It should be against the law to be fat

[eyeball]

Given all the emphasis being placed on personal responsibility regarding our diets and other lifestyle choices affecting our health I'm surprised triage hasn't been suggested as a way to keep our health system from collapsing under the weight of obesity. For example if buddy is wheeled into the hospital with smoking related emphysema, a pickled liver and packing an extra 50 lbs he goes to the end of the line OTOH if Bonam jogs into the emergency ward under his own steam he goes to the front.

[Bonam]

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

So basically you just want to make eating out more expensive. What about foods one can buy at the grocery store? Those too can be rich in sugars, fats, etc. Tax those too? Basically extra tax on everything besides a couple "approved" vegetables?

Great, now you've made it so that food is just all around more expensive, a burden primarily on the "poor". But everyone is still gonna eat.

A better strategy might be implementing a discount on the foods considered healthiest. Maybe if you go into the grocery store and can grab the bag of broccoli for $0.25, more poor people might get it and eat a bit healthier. A government subsidy for the healthiest foods would also be far more politically palatable than banning or heavily taxing sugar, which people like myself would strongly oppose.

[On Guard for Thee]

On that note I can reiterate a story I heard some time ago on a radio interview which came from the US. A 14 year old public school student was taken from his single parent mother and put in foster care as he was morbidly obese weighing in near 400lbs. They did charge the mother with child abuse, put her in jail, then had 2 operations done on him (tummy tuck etc) and handed the ~100k bill to the mother. Where this gets even more shocking is when they interviewed her lawyer it was revealed that in the school there were outlets for not only MacD's but Baskin Robbins and Krispy Kreme as well. Of course this was all so the good taxpayers of the state/city wouldn't have to be saddled with the true cost of educating their children. The mother was in no financial shape to pay such a bill when she was working so of course being in jail wipes out that possibility totally. Can ya say "pay me now or pay me later"!

[Guest]

So basically you just want to make eating out more expensive. What about foods one can buy at the grocery store? Those too can be rich in sugars, fats, etc. Tax those too? Basically extra tax on everything besides a couple "approved" vegetables?

Great, now you've made it so that food is just all around more expensive, a burden primarily on the "poor". But everyone is still gonna eat.

A better strategy might be implementing a discount on the foods considered healthiest. Maybe if you go into the grocery store and can grab the bag of broccoli for $0.25, more poor people might get it and eat a bit healthier. A government subsidy for the healthiest foods would also be far more politically palatable than banning or heavily taxing sugar, which people like myself would strongly oppose.

It wouldn't just be restaurant food. A can of coke or mountain dew would take the hit too. Any food that contains any of a list of ingredients TBD would be taxed, based on the ingredient and the quantity. I would apply that to any processed food.

A discount on healthy food is a great idea. Use the tax on unhealthy food to pay for it.

Edited December 1, 2014 by bcsapper

[Bonam]

It wouldn't just be restaurant food. A can of coke or mountain dew would take the hit too. Any food that contains any of a list of ingredients TBD would be taxed, based on the ingredient and the quantity. I would apply that to any processed food.

"Processed" food is a very ill-defined term.

I don't agree that the government could make a sensible list of which foods to tax and which not to, nor do I think it should try.

A discount on healthy food is a great idea. Use the tax on unhealthy food to pay for it.

No need. Use the savings in the healthcare system to pay for it.

[Guest]

"Processed" food is a very ill-defined term.

I don't agree that the government could make a sensible list of which foods to tax and which not to, nor do I think it should try.

No need. Use the savings in the healthcare system to pay for it.

Make it "processed with additional ingredients" from the list, which you are no doubt correct the government would make a complete hash of. Still, it's never stopped them before.

[Bryan]

The problem with targeting the food source is, you're relying on government to even know what is or is not bad for you, and for them to put that knowledge into policy. Public Health policy, and dietary guidelines in particular have little basis in reality at the best of times.

McDonald's food is pretty gross, so I eat there as seldom as possible, BUT if I wanted to I could easily eat there three meals a day and LOSE weight.

[Smallc]

I eat too much food. Not junk food, just food.

[dre]

Even in the UHC system most provinces have some kind of health insurance premium... 80 bucks a month or whatever. What about just shifting this stuff around, so that healthy fit people pay no premiums, and people with a high BMI pay more?

As for our food supply, its going to get worse not better. Its a lot easier to feed a large population with processed food, corn-fed animals, starch, and high fructose corn derivatives... than it is with fresh fruits and vegetables.

