Right, This fat tax........

AidanR

meanredspider wrote:

What I meant though is what, if anything, should governments do? Diabetes is a global epidemic - it's only going to get worse

I think it's a dangerous area for governments to get involved in. A lot of the official dietary advice is, as far as I'm concerned, rubbish. The recommendation of a low fat diet is based on the controversial notion that a low fat diet is better for the heart allied with the argument that fat is calorie-dense, and the simplistic notion that if you eat fat it somehow goes directly into your fat cells (and that protein goes to muscle and carbohydrate benignly provides "fuel").

What I would start with is trying to separate food companies from dietary science and from influence over government food policy. Sadly most of this comes from the US, where we have no influence and the conflicts of interest run deep.

Oh, and I'd ban high fructose corn syrup along with hydrogenated trans-fats.

notsoblue

AidanR wrote:

I think it's a dangerous area for governments to get involved in.

Personally I think its only governments that actually have the power to effect change on this scale. It worked in Finland... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3451491.stm

Applespider

A fat tax is flawed though since fat, in itself, isn't inherently unhealthy. Fat satiates so you'll feel fuller for longer more so than if you eat 99% fat-free crisps or cake. Most manufacturers when they reduce fat so much, just add sugar or starches to keep the flavour - which the body will burn through and turn to fat.

It feels very wrong to be in a world where regular milk is taxed as being bad for you yet uber-sugary Coke won't be.

AidanR

notsoblue wrote:

AidanR wrote:

I think it's a dangerous area for governments to get involved in.

Personally I think its only governments that actually have the power to effect change on this scale. It worked in Finland... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3451491.stm

Yes, they can affect change. But dietary science is a very difficult area and one which does not lend itself to simplistic proclamations of what is and isn't healthy. Get it wrong and it can have large negative consequences. An arguable example of this is the promotion of a low fat diet which has coincided with the largest obesity epidemic in the history of mankind. Causal? Maybe, maybe not. But it certainly hasn't been the effective advice envisaged by its backers.

jds_1981

Why not get to the root of the problem & just fine anyone who can more than 'pinch an inch', or is below 'normal' BMI? Could be done through a mandatory twice-yearly health screening. Awesome...

meanredspider

AidanR wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

AidanR wrote:

I think it's a dangerous area for governments to get involved in.

Personally I think its only governments that actually have the power to effect change on this scale. It worked in Finland... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3451491.stm

Yes, they can affect change. But dietary science is a very difficult area and one which does not lend itself to simplistic proclamations of what is and isn't healthy. Get it wrong and it can have large negative consequences. An arguable example of this is the promotion of a low fat diet which has coincided with the largest obesity epidemic in the history of mankind. Causal? Maybe, maybe not. But it certainly hasn't been the effective advice envisaged by its backers.

Hmm - I'm not entirely convinced. More of interest is to see the developing countries that are beginning to see obesity issues and what has changed. For instance, when I was in China for 6 months, the guys I worked with couldn't get enough of McDonalds and KFC. Low Fat products come AFTER obesity not before it. They might not work but they aren't the cause of obesity they're a symptom of it.

dgstewart

Applespider wrote:

A fat tax is flawed though since fat, in itself, isn't inherently unhealthy. Fat satiates so you'll feel fuller for longer more so than if you eat 99% fat-free crisps or cake. Most manufacturers when they reduce fat so much, just add sugar or starches to keep the flavour - which the body will burn through and turn to fat.

It feels very wrong to be in a world where regular milk is taxed as being bad for you yet uber-sugary Coke won't be.

Exactly, it would be astonishingly wrong to tax the likes of milk, cheese, nuts/seeds, olive oil, humous, etc becasue they are "high fat"and not tax sugary sweets and other completely processed junk. Eating too much of anything is bad for your weight, but as noted above fat has a very high satiety impact and can keep you feeling full longer, thus leading to lower overall calorie intake. It really isn't as simple as it made out, and there is quite obviously a major conflict of interest in terms of food comapnies and dietary advice - a huge obstacle to overcome regardless how it is approached.

