Taxes, surcharges and freedom.

[Walsingham]

1) I am going to charitably assume that the Frech are attacking soda so that more people drink wine.

 

2) Funnily enough I'd already given some though to the dividing line and reached the same conclusion as GD. Or at least very similar. The key point is a combination of a prolonged period of affect, combined with multiple sources of affect. Obesity, heart disease, depression. These are all things which take time and its hard to lay blame at a single source. Indeed removing a single source is likely to be completely ineffective. Although I'd also give some thought to the feasibility of prohibition (obviously, given my OP). Having sex is a major factor in STIs. But try banning it!

[Pidesco]

Soda is a horrible, horrible thing and by far the unhealthiest thing in a fast food menu.

[Walsingham]

Soda is a horrible, horrible thing and by far the unhealthiest thing in a fast food menu.

 

It also has a better markup than crack cocaine. The drinks industry aren't going to simply abandon it. Although equally one could easily tax it more than it is already.

[Pidesco]

It's one of the most easily taxable products in the world, as it's already so ridiculously overpriced.

[Walsingham]

It's one of the most easily taxable products in the world, as it's already so ridiculously overpriced.

 

Plus it's a very industrial product.

[Oblarg]

I eat pretty healthy I guess. I do not eat "fast food". I eat beef only occasionly and then steaks almost exclusively. In fact I've started growing my own food a least a little bit. But these are all choices I've made myself. It strikes me wrong for government entities to presume they have final say over what goes in my mouth. And to tell the truth this is an issue that does not really beg for a solution. Since this thread popped up I've been reading about it and a number of big companies and restraunts are already stopping the use of transfats. Arbys, Whattaburger, White Castle, KFC, Nabisco, Kal-Can, come to mind readily. The truth is, as eople find out what transfat is and what it does to you they will drive the change in the marketplace by buying non-transfat products which will ultimatly complet companies that use transfat to stop.

 

As far as taxing it using "sin taxes" I guess I have no objection to that. Exorbirant taxes on cigarettes combined with public education has made a hell of a dent in smoking and that is not a bad thing. But banning it going too far.

 

I'm wondering, though, just how unhealthy/toxic does something have to be to warrant banning its sale as food, in your opinion? Not trying to be aggressive here - I'm not sure banning trans-fats is a smart idea, either. Just curious as to where you'd draw the line.

If it WILL kill/harm the consumer with just small doses in a short to moderate time then ban it. Fen-Fen comes to mind. If it MIGHT kill/harm in large doses over a long time, don't ban but educate on the dangers and benfefits of moderation. Tobacco, trans-fat, etc.

 

The key point I was trying to get at was the "as food" bit. I don't think something should be sold as food unless it is rigorously safe. That is an absolutely crucial role of government. Tobacco isn't sold under the guise that it is something you can consume to fulfill the most basic need of your body.

 

Note the term "safe," not "healthy." I do not think caloric content, for instance, is under any circumstance a reasonable motivation for this sort of legislation (or even any taxation at all). As I've mentioned earlier, we don't really have anything that even resembles a functioning definition of "healthy" - a lot of it is just shoddy pseudoscience and anecdote. But if a product is demonstrably harmful to the human body through a mechanism which we rigorously understand, should it really be legal to sell it as if it were something that the body needs to consume daily? I'm not so sure.

[LadyCrimson]

Soda is a horrible, horrible thing and by far the unhealthiest thing in a fast food menu.

 

It also has a better markup than crack cocaine. The drinks industry aren't going to simply abandon it. Although equally one could easily tax it more than it is already.

Bottled water is almost as bad, imio...only it's not as popular/been around as long as a mass-market thingie as soda. There are uses for bottled water of course, but as a "trend" it's stupid.

"Let's filter and rebottle tapwater and sell it back to idiot customers for a huge proft!"

[Humodour]

Soda is a horrible, horrible thing and by far the unhealthiest thing in a fast food menu.

 

It also has a better markup than crack cocaine. The drinks industry aren't going to simply abandon it. Although equally one could easily tax it more than it is already.

Bottled water is almost as bad, imio...only it's not as popular/been around as long as a mass-market thingie as soda. There are uses for bottled water of course, but as a "trend" it's stupid.

"Let's filter and rebottle tapwater and sell it back to idiot customers for a huge proft!"

 

Not to mention the fact that is contained in plastic bottles. Which are often left in the sun.

 

What a brilliant idea.

[Walsingham]

You're wandering off argument, I feel. At least I hope so, because it sounds as if there's a limitless array of 'nastiness' you want to tax like a red-headed country and western singer.

[Gorth]

You're wandering off argument, I feel. At least I hope so, because it sounds as if there's a limitless array of 'nastiness' you want to tax like a red-headed country and western singer.

The Walsingham Tax introduced in late 2011... effectively puts an extra tax on performances and recordings by naturally born red-head country and western singers. People have been caught dying their hair and outrageous claims of their "music" not being country and western to avoid the extra tariffs.

[Volourn]

Pop is awesome. Bottle water is disgusting. Only suckas buy that crap. Tap water 9f you live where water is clean) is friggin' awesome enough.

[213374U]

As I've mentioned earlier, we don't really have anything that even resembles a functioning definition of "healthy" - a lot of it is just shoddy pseudoscience and anecdote. But if a product is demonstrably harmful to the human body through a mechanism which we rigorously understand, should it really be legal to sell it as if it were something that the body needs to consume daily? I'm not so sure.

Great post.

