Fat Tax

[Geoff]

But you see, according to Nourishing Traditions/Weston A Price, you just cut your life short by not eating the egg as it was made. You cut out an essential part of the egg in the herd-minded mentality that that is healthier because cholesterol in must mean higher cholesterol in the body, forgetting that the egg was made perfectly balanced with the right fats/protein ratio and your body was made to process it that way...

See what I mean? What's considered healthy by one is not by another.

Once you let government in, it's awfully hard to get them to step out later... There are a lot of changes one should make for the greater good. But government impositions, penalties, and credits should not be the incentives to initiate that change. You end up with far greater consequences than imagined.

It has nothing to do with cholesterol since the link between dietary cholesterol and blood cholesterol has pretty much been debunked. I eat egg beater omelettes for breakfast rather than whole egg omelettes because they're less calories. A cup of egg beaters is only 120 calories. That's roughly the calories in one egg. I'm getting 3x the protein and 3x the volume of food in my stomach.

I get plenty of whole eggs in my diet.... just not for breakfast since I don't need the calories.

 

[severine]

I was just trying to make a point that setting up a system of punishing for not following what one group thinks are appropriate dietary guidelines is looking for trouble. That's all. And despite what you say about the debunking of the link between dietary and blood cholesterol, doctors are still advising patients that there is, as well as a multitude of other outdated information that is perpetuated in the system.

I know common sense is in short supply, but really, there's no substitute for it.

 

[Geoff]

I was just trying to make a point that setting up a system of punishing for not following what one group thinks are appropriate dietary guidelines is looking for trouble. That's all. And despite what you say about the debunking of the link between dietary and blood cholesterol, doctors are still advising patients that there is, as well as a multitude of other outdated information that is perpetuated in the system.

I know common sense is in short supply, but really, there's no substitute for it.

I'd point out that I've never suggested in this thread that the government should regulate what people eat other than when the government is supplying the food (school lunches is the obvious candidate). I think a tax on soda is a stupid idea. I think that making it so food stamps don't buy soda and other junk carb processed food is just fine. I'm also suggesting that the government should provide incentives for people to be fit and relatively low body fat.


Enough... my boots are on. Time to make some turns.

 

[drjeff]

Bottomline and there is absolutely no magical secret to this, if you BURN more calories than you CONSUME over the course of a day, you'll loose weight reguardless of what you stuff in your mouth.

Personally, what I'm doing now eating wise is just plain and simple, I try and have 2 or 3 different colored foods per meal with aside from some heat to warm things up, as little processing to the food as possible. In between meals(once I get my AM caffeine load in me) I drink water. Also, generally speaking I want to have to prepare a meal rather than just opening up a package and tossing stuff in the microwave for 1 minute. Most days, this plan will get me a nice balance of protein, complex carbs and the other micro nutrients I need and keep the wasteline at a decent size.

 

[Dr Skimeister]

A poignant op-ed piece from today's NY Times.....

Miracle Tax Diet
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
When the human body was evolving, almost the only things we drank were breast milk for the first few years and then water, water and more water.

It would obviously have been bad if we had evolved to feel full when water was sloshing about our stomachs because then we wouldn’t have eaten our fill the next time we speared a mastodon. Today, the unfortunate result is that if you drink a bottle of 7-Up, you still don’t feel full — the body treats the liquid as empty calories, like water — and so you won’t eat any less the next time you spear a Big Mac.

That has presented a huge problem in an age of sugary drinks, and some scholars believe they have become a major source of obesity. That’s why the new soda tax proposed by Gov. David Paterson of New York is such a breakthrough.

Mr. Paterson suggested the tax — an 18 percent sales tax on soft drinks and other nondiet sugary beverages — to help raise $400 million a year to plug a hole in the state budget. But it’s also a landmark effort that, if other states follow, could help make us healthier.

Let’s break for a quiz: What was the biggest health care breakthrough in the last 40 years in the United States? Heart bypasses? CAT scans and M.R.I.’s? New cancer treatments?