AidanR

meanredspider wrote:

Hmm - I'm not entirely convinced. More of interest is to see the developing countries that are beginning to see obesity issues and what has changed. For instance, when I was in China for 6 months, the guys I worked with couldn't get enough of McDonalds and KFC. Low Fat products come AFTER obesity not before it. They might not work but they aren't the cause of obesity they're a symptom of it.

Let's not get too bogged down with macronutrients. The common denominator here is *processed* foods. Let's take a classic example - a McDonald's hamburger:

Bun - highly refined wheat (which itself isn't good for you - antinutrients such as phytates and gluten), low fibre, high GI
Burger - low quality, hormone-packed meat and fat
Sauce - salt and high fructose corn syrup

And that's just off the top of my head. Add in preservatives and flavourings and you've got something that is frankly unfit for human consumption. Is the problem simply that it's high in fat? No.

The trouble is that low-fat is not a good diet tip, and has spawned a ridiculous industry of "health" foods which are no more than processed rubbish with a misleading label. Moreover, saturated fat has been demonised when it's the main fat we ate when we evolved. Worse, we've been pedaled cheap industrial vegetable oils as a healthier alternative when in fact they're much, much worse for us.

So no, I'm not in favour of a simplistic and wrongheaded tax on saturated fat.

CrackFox

@ Aidan - thanks for the info. Primal lifestyle advocates seem to have done their homework - what I have read has certainly challenged what I thought I knew about what a healthy diet is. Ditto excessive cardio and gym work - watching Ewan Le Corre doing his MovNat thing is inspiring. The simplicity of the underlying philosophy has a powerful appeal.

I have to agree with your point about the health food industry. A lot of foods targeted at vegetarians are marketed as healthy alternatives, but a glance at the back of the packet often reveals a long list of artificial ingredients. Those products may be low fat, and they may be marginally better than cheap meat products, but are they healthy (especially given the charges laid against soy and other legumes)? Similarly, processed foods labeled as 'low salt' or 'low sugar' still contain massive amounts of salt and sugar and cannot be regarded as healthy. As you said, the common denominator is processed foods, and these are the foods that the public should be advised to avoid.

meanredspider

I'm not in favour of the fat tax either. My McDonalds point isn't anything to do with the fat in the food but in response to the low-fat comment. I didn't see ant products labelled "low fat" in China because nobody was yet fat. As I say, they're a symptom and not a cause.

I'm also not totally sold on the evolution argument. From my understanding, people didn't live long enough for the I'll-effects of a bad diet to have an impact. Nor was there likely to be sufficient quantity - we all know that everything in moderation is ok. Anyway, if there's no negative outcomes, evolution theory would say it has no impact.

Our issues these days are far more to do with excess of food rather than type. Time and again on here, the advice for people on here when trying to lose weight is portion control. Add to that a sedentary lifestyle and you have a recipe for disaster.

squired

For me, the labelling on food should change. The whole "low in fat", "low in sugar", etc. labelling is just used as a marketing ploy. It would be far better if there was "high in fat", "high sugar levels", etc. as well. Of course the chance of that ever happening is very small, as the food companies wouldn't want it.

I do think though that one aspect where we really let ourselves down is education. Why is nutrition not properly taught at school? I'm not talking about a couple of 30 minute sessions. Either it should be a standalone, or an important component of science lessons.

bails87

Some supermarkets do the 'pie-chart of health' thing don't they.

The more red there is, the tastier it is!

rjsterry

Good intentions, bad idea. It only addresses one small part of the problem, in a very simplistic way*, and reinforces various misconceptions about diet.

