View Full Version : Tax soda, pizza to cut obesity, researchers say
Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6275T720100308)
U.S. researchers estimate that an 18 percent tax on pizza and soda can push down U.S. adults' calorie intake enough to lower their average weight by 5 pounds (2 kg) per year.
The researchers, writing in the journal Archives of Internal Medicine on Monday, suggested taxing could be used as a weapon in the fight against obesity, which costs the United States an estimated $147 billion a year in health costs.
"While such policies will not solve the obesity epidemic in its entirety and may face considerable opposition from food manufacturers and sellers, they could prove an important strategy to address overconsumption, help reduce energy intake and potentially aid in weight loss and reduced rates of diabetes among U.S. adults," wrote the team led by Kiyah Duffey of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Finally... a way to pay for the health insurance bill. :rolleyes:
Gretad08
03-13-2010, 04:45 AM
That tax can also put a lot of old family businesses in the history books, and send people to Taco Bell instead of Pizza Hut.
I'm amazed at how some of these proposals remind me of Swift. They're so ridiculous they seem satirical.
William Haskins
03-13-2010, 04:51 AM
instead of taxing people on these things and leaving open the possibility that they might find other things to consume that aren't currently taxed as a vice, we should really just confiscate people's wealth and put them into compliance camps.
the rest of this so-called freedom bullshit is really just window-dressing anyway.
rugcat
03-13-2010, 04:51 AM
Well, there's no doubt but that the punitive taxes levied on cigarettes had a major impact on reducing tobacco sales and use.
Not saying I agree with it, but it was somewhat effective.
Maybe a per-word tax on internet postings would stop a lot of smoke blowing too. :D
Plot Device
03-13-2010, 04:56 AM
Worked on cigarettes.
(Oh, sorry, rg, you beat me to it.)
Haggis
03-13-2010, 05:01 AM
That's not the way it works. First you pay government subsidies to manufacturers to encourage the production of soda and pizza. Then you tax it.
William Haskins
03-13-2010, 05:02 AM
yeah it works. now let's quadruple the price of alcohol, shall we?
i mean it's a drug that causes liver disease, birth defects, mental illness, violent behavior, poor judgment in sexual situations, significant numbers of death and injuries in, or caused by, vehicles... and on and on...
icerose
03-13-2010, 05:03 AM
Okay let's really get to the point of it. At the end of the day it's all about money. Anyone who thinks the government cares at all about the general populace is up in the night. They only care about the money. Obesity impacts the ability to earn money. Taxes bring in more money, so they're doing two things at once. If they reduce obesity they up the life long earning and reduce the amount of benefits that person needs and at the same time get more money throughout their lifetime by the food they eat.
Haggis
03-13-2010, 05:06 AM
Longer life puts a strain on Social Security.
CatSlave
03-13-2010, 05:10 AM
What about taxing fried chicken, ice cream, doughnuts and bacon?
Where will it all end?
It's always easier for governments to put taxes on this and that. Maybe they should cut taxes on healthy foods instead, otherwise this whole tax thing looks too much like an attempt to rake in money rather than to promote health.
Al Ross
03-13-2010, 02:27 PM
I hate tax. I hate more the idea of taxing thing to discourage people. They can put their tax where the sun doesn't shine. Keep it there, let crap stay with crap.
If you start these kind of tax when will be the next. Governments get horny on tax. They get there tax, extra $$$$ comes in pouring in. They spend it accordingly. Tell me what happens when it actually work? Less $$$$ they used to get so they increase it. Eventually they cant increase it more and the total $$$$ income goes down. What is the next step figure out a next tax.
Now soda and pizza's tomorrow sweets and ice cream, the day after pork chop and barbecue. The when eventually the tax people for farthing, methane is bad for the environment so we should tax it they will say. Soon everything is taxed. That is if you give them reign to do so.
They do not tax to discourage they task cause the want more money.
backslashbaby
03-13-2010, 03:20 PM
Chapel Hill also did that Camel Joe to Mickey Mouse study that 'proved' that kids were being urged to smoke because they recognized the camel. I know they do good work, too, but just sayin'.
astonwest
03-13-2010, 05:14 PM
I'm waiting on the government to start taxing air...or charging us to use it, a la Spaceballs.
Shadow_Ferret
03-13-2010, 06:02 PM
I don't get it. Pizza? That's the world's most perfect food. Contains everything in the food pyramid! What kind of asshat would think it's BAD for you?
shadowwalker
03-13-2010, 08:07 PM
The government will never put the kind of taxes on junk food or booze that they do on cigarettes. Why? Because it's "okay" to be fat, it's "okay" to drink. Look at how many politicians are overweight and like to drink. You will never see similar taxes on fatty foods and booze any more than you will see the kind of insulting ads you do for smokers.
Shadow_Ferret
03-13-2010, 08:10 PM
The government will never put the kind of taxes on junk food or booze that they do on cigarettes. Why? Because it's "okay" to be fat, it's "okay" to drink. Look at how many politicians are overweight and like to drink. You will never see similar taxes on fatty foods and booze any more than you will see the kind of insulting ads you do for smokers.