No, it was the cigarette tax. Every 10 percent price increase on cigarettes reduced sales by about 3 percent over all, and 7 percent among teenagers, according to the 2005 book “Prescription for a Healthy Nation.” Just the 1983 increase in the federal tax on cigarettes saved 40,000 lives per year.

In effect, the most promising cure for lung cancer didn’t emerge from a medical research lab but from money-grubbing politicians. Likewise, the best cure for obesity may turn out to be not a pill but a tax.

These days, sugary drinks are to American health roughly what tobacco was a generation ago. A tax would shift some consumers, especially kids, to diet drinks or water.

“Soft drinks are linked to diabetes and obesity in the way that tobacco is to lung cancer,” says Barry Popkin, a nutrition specialist at the University of North Carolina and author of the excellent new book, “The World Is Fat.” He warns that the cola industry will spend vast sums fighting the proposed tax.

One of industry’s objections is that soft drinks aren’t the only problem. That’s true, and I’d love to see a “Twinkie tax” as well. But evidence is accumulating that sugary drinks are a major contributor to obesity because of the evolutionary heritage I mentioned at the outset: Except for soups, liquid calories don’t register with the body, according to Professor Popkin and other specialists.

If you have a snack, even something unhealthy like potato chips, you’ll eat less at your next meal. But have a Coke, and despite all those calories, you’ll still eat just as much. Indeed, according to some studies, you’ll actually eat more.

“These findings raise the possibility that soft drinks increase hunger, decrease satiety or simply calibrate people to a high level of sweetness that generalizes to preferences in other foods,” said a peer-reviewed article last year in the American Journal of Public Health.

The average American consumes about 35 gallons of nondiet soda each year and gets far more added sugar from soda than from desserts.

Barack Obama has pledged to move toward a system of universal health coverage, and Democrats mostly see health care reform as a matter of providing access to doctors. Access and universal coverage are indeed essential, but there’s only so much doctors can do in this environment.

One priority must be a public health campaign to change social behavior. A starting point is to recognize that risky teen behavior these days can involve not just alcohol, drugs or sex but also extra-large Cokes.

One new study estimates that 24 million Americans now have diabetes, more than four times the number in 1980. The total direct and indirect cost to Americans is $218 billion each year — an average of $1,900 per American household. Each year, diabetes contributes to the deaths of more than 200,000 Americans.

Part of the solution must come from reforming agriculture so that we stop subsidizing corn that ends up as high fructose corn syrup inside soft drinks. Unfortunately, Mr. Obama on Wednesday chose Tom Vilsack, the former governor of Iowa who has longstanding ties to agribusiness interests, as agriculture secretary — his weakest selection so far.

The soft-drink industry will throw enormous resources into defeating the proposed New York tax on sugary drinks. We should stand behind Governor Paterson’s bold gesture. He is blazing a path that other states should follow.

Losing weight is never easy, but one of the most effective diets would start with a soft drink tax.

•

 

[jack97]

A poignant op-ed piece from today's NY Times.....

Miracle Tax Diet
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
When the human body was evolving, almost the only things we drank were breast milk for the first few years and then water, water and more water.

It would obviously have been bad if we had evolved to feel full when water was sloshing about our stomachs because then we wouldn’t have eaten our fill the next time we speared a mastodon. Today, the unfortunate result is that if you drink a bottle of 7-Up, you still don’t feel full — the body treats the liquid as empty calories, like water — and so you won’t eat any less the next time you spear a Big Mac.

That has presented a huge problem in an age of sugary drinks, and some scholars believe they have become a major source of obesity. That’s why the new soda tax proposed by Gov. David Paterson of New York is such a breakthrough.

Mr. Paterson suggested the tax — an 18 percent sales tax on soft drinks and other nondiet sugary beverages — to help raise $400 million a year to plug a hole in the state budget. But it’s also a landmark effort that, if other states follow, could help make us healthier.