And this isnt a fast food problem per say... The biggest problem with our food supply is that corn and potatoes are just too damn easy to grow. Its not an accident that we eat starchy, high fructose foods, its the result of a decision that these staples are the best way to provide food for everyone. And in most western countries they are highly subsidized. If we stopped subsidizing corn, potatoes, then the food supply would get a lot healthier but it would also get a lot more expensive. We could shift farm subsidies towards the production of vegetables and grain/grass fed animals and that would help as well, but again... it would get harder and more expensive to feed everyone.

At the end of the day we arent really that much different than the cows on a farm. What you feed them is based on whats cheap and economical. And right now genetically modified Corn is the best plan they have to keep us all eating. Its in virtually everything besides fresh vegetables.

[Bryan]

Even in the UHC system most provinces have some kind of health insurance premium... 80 bucks a month or whatever. What about just shifting this stuff around, so that healthy fit people pay no premiums, and people with a high BMI pay more?

We don't pay any such premiums in Manitoba, but I would welcome it if it were based on lifestyle related outcomes. You can't go by BMI though, that is a ridiculously inaccurate measurement. People in peak physical condition will usually have fairly high BMIs because of how dense muscle is (they generally weight more than people who are larger/fatter than they are).

One thing I really like is something a few local doctors have done here: refusing to see/treat patients who do not follow their advice. One gave all his patients a set time period to quit smoking. Once the deadline passed, those still smoking had to go find another doctor. I'd love to see that same approach with obesity: lose weight, or don't come back.

[Moonlight Graham]

To the OP, your idea sounds like government tyranny over my right to get fat and eat whatever I want. Government shouldn't be able to outright control what I do to my own body. What are you going to do, jail obese people? A better alternative would be to tax foods that are bad for you to pay for health costs and lost production associated with obesity. At the same time this will make healthy food cheaper which would further encourage people to eat healthier. As an extreme example, people aren't going to be eating many chocolate bars if they're $10 each, they would be seen as how they should be seen...as special treats not eaten often.

Edited December 1, 2014 by Moonlight Graham

[WWWTT]

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.

Read all the comments so far in this thread and this one sounds the most sound in my opinion to start with.

I will add that the government should INCREASE sodium/chemical restrictions on food content.

And top that off with increase public awareness programs advertising etc.

Possibly make activity more accessible. Promote more?

WWWTT

PS Good Thread!

[TimG]

I find it ironic that the many of people calling for restrictions on sugar/fat are the same people supporting legalization of drugs. Do we need to get into how sugar is like a drug? If people should be free to smoke dope then why shouldn't they be free to have as much sugar as they want?

[The_Squid]

I find it ironic that the many of people calling for restrictions on sugar/fat are the same people supporting legalization of drugs. Do we need to get into how sugar is like a drug? If people should be free to smoke dope then why shouldn't they be free to have as much sugar as they want?

They are free to eat sugar.... but it would be taxed. Just like legalized pot. Tax it. There is no irony here... the positions are completely consistent.

[jacee]

Fact:

We are an aging population of baby boomers.

All age related conditions are increasing.

Most people pack on a few extra pounds as they age.

So I am skeptical of this statement:

Between 1985 and 2011, the prevalence of adult obesity in Canada increased from 6.1 per cent to 18.3 per cent,

It is also true that between 1985 and 2011, baby boomers aged from 20-30 to 45-55, and likely gained a few pounds in the process.

So ... without an age breakdown, I'm just not sure whether this really is an obesity epidemic, or just a population bulge.

.

Edited December 2, 2014 by jacee

[eyeball]

I find it ironic that the many of people calling for restrictions on sugar/fat are the same people supporting legalization of drugs. Do we need to get into how sugar is like a drug? If people should be free to smoke dope then why shouldn't they be free to have as much sugar as they want?

Because of all the people who support the suspension of civil liberties for dangerous things like pot, often the same people busy making the world safe for people who sell us things like sugar and fat.

There's no end to the irony, figure out how to tax that and all our problems will be easy to solve.

Edited December 2, 2014 by eyeball

[On Guard for Thee]

I find it ironic that the many of people calling for restrictions on sugar/fat are the same people supporting legalization of drugs. Do we need to get into how sugar is like a drug? If people should be free to smoke dope then why shouldn't they be free to have as much sugar as they want?

If you're gonna let them have sugar and fat then also let them have pot. Just collect tax. Done.

[Moonlight Graham]

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.

