It should be against the law to be fat

[Scotty]

Obesity costs trillions every year. For a society with public health care, the costs are not merely to the individuals who lard up, but to the health care budgets of their provinces. Accordingly, I think it should be illegal to be fat. Parents of fat children should be reported to childrens aid societies and called in for diet and exercise counseling for their kids. Anyone whose belly drops over their belt or whose butt spills over their chairs should be ordered to undergo mandatory diet counseling and enter a supervised physical fitness program, as well as being barred from fast food outlets.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/obesity-s-global-costs-hit-2-trillion-a-year-report-suggests-1.2841782

[GostHacked]

Can we charge places like McDonald's for contributing to the problem? Soda makers? Junk food makers?

[Guest]

Why not? We sue tobacco companies for the damage they have done.

[Argus]

There is no way to use tobacco safely. However, many people eat at Macdonalds and drink colas and are not fat. I love the fries at A&W myself, and I'm not fat. I also exercise every day.

Edited December 1, 2014 by Argus

[Boges]

There is no way to use tobacco safely. However, many people eat at Macdonalds and drink colas and are not fat. I love the fries at A&W myself, and I'm not fat. I also exercise every day.

There are people who smoke recreationally and are not addicted. But those that enjoy a nice cigar every now and then use it as a luxury similar to alcohol.

I love how people always target McDonalds as a convenient source. If people are eating at McDonalds everyday then can't have financial issues. Going out to a Family Restaurant or even a fine dining restaurant will tally up more calories than a Value Meal.

You can buy 8 burgers at any Grocery Store for $10 yet people want to target a restaurant that offers a drink, fries and a burger for no less than $8.

As for the OP, there are too many variables to effectively monitor this. Using BMIs to determine a person's healthy is obviously of folly as many Pro Athletes would be morbidly obese. So you want to use body fat? Then you'll have people claiming they have a diease or that they have a medical condition.

Also an overwhelming majority of obese people are at a lower income, so taxing or charging them would just be another attack on the poor. Ultimately the decision to lose weight has to be a personal one, the government can't mandate it.

Edited December 1, 2014 by Boges

[Big Guy]

Part of the problem is that the federal and provincial and municipal government, in consultation, have put restrictions on the maximum weight of people allowed to use public roads and street to exercise. Anyone who is more than 50 lbs overweight is not allowed to jog on public transportation areas because of the damage their pounding feet do to infrastructure. While these have been effective in prolonging the life of sidewalks, roadways and bridges it has resulted in increased fast food sales.

It is true !!!

When was the last time you saw really fat folks jogging?

[Boges]

Part of the problem is that the federal and provincial and municipal government, in consultation, have put restrictions on the maximum weight of people allowed to use public roads and street to exercise. Anyone who is more than 50 lbs overweight is not allowed to jog on public transportation areas because of the damage their pounding feet do to infrastructure. While these have been effective in prolonging the life of sidewalks, roadways and bridges it has resulted in increased fast food sales.

It is true !!!

When was the last time you saw really fat folks jogging?

If it's true than cite. And that's not part of the problem, there a plenty of alternative methods to exercise.

[Guest]

There is no way to use tobacco safely. However, many people eat at Macdonalds and drink colas and are not fat. I love the fries at A&W myself, and I'm not fat. I also exercise every day.

True, and I have to say, I'm not evangelical about this. I myself am partial to the occasional A&W breakfast.

Still, they knowingly sell a product that is not far short of poisonous, and has serious health effects on those who consume it, without any warnings.

It wouldn't bother me if they sued the purveyors, if they could make it stick. Or if they taxed the living daylights out of all of it.

Edited December 1, 2014 by bcsapper

[Boges]

True, and I have to say, I'm not evangelical about this. I myself am partial to the occasional A&W breakfast.

Still, they knowingly sell a product that is not far short of poisonous, and has serious health effects on those who consume it, without any warnings.

It wouldn't bother me if they sued the purveyors, if they could make it stick. Or if they taxed the living daylights out of all of it.

True, and I have to say, I'm not evangelical about this. I myself am partial to the occasional A&W breakfast.