*necessarily for a tax - to devise a system that taxed food on it's overall nutritional value would be hopelessly complex, and still wouldn't deal with the whole issue of diet, let alone lack of exercise.

gtvlusso

I have read several articles on this, but have heard contradictory stories from colleagues: can someone clarify if taxing normal dairy produce was mentioned anywhere? i.e. Are cheese and milk (intrinsically fatty produce) going to be taxed?

deptfordmarmoset

Slightly off topic, but France is looking into doubling their ''taxe sodas'' - meaning sugared drinks. Coca Cola aren't very happy, but it would be interesting to see whether a reduction in soft sugared drinks might have some impact on obesity. It seems that while fatty foods have been being demonised, the consumption of soft drinks has risen continuously. Just like obesity.

http://www.lefigaro.fr/conjoncture/2011 ... -prevu.php

jds_1981

My main objection to this at least is that it penalises people who don't necessarily have any health issues.

meanredspider

jds_1981 wrote:

My main objection to this at least is that it penalises people who don't necessarily have any health issues.

The same as the additional taxes on alcohol. And the latest rule in Scotland is now that you can't discount alcohol by volume - unless you buy from England that is... :roll:

meanredspider

deptfordmarmoset wrote:

Slightly off topic, but France is looking into doubling their ''taxe sodas'' - meaning sugared drinks. Coca Cola aren't very happy, but it would be interesting to see whether a reduction in soft sugared drinks might have some impact on obesity. It seems that while fatty foods have been being demonised, the consumption of soft drinks has risen continuously. Just like obesity.

Bars are going to love that too. Drivers are going to be taxed on their soft drinks.

It's a very difficult problem for sure.

jds_1981

meanredspider wrote:

Bars are going to love that too. Drivers are going to be taxed on their soft drinks.

It's a very difficult problem for sure.

Am I the only one who finds that soft drinks aren't much cheaper than beer in many bars?

davmaggs

jds_1981 wrote:

My main objection to this at least is that it penalises people who don't necessarily have any health issues.

+1

The government should stay out of it.

Regulation should focus on very clear labelling (like the US) and on stopping the use of dodgy health related claims (terms like low fat, then stuffing the product full of sugar) or pseudo science.

The last thing we need is more tax complexity and more cash grabs on the wallets of the population.

PS the rise of diabetes in the third world is now, in many cases starting to be attributed to poor diet (lack of calories) in pregnant women.

bails87

jds_1981 wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

Bars are going to love that too. Drivers are going to be taxed on their soft drinks.

It's a very difficult problem for sure.

Am I the only one who finds that soft drinks aren't much cheaper than beer in many bars?

Squash/cordial is cheap. Sugary stuff isn't.

rubertoe

They should have some sort of width restrictions in fast food joints - if you cant get in the door then you cant eat the tasty goods on sale.

The Real Radioactiveman

I have a solution - tax people on their body fat %.

By my reckoning I should be paying ~ 10-15% instead of higher rate,

Pretty sure this would lead to financial meltdown but its definitely a more fair way.

AidanR

A bit of a sexist tax, though!

bails87

rubertoe wrote:

They should have some sort of width restrictions in fast food joints - if you cant get in the door then you cant eat the tasty goods on sale.

I've said this before. Bouncers are needed. Fatso tries to waddle in: "I think you've had enough, go home, have a salad". Next person "Got any ID? Under 18 (stone) only"

Pringles are, of course, self regulating

il_principe

Isn't this coming at the problem from the entirely the wrong angle?

I bet most of the posters here are not obese. Why? Because they exercise regularly.
I also bet that most of us occasionally eat processed food, drink coke, drink too much beer, have the odd kebab, packet of crisps, slice of cake etc. I know I do. I drink more beer than I should and am partial to chocolate and cake. I sit behind a desk all day as well, but I'm not fat because I ride my bike almost every day (and am intelligent enough not to live on processed shite).

I'd rather see the government reward people for exercising, or perhaps remove VAT from exercise equipment, subsidise gym membership, give tax credits to families who get involved with local sports teams/clubs etc - there are loads of things they could do. When I worked at Virgin Active, we ran a scheme with BUPA. If you had health insurance then your premiums would be reduced depending on how much you used the gym (data logged on swipe cards etc). This was some years ago and the system could be abused easily, but given tech now then schemes like this could be implemented easily.

