Thanks Tschmal, I used to really favor something like an obesity tax, but I just don't know now. It's so much more complicated than cigarettes, and in that case, I don't know that the tax has made much of an impact on sales, when compared to the enormous information campaign about lung cancer, etc. Maybe if there was "second hand fat" you could start banning sodas and cheeseburgers in public buildings. But no such luck. And as others have mentioned it's part of a much larger lifestyle questions (e.g. the marathoner who likes to have a big burger every weekend or whatever, is different from the obese couch potato who does the same, in terms of healthcare impact.)
Not to mention genetics. I'd worry that would be discrimination. Some people are lazy, eat crap, and never gain weight, while others exercise, and eat right and struggle to keep weight off.
Ok, so I might say getting hit by a bus is the same as getting hit a by a truck. Now - you could argue there are some significant difference there. You follow my drift? It doesn't matter if Coke is made with Corn Syrup or if it's made with Cane Sugar. BOTH will spike your insulin level...BOTH will get you fat. If one is 10% worse than the other, who gives a crap?
You mean something like this: Poor people don't buy healthy food, not because it's more expensive, but because they don't care for it. ?
A good point. Folks with a genetic predisposition for obesity (a slow metabolism, for example) would have to work harder to get the tax credit than others. Perhaps a personal tax credit is not the best idea because of this reason. That being said, I don't think obesity is ever unavoidable, it can just be harder to manage for some. However, tax incentives for businesses selling healthy food is a fine idea. These tax incentives could in turn reduce the price of the food, making it more appealing to a wider audience.
10% fewer people with diabetes. A weight loss of 10% across the country is huge and would drop many people back into the healthy weight category. 10% is a gigantic difference. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_fructose_corn_syrup#Health_effects More specifically: "Elliot et al.[30] implicate increased consumption of fructose (due primarily to the increased consumption of sugars but also partly due to the slightly higher fructose content of HFCS as compared to sucrose) in obesity and insulin resistance. Chi-Tang Ho et al. found that soft drinks sweetened with HFCS are up to 10 times richer in harmful carbonyl compounds, such as methylglyoxal, than a diet soft drink control.[31] Carbonyl compounds are elevated in people with diabetes and are blamed for causing diabetic complications such as foot ulcers and eye and nerve damage.[32][33]"
I still like B-Bobs idea of a national weigh-in at tax time. (with the requisite allegations of scale tampering, helium abuse, and the photo-ops of lines of people patiently waiting like cattle to be inspected, graded, and assessed by bored bureaucrats from the Department of Obesity while Richard Simmons videos play in the back ground).
I don't see where switching from corn syrup to cane sugar would drop what you say by 10%. I bet if people just stopped eating foods with a lot of sugar - whatever it's make up might be, you'd get a lot more significant impact.
Sure you would, but that wasn't what was being discussed. One is measurably worse for you than the other. It would be great if we all could live the lifestyle of the perfect and eat nothing that was made with a single unhealthy thing, but for those of who aren't quite as perfect as you, knowing the difference between not good, bad, and terrible can be the difference between being healthy in your life and being diabetic.
True statement buddy. Sorry that isn't sensitive enough for you. But the data I've seen is quite clear. Fast food restaurants could easily offer healthy foods in poor areas they operate in at competitive prices to big macs and such. They don't. There's no demand for it. Poor people are not generally health conscious...I mean, isn't that obvious? If you have ever been poor, surviving is more a priority than thinking about long terms health issues. Most of them don't even have access to the information they need to make the right decisions. It's a myth that you can't eat healthy if you are poor. In fact, the truth is if you are poor, it's even more reason to eat healthy - you've save money at the end of the day shopping for vegetables and staples at a grocery store then spending $30 bucks to feed your family at Micky D's.
I'm sorry, but let me address this aside from the overt insults against me you are putting in here. First of all, I don't claim to be the perfect embodiement of health. I will drink a beer once in a while. I will even eat ice cream once in a while. I didn't have a choice. I was 270 lbs at one point and had to lose weight. I did it by primarily eliminating sugar from my diet. Not just from Soda and such, but from fruit juices, orange juice, and so called "natural" sources of sugar. Cookies, chips, all of that stuff. It's tasty and I am tempted as anyone. You can talk about how much better cane sugar is for you then corn syrup. Like I said, it's better to be hit by a car then a bus. It's better to plow into a tree at 30 mph than 35mph. That's all great and good. But you are being disingenuous if you are trying to present one as a healthy alternative to the other.
That's why I think we should only tax consumption, not the results of consumption. I think we shoudl end farm subsidies as well. We should stop paying tax to be fed unhealthy foods. I think charging a health care tax on any food that contains a certain amount of unrefined carbohydrate and/or fat is a perfectly legitimate tax that will help pay for health care as well as provide better education on eating healthy.
Overt insults? Nothing I said was an insult at all. And lastly, I never presented one as a healthy alternative. One is better than the other though.
Please, just because you wrap it up in sarcasm doesn't mean I'm stupid. I know when I am being insulted. You are presenting it as a healtIER alternative though. By saying one is better than the other, you are saying it's better to drink mercury over arsenic. I say it's the same. Neither one is acceptable. Frankly, I am tired of the politics involved in this. I really don't care if it's a liberal or conservative standpoint. Childhood obesity is a serious problem in this country. A lot of people are suffering on it's account. It's an epidemic and a threat to national security. And it's just a total waste of youth. You may not care and think it's fine for people to make poor choices, and I understand that is your political outlook. That it's elitist to try to nudge people into eating better, smoking less, and excercising. I get that. What I don't get is why you have to be so hostile to those who want to tackle a real problem.
I don't buy the healthy==expensive argument. Maybe it is true if you eat out all the time. Are you limiting your food choices to restaurants only? Chicken, beans, tofu, rice, veggies and all be bought quite cheaply from the supermarket. Give your kids peanut butter sandwiches instead of prepackaged chicken nuggets or pizza rolls. It will be cheaper and healthier.
I think the context was limited to that, yes. That being said, I don't buy it either. There are great examples of fast food that is healthier and competitively priced to the unhealthy alternatives: Subway, Chipotle, etc. Of course, if you want a hamburger, there is going to be a level of unhealthiness to that that is unavoidable. Somewhere like McDonald's could improve the quality of its meet, make the patty in-house, use lean beef, wheat buns... but many of those things increase cost and risk (making patties in house is especially dangerous due to undercooked beef concerns). So, in the case of hamburgers, perhaps healthier is more expensive. But that begs the question: do you really have to eat a hamburger?
Obviously you don't. Me groaning in sarcasm about your health lectures is not be insulting you, it's me groaning in sarcasm. I didn't say you were stupid, ugly, fat, etc. I just rolled my eyes at your health lecture. It is healthIER though, despite your opinion on the matter. Do research. Your analogies are terrible by the way. Comparing sugar and corn syrup to poisons and be hit by cars. Ridiculous. I didn't argue anything based on any political pov, nor did I argue against the tax. I just said there is in fact a difference between HFCS and cane sugar, an indisputable fact that you attempted to dispute. I wasn't hostile to you. STOP INSULTING ME! I never argued against anything or for anything politically, so your angst is misplaced.
Chicken is way more expensive then ground beef, especially if you get actual chicken. White rice isn't considered that healthy. To be honest I've never looked for tofu. Fresh fruits and vegetables cost a lot, especially considering they aren't that filling. Beans are certainly cheap. Can you eat healthy and cheap? Sure. Will it taste good and avoid being boring? No. If you have the money eating healthy tastes good, and there is a wide variety.
