making around the edges about what the root causes of the "obesity epidemic" have been in the first place. Just my weird opinions, though.
0 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »MargaretYakoda wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »sollyn23l2 wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »sollyn23l2 wrote: »Anybody remember what happened when New York made it illegal to sell soft drinks in a cup over a certain size (don't remember what that size was). It was a fiasco. People revolted. It got repealed. And that was just telling people they couldn't buy sodas in gigantic cups.
ETA: just looked it up, the limit was 16 ounces.
Well isn't that too bad, people didn't like it. Do we as society want to pay the health costs of buckets of soft drinks and other crap foods? I sure don't. You do an excise tax paid by the manufacturer (which will be passed to the consumer, like alcohol) based on the grams of added sugar per serving. Pretty easy.
I mean, it's more that *corporations* didn't like it. Like it or not, corporations own America. What they say goes. We'd have to uproot the entire way the government works to change that. And that ain't happening.
Have no idea what you're talking about.
I do. And she’s right.
It wasn’t individual people who rose up against extra sales tax on foods deemed unhealthy. It was corporations like grocery chains, as well as quickie mart places (some of which are sole proprietor but many are also corporations)
There were a couple reasons why these businesses hated such taxes. It complicated their business, and was in some ways confusing the customer, as well as some things being difficult to explain why one thing was taxed and a similar thing wasn’t.
As I said above.
The devil is in the details.
But it wasn’t individual people who overturned these laws. It was corporations.
That is why I proposed an excise tax per gram of added sugar in a product (note the added sugar number includes actual sugar, corn syrup and anything else considered added sugar in the nutrition label calculation), I would propose an excise tax paid by the manufacture and passed on to the wholesaler/retailer/consumer in the form of higher prices. It doesn't impact the retailer except in the form a higher cost of goods sold. There are excise taxes on alcohol, cigarettes, etc. that the retailer or consumer never see broken out during their transactions.
From this IRS publication: https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/basic-things-all-businesses-should-know-about-excise-tax#:~:text=Excise taxes are independent of,collected by a third party.
I understand this, and theoretically its a good idea. But really, what has this excise tax on the already taxed items like alcohol, cigarettes, etc done to make the people healthier or lower health care costs? Consumption is still high and health care hasnt gotten any cheaper. So, doing it for crap food will just make the govt fatter as well as doing nothing for its people?
So could I ask what you would propose as a solution (assuming you believe this is an issue)?
Actually high taxes on tobacco have reduced consumption: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6147505/
Sure you can ask. I believe tobacco consumption as far as cigarettes is concerned may also have something to do with vaping taking over the industry. This may actually end up being worse.
As far as a solution....its tough. You see i was raised in the welfare system in the projects of The Bronx. Every vice imaginable was rampant in my hood. Everyhody was poor, yet everybody always found money to smoke, drink, eat crap, and do drugs. The only thing that ever changed a person where i come from was education. I went into the Marines at 18 and learned things like discipline and self respect. Respect for others too, so that my actions didnt have a negative affect on others. Now i know not everybody can join the military, and very few i knew ever changed or even wanted to. But what i do know, that ones health and fitness is totally dependent on mindset, not on money or government intervention.
I ended up becoming a personal trainer, and also ran a boxing program for the mostly underprivileged kids. I did my best for the few i could try to educate and get them to think differently. Once you do that the physical part is easy. I was just one person. But i think the more that give a damn and do something besides just trying to throw money at hard problems, the better chance there is to make a change. I get it, its like pissing in the wind....so what. I shouldn't be where im at today, and long as i am, ill always believe hard work solves hard problems.2 -
It's really up to individuals taking charge of their own health and well-being, often in the face of conflicting information and interests, especially in the realm of nutrition. This lessons the burden on the health care system in general and educating oneself about health and nutrition can lead to better decision making, reducing the reliance on medical interventions, this to me is the only way we as individuals can make a difference, otherwise when you follow the money, which feeds this machine, the opposite is actually taking place with powerful adversaries where the individual doesn't have a chance with more medication or tastier UPF's as the solutions. imo
0 -
Alan Roberts did a whole series on this on his YouTube channel. Fair warning to anyone who checks it out... he is not kind to obese individuals. He very much describes obese individuals as being a huge burden on society, by their own choosing, and that they need to take personal responsibility.2
-
sollyn23l2 wrote: »Alan Roberts did a whole series on this on his YouTube channel. Fair warning to anyone who checks it out... he is not kind to obese individuals. He very much describes obese individuals as being a huge burden on society, by their own choosing, and that they need to take personal responsibility.
