Graphic Warning Labels: A Cure for Obesity Epidemic?

[The Serbian Empire]

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.

[Pope Joan]

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.

[The Serbian Empire]

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.

[Mefpan]

I'm rather skeptical of any success on that front. For smokers (at least in my country), it's just provoked companies to produce silly cloth things one can drape over cigarette packs to hide graphic pictures of destroyed lungs, or pre-produce as much of the old packaging as humanly possible before such legislation takes effect so that there's plenty of storage backlog to go through before one has to rely on the new, graphic ones.

While I don't seriously think that anyone's going to put a sock on their Snickers, I do wonder if there'll be any real success in scaring people off. Eventually, people will just get used to them, I suppose.

[The Serbian Empire]

I'm rather skeptical of any success on that front. For smokers (at least in my country), it's just provoked companies to produce silly cloth things one can drape over cigarette packs to hide graphic pictures of destroyed lungs, or pre-produce as much of the old packaging as humanly possible before such legislation takes effect so that there's plenty of storage backlog to go through before one has to rely on the new, graphic ones.

While I don't seriously think that anyone's going to put a sock on their Snickers, I do wonder if there'll be any real success in scaring people off. Eventually, people will just get used to them, I suppose.

I bet they'll be producing as much of the old packaging as possible. But if they need to put a sock over the goods, it probably has some customer shame effects.

[Internationalist Bastard]

It'll always ruin my already terrible appetite

[Conserative Morality]

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

There's nothing wrong with eating a whole loaf of bread in one sitting.

[Mefpan]

I'm rather skeptical of any success on that front. For smokers (at least in my country), it's just provoked companies to produce silly cloth things one can drape over cigarette packs to hide graphic pictures of destroyed lungs, or pre-produce as much of the old packaging as humanly possible before such legislation takes effect so that there's plenty of storage backlog to go through before one has to rely on the new, graphic ones.

While I don't seriously think that anyone's going to put a sock on their Snickers, I do wonder if there'll be any real success in scaring people off. Eventually, people will just get used to them, I suppose.

I bet they'll be producing as much of the old packaging as possible. But if they need to put a sock over the goods, it probably has some customer shame effects.

From personal, anectodal experience, the shame effect seems to be more on the "fuck this overbearing, helicoptering government regulation" end of the scale.

But what the fuck do I know. The main reason I'm opposed to this is the fact that I do grab a snack on occasion and would find it rather disturbing if any such grab would end up looking like I'm reaching into a bloody morgue. I like to think I have some measure of control when it comes to eating and wouldn't really care about the packaging in the end, because I'd still want that fucking snack. Is scaring people shitless with the implication that becoming a gangrene-ridden roll of slob is the inevitable end result of snack food consumption really the only way we have left to combat obesity?

[The Serbian Empire]

It'll always ruin my already terrible appetite

Now that you mention it, that's probably why it hasn't been attempted.

[Cannot think of a name]

If your understanding of weight and health comes from hacky stand up comedy, then sure. That'll work.

[The Serbian Empire]

If your understanding of weight and health comes from hacky stand up comedy, then sure. That'll work.

So many good points of holes in this idea.

[Dushan]

One but not the only thing about addiction including Food one, is that People get their (Dopamine) kicks from eating stuff. Neurochemistry can be a bitch.

Works the same way with many other addictions, Social Media, Video Games, Porn etc.

[The Serbian Empire]

One but not the only thing about addiction including Food one, is that People get their (Dopamine) kicks from eating stuff. Neurochemistry can be a bitch.

Works the same way with many other addictions, Social Media, Video Games, Porn etc.

It almost serves as a deterrent to starting the use of food as a drug, but they'll probably just find another source of dopamine. Possibly a more dangerous source.

[Salus Maior]

Eh, I'll still be eating fried chicken, pizza, and mozzarella sticks regardless.

[Costa Fierro]

I don't think so. The thing with the smokes is that while New Zealand has graphic images of cancer, gangrene etc. on the cigarette packets, it also has massive tobacco taxes which do far more to reduce smoking rates than images could.

[Zakuvia]

Here's the big difference between cigarettes with graphic images and food with graphic images: you don't need cigarettes to continue existing.

Yes, I understand that the intent was for these to be on bags of Twinkies, and not celery stalks, but the point exists nonetheless. Also, imagine someone with anemia or bulimia seeing one of these hypothetical tags. I can think of a few negative outcomes of someone with those psychological conditions seeing that kind of imagery on food.