Still, they knowingly sell a product that is not far short of poisonous, and has serious health effects on those who consume it, without any warnings.

It wouldn't bother me if they sued the purveyors, if they could make it stick. Or if they taxed the living daylights out of all of it.

So you should tax the producers of potatoes and vegetable oil?

[Guest]

Twice, apparently...

[Boges]

Taxes on unhealthy foods wont work. They tried it in Denmark and they had to scrap it, people were just leaving the country to get their unhealthy food.

The unhealthy foods are often to cheapest ones too.

[Guest]

Really? Rather than pay an extra three krone for a burger they'd pay for a trip down to Germany to get one?

I'd still like to see junk food taxed out of reach.

[Boges]

Really? Rather than pay an extra three krone for a burger they'd pay for a trip down to Germany to get one?

I'd still like to see junk food taxed out of reach.

They were taxing Sugar. Sugar is in just about everything. Fast Food is not the problem, I just got a coffee and a 12-grain bagel with cheese at Tim Hortons. That's Fast Food as much as McDonalds is. That coffee has some sugar in it, I'M GOING TO DIE!!!

Taxing unhealthy food wont make people not stop eating fast food. It's just a cash grab.

Basically you'd have to ad a premium on the entire restaurant industry.

[Guest]

Taxing sugar seems like a great idea. They tax tobacco, and alcohol. Gasoline too. Why not sugar?

And salt, while they are at it. And a total ban on any hydrogenated fats.

It being a cash grab doesn't make it any less reasonable, as long as the cash is used wisely.

Edited December 1, 2014 by bcsapper

[Boges]

Why don't we only allow people to eat Sweet Potato and Kale? Wait there's sugar in Sweet Potato. TAX!!!!

With all due respect your views on this are very extreme on this matter. There are ways to promote a healthy lifestyle without making foods that are meant to be treats as punitively expensive.

If we're simply talking about health care costs then why don't tax people who ski or ride a motorbike extra? Or people who play a sport that opens them up to injury?

[The_Squid]

Obesity costs trillions every year. For a society with public health care, the costs are not merely to the individuals who lard up, but to the health care budgets of their provinces. Accordingly, I think it should be illegal to be fat. Parents of fat children should be reported to childrens aid societies and called in for diet and exercise counseling for their kids. Anyone whose belly drops over their belt or whose butt spills over their chairs should be ordered to undergo mandatory diet counseling and enter a supervised physical fitness program, as well as being barred from fast food outlets.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/obesity-s-global-costs-hit-2-trillion-a-year-report-suggests-1.2841782

Sounds like a utopia built for Richard Simmons.

[Bonam]

Taxing sugar seems like a great idea. They tax tobacco, and alcohol. Gasoline too. Why not sugar?

Because sugar is necessary for humans to live? The human body burns sugar to produce energy. Foods with sugar are subject to regular sales tax, and all the usual taxes on the companies that produce and distribute said foods, and that's enough.

The issue isn't sugar... it's that for people with sedentary lifestyles, they eat more calories than they burn. The tax (if any) should be on sedentary lifestyles, not on the foods that sustain healthy people with healthy lifestyles. I'm an "athlete" and consume probably an average of 4000 calories a day and am thin. I don't need to be paying more for my food because other people are stupid.

[Moonbox]

There is no way to use tobacco safely. However, many people eat at Macdonalds and drink colas and are not fat. I love the fries at A&W myself, and I'm not fat. I also exercise every day.

Buddy Burgers: $1.75 and soo good.

Taxes on unhealthy foods wont work. They tried it in Denmark and they had to scrap it, people were just leaving the country to get their unhealthy food.

Sure Boges, if you live in a border village in the EU that might work. I highly doubt, however, that most Danes were travelling several hours to get cheaper Big Macs, or even to go grocery shopping. They'd pay more in transportation, so that theory doesn't make a lot of sense.

Taxing unhealthy food wont make people not stop eating fast food. It's just a cash grab.

Works for me. If obesity presents a high cost to the health system, it seems pretty fair that obese people should either be encouraged to eat better (via taxes) or should contribute extra to health revenue (via the same targeted taxes).

Basically you'd have to ad a premium on the entire restaurant industry.

Maybe, but there are specific offenders on which we can focus. Proper restaurants are not the real problem. I eat out for lunch virtually every day and none of it is particularly healthy. Going to a proper restaurant, however, requires at least a tiny amount of time and mental effort. I have to walk/drive there, sit down, wait 15-25 minutes for my meal and it costs $15-20 each person, all of which presents some portion control features. The real offenders are the burger & fries, pizza or Chinese joints and such, where you can pick up immense quantities of junk for dirt cheap on the way home in less time than it would take you to make a decent sandwich.

Edited December 1, 2014 by Moonbox

[Bonam]

Still, they knowingly sell a product that is not far short of poisonous, and has serious health effects on those who consume it, without any warnings.

All false. Fast food restaurants like McDonalds clearly label the calories, fat, and salt content of their foods. Further, none of these are poisonous in any regard whatsoever, in fact, they are all key nutrients for humans - in the proper quantities, which an occasional meal at these restaurants will not exceed, for someone with a healthy lifestyle.

[Guest]

Why don't we only allow people to eat Sweet Potato and Kale? Wait there's sugar in Sweet Potato. TAX!!!!

With all due respect your views on this are very extreme on this matter. There are ways to promote a healthy lifestyle without making foods that are meant to be treats as punitively expensive.

If we're simply talking about health care costs then why don't tax people who ski or ride a motorbike extra? Or people who play a sport that opens them up to injury?

They could be taxed on added sugar.

I agree my views are somewhat extreme, but I still don't see any problem with making companies that cost a government subsidised health care system billions of dollars pay more for the privilege. I also would force them to be totally honest on any advertising and packaging about the contents of their product, and any potential health effects.

Edited December 1, 2014 by bcsapper

[Boges]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2231841/Denmark-scraps-fat-tax-emerges-people-travelling-border-search-cheaper-unhealthy-snacks.html

An article on the Danish Fat Tax.

A good majority of Canadians live within an hour or two of the US border. Just sayin'.

Edited December 1, 2014 by Boges

[The_Squid]

or refined sugar could be taxed. The human body doesn't need white sugar. In fact, it's unhealthy. It can get sugar from other, healthier, sources. (fruit for example)

[Guest]

All false. Fast food restaurants like McDonalds clearly label the calories, fat, and salt content of their foods. Further, none of these are poisonous in any regard whatsoever, in fact, they are all key nutrients for humans - in the proper quantities, which an occasional meal at these restaurants will not exceed, for someone with a healthy lifestyle.

I agree entirely, the key being, proper quantities. I daresay everything is poisonous if you up the dose high enough, and while 300lb youngsters with type 2 diabetes and high blood pressure are primarily the responsibility of the parents, and criminal charges for child abuse would not be out of place, I reiterate, I have no problem with making the purveyors of such garbage pay more to earn their profits.

Even though, like you, I am a fit, occasional user.

Edited December 1, 2014 by bcsapper

[Bonam]

I agree entirely, the key being, proper quantities. I daresay everything is poisonous if you up the dose high enough, and while 300lb youngsters with type 2 diabetes and high blood pressure are primarily the responsibility of the parents, and criminal charges for child abuse would not be out of place, I reiterate, I have no problem with making the purveyors of such garbage pay more to earn their profits.

Even though, like you, I am a fit, occasional user.

You can just as easily overeat at a diner, Asian restaurant, etc. In fact, when I go to a Thai place and order a meal of fried rice, for example, it's got over 1000 calories, more than any standard meal one would order at McDonalds.

As for paying more to earn their profits... this is not really true. They won't be paying more, they'll be passing on added costs to the consumers, as they already operate at fairly thin margins. That may deter some people from eating there, but there are plenty of other places to get food rich in calories, sugars, fats, salts, etc.

Edited December 1, 2014 by Bonam

[Guest]

All true. The tax would apply to the diner, Asian restaurant, and Thai place.

As to the passing on of costs, if those who frequent the places have to pay more for their health care through that avenue, well, good.