there is still a lot of 'fat people bashing' in the media at all levels - just not ok.
---other random thoughts
regarding the decrease in % of people smoking - over the decades, media changed from glamorizing smoking (think Marlboro man and characters in most shows smoked) to most shows without characters who smoked along with PSA's regarding the dangers of smoking and programs to help people quit.
-- along with all that, And in broader society, declines reversed from say 80% adults smoking to 80% not smoking...
-- however, I once read a statistic that maybe 20% of the smokers were resistant to quitting and were classified as hard core/most addicted. Seems by characteristic, they tended to be poor and subject to the stress and duress of life in poverty - and there was a strong emotional dependance in addition to physical dependance on smoking.
-- also someone earlier mentioned Vaping, and would agree, Vaping came along and was pushed as a healthier alternative. Turns out it may be 5x+ more addictive and have serious health consequences that are being seen when a person gets sick with covid and the lungs turn to mush.
--But vaping and smoking are still legal and being pushed by big companies. So is junk food. Consumers are incentivized to participate - then punished when they suffer the consequences. People with lung cancer suffer shaming & discrimination as are people who get to0 large. There is such pressure in media to be thin - that people who can not control excess eating either grow fat or they binge/restrict to stay thin which hides the excess eating - all of which is often treated as a moral failure than a medical/phsychological problem - and worse - not just in the media, but throughout all levels of society, family/friends/acquantances, in medical care, jobs, and places like this.
---- other random thought.
in prior decades, students had classes in home cooking, health, life skills (auto shop, woodworking) and those classes provided an opportunity to learn something different than what they experienced in the home environment.
Question - so if a child is raised by people who eat processed meals from takeout, canned/boxed foods, junk food - how in the world is that child supposed to grow up and eat well for their health and body - especially if they have become hooked on the junk food through habit or dependance... If it is not taught through schools = if there are not healthy cooking/living shows = if junk food is subsidized and more readily available or affordable in the stores.... If the fat and unhealthy are bashed when they try to say hey, I have a problem and are met with 'food addiction does not exist - just eat less, move more' but that kind of change is a huge leap from where they are to implementing a healthier way of eating and living.
imho, i think education, PSAs, medical/insurance support, and places like this can all help support people to take on personal changes and break the chains/patterns of what they did before. Discrimination, punishing, denigrating, shaming is not helpful - and punitive sin taxes/prohibition or requiring/governing what/that people eat in particular ways/lose weight (such as some proposed workplace rules, or the proposal to allow SNAP/food stamp people to only shop in a government facility that only allows particular foods) just is authoritarian overreach and emotionally damaging from the coercion of it compared to the encouragement through policies of education/providing resources like the voluntary quit smoking programs...
/end random thoughts, in no particular order.
1 -
neanderthin wrote: »It's really up to individuals taking charge of their own health and well-being, often in the face of conflicting information and interests, especially in the realm of nutrition. This lessons the burden on the health care system in general and educating oneself about health and nutrition can lead to better decision making, reducing the reliance on medical interventions, this to me is the only way we as individuals can make a difference, otherwise when you follow the money, which feeds this machine, the opposite is actually taking place with powerful adversaries where the individual doesn't have a chance with more medication or tastier UPF's as the solutions. imo
You said it’s based on the individual. Can you explain what you mean? It doesn’t appear to be that way on the health care system as far as I understand. You said it being individual lessons the burden on the health care system. Will you explain your pov a little further so I understand?0 -
Question - so if a child is raised by people who eat processed meals from takeout, canned/boxed foods, junk food - how in the world is that child supposed to grow up and eat well for their health and body - especially if they have become hooked on the junk food through habit or dependance... If it is not taught through schools = if there are not healthy cooking/living shows = if junk food is subsidized and more readily available or affordable in the stores.... If the fat and unhealthy are bashed when they try to say hey, I have a problem and are met with 'food addiction does not exist - just eat less, move more' but that kind of change is a huge leap from where they are to implementing a healthier way of eating and living.