Let’s break for a quiz: What was the biggest health care breakthrough in the last 40 years in the United States? Heart bypasses? CAT scans and M.R.I.’s? New cancer treatments?

No, it was the cigarette tax. Every 10 percent price increase on cigarettes reduced sales by about 3 percent over all, and 7 percent among teenagers, according to the 2005 book “Prescription for a Healthy Nation.” Just the 1983 increase in the federal tax on cigarettes saved 40,000 lives per year.

In effect, the most promising cure for lung cancer didn’t emerge from a medical research lab but from money-grubbing politicians. Likewise, the best cure for obesity may turn out to be not a pill but a tax.

These days, sugary drinks are to American health roughly what tobacco was a generation ago. A tax would shift some consumers, especially kids, to diet drinks or water.

“Soft drinks are linked to diabetes and obesity in the way that tobacco is to lung cancer,” says Barry Popkin, a nutrition specialist at the University of North Carolina and author of the excellent new book, “The World Is Fat.” He warns that the cola industry will spend vast sums fighting the proposed tax.

One of industry’s objections is that soft drinks aren’t the only problem. That’s true, and I’d love to see a “Twinkie tax” as well. But evidence is accumulating that sugary drinks are a major contributor to obesity because of the evolutionary heritage I mentioned at the outset: Except for soups, liquid calories don’t register with the body, according to Professor Popkin and other specialists.

If you have a snack, even something unhealthy like potato chips, you’ll eat less at your next meal. But have a Coke, and despite all those calories, you’ll still eat just as much. Indeed, according to some studies, you’ll actually eat more.

“These findings raise the possibility that soft drinks increase hunger, decrease satiety or simply calibrate people to a high level of sweetness that generalizes to preferences in other foods,” said a peer-reviewed article last year in the American Journal of Public Health.

The average American consumes about 35 gallons of nondiet soda each year and gets far more added sugar from soda than from desserts.

Barack Obama has pledged to move toward a system of universal health coverage, and Democrats mostly see health care reform as a matter of providing access to doctors. Access and universal coverage are indeed essential, but there’s only so much doctors can do in this environment.

One priority must be a public health campaign to change social behavior. A starting point is to recognize that risky teen behavior these days can involve not just alcohol, drugs or sex but also extra-large Cokes.

One new study estimates that 24 million Americans now have diabetes, more than four times the number in 1980. The total direct and indirect cost to Americans is $218 billion each year — an average of $1,900 per American household. Each year, diabetes contributes to the deaths of more than 200,000 Americans.

Part of the solution must come from reforming agriculture so that we stop subsidizing corn that ends up as high fructose corn syrup inside soft drinks. Unfortunately, Mr. Obama on Wednesday chose Tom Vilsack, the former governor of Iowa who has longstanding ties to agribusiness interests, as agriculture secretary — his weakest selection so far.

The soft-drink industry will throw enormous resources into defeating the proposed New York tax on sugary drinks. We should stand behind Governor Paterson’s bold gesture. He is blazing a path that other states should follow.

Losing weight is never easy, but one of the most effective diets would start with a soft drink tax.

•

I like the politics of Gov Paterson's predecessor.... no one was above law expect for himself. Plain and simple... no need for big time lobbyist.

 

[Dr Skimeister]

I like the politics of Gov Paterson's predecessor.... no one was above law expect for himself. Plain and simple... no need for big time lobbyist.

OK...I'll take the bait and open up the can of worms that my response is likely to result in.....

Help me connect the dots here.....

But how does Spitzer's hobby of paying for sex with high-price hookers lead to the assertion the he thought he was above the law? He was found out, he resigned. His biggest concern should be how much it will hurt when his soon-to-be-ex-wife cuts his balls off.

And what does any of that have to do with Paterson's proposed tax?

 

[tjf67]

No, it was the cigarette tax. Every 10 percent price increase on cigarettes reduced sales by about 3 percent over all, and 7 percent among teenagers, according to the 2005 book “Prescription for a Healthy Nation.” Just the 1983 increase in the federal tax on cigarettes saved 40,000 lives per year.