Um... but it used to be OK to smoke, too. In fact, at one time, it was not only cool to smoke, if you didn't smoke you were looked at strangely.
Never say never.
Gregg
03-13-2010, 09:24 PM
"Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves."
Ronald Reagan
"The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help."
Ronald Reagan
I could go on and on, but these get the point, I think.
shadowwalker
03-13-2010, 10:41 PM
Um... but it used to be OK to smoke, too. In fact, at one time, it was not only cool to smoke, if you didn't smoke you were looked at strangely.
Never say never.
Well, it all depends on how much money researchers figure they can get from the government and private sources - if the people doing research on obesity/alcohol can get on the "scare the bejeebers out of everyone" wagon, they'll probably get the funding and then we'll see high taxes and insulting ads to ensure continued funding, ala the anti-smoking constabulary. But at the present time, obesity is on a "accept me as I am" thing and drinking is still considered cool or sophisticated.
... it's comforting to know our government cares about us and wants what's best for us and our youngsters. Maybe they could be going about things differently, but at least they are making an effort to set things right. Obesity is a serious issue which needs to be addressed, in one way or another.
Some would argue that that responsiblity is our responsibility, alone, and not the government's. We've had our chance, though, and have proven we are incapable of looking out for ourselves when it comes to eating balanced diets and moderating our caloric consumptions. So now the government must step in take charge and act like a wet nurse to us.
We have only our own selves to blame.
AndiB
03-13-2010, 11:23 PM
It's always easier for governments to put taxes on this and that. Maybe they should cut taxes on healthy foods instead, otherwise this whole tax thing looks too much like an attempt to rake in money rather than to promote health.
Wow, now THAT's a REALLY good idea.
AndiB
03-13-2010, 11:24 PM
Okay let's really get to the point of it. At the end of the day it's all about money. Anyone who thinks the government cares at all about the general populace is up in the night. They only care about the money. Obesity impacts the ability to earn money. Taxes bring in more money, so they're doing two things at once. If they reduce obesity they up the life long earning and reduce the amount of benefits that person needs and at the same time get more money throughout their lifetime by the food they eat.
How does obesity limit the ability to earn money?
alleycat
03-13-2010, 11:26 PM
I can see it now . . . Law & Order / Pizza Squad.
"Ripped from the menu . . . "
AndiB
03-13-2010, 11:29 PM
The government will never put the kind of taxes on junk food or booze that they do on cigarettes. Why? Because it's "okay" to be fat, it's "okay" to drink. Look at how many politicians are overweight and like to drink. You will never see similar taxes on fatty foods and booze any more than you will see the kind of insulting ads you do for smokers.
Last I heard Obama smokes.
Of course, he also has high cholesterol. The bottom line is that the idea of taxing soft drinks and juices was once proposed to help pay for the health care monstrosity. I can easily see it happening.
If health care passes I see all KINDs of new taxes that won't impact those who get food stamps (which are tax exempt on food products to the best of my knowledge in all states) but will impact everyone else.
Gretad08
03-13-2010, 11:29 PM
If they really cared they'd ban unhealthy foods altogether as opposed to saying "Sure you can be fat and eat fatty foods, just show me the money."
... it's comforting to know our government cares about us and wants what's best for us and our youngsters. Maybe they could be going about things differently, but at least they are making an effort to set things right. Obesity is a serious issue which needs to be addressed, in one way or another.
Some would argue that that responsiblity is our responsibility, alone, and not the government's. We've had our chance, though, and have proven we are incapable of looking out for ourselves when it comes to eating balanced diets and moderating our caloric consumptions. So now the government must step in take charge and act like a wet nurse to us.
We have only our own selves to blame.
As Tonto said to the Lone Ranger:
"What's this 'we' shit, kemosabe?"
Take all the personal blame you care to take upon yourself, or assign it to the great unwashed if you must, but please don't paint me with your irresponsible "we" brush. I've about had it with the collectivist arguments.
Thank you very much.
*Bites tongue to avoid commenting on "our government cares for us."*
CatSlave
03-13-2010, 11:47 PM
... it's comforting to know our government cares about us and wants what's best for us and our youngsters. Maybe they could be going about things differently, but at least they are making an effort to set things right. Obesity is a serious issue which needs to be addressed, in one way or another. ...
They can start with changing the junk they're feeding the kids in school.
Pizza, fried everything, breaded-and-frozen everything, ad nauseam.
Some intelligent schools are actively pursuing this effort, and kudos to them.
Some intelligent parents feed their children properly with real food, not a fast-food diet, and kudos to them.
Check out what Chef Jamie Oliver (The Naked Chef) has to say. Listen carefully.
Schools should get some kind of subsidy for using local products and produce, and programs should be set up
to collect the leftover food and distribute it to homeless shelters, etc., instead of dumping in the garbage like they do now.
The amount of good food that is thrown away EVERY DAY is unconscionable.
No one should go hungry in America.
CatSlave
03-14-2010, 12:07 AM
Click here:
Jamie Oliver's campaign for healthy school lunches (http://www.jamieoliver.com/school-dinners)
Roger J Carlson
03-14-2010, 12:15 AM
... it's comforting to know our government cares about us and wants what's best for us and our youngsters. Maybe they could be going about things differently, but at least they are making an effort to set things right. Obesity is a serious issue which needs to be addressed, in one way or another.
Some would argue that that responsiblity is our responsibility, alone, and not the government's. We've had our chance, though, and have proven we are incapable of looking out for ourselves when it comes to eating balanced diets and moderating our caloric consumptions. So now the government must step in take charge and act like a wet nurse to us.
We have only our own selves to blame."We" do, do we? My BMI is smack dab in the normal weight range. My blood pressure is 120/80, my cholesterol is below 70. Why should *I* have to pay a tax for other people's obesity?
Gretad08
03-14-2010, 12:20 AM
You shouldn't. WE need to start taking responsibility for OURselves...
Fatty foods, when consumed normally, make some people fat, and don't effect others. If you fall under the former category cut back on the fat consumption, but leave me out of it.
Perhaps the "thinnies" should be made to lose another 10%, to make up for those who don't find it so easy. That would improve the average, right? :rolleyes:
icerose
03-14-2010, 12:58 AM
How does obesity limit the ability to earn money?
Obesity kills faster, much faster. It lowers your life expectancy considerably as well as giving many nasty diseases (diabetes, high blood pressure, hypertension, heart problems, ect.) at a much earlier age, which effects the ability to work. This has a pretty good run down as well as charts.
http://www.irp.wisc.edu/publications/dps/pdfs/dp133908.pdf
"We" do, do we? My BMI is smack dab in the normal weight range. My blood pressure is 120/80, my cholesterol is below 70. Why should *I* have to pay a tax for other people's obesity?
... as the good book directs and moral reasoning dictates, we are our brother's keeper. So even if we ourselves have healthy stats and proportions we are not in the clear so long as any of our countrymen and women are grappling with such issues. Their concerns are as much ours as theirs.
Sure there are some who don't think so and act only in their own interests. But their numbers are fortunately few, else our great nation would have collapsed long ago from greed and self-centeredness.
Most people really do care for all. Though at times one might be tempted to conclude otherwise based on what people say here and elsewhere. Look to their actions though and see how they really stand: charitable, kind, and very much concerned for the common welfare of all.
Fear not Roger and Lone Don Ranger. Your secret is safe with me ;-)
Great idea about improving the quality of school lunches, Cat. I know when I was back in school that the lunches they served were on equal par with dogfood and probably had as much nutrition in it as a bowl of sand.
TerzaRima
03-14-2010, 03:00 AM
Why should *I* have to pay a tax for other people's obesity?
But you're already doing so.
I like CatSlave's ideas--make the good stuff more accessible; broker agreements between local small farmers and food banks, WIC, and school districts.
CatSlave
03-14-2010, 03:00 AM
...
Great idea about improving the quality of school lunches, Cat. I know when I was back in school that the lunches they served were on equal par with dogfood and probably had as much nutrition in it as a bowl of sand.
Thank you.
Maybe the next generation can reap the benefits of a healthy diet.
We have to start somewhere.
History_Chick
03-14-2010, 03:01 AM
Government just keeps on sneaking in on our lives.
If people want to be a tubby and eat 5,000 calories a day then go for it. Knock yourself out!
Im waiting for the tax on chocolate.
CatSlave
03-14-2010, 03:36 AM
...Im waiting for the tax on chocolate.
Chocolate is actually good for you if not eaten in excess.
Who woulda thunk it?
Roger J Carlson
03-14-2010, 03:41 AM
... as the good book directs and moral reasoning dictates, we are our brother's keeper. So even if we ourselves have healthy stats and proportions we are not in the clear so long as any of our countrymen and women are grappling with such issues. Their concerns are as much ours as theirs. Then we should do so based on the principles on which this country was founded -- convincing by reasoned discourse. By all means, encourage people to eat well and live a healthy lifestyle, but don't coerce them through increased taxes. All that will do with give the politicians more money to play with, and won't improve anyone's health.
... in theory, yes. And as theory I think it is great and admirable. Unfortunately as with many things persuasion through reasoned discourse just doesn't work with some issues.
Our government and health officials have bombarded the airwaves with statistically backed information about the consequences of ill habits, yet the majority of the population don't heed them. If they did and if Americans were generally eating healthy among other things the government would not be resorting to things like taxes to curb certain behaviors. You can be sure of that.
It's just that they've run out of options and don't know what else to do. And in truth, the government and our elected officials, who really do care, are proposing these taxes more to deter youths from eating nutritionally unsound foods rather than to get us adults to. So while it may be an inconvenience to some of us and a perceived intrusion on our liberties to others, surely we're willing to make the sacrifice if it means that our young people will live healthier lives and adopt safter habits. I for one sure am.