I hear what you’re saying in a lot of ways. You made many understandable points but the bolder one stood out to me. In my perspective, I think our culture is the underlining cause of all of this. Whether someone wants to blame the home, the school, whatever, if our entire culture has adapted to an unhealthy perspective, then no matter how hard we try, it will be incredibly difficult to achieve the opposite.
Just for transparency it seems the American culture, one I’m a citizens of, does not have a strong foundation of creating healthy systems for the individual. It has a system built for- it is what you make it. Good or bad, that’s what we have. You either eat up the propaganda or you create your own value in this industrial complex. Sink or swim. The question is, do the people that swim have to pay for the people that sink? This is not in opposition to what you’re saying, just a comment and question related to your point.1 -
Question - so if a child is raised by people who eat processed meals from takeout, canned/boxed foods, junk food - how in the world is that child supposed to grow up and eat well for their health and body - especially if they have become hooked on the junk food through habit or dependance... If it is not taught through schools = if there are not healthy cooking/living shows = if junk food is subsidized and more readily available or affordable in the stores.... If the fat and unhealthy are bashed when they try to say hey, I have a problem and are met with 'food addiction does not exist - just eat less, move more' but that kind of change is a huge leap from where they are to implementing a healthier way of eating and living.
I hear what you’re saying in a lot of ways. You made many understandable points but the bolder one stood out to me. In my perspective, I think our culture is the underlining cause of all of this. Whether someone wants to blame the home, the school, whatever, if our entire culture has adapted to an unhealthy perspective, then no matter how hard we try, it will be incredibly difficult to achieve the opposite.
Just for transparency it seems the American culture, one I’m a citizens of, does not have a strong foundation of creating healthy systems for the individual. It has a system built for- it is what you make it. Good or bad, that’s what we have. You either eat up the propaganda or you create your own value in this industrial complex. Sink or swim. The question is, do the people that swim have to pay for the people that sink? This is not in opposition to what you’re saying, just a comment and question related to your point.
There is a historical record of where this kind of logic winds up.0 -
In a way, yes.The question is, do the people that swim have to pay for the people that sink?
But.
I'll take the system we have over, say, a non-industrialized country that is so corrupt that there is no social support at all. At least in the U.S. there is subsidized healthcare, foods stamps, bus systems, cheap food, Social Security for the retired, and many other advantages that WE CAN CHOOSE to use or NOT.
No one is making anyone put boxed potato chips in their mouths. There are fresh potatoes on the next aisle.
People can make better choices. They don't. If they want to be obese, that's a life choice they've made. There's plenty of help out there to learn better nutrition. Ya gotta want it.
We can try to educate in the schools, but until someone WANTS to change, they won't.
I find it amazing in my big-city grocery stores the absolute number of processed food items. Aisle after aisle. Hundreds of thousands of things. Someone is willing to buy them, or they wouldn't be there. There are also plenty of fruits and vegetables, and lots of people shopping in the produce and dairy/meat area, as well.
There are people buying a lot of alcohol too. Would you try to stop that? Because we tried that little experiment, remember?
Any smart government is going to realize that sick people will die younger. That means less burden on the other social systems like Medicare and Social Security. I make use of both those because I've lived long enough to have that blessing. I'm in those for tens of thousands of dollars already. I wouldn't have taken any of that money if I had died younger. A fatal heart attack cures Social Security payouts pretty effectively.
It's a wash, I'd guess. The big companies pay more in taxes from their big junk food earnings. The healthy people live longer. Meh. Above my pay grade.3
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions