NationStates

Conserative Morality wrote:

Minzerland wrote:The question is; how many loafs do you eat?

Just one! I swear! Sometimes a man needs to eat some bread.

Bread is Gods gift to us.

Lunalia wrote:I do agree that there are people with extremely high metabolisms who can get away with eating an entire loaf of bread at once. Mom likes to tell me the story of how she and dad were living on low income while he was in medical school and he came home one day, converted the loaf of bread that was supposed to last them a week into grilled cheese sandwiches, ate them all, and was still hungry. And dad absolutely does not need to lose weight.

No sandwich or condiments, rip it off in pieces and eat it. That's the way bread was meant to be enjoyed.

Minzerland wrote:Bread is Gods gift to us.

This man understands.

Costa Fierro wrote:

Renewed Imperial Germany wrote:A 'sin tax' on junk food would only hurt poor people living in food deserts.

No it wouldn't. Because you wouldn't have the sugar tax and then keep other taxes on other food. Rather, you make fruit and vegetables cheaper and regular foods cheaper too, such as pasta, bread, milk etc. The sugar tax would be applied to things such as fizz/soda, ice cream, chocolate bars, chocolate biscuits etc.

Shitty foods are inherently cheaper that good foods like fresh vegetables. In all likelihood, they'd still be cheaper.

Minzerland wrote:

Conserative Morality wrote:Just one! I swear! Sometimes a man needs to eat some bread.

Bread is Gods gift to us.

That explains Christian rituals, then.

Conserative Morality wrote:

Minzerland wrote:Bread is Gods gift to us.

This man understands.

Except soy bread, that is the devils work.

I'd rather keep my appetite.

Renewed Imperial Germany wrote:

Minzerland wrote:Bread is Gods gift to us.

That explains Christian rituals, then.

The Christians new what's up.

Renewed Imperial Germany wrote:Shitty foods are inherently cheaper that good foods like fresh vegetables. In all likelihood, they'd still be cheaper.

Not universally true. I can buy a shitton of bananas for a dollar. I can buy a week's worth of food in bananas for a fiver. Bananas are hella cheap.

I have a better idea. A gains tax. You pay an amount of tax on how much weight you gain, but if you lose wait you got money.

Bhikkustan wrote:I have a better idea. A gains tax. You pay an amount of tax on how much weight you gain, but if you lose wait you got money.

This penalizes people with medical conditions which cause weight gain.

Or people who are trying to put on muscle.

Or people who are severely underweight because of medical conditions and are trying to put on weight to reach a healthy weight.

Conserative Morality wrote:Not universally true. I can buy a shitton of bananas for a dollar. I can buy a week's worth of food in bananas for a fiver. Bananas are hella cheap.

I think I would throw up after trying to eat that many bananas...

Lunalia wrote:

Bhikkustan wrote:I have a better idea. A gains tax. You pay an amount of tax on how much weight you gain, but if you lose wait you got money.

This penalizes people with medical conditions which cause weight gain.

Or people who are trying to put on muscle.

Or people who are severely underweight because of medical conditions and are trying to put on weight to reach a healthy weight.

Of course there would be medical exemptions or if you could prove that it was muscle. But on the whole this would do better.

Bhikkustan wrote:

Lunalia wrote:This penalizes people with medical conditions which cause weight gain.

Or people who are trying to put on muscle.

Or people who are severely underweight because of medical conditions and are trying to put on weight to reach a healthy weight.

Of course there would be medical exemptions or if you could prove that it was muscle. But on the whole this would do better.

Speaking from experience in high school, as a very much healthy 130 pound girl with a lot of muscle from tae kwon do, the body fat counters they used to determine how healthy we were said I was at 40% body fat. Girls with significantly... wider..... bodies than mine were told that they were at 25% body fat. No idea how much they actually weighed, but I would guess at least twice as much as me, given that they were so wide they could not actually touch their toes because they were in their way.

Tests which measure whether you are putting on fat or muscle are wildly inaccurate.

Lunalia wrote:As a side note, I once ate nothing but two slices of blueberry pie with a scoop of ice cream each day for a month, and I actually lost weight. Kind of wish I hadn't gotten sick of the taste of blueberry pie and kept at it, because after I resumed eating healthier foods I gained the weight back. I maintain that a sugar tax does nothing to make people stop gaining weight, and that portion size is far more important than what you're eating.

Body weight and obesity is down to a lot of things and simply slapping taxes on unhealthy foods is a simplistic, if somewhat politically convenient, method of "solving" the issue.

The Serbian Empire wrote:After seeing studies on tobacco graphic warning labels suggesting fewer smokers will start as a result, I'd like to believe GWLs could be used to discourage overconsumption of snack foods. Images such as diabetic gangrene would be plastered on food as to show consumers what can happen by eating too much of these unhealthy products. So NSG, do you think graphic warning labels actually discourage potential smokers from starting in the first place and do you think it would reduce snack food consumption?