AndiB
03-14-2010, 04:16 AM
Obesity kills faster, much faster. It lowers your life expectancy considerably as well as giving many nasty diseases (diabetes, high blood pressure, hypertension, heart problems, ect.) at a much earlier age, which effects the ability to work. This has a pretty good run down as well as charts.
http://www.irp.wisc.edu/publications/dps/pdfs/dp133908.pdf
I'm not seeing what you're seeing then. This is what I got from this article:
"The results presented in this paper indicate that correlational estimates of the impact of income on BMI or obesity prevalence are strongly biased downward. For both men and women, and across all models and specifications, the OLS estimates suggested a much smaller effect of family income on BMI or obesity prevalence than the estimates produced using IVs. This paper provides robust evidence of a positive causal link between income and BMI or obesity prevalence for women. Consistent with previous literature, no statistically significant relationship between income and weight is found for men. For women an additional $1,000 of family income is associated with an increase in BMI of between 0.14 and
29
0.31 units, or an average increase of 0.84 to 1.80 pounds of weight, with a median increase of 1.06 pounds."
... as the good book directs and moral reasoning dictates, we are our brother's keeper. So even if we ourselves have healthy stats and proportions we are not in the clear so long as any of our countrymen and women are grappling with such issues. Their concerns are as much ours as theirs.
Sure there are some who don't think so and act only in their own interests. But their numbers are fortunately few, else our great nation would have collapsed long ago from greed and self-centeredness.
Most people really do care for all. Though at times one might be tempted to conclude otherwise based on what people say here and elsewhere. Look to their actions though and see how they really stand: charitable, kind, and very much concerned for the common welfare of all.
Fear not Roger and Lone Don Ranger. Your secret is safe with me ;-)
Great idea about improving the quality of school lunches, Cat. I know when I was back in school that the lunches they served were on equal par with dogfood and probably had as much nutrition in it as a bowl of sand.
Help me out here, because I can't quite figure out how not wanting to dictate people's dietary habits or tax them for eating things I don't approve of means that I don't give a shit for my fellow man. I'm having a logical disconnect here, so maybe you can walk me through it slowly.
... no one is dictating anything to anyone. Taxation is a form of encouragement. If a person wants to continue to do something they still can. They just have to pay more. And if one knows that such taxation would help the populace to eat healthier and live longer, and develop good habits during their formative years wouldn't one want to do so for the sake of public good, even if it meant a slight infringement on ones liberties?
The government has tried to encourage people to do so through public service messages and labels on packages. And we have undertaken to do so ourselves with our children and loved ones, through occasional lectures and whatnot. But as I said, those steps have met with failure by and large. Taxation seems like the last option. If there are others let's hear them.
Well hell, just line 'em up and shoot 'em if they don't eat right. Problem solved.
Are we going to put a tax on bungee-jumping? That's not good for longevity either, I'm sure. And what about alcohol? A big tax increase there might get the drunks off the street.
I still don't have the foggiest clue why it's the government's job to tell people what to eat.
Why not just have government assign people a job and a spouse when they reach 18 too? Maybe even assign them to a house.
... so in other words, you don't have an alternate solution. Just a critique of the proposed one. It's easy to critique something. Not so easy coming up with an alternative, or to just wash our hands of the whole issue and sit back as the country goes to pot. And for the record, here in the States there is no us vs them. We the people are the government. So of course it is the job, in part, for the government to keep things running smoothly when they veer a bit out of control because that intervention is our own intervention. We are keeping ourselves in check, simply put.
Haggis
03-14-2010, 06:52 AM
The government has tried to encourage people to do so through public service messages and labels on packages. And we have undertaken to do so ourselves with our children and loved ones, through occasional lectures and whatnot. But as I said, those steps have met with failure by and large. Taxation seems like the last option. If there are others let's hear them.
My bold.
I dunno. Don has a good idea. Several of them, in fact.
Well hell, just line 'em up and shoot 'em if they don't eat right. Problem solved.
Are we going to put a tax on bungee-jumping? That's not good for longevity either, I'm sure. And what about alcohol? A big tax increase there might get the drunks off the street.
I still don't have the foggiest clue why it's the government's job to tell people what to eat.
Why not just have government assign people a job and a spouse when they reach 18 too? Maybe even assign them to a house.
Or, you know, we could just let people eat whatever the hell they wanted to because it's a free country. But of course that would never work.
rugcat
03-14-2010, 06:53 AM
I still don't have the foggiest clue why it's the government's job to tell people what to eat.Problem is, corporations like McDonald's spend billions on ad campaigns to convince people to buy their products. As do the makers of all sorts of junk food -- armed with a sophisticated knowledge of how to influence peoples eating habits, and sophisticated science to produce things that are irresistibly tasty, yet close to poisonous to the human body.
These procedures were unknown fifty years ago. It's a serious problem -- the enormous increase in obesity, esp childhood obesity is not an accident, or random chance. It's the result of very clever people who stand to make billions by manipulating people's taste and attitude.
And the results affect society as a whole, not just the kids scarfing down tacos and chips. Now, I'm not sure that taxing these products is the right way to go, but a government that is concerned with the well being of society should not shrug and turn a blind eye to the problem.
Or, you know, we could just let people eat whatever the hell they wanted to because it's a free country. But of course that would never work.
... with 60% of the children in this country obese and on a course for having major health issues like diabetes in the coming years I'd say that just letting people eat whatever they want without some intervention, like taxation, or offering healthy substitutes would indeed not work or be an acceptable option. Something clearly needs to be done. Nothing radical, but just something. And taxation, like it or hate it, has been proven as an effective deterrent. If a kid has to pay 10 cents more for a can of soda, they may seriously opt for juice instead ... or just by a yoyo instead.
ColoradoGuy
03-14-2010, 07:05 AM
Problem is, corporations like McDonald's spend billions on ad campaigns to convince people to buy their products. As do the makers of all sorts of junk food -- armed with a sophisticated knowledge of how to influence peoples eating habits, and sophisticated science to produce things that are irresistibly tasty, yet close to poisonous to the human body.
These procedures were unknown fifty years ago. It's a serious problem -- the enormous increase in obesity, esp childhood obesity is not an accident, or random chance. It's the result of very clever people who stand to make billions by manipulating people's taste and attitude.
David Kessler (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/26/AR2009042602711.html) has done some fascinating research about that. Yay free market.
Haggis
03-14-2010, 07:28 AM
... with 60% of the children in this country obese and on a course for having major health issues like diabetes in the coming years I'd say that just letting people eat whatever they want without some intervention, like taxation, or offering healthy substitutes would indeed not work or be an acceptable option. Something clearly needs to be done. Nothing radical, but just something. And taxation, like it or hate it, has been proven as an effective deterrent. If a kid has to pay 10 cents more for a can of soda, they may seriously opt for juice instead ... or just by a yoyo instead.
Bolding mine again.
Taxation. Hate it.
Deterrent or not, what taxation does best is create new revenue streams for government so they can spend it on whatever related or non-related program they want. Once the behavior problems are "fixed" the need for the tax revenue continues unabated. So government finds another cause.
shadowwalker
03-14-2010, 07:32 AM
... with 60% of the children in this country obese and on a course for having major health issues like diabetes in the coming years I'd say that just letting people eat whatever they want without some intervention, like taxation, or offering healthy substitutes would indeed not work or be an acceptable option. Something clearly needs to be done. Nothing radical, but just something. And taxation, like it or hate it, has been proven as an effective deterrent. If a kid has to pay 10 cents more for a can of soda, they may seriously opt for juice instead ... or just by a yoyo instead.
Actually, I think they should come at it from just the opposite direction - make healthy food cheaper to get. Pop is cheaper than fruit juice. Try buying fresh vegetables in the Midwest during the winter. The foods that are healthiest for us are more expensive than junk food, and (been there, done that) you have to consider what will fill the belly on what you have available, cash wise. I thank God there are programs like WIC, because that was the only way I could afford to give my son healthy food when he was little. (He never tasted pop until he got into high school and could buy it at school :cry:)
ColoradoGuy
03-14-2010, 07:52 AM
Actually, I think they should come at it from just the opposite direction - make healthy food cheaper to get. Pop is cheaper than fruit juice. Try buying fresh vegetables in the Midwest during the winter. The foods that are healthiest for us are more expensive than junk food, and (been there, done that) you have to consider what will fill the belly on what you have available, cash wise. I thank God there are programs like WIC, because that was the only way I could afford to give my son healthy food when he was little. (He never tasted pop until he got into high school and could buy it at school :cry:)
The high cost of better food is a problem. Interestingly, Walmart is getting behind organic foods, and their enormous market share clout could make a huge difference. Here's an interesting piece (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/03/the-great-grocery-smackdown/7904/) about that in the March edition of the Atlantic.
blacbird
03-14-2010, 08:00 AM
Walmart is getting behind organic foods, and their enormous market share clout could make a huge difference.
I shudder to think what perversion to the word "organic" WalMart will construct in order to capture this market.
caw
ColoradoGuy
03-14-2010, 08:02 AM
I shudder to think what perversion to the word "organic" WalMart will construct in order to capture this market.
caw
Read the article -- you'll be surprised. I still hate Walmart for their HR policies and politics, but they may do some good in this case. Maybe even for the right reasons.
Gretad08
03-14-2010, 08:07 AM
Problem is, corporations like McDonald's spend billions on ad campaigns to convince people to buy their products. As do the makers of all sorts of junk food -- armed with a sophisticated knowledge of how to influence peoples eating habits, and sophisticated science to produce things that are irresistibly tasty, yet close to poisonous to the human body.
These procedures were unknown fifty years ago. It's a serious problem -- the enormous increase in obesity, esp childhood obesity is not an accident, or random chance. It's the result of very clever people who stand to make billions by manipulating people's taste and attitude.
And the results affect society as a whole, not just the kids scarfing down tacos and chips. Now, I'm not sure that taxing these products is the right way to go, but a government that is concerned with the well being of society should not shrug and turn a blind eye to the problem.
I think most of us on this board somehow manage to not run to McDonald's every time we have a hunger pang despite their sophisticated ad campaigns. :Shrug:
And even without the extra taxation I don't think the gov. has turned a blind eye to the problem. As someone else said, they've waged an information campaign regarding obesity over the last ten years. That's certainly a start anyway, but no matter how much money we throw at this problem most people will continue to eat what they want. Free will's hard to fight, no matter how much a government tries.
Actually, I think they should come at it from just the opposite direction - make healthy food cheaper to get.
... sounds good to me. How would something like that be done? Government subsidies of some sort, perhaps?
The high cost of better food is a problem. Interestingly, Walmart is getting behind organic foods, and their enormous market share clout could make a huge difference. Here's an interesting piece (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/03/the-great-grocery-smackdown/7904/) about that in the March edition of the Atlantic.
... it's good they're making an effort. And even if it is horrible, as Blacbird predicts, it may still be beneficial in getting other organic retailers to lower their costs to stay competitive.
CatSlave
03-14-2010, 08:34 AM
Slap a nuisance tax on all fast food products, which would go directly to fund the school lunch program. *grin*
Well, I can dream, can't I?
shadowwalker
03-14-2010, 08:45 AM
... sounds good to me. How would something like that be done? Government subsidies of some sort, perhaps?
Yeah - maybe through extending the WIC program, or providing incentives to growers and distributors (tax breaks based on amount of "healthy food" sold versus potato chips and pop), better subsidizing of hydroponic gardening... even cutting back on tax breaks for companies that produce the crap foods ;)
Yeah - maybe through extending the WIC program, or providing incentives to growers and distributors (tax breaks based on amount of "healthy food" sold versus potato chips and pop), better subsidizing of hydroponic gardening... even cutting back on tax breaks for companies that produce the crap foods <-- :-)
... sounds good to me. And you know you are right. Healthy food costs a lot. Though I have to say that the price of junk food is getting up there, too. The former does cost more, still, but the diffference isn't as much as it used to be. Yet people are still going for the junk. Hmm?
CatSlave
03-14-2010, 09:01 AM
I shudder to think what perversion to the word "organic" WalMart will construct in order to capture this market.
caw
The road to "organic" is filled with potholes, and deserves its own thread.
Gugland
03-14-2010, 10:38 AM
I just got back from the store. I was jumping up and down in excitement 'cause they had orange juice on sale - $2.50 for a half gallon! Normally, even the cheap "from concentrate" stuff is $3.69 or more. No wonder I normally buy soda. I mean, it's a pretty simple choice - juice: $3.69-$4.29/half gallon vs soda: $1.00/3 litre bottle.
And don't get me started on fruits & vegetables. I just can't afford them very often. They have become a luxury.
So I'm savoring this glass of OJ while waiting for my Root Beer to get cold.
princessvessna
03-14-2010, 01:04 PM
I've said a lot of this on here before, but I will say it again :D
Make more programs like community gardens feasible. I am hopefully starting one this summer in a vacant lot in a nearby city, who will be also paying for things like water and tools as long as it's non-profit and gives people a chance to have a garden plot. I'll also be handling some of the garden myself to grow food for the food bank.Just waiting for the details to be worked out. Excited!
Seriously, gardeners are some of the most generous people I know. I just went to a seed exchange today, and there were SO many seeds available that had been donated too. I watch and hear about all my pals are doing online and off. Come court us. Just ask us to help, and we will. We'll teach people how, help them out, give them seeds and plants, etc. Many places can have at least a pot for some fresh lettuce, herbs or more. Urban gardening rocks.
Do school gardens. Get the children exercising, get them excited about healthy food. If they've helped grow it, they're more likely to eat it.
I am not sure if they do this already, but make some fresh fruits and veggies & other good things mandatory on food stamps. Im not saying you have to make all "bad" food verboten - it would feel too deprived for a lot of people. But the WIC program gives you coupons and you have to buy exact things. Make food stamps closer to that a little if it isn't already.
Get the crap out of the school lunches. You can use some of the stuff from the school gardens. Work with local farmers.
Encourage and support farmers' markets.
Get rid of the stupid subsidies on stuff like corn...they just use it to make all the high fructose corn syrup. There's that and sugar in EVERYTHING. Why does my light mayo have to have sugar? Etc.
Make more sidewalks and make exercise safer. I'd love to walk more places. I can't easily from my current house though - no sidewalks for a ways each side and I haaaaate walking the one way especially since there's a big curve and they can't see me. Many cities don't have enough sidewalks.
Get more produce in the inner cities especially. I hear stories about how you might be able to get a banana at the convenience stores if you're lucky and they serve as some of the only places some people can go to buy food.
Don't get rid of PE. A lot of schools are reducing time or getting rid of it. For some kids especially, it's the only exercise they get.
Give the school fitness video games. Hey, why not - harness the things they love for good. I do Dance Dance Revolution and holy hannah, it's a great workout. I also get into video gamer mode and I have to keep going to pass this level, unlock this song, etc. Wii Fit, etc.
I just think a tax is stupid when it will only reduce calorie intake by FIFTY calories a day. Yes, it adds up to 5 pounds a year sometimes, sure. I think there's methods like these and others that could do far better than 50 calories.
You tax pizza? I'll just start making my own. I'll still be eating my pizza, haha. It probably would be at least a bit better for me, I guess. But it's still only changing the way I get pizza.
princessvessna
03-14-2010, 01:06 PM
If you get the frozen cans of juice and mix it up yourself in a pitcher, it would be cheaper even :) I can get 100% juice cans in all sorts of flavor combos for $1-2.