In effect, the most promising cure for lung cancer didn’t emerge from a medical research lab but from money-grubbing politicians. Likewise, the best cure for obesity may turn out to be not a pill but a tax.

WOW seeing as how it is put that way, these people are my heros. Polititions SUCK ASS.

 

[jack97]

OK...I'll take the bait and open up the can of worms that my response is likely to result in.....

Help me connect the dots here.....

But how does Spitzer's hobby of paying for sex with high-price hookers lead to the assertion the he thought he was above the law? He was found out, he resigned. His biggest concern should be how much it will hurt when his soon-to-be-ex-wife cuts his balls off.

And what does any of that have to do with Paterson's proposed tax?

Just goofing about this whole situation.

I hate big government since it basically imposes on our personal freedoms. What I find interesting is that the reason for having big government or big tax programs is really the masses saying protect us from this pending doom. Health care cost has been an issue for the past twenty years, I blame the doctors and pharmaceutical for this bleed off. Presently, the automaker bailout is hinging on the high cost of health care. And in the future, all the obese poeple who do not have the will power to make that life style change.

Spitzer's follies is something I rather have than to put another level of taxation (either break or penalties) on the masses. I rather see health care cost lowered and make the issue of soda and junk food a public health issue similar to smoking. Who knows, maybe some of the state level DAs can sue McD steakhouse, Burger King, Coke, Pepsi b/c they are contributing to the higher health care cost.

 

[mondeo]

Mr. Paterson suggested the tax — an 18 percent sales tax on soft drinks and other nondiet sugary beverages — to help raise $400 million a year to plug a hole in the state budget.

Let’s break for a quiz: What was the biggest health care breakthrough in the last 40 years in the United States? Heart bypasses? CAT scans and M.R.I.’s? New cancer treatments?

No, it was the cigarette tax. Every 10 percent price increase on cigarettes reduced sales by about 3 percent over all, and 7 percent among teenagers, according to the 2005 book “Prescription for a Healthy Nation.” Just the 1983 increase in the federal tax on cigarettes saved 40,000 lives per year.

In effect, the most promising cure for lung cancer didn’t emerge from a medical research lab but from money-grubbing politicians. Likewise, the best cure for obesity may turn out to be not a pill but a tax.

So what constitutes a non-diet sugary beverage? Fruit juices? Smoothies? Milk?

And the part on cigarettes is B.S., too. I'm sure it had nothing to do with the fact that increasing taxes coincided with increased public awareness of the health risks...:roll:

What does saving a life mean, anyways? All I know that can be done is prolonging life.

 

[Dr Skimeister]

So what constitutes a non-diet sugary beverage? Fruit juices? Smoothies? Milk?

And the part on cigarettes is B.S., too. I'm sure it had nothing to do with the fact that increasing taxes coincided with increased public awareness of the health risks...:roll:

What does saving a life mean, anyways? All I know that can be done is prolonging life.

I disagree.

I think that you can bark and rant about health risks to people to no avail, but you start to hit them *directly* in their pocketbooks they take notice. The indirect hits to the wallet that increased health costs provide aren't enough to make so many people pay attention.

The whole discourse of this thread concedes that defining "non-diet sugary beverage" will likely be the biggest stumbling block to enactment of a law like this.

 

[snoseek]

So what constitutes a non-diet sugary beverage? Fruit juices? Smoothies? Milk?

And the part on cigarettes is B.S., too. I'm sure it had nothing to do with the fact that increasing taxes coincided with increased public awareness of the health risks...:roll:

What does saving a life mean, anyways? All I know that can be done is prolonging life.

Those taxes help pay for the media campaign against tobacco.

Edit-As I understand from An article I read a couple months ago there is a push to rate all food on a scale of 1 (lowest) to 100 on grocery store shelves. I'm pretty sure this scale could be used to tax any beverage less than a certain number. The scale is based on not just calories but overall redeeming qualities of the foodstuff. As I mentioned before I think this could result in many reformulations by the companies to avoid the tax, which also would be helpful.