I'm fed up with government punishing people in the hope of forcing change. How about reward for exercise instead of punishing fat. Of course this would cost money, but how much does obesity cost the NHS every year, so you'd hope to see savings there.

Why should healthy people pay more if they fancy the odd maccy d's etc?

bails87

Il Principe
But the government hasn't got the money to spend on rewarding healthy/active people. It's got the money to deal with extra crashes caused by 80mph speed limits, and it's got a quarter of a billion pounds for bins......but no money for healthy people. Of course, these aren't choices, they simply haven't got a choice. Because they said so, that's why

AidanR

meanredspider wrote:

I'm also not totally sold on the evolution argument. From my understanding, people didn't live long enough for the I'll-effects of a bad diet to have an impact. Nor was there likely to be sufficient quantity - we all know that everything in moderation is ok. Anyway, if there's no negative outcomes, evolution theory would say it has no impact.

The short lives of our ancestors isn't really the critical factor. The main point is whether they got to breed. Good nutrition could have made all the difference for males attracting females* and successfully raising healthy offspring that could themselves breed.

Despite this, I think the general argument behind paleo is less that we have adapted to eat certain foods, but more that we *haven't* adapted to eat certain foods. Now, that too is not entirely true - take the case of dairy. Where it's been consumed the longest (Europe) there are low levels of lactose intolerance, whereas in the rest of the world the majority of the (non-white) population is usually lactose intolerant:



A similar thing goes for wheat, specifically gluten. I've seen estimates (but sadly can't find the source) that up to a third of the (US) population has some form of wheat intolerance, even if only 1% are diagnosed with full-blown coeliac disease. Trouble is, a lot of wheat intolerance manifests itself in very generalised symptoms and usually goes undiagnosed.

So why have many of us successfully evolved to tolerate such agricultural produce? Surely it had to produce an evolutionary advantage? Well, despite the potentially nasty side-effects, there was an advantage - calories. Something might not be good for you, but if it gave you the energy to get through the day then overall you gained from eating it. The problem is, for us in the developed world the issue isn't a lack of calories any more.

*I've said males attracting females rather than the other way round as early humans were likely polygynous, although obviously female nutrition would be essential for producing healthy offspring.

squeeler

IMO it would be just another tax on the poor or uneducated.

-To a nice healthy middle class family a McDs is a (maybe) monthly naughty treat.
-To a chav rioter McDs is just a normal lunch.

Taxing fat does not sound like an answer to anything to me?

meanredspider

AidanR wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

I'm also not totally sold on the evolution argument. From my understanding, people didn't live long enough for the I'll-effects of a bad diet to have an impact. Nor was there likely to be sufficient quantity - we all know that everything in moderation is ok. Anyway, if there's no negative outcomes, evolution theory would say it has no impact.

The short lives of our ancestors isn't really the critical factor. The main point is whether they got to breed. Good nutrition could have made all the difference for males attracting females* and successfully raising healthy offspring that could themselves breed.

Despite this, I think the general argument behind paleo is less that we have adapted to eat certain foods, but more that we *haven't* adapted to eat certain foods.

So why have many of us successfully evolved to tolerate such agricultural produce? Surely it had to produce an evolutionary advantage? Well, despite the potentially nasty side-effects, there was an advantage - calories. Something might not be good for you, but if it gave you the energy to get through the day then overall you gained from eating it. The problem is, for us in the developed world the issue isn't a lack of calories any more.

I think the evolutionary point is that we've adapted to store excess calories because of the feast & famine of hunter/gatherer lifestyle. We also evolved to accept that there was effort (calorie expenditure) in finding food. Modern life is nothing like that for modern societies - we can jump into cars, head to the shops, and stuff our faces until we're sick in front of the TV. All of this is pretty much independent of geography and therefore historic diet. I'm not aware that any one geographical region is immune to the obesity issue based upon genetic make up of a race.