I just got back from the store. I was jumping up and down in excitement 'cause they had orange juice on sale - $2.50 for a half gallon! Normally, even the cheap "from concentrate" stuff is $3.69 or more. No wonder I normally buy soda. I mean, it's a pretty simple choice - juice: $3.69-$4.29/half gallon vs soda: $1.00/3 litre bottle.
And don't get me started on fruits & vegetables. I just can't afford them very often. They have become a luxury.
So I'm savoring this glass of OJ while waiting for my Root Beer to get cold.
astonwest
03-14-2010, 06:08 PM
You tax pizza? I'll just start making my own. I'll still be eating my pizza, haha. It probably would be at least a bit better for me, I guess. But it's still only changing the way I get pizza.
I don't know how you make your own pizza, but when I make mine, I put far more beef and cheese than I'd ever get from buying it at the store. Certainly won't be improving my health outlook...
I also saw a story on the news about a contraption that allows you to make your own pop as well...I'm thinking I may have to look into that if they tax it as well.
Things gunvernment could do to fight obesity.
1) Quit creating legal fictional entities that can grow to such stupendous size they can blanket the entire world with their products, and no one can be held responsible for their actions.
2) Quit allowing fraud to be broadcast and printed under the name "advertising."
3) Encourage the development of an educational system that actually educates, instead of teaching people to sit still, shut up, do as they're told, and wait for government to fix all their problems.
4) Eliminate subsidies for producing corn for corn syrup, and get rid of all the regulations that make sugar more expensive than HFCS. Hell, get rid of all the subsidies for crap, and thereby encourage farmers to grow real food again.
There's four, just off the top of my head. Fat chance any of them will happen. This is not about health, it's about revenue.
Magdalen
03-14-2010, 07:53 PM
Things gunvernment could do to fight obesity.
1) Quit creating legal fictional entities that can grow to such stupendous size they can blanket the entire world with their products, and no one can be held responsible for their actions.
2) Quit allowing fraud to be broadcast and printed under the name "advertising."
3) Encourage the development of an educational system that actually educates, instead of teaching people to sit still, shut up, do as they're told, and wait for government to fix all their problems.
4) Eliminate subsidies for producing corn for corn syrup, and get rid of all the regulations that make sugar more expensive than HFCS. Hell, get rid of all the subsidies for crap, and thereby encourage farmers to grow real food again.
There's four, just off the top of my head. Fat chance any of them will happen. This is not about health, it's about revenue.
Good ideas all, Don. Agree that even one of the above is twice as sensible and half as costly as anything the yahoos in DC have thought of. Too bad the tail wags the dog in America.
[QUOTE=Don;4739786]1) Quit creating legal fictional entities that can grow to such stupendous size they can blanket the entire world with their products, and no one can be held responsible for their actions.
Not exactly sure what you're refering to by legal fictional entities. Corporations like McDonalds?
2) Quit allowing fraud to be broadcast and printed under the name "advertising."
If you mean ads by companies putting out junk food and co I totally agree. Good suggestion, if so.
3) Encourage the development of an educational system that actually educates, instead of teaching people to sit still, shut up, do as they're told, and wait for government to fix all their problems.
I think this is a problem to some extent, but I don't know if the educational system is at all at fault. When I was back in school a prime focus of our education was encouraging independence and thinking for ourselves. If the sit still attitude is fostered by anyone it is probably fostered by our peers more than anyone else, imo.
4) Eliminate subsidies for producing corn for corn syrup, and get rid of all the regulations that make sugar more expensive than HFCS. Hell, get rid of all the subsidies for crap, and thereby encourage farmers to grow real food again.
Really good idea, also suggested by Vesnna who has made some good points herself. (Love the one about getting school kids to grow gardens and eat produce from them!) So you do have some viable alternatives to taxation, Don, and sensible ones to boot. I still think taxes are a good tactic, as well, and don't think they're mere cash cows. But won't argue the point further as you seem convinced of the contrary.
ps Gugland. I hear you about the price of fruits and vegtables. A luxury, indeed. And the cost keeps going up. Nuts in particular. Soon they'll be charging by the shell.
Yes, Ken, McDonald's is a good example. How many thousands of small diners were driven out of business by corporate chain fast food outlets? I find it highly unlikely that organizations that large would exist absent corporate personhood, 'owners' who cannot be held accountable for their creature's actions, and the benefits that accrue to the first competitor in a marketplace that can purchase protection from the politicians.
... perhaps there should be a tap on how many chains a corporation like McDonald's can own? It does seem unfair for small diners to have to compete with large chains that can easily undersell them. At the same time, consumers should try to continue to patronize small diners in their communities even if they have to pay a bit more. We can put the pressure on too.
Which is where my ban on fraud passing as "advertising" comes in. :)
Al Ross
03-14-2010, 10:14 PM
Use taxation not by increasing but by decreasing tax on products you want the populace to use. As a government which wants its people to eat healthy don't tax healthy food.
rugcat
03-14-2010, 10:40 PM
Which is where my ban on fraud passing as "advertising" comes in. :)You're in favor of the government limiting free speech? How odd.