 

[snoseek]

I disagree.

I think that you can bark and rant about health risks to people to no avail, but you start to hit them *directly* in their pocketbooks they take notice. The indirect hits to the wallet that increased health costs provide aren't enough to make so many people pay attention.

The whole discourse of this thread concedes that defining "non-diet sugary beverage" will likely be the biggest stumbling block to enactment of a law like this.

I fully agree about the whole money thing, It is easily the best way to get anything done in this country. I am personally not so cynical that I will abandon the idea of some goverment intervention. God knows Pepsi or Frito-Lay could really give a rats ass about the obesity epedemic.

 

[severine]

Are Pepsi or Frito-Lay shoving that stuff down people's gullets?

Whatever happened to personal responsibility?

 

[Dr Skimeister]

Are Pepsi or Frito-Lay shoving that stuff down people's gullets?

Whatever happened to personal responsibility?

But..when my neighbor chooses not to be personally responsible, it does impact my health care costs. It's become the government's charge to protect the idiots from themselves as well as to protect others from the idiots.

 

[snoseek]

Are Pepsi or Frito-Lay shoving that stuff down people's gullets?

Whatever happened to personal responsibility?

We have already proved that personal responsibility is not working-as a nation we just keep getting fatter and fatter.It is time for a new plan.

O.K. answer me this-Do you think obesity in this country is as big of a problem as tobbaco or alcohol consumption

 

[deadheadskier]

Those taxes help pay for the media campaign against tobacco.

Edit-As I understand from An article I read a couple months ago there is a push to rate all food on a scale of 1 (lowest) to 100 on grocery store shelves. I'm pretty sure this scale could be used to tax any beverage less than a certain number. The scale is based on not just calories but overall redeeming qualities of the foodstuff. As I mentioned before I think this could result in many reformulations by the companies to avoid the tax, which also would be helpful.

Some grocery stores have already taken it upon themselves to do such a thing. Hannaford has it's Star program for all it's products

http://www.hannaford.com/Contents/Healthy_Living/Guiding_Stars/index.shtml?lid=mb

 

[snoseek]

Some grocery stores have already taken it upon themselves to do such a thing. Hannaford has it's Star program for all it's products

http://www.hannaford.com/Contents/Healthy_Living/Guiding_Stars/index.shtml?lid=mb

That's cool I think we will see more in the future. I'm wondering if a can of pringles gets one star-that would fall under good nutritional value by their guidelines. I still would rather see a numerical scale from 1-100 so consumers would not be misled.

 

[deadheadskier]

But..when my neighbor chooses not to be personally responsible, it does impact my health care costs. It's become the government's charge to protect the idiots from themselves as well as to protect others from the idiots.

But you as a skier could directly effect your neighbors health care costs by hurting yourself while participating in the sport. Maybe not you so much as I assume you have health insurance, so I'm saying the 'hypothetical' you.

There's been exactly three months in my adult life that I did not have health insurance and wouldn't you know it was when I got real sick and I had to go to the emergency room. The charge was $1800, but because I was uninsured, I got a discount that brought the price down to $1300. My guess is that $500 got passed on somehow to others in higher fees charged by the hospital.

 

[jack97]

O.K. answer me this-Do you think obesity in this country is as big of a problem as tobbaco or alcohol consumption

My doom and gloom answer is yes and will be even bigger than cigs and booz.

The main difference is that normal humans can survive without tobacco and alcohol. Food intake is a basic necessity. I say this as a disclosure, I have eaten at burger king or mcd when I'm short for time. That drives my wife crazy.... literally. The other key item is that these fast foods are becoming cheaper than food that provide more well rounded nutrients.

So given fast food (and I will admit they are junk food) save the masses in terms of time and money, how can you beat that? Also, placing an extra tax on that would just add more burden to food cost to the poor.

btw, getting 2% milk in these places is way more expensive than the soft drinks... that still blows me away.