Help support TMP


"International treaty needed to stop 'Big Food' industry" Topic


31 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Science Plus Board

Back to the Food Plus Board


Areas of Interest

General

Featured Hobby News Article


654 hits since 7 Feb 2019
©1994-2020 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Tango01 Supporting Member of TMP07 Feb 2019 2:54 p.m. PST

…. driving obesity and climate change, report says

"Lobbying by multinational corporations and trillions in government subsidies for unsustainable agriculture and fossil fuels are driving obesity, malnutrition and climate change, a major report has warned.

Taxes on red meat and subsidies for more efficient crops that could feed many more people are among the measures proposed by the Lancet Commission on Obesity report.

Drafted by an international panel of 43 biologists, climate scientists and policy experts, it also calls for a global treaty to limit the influence of "Big Food" which is hamstringing moves to more sustainable diets and lifestyles…."
Main page
link


Amicalement
Armand

Mithmee07 Feb 2019 6:21 p.m. PST

Best way to combat Obesity is…

Create a "FAT TAX"

Since that is a Tax that you can avoid by not being "FAT".

Individuals will do whatever they need to so that they do not pay.

Bowman07 Feb 2019 10:56 p.m. PST

Or tax the products that make you fat. Check out the Wiki site about taxing high sugar beverages:

link

In most cases it led to decreases in drinking soft drinks, energy drinks and sports drinks.

Andrew Preziosi08 Feb 2019 4:47 a.m. PST

As good and eclectic as Publix is, their Snack and Soft Drink aisles are still their #1 Money Makers!

Salt, Sugar & preservatives, Ffolkes…end of argument.

VCarter Supporting Member of TMP08 Feb 2019 8:12 a.m. PST

Nanny state at its best (meaning worse).

Bowman08 Feb 2019 9:06 a.m. PST

I doubt it's that simple.

If a company was spilling poison that was found to be the cause of death and debilitation, you'd expect the "Nanny State" to step in, fix things and fine the guilty.

Well the "poison" is the huge amount of sugar and salt additives found in today's popular foods. Putting a tax on these products and using the resulting funds to offset the cost of treating the ensuing diabetes and cardiovascular problems in the future would be a good idea, no?

And don't say it's a voluntary hazard that the people are accepting of. Even the American Beverage Association who lobbies on behalf of the soft drink companies says that taxing soft drinks will harm the poor. Ya sure.

Is it a "Nanny State" when the Feds tell you to drive on the right side of the road in the interest of public health and safety?

goragrad08 Feb 2019 10:21 a.m. PST

Obviously making products more expensive leads to lower consumption. Of course, as noted, it is those in the lower income brackets who will be consuming less.

But, of course it is for their own good (Nanny state).

On the other hand, as with reports that a former mayor of NYC who pushed for lower limits on added salt was notorious for 'emptying the salt shaker' on his own popcorn, those in the upper income brackets will continue to enjoy their fix.

Mithmee08 Feb 2019 12:21 p.m. PST

taxing high sugar beverages

I drink Diet Pepsi so there are ways to avoid these Taxes.

Though the "Nanny State" knows this so they then go after everything else.

The one think that you can be ensured of the "Nanny State" is that when in charge of anything they will totally hosed it up.

Andrew Preziosi08 Feb 2019 12:26 p.m. PST

The replies here are phenomenal.

All I can say is, conduct yourselves as you will, but if/when you are dying a long death over something that could have been mitigated/prevented, then you have but yourselves to blame and that includes the financial burdens on you and your families.

Good synopsis, BTW, Bowman!

Bowman08 Feb 2019 3:48 p.m. PST

On the other hand, as with reports that a former mayor of NYC who pushed for lower limits on added salt was notorious for 'emptying the salt shaker' on his own popcorn, those in the upper income brackets will continue to enjoy their fix.

Two different issues isn't it?

Pushing for lowered limits on salt additives is a good thing. Take chocolate milk. Try to find chocolate milk that doesn't have a substantial amount of salt in it. Good luck. Well you can't just buy milk and add a powdered chocolate to it either, because the powdered Nesquik (or whatever brand) still contains salt (and a bunch of sugar). Just look at the amount of salt processing in soups, breads, meats, etc. Ya, salt is used as a preservative, but your low salt soup with 150mg sodium lasts as long as the can of chilli with 1100mg sodium.

Couldn't care less if the same politician then goes and over salts his popcorn. That's a choice the chocolate milk drinker or canned chilli eater doesn't have.

Personal logo etotheipi Sponsoring Member of TMP09 Feb 2019 5:26 a.m. PST

And don't say it's a voluntary hazard that the people are accepting of.

So, you're saying people lack free will.

Even the American Beverage Association who lobbies on behalf of the soft drink companies says that taxing soft drinks will harm the poor. Ya sure.

So, based on the sarcasm of this next statement, you believe that drinking soda is actually harmful. And yet people do it all the time.

… so people are forced by natural forces over which they have no control to drink soda?

Personal logo etotheipi Sponsoring Member of TMP09 Feb 2019 5:32 a.m. PST

Is it a "Nanny State" when the Feds tell you to drive on the right side of the road in the interest of public health and safety?

We're just going to assume you mean "the transportation branches of the various states" where you say "the Feds" and move along.

Driving on the right (or left) of the roads is not a safety issue. It is an operational standard for convenience and efficiency. The standard was carried over from seamanship standards, specifically port to port passage and being on starboard tack for ships of sail.

If that standard didn't exist, driving would probably be safer since roads would be too inefficient to allow the speeds we currently drive. Also, one of the main causal factors of accidents is people being comfortable driving and paying less attention to it. Without such a standard, people would be less comfortable.

Personal logo etotheipi Sponsoring Member of TMP09 Feb 2019 5:39 a.m. PST

Two different issues isn't it?

Pushing for lowered limits on salt additives is a good thing. Take chocolate milk.

Because chocolate milk is a mandatory food substance, driven my natural forces beyond your control and evolution, so it is extremely difficult and costly to avoid it as opposed to, say preserved foods in general.

Try to find chocolate milk that doesn't have a substantial amount of salt in it. Good luck.

I need you to wish me luck at the wargaming table. When I googled "chocolate milk", without "low salt" or "healthy" or any other qualifier, the first thing I got was Horizon Low Fat Organic Chocolate Milk. After a couple more searches, the nutrition label lists less sodium that your low-salt example. And less sodium proportionally from the AMA recommended low-salt diet (1500mg a day) than the calories would give you for a 2000 calorie diet. That is 9% of your AMA sodium and 11% of your 2K calories.

VCarter Supporting Member of TMP09 Feb 2019 7:30 a.m. PST

It's not what they are trying to do, it's the way they plan to do it.

I believe Denis Leary said it best:

link

Dn Jackson09 Feb 2019 6:00 p.m. PST

"Putting a tax on these products and using the resulting funds to offset the cost of treating the ensuing diabetes and cardiovascular problems in the future would be a good idea, no?"

No. You are taking people's choice away because you don't like what they're doing. That is the antithesis of freedom.

"Is it a "Nanny State" when the Feds tell you to drive on the right side of the road in the interest of public health and safety?"

You are conflating the safety of others and what they do to themselves. If I drive on the wrong side of the road I risk the safety of others. If I drink sugary drinks I risk only my own health. There's a difference.

And I find this entire discussion amazing. We have a 'Big Food' industry that has managed, in the name of making a profit, to feed the entire world. When I was a kid in the 70s we were told repeatedly that the population of the earth would soon grow so big that there would be mass starvation because we couldn't produce enough food. And if government was allowed to run the food industry we'd find that that was a true statement. Just look at the Soviet Union, Cuba, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, South Africa, or anywhere else governments control food production.

Bowman10 Feb 2019 7:12 p.m. PST

If I drink sugary drinks I risk only my own health. There's a difference.

Yes there is a difference, but not what you think.

About 2/3rd of all costs for diabetes in the US is from government sources. The total economic costs of diagnosed diabetes has risen 26% to 327 billion dollars over the period from 2012 to 2017. Maybe read this:

link

Personal logo etotheipi Sponsoring Member of TMP11 Feb 2019 7:53 a.m. PST

Maybe read this:

Sure. Point me to the part of it where it says X% of these people got diabetes from drinking soda. Or is your point that we should tax sodas because people are born with diabetes?

BTW, the closest thing this hase to causality is the linking through to the BRFSS data (Behavioural Risk Factors Surveillance System), which routinely is cited in articles as not being able to establish correlation or causality between dietary behaviours and associated diseases. Which is true, but a bit unfair, since that's not what the telephone survey was designed to do.