Medievalist
03-14-2010, 11:11 PM
I just got back from the store. I was jumping up and down in excitement 'cause they had orange juice on sale - $2.50 for a half gallon! Normally, even the cheap "from concentrate" stuff is $3.69 or more. No wonder I normally buy soda. I mean, it's a pretty simple choice - juice: $3.69-$4.29/half gallon vs soda: $1.00/3 litre bottle.
if you're in Davis, you're in agri paradise. You can grow oranges and lemons and tomatoes on an apartment balcony.
princessvessna
03-15-2010, 12:32 AM
I don't know how you make your own pizza, but when I make mine, I put far more beef and cheese than I'd ever get from buying it at the store. Certainly won't be improving my health outlook...
I also saw a story on the news about a contraption that allows you to make your own pop as well...I'm thinking I may have to look into that if they tax it as well.
Hehe that's true. When my best friend and I make a "pizza casserole" (layers of dough and toppings, etc), it's a total cheese bomb. And sooooooo good.
AndiB
03-15-2010, 12:53 AM
Hehe that's true. When my best friend and I make a "pizza casserole" (layers of dough and toppings, etc), it's a total cheese bomb. And sooooooo good.
You know it's just WRONG to do that without leaving the recipe.:poke:
You're in favor of the government limiting free speech? How odd.
Committing fraud equates to free speech?
CatSlave
03-15-2010, 01:12 AM
...This is not about health, it's about revenue.
I believe you've hit the nail on the head.
CatSlave
03-15-2010, 01:14 AM
Hehe that's true. When my best friend and I make a "pizza casserole" (layers of dough and toppings, etc), it's a total cheese bomb. And sooooooo good.
What two consenting adults do together is no one's business, as long as it doesn't involve children. :D
Give the kids a taco and a salad instead.
CatSlave
03-15-2010, 01:36 AM
The high cost of better food is a problem. Interestingly, Walmart is getting behind organic foods, and their enormous market share clout could make a huge difference. Here's an interesting piece (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/03/the-great-grocery-smackdown/7904/) about that in the March edition of the Atlantic.
Thanks for the article; good food for thought.
Which is where my ban on fraud passing as "advertising" comes in.
You're in favor of the government limiting free speech? How odd.
... if it's fraud though that isn't really a limitation of speech but enforcement of the law. Of course there's a fine line between what's fraud and what isn't. A lot of companies ride the line: duping the public but not outrightly lying to them about their products. So technically I suppose it would be limiting free speech in some instances to bar them from doing so. But in my book that would by no means be bad. Legally they might not be in the wrong, but ethically they sure are.
MattW
03-15-2010, 03:03 AM
It's always easier for governments to put taxes on this and that. Maybe they should cut taxes on healthy foods instead, otherwise this whole tax thing looks too much like an attempt to rake in money rather than to promote health.
Taxes are always the first reaction by government - have a new program? Entitlement tax to support it. Budget shortfall? "Temporary" increase. Corporation or individual too successful? Tax! Can't win reelection? Use tax money to buy votes.
I don't know how they would solve the problem of replacing pizza with fired chicken, and I am much more in favor of incenting "good" behavior than penalizing "bad" behavior."
But it still means daily interference in what I choose to do.
princessvessna
03-15-2010, 05:08 AM
You know it's just WRONG to do that without leaving the recipe.:poke:
Hehe, I'll have to think one up. I don't use recipes, I just...do. He's the one who introduced it to me. We're still adjusting since the dough doesn't always cook perfectly through with the mound of toppings.
But basically, all you do is put a layer of pizza dough down, sauce, cheese, toppings. Rinse and repeat as many times as you want :D
AndiB
03-15-2010, 05:22 AM
Hehe, I'll have to think one up. I don't use recipes, I just...do. He's the one who introduced it to me. We're still adjusting since the dough doesn't always cook perfectly through with the mound of toppings.
But basically, all you do is put a layer of pizza dough down, sauce, cheese, toppings. Rinse and repeat as many times as you want :D
Thank you! I know that will go over wonderfully in this mad pizza loving house.
Williebee
03-15-2010, 05:43 AM
give the kids a taco...
ooo taco pizza. A house favorite.
Making your own is almost always the way to go to control both the fat and the flavor.
sez the round guy with the pizza breath.
Haggis
03-15-2010, 06:06 AM
Taxes are always the first reaction by government - have a new program? Entitlement tax to support it. Budget shortfall? "Temporary" increase. Corporation or individual too successful? Tax! Can't win reelection? Use tax money to buy votes.
I don't know how they would solve the problem of replacing pizza with fired chicken, and I am much more in favor of incenting "good" behavior than penalizing "bad" behavior."
But it still means daily interference in what I choose to do.
"Taxes" is such a harsh word. Let's call it "funding" instead. It's much easier to swallow.
AndiB
03-15-2010, 06:10 AM
"Taxes" is such a harsh word. Let's call it "funding" instead. It's much easier to swallow.
A tax by any other name still stinks to high heaven.
vBulletin® v3.8.5, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.