Personally, I believe that the warning labels are effective and that it would deter over-consumption of food.

Do you have any links for the studies about the tobacco labels?

I think food is a more complicated issue than tobacco because everybody eats. Not everybody smokes. You don't need to smoke. And determining what's "healthy" or "unhealthy" food is not straightforward. Different people have different dietary needs, obesity often has to do with portion sizes rather than the type of food someone is eating, and the healthiness of a choice also depends on what other foods you are eating. For example, you could argue that bacon is unhealthy because it has too much fat -- but if the rest of your diet is all low-fat vegan foods, adding the bacon is probably going to make you healthier. I don't think there's any food that we should be pressuring people to remove from their diet entirely the way we pressure people not to smoke.

Costa Fierro wrote:

Lunalia wrote:As a side note, I once ate nothing but two slices of blueberry pie with a scoop of ice cream each day for a month, and I actually lost weight. Kind of wish I hadn't gotten sick of the taste of blueberry pie and kept at it, because after I resumed eating healthier foods I gained the weight back. I maintain that a sugar tax does nothing to make people stop gaining weight, and that portion size is far more important than what you're eating.

Body weight and obesity is down to a lot of things and simply slapping taxes on unhealthy foods is a simplistic, if somewhat politically convenient, method of "solving" the issue.

So instead of eating a pint of ice cream, people will eat a pint of low calorie frozen yogurt. Or a pint of hummus instead of twinkies. taxing unhealthy foods just changes which foods people are eating too much of.

The Serbian Empire wrote:

Pope Joan wrote:If you are a food addict, you will sit down and eat a whole loaf of bread at one sitting.

Where do you put all the warning labels?

ABED is a serious condition.

On the wrappers. And it won't stop the binge eaters, but it might discourage people from eating indiscriminately otherwise. As in only 10% of Americans would qualify for an ED with most of them as ABED. The other 25% of obese people? Chronic snackers or overeaters who have portion control issues.

How would the labels help with portion control issues? They already bought the food despite the label.

I see tobacco smoking as a more pressing public health issue right now.

I'm quite underweight already. Having those sort of graphics on everything that contains fructose, fat, cholesterol and so on would make that even more of a problem.

Lunalia wrote:I think I would throw up after trying to eat that many bananas...

Well, I could never eat that many bananas. I'm just saying, it's more of a food desert thing than that fruits and vegetables are universally expensive.

Renewed Imperial Germany wrote:Shitty foods are inherently cheaper that good foods like fresh vegetables. In all likelihood, they'd still be cheaper.

I'm talking about removing sales taxes on fresh fruit and vegetables, maintaining current sales taxes on things like bread, pasta etc. and increasing taxes on things like chocolate, even if it is a shrewd revenue gathering method.

Renewed Imperial Germany wrote:

Costa Fierro wrote:
No it wouldn't. Because you wouldn't have the sugar tax and then keep other taxes on other food. Rather, you make fruit and vegetables cheaper and regular foods cheaper too, such as pasta, bread, milk etc. The sugar tax would be applied to things such as fizz/soda, ice cream, chocolate bars, chocolate biscuits etc.

Shitty foods are inherently cheaper that good foods like fresh vegetables. In all likelihood, they'd still be cheaper.

Why do people keep repeating this? Fresh vegetables are as cheap as or cheaper than other foods. Poor people who buy processed foods rather than fresh vegetables are usually doing that because they don't go to the store very often and they don't have any good way to store the vegetables so they won't go bad, not because the vegetables are too expensive to buy. Processed foods are easier to store.

Conserative Morality wrote:

Renewed Imperial Germany wrote:Shitty foods are inherently cheaper that good foods like fresh vegetables. In all likelihood, they'd still be cheaper.

Not universally true. I can buy a shitton of bananas for a dollar. I can buy a week's worth of food in bananas for a fiver. Bananas are hella cheap.

So are potatoes, carrots, celery, onions, apples, cabbage... A lot of vegetables really.

Wallenburg wrote:I'm quite underweight already. Having those sort of graphics on everything that contains fructose, fat, cholesterol and so on would make that even more of a problem.

This raises a good point.

Graphic labels would make things harder for people like recovering anorexics that need to gain weight.

USS Monitor wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:I'm quite underweight already. Having those sort of graphics on everything that contains fructose, fat, cholesterol and so on would make that even more of a problem.

This raises a good point.

Graphic labels would make things harder for people like recovering anorexics that need to gain weight.

Or anyone hovering at or below that 10th percentile number, for that matter.

Wallenburg wrote:I'm quite underweight already. Having those sort of graphics on everything that contains fructose, fat, cholesterol and so on would make that even more of a problem.

The same really. A person of my stature, age, and biological sex should weigh around 140-150 pounds. I weigh 110. I've got a chemical imbalance that makes it nearly impossible to gain weight. It's a serious medical condition. Raising taxes on sugary goods would make my grocery bill soar. I tend to eat healthy but now and then I do like cheesecake and gelato to help keep the weight on at least.