Bowman11 Feb 2019 12:04 p.m. PST

Sure. Point me to the part of ……

How about a 67% increase in type II diabetes in soft drink users who drink at least 1 soda per day.

link

Then take "metabolic syndrome", a collection of risk factors that lead to atherosclerosis, diabetes, heart disease and stroke. The risk factors are:

increased blood pressure (greater than 130/85 mmHg)
high blood sugar levels (insulin resistance)
excess fat around the waist
high triglyceride levels
low levels of good cholesterol, or HDL

Drinking one or more sodas per day gives a 44% increase in the development of metabolic syndrome.

link

Soda consumption has long been a contributing factor to obesity.

link

link

Bowman11 Feb 2019 12:07 p.m. PST

No. You are taking people's choice away because you don't like what they're doing. That is the antithesis of freedom.

So are the laws against drugs and prostitution also not antithetical to ones freedom?

Martin from Canada11 Feb 2019 12:23 p.m. PST

Oh, Bowman, you haven't spent time on the Libertarian internet/Youtube/Twitter/Reddit. The topics you have stated are very low bars to clear for "hill do die on". But this is veering into Fez territory so I'll stop here for now rather than list a semi-exhaustive list.

Bowman11 Feb 2019 2:51 p.m. PST

Agreed

VCarter Supporting Member of TMP11 Feb 2019 5:34 p.m. PST

Let freedom ring!

dapeters12 Feb 2019 7:53 a.m. PST

All the way to the bank and grave!

Gunfreak Supporting Member of TMP13 Feb 2019 12:21 p.m. PST

Taxing fat/sugar doesn't work unless you also give an alternative.

The Norwegian government started a "sugar tax" in 2018, with the obvious ramifications of less sold soda etc, but increased soda import from Sweden, 3/5th of the Norwegian population lives within 90 minutes of the Swedish border.
Swedish soda was already cheaper, now it's half the price.
To show the complete incompetence of the government the sugar tax also affected sugar-free soda.
So you want people to get less sugar in them, but also hike the tax on sugar-free soda.

In America fat filled food is cheap, making it expensive doesn't help anyone unless you lower the price of healthy food.
It has to be two-fold.
1. make fruit and vegetables cheaper, make frech meat cheaper.
2. give incentives to companies to make healthy finished food.

Many of those suffering the most from sugar and fat, are low income, these are families that work 2 or 3 jobs just to feed them self and their kids. They have little time with their children. Make "tv dinners" healthy(er) and cheaper.

Punish companies that add sugar, salt and fat unnecessary, reward those that make affordable healthy food.

Just taxing unhealthy food or drink without giving poor and middle-class families a healthy alternative they can afford only punish the poor.
The rich can afford healthy food, the poor can't leading not only to a financial superclass of people they will be healthier too.

Dn Jackson14 Feb 2019 2:52 a.m. PST

"About 2/3rd of all costs for diabetes in the US is from government sources. The total economic costs of diagnosed diabetes has risen 26% to 327 billion dollars over the period from 2012 to 2017."

Which is an argument to get the government out of health care.

Bowman14 Feb 2019 5:45 a.m. PST

Or do it better.

link

But we are veering away from any science discussions.

Anyways it actually was an indication that the consumption of high amounts of sugary drinks produces a big burden on the health of a nation, regardless of how the healthcare is funded. That was the point which you may have missed.

VCarter Supporting Member of TMP14 Feb 2019 4:15 p.m. PST

The real missed point is that some of us favor personal responsibility and others seem to want someone else (read big government) to take care of them.

An even worse possibly is they want the same big government to take over responsibility for people who are acting in a way they don't approve of.

I would remind them that one day they will become the problem that an international group will want to deal with.

Bowman15 Feb 2019 6:01 a.m. PST

tinfoilhat

VCarter Supporting Member of TMP15 Feb 2019 7:40 a.m. PST

Just like Martin Niemoller!

Gunfreak Supporting Member of TMP15 Feb 2019 7:49 a.m. PST

It's easy talking about "personal responsibility" When you can afford it.

The poor(and now the middle class) in America don't have the choice between healthy and unhealthy food.
They have a choice between unhealthy food and starvation.

But yeah sure, if you want to raise the minimum wage to 25 dollars an hour, and put a limit that none can work more then 10 hours a day. Then yeah you can talk about personal responsibility

VCarter Supporting Member of TMP15 Feb 2019 1:38 p.m. PST

"The poor(and now the middle class) in America don't have the choice between healthy and unhealthy food.
They have a choice between unhealthy food and starvation."


Have you ever been to the U.S.?

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.