They're probably thinking about taxing added sugars like cane sugar. I don't think anybody would want to tax apples because they have natural sugars.

[Moonlight Graham]

So basically you just want to make eating out more expensive. What about foods one can buy at the grocery store? Those too can be rich in sugars, fats, etc. Tax those too? Basically extra tax on everything besides a couple "approved" vegetables?

Great, now you've made it so that food is just all around more expensive, a burden primarily on the "poor". But everyone is still gonna eat.

A better strategy might be implementing a discount on the foods considered healthiest. Maybe if you go into the grocery store and can grab the bag of broccoli for $0.25, more poor people might get it and eat a bit healthier. A government subsidy for the healthiest foods would also be far more politically palatable than banning or heavily taxing sugar, which people like myself would strongly oppose.

What about a revenue-neutral subsidy on healthy foods and tax on unhealthy foods. Best of both worlds without having to spend taxes to make fruits and veggies cheap.

I also don't think it's very hard to figure out which foods are healthy and which are crap. Apples = healthy, apple pie = unhealthy.

BTW, if you, a self-described athlete, eat less processed sugar & other crap you'll be healthier too. Anybody who ingests more than trace quantities of processed sugars and unhealthy fats will be less healthy than if they didn't.

[Moonbox]

What about a revenue-neutral subsidy on healthy foods and tax on unhealthy foods. Best of both worlds without having to spend taxes to make fruits and veggies cheap.

Sure, but I don't know why it has to be revenue neutral. Obesity presents a very real cost to the health system, so the things that lead to it should shoulder the burden.

[Topaz]

There are many reasons for people who are over weight, some are the life style, some are medical, some of processed foods, some are financial, and so there's not just one answer. I think the top two are the changes in our foods and people's life style and too many North Americans are becoming diabetic, which in time, one can lose their sight, feet, legs and their life I think more education on this would be benefit. Governments need to have doctors do a regular blood test checks and for those who don't have a doctor then, programs should be setup so they can be tested. It would be a good idea, if businesses, also contribute some how in keep their workers healthy, which would benefit the employer also.

[jacee]

Sure, but I don't know why it has to be revenue neutral. Obesity presents a very real cost to the health system, so the things that lead to it should shoulder the burden.

I'm kind of liking this idea, but I think the problem lies more with 'fast food', not in grocery stores, although some specific ingredients could be targeted.

/5-reasons-high-fructose-corn-syrup-will-kill-you/

[Boges]

I'm kind of liking this idea, but I think the problem lies more with 'fast food', not in grocery stores, although some specific ingredients could be targeted.

/5-reasons-high-fructose-corn-syrup-will-kill-you/

How do you figure? You can get burgers and fries for a lot less in the grocery store. Soda is much cheaper too.

[Moonbox]

There are many reasons for people who are over weight, some are the life style, some are medical, some of processed foods, some are financial, and so there's not just one answer.

There are many factors that affect weight, but really only one reason for obesity. When you eat more than you burn off, you gain weight. Genetics might explain why someone metabolizes food slower, and that might explain a slightly wider waist-line, but it would virtually never account for someone being 80+ pounds overweight.

Financial considerations may explain a poor diet as well, but the idea that poor people can only afford bad food and thus end up fat doesn't make a lot of sense either. Being poor might explain a poorly balanced diet, but it doesn't explain eating way more food than you should.

How do you figure? You can get burgers and fries for a lot less in the grocery store. Soda is much cheaper too.

Most grocery store fries are baked and thus way better for you. You also have to cook a grocery store burger yourself and buy it from the grocery store in the first place. These are both conscious decisions that lead to a higher likelihood of eating something else. If you're already going to the grocery store and you know you're going to have to prepare what you buy there, the burger and fries isn't such an easy option anymore.

Even so, there are tons of things at the grocery store to worry about too. Microwave dinners, chips/snackfoods, large quantities of cheap pop etc are all very convenient fast food options for the average grocery shopper. These are every bit as bad as a fast food chain.

Edited December 2, 2014 by Moonbox

[jacee]

Financial considerations may explain a poor diet as well, but the idea that poor people can only afford bad food and thus end up fat doesn't make a lot of sense either. Being poor might explain a poorly balanced diet, but it doesn't explain eating way more food than you should.

If you are eating cheap food with poor nutritional value (eg kraft dinner) your body tells you to eat more because it needs more nutrition.

And you are right, there are plenty of 'foods' to be concerned about in grocery stores too.

.

Edited December 2, 2014 by jacee