Costa's got the right idea, even if it's one that will never catch on stateside. A 'sin' tax on useless food is where change can most effectively come from. Those taxes can help fund healthy eating initiatives or go into the coffers of public school cafeterias, which is where the most underprivileged children get most of their nutrition.

[Costa Fierro]

Costa's got the right idea, even if it's one that will never catch on stateside. A 'sin' tax on useless food is where change can most effectively come from. Those taxes can help fund healthy eating initiatives or go into the coffers of public school cafeterias, which is where the most underprivileged children get most of their nutrition.

It's not so much the "right idea", as the government was considering implementing a sugar tax similar to what the British were doing. Also, there's been efforts to improve the availability of healthy eating choices with a couple of local supermarkets removing chocolate bars and other things from the checkouts and replace them with salads or healthy snacks. A lot of hospitals are also removing sugary drinks from vending machines. Schools have been offering healthy food alternatives for a few years, even if most kids bugger off down to the local dairy (convenience store) to buy pies and drinks there.

[Renewed Imperial Germany]

I don't think so. The thing with the smokes is that while New Zealand has graphic images of cancer, gangrene etc. on the cigarette packets, it also has massive tobacco taxes which do far more to reduce smoking rates than images could.

A 'sin tax' on junk food would only hurt poor people living in food deserts.

[Lunalia]

I'm not even sure that taxes on "useless" food are the best way to go about getting people to lose weight.

There are some people with serious food allergies who are unable to eat healthier foods, and would honestly be happy to eat healthier foods if they didn't make them sick. My cousin cannot stand the taste of anything that isn't processed half to death. She is absolutely not overweight (if anything, she's underweight), but you wouldn't know that if you just looked at what she eats, rather than the quantities she eats. I cannot eat large quantities of soy, or mushrooms, because they make me sick, and I hate eggplant and all kinds of shellfish and seafood. That's a lot of the healthier for you foods that I either do not like the taste of, or cannot eat. Instead, I eat reasonable portions of the foods I can eat, and don't eat an entire tub of hummus in one meal.

Taxing "useless" foods unfairly penalizes people who have to rely on these "useless" foods for their daily nutrition because they either cannot, or really do not like to, eat "not useless" foods. Not to mention that it doesn't address portion size, which is the far bigger culprit to weight gain. An occasional, small scoop of ice cream never hurt anyone (unless they're lactose intolerant. Or allergic to nuts if the ice cream has nuts in it). Eating an entire pint of ice cream with globs of whipped cream and a pound of candy, on the other hand, is not something that someone should do often if they don't want to gain weight.

If you want to put graphic warning labels on foods which could cause weight gain... you need to put them on all foods, because any food in enough quantities could cause weight gain. And what, you're planning on making people who want to eat sandwiches feel sick to their stomachs because of the graphic pictures on their bread because some people might eat an entire loaf of bread in one meal? Put sickening labels on a four pack of hamburger meat that make a family of four lose their appetites because someone might buy them and cook and eat all four?

[Costa Fierro]

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.

[Conserative Morality]

If you want to put graphic warning labels on foods which could cause weight gain... you need to put them on all foods, because any food in enough quantities could cause weight gain. And what, you're planning on making people who want to eat sandwiches feel sick to their stomachs because of the graphic pictures on their bread because some people might eat an entire loaf of bread in one meal?

Okay this is getting fucked up someone please back me up on the loaf of bread thing because I'm getting a little self-conscious now.

[Lunalia]

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.

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.

[Minzerland]

If you want to put graphic warning labels on foods which could cause weight gain... you need to put them on all foods, because any food in enough quantities could cause weight gain. And what, you're planning on making people who want to eat sandwiches feel sick to their stomachs because of the graphic pictures on their bread because some people might eat an entire loaf of bread in one meal?

Okay this is getting fucked up someone please back me up on the loaf of bread thing because I'm getting a little self-conscious now.

The question is; how many loafs do you eat?

[Conserative Morality]

The question is; how many loafs do you eat?

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

[Lunalia]

If you want to put graphic warning labels on foods which could cause weight gain... you need to put them on all foods, because any food in enough quantities could cause weight gain. And what, you're planning on making people who want to eat sandwiches feel sick to their stomachs because of the graphic pictures on their bread because some people might eat an entire loaf of bread in one meal?

Okay this is getting fucked up someone please back me up on the loaf of bread thing because I'm getting a little self-conscious now.

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.