 

I'm thinking that "everyone" knows that smoking is bad, even though we don't fully understand how cancer really works - only that there's a strong (though not 1) correlation between smoking and developing some kinds of cancer. Interestingly, not everyone who breathes some benzene in on a regular basis develops cancer, though apparently they should. "Rigorously" understanding how something is harmful, and precisely to what extent, is not trivial, and if we were to make that the deciding criteria for banning substances in foods, we'd be eating way more crap than we need to.

 

Unfortunately, there's this pernicious idea floating around that science can provide the same level of certainty that good ol' religion used to - which by definition it can't - only with science "it's for real". Often, this is an idea promoted by scientists, too. To be honest, I don't think "harmful" is useful as a scientific descriptor, despite the fact that research is essential for determining whether something is in fact harmful.

[Humodour]

As I've mentioned earlier, we don't really have anything that even resembles a functioning definition of "healthy" - a lot of it is just shoddy pseudoscience and anecdote. But if a product is demonstrably harmful to the human body through a mechanism which we rigorously understand, should it really be legal to sell it as if it were something that the body needs to consume daily? I'm not so sure.

Great post.

 

I'm thinking that "everyone" knows that smoking is bad, even though we don't fully understand how cancer really works - only that there's a strong (though not 1) correlation between smoking and developing some kinds of cancer. Interestingly, not everyone who breathes some benzene in on a regular basis develops cancer, though apparently they should. "Rigorously" understanding how something is harmful, and precisely to what extent, is not trivial, and if we were to make that the deciding criteria for banning substances in foods, we'd be eating way more crap than we need to.

 

Unfortunately, there's this pernicious idea floating around that science can provide the same level of certainty that good ol' religion used to - which by definition it can't - only with science "it's for real". Often, this is an idea promoted by scientists, too. To be honest, I don't think "harmful" is useful as a scientific descriptor, despite the fact that research is essential for determining whether something is in fact harmful.

 

We understand more about molecular biology, gene regulation, epigenetics, genetic mutation, and cancer every day, so it stands to reason that even if, as you say, science doesn't have complete certainty in some areas yet, well that doesn't preclude it from having that certainty in the (potentially very near) future. There are many areas of health and medicine which we now DO have a very thorough, clear-cut understanding of - and understanding which in many cases didn't exist 50, even 10 or 20 years ago.

 

As to your comment about aromatics like benzene: every human is different (there's actually quite a lot of mutation and evolution still occurring in newly born humans). Some people will have stronger mechanisms for defending their body against carcinogens, or repairing/limiting damage than others. But when you analyse benzene on a risk assessment basis, and you notice that in the vast majority of people 'x' amount of consumption causes cancer, it's worth doing something about that (regardless of whether such action might not be necessary for a subset of the population with more robust molecular mechanics).

 

Honestly, when it comes to my health I'm pretty happy to err on the side of caution and - if science is actually wrong (the error factor attributed to science in this thread is rather inflated), it corrects itself soon enough, and I'll change my behaviour accordingly when it does. I think governments should also act in this manner.

 

Regarding smoking being only 'correlated' with cancer: well it has been shown to cause genetic mutations pretty rapidly. I'm no expert on oncogenes but to me that's a bit more than a mere correlation with cancer.

[Humodour]

I would say the main problem with modern medicine and psychiatry is not the science at all, but the practitioners - doctors, nutritionists and psychiatrists. It is unfortunately often the case that, because they get stuck in their ways and aren't able to sufficiently keep up with current scientific developments, in order for new scientific understanding and theories to flow through to the medical community, the older generations of practitioners have to leave the field and be replaced by the younger generations who were taught the updated/new/more complete theories.

[Orogun01]

I would say the main problem with modern medicine and psychiatry is not the science at all, but the practitioners - doctors, nutritionists and psychiatrists. It is unfortunately often the case that, because they get stuck in their ways and aren't able to sufficiently keep up with current scientific developments, in order for new scientific understanding and theories to flow through to the medical community, the older generations of practitioners have to leave the field and be replaced by the younger generations who were taught the updated/new/more complete theories.

I would agree with this statement if I wasn't aware that most psychologist thread very carefully whenever they do an experiment and the reason they are stuck in the old ways is because ethics were more lax back in the day allowing for some experiments which we would frown upon today. So there really isn't any innovation to go on.

 

The big field that seems to be making leaps is neuropsychology, or at least it was a few years ago. I haven't kept up with the latest.

[Walsingham]

The problem with ALL the apllied sciences is twofold, and you've touched on both aspects:

 

1. No coherent statement of intent - in this case what 'healthy' looks like, and what we are prepared to do to get it

2. No coherent architecture for organising, collating, sifting all the thousands of technical papers and lab results.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if a million worthwhile results each years are simply thrown away like trash because of the above.

 

It's something which even happens inside big organisations. I know a particular engineering firm who spent three years trying to find an answer to a question which had already been solved by another department five minute's walk away.

[Guard Dog]

Not entirely on topic but I thought this was worth discussing. California has banned the use of tanning beds by people under the age of 18. There are a number of harmful activites that minors are not allowed to do like smoking, drinking, etc because the idea is their judgement is not developed enough to appreciate the risks. I guess this could be considered on par with smoking and drinking because excesses of each is indisputably dangerous.

 

Opinions?

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/09/...E7982DJ20111009

[Hurlshort]

Technically I think you can still buy your own tanning bed and let your kids go wild with the melanoma. I see this as a pretty easy public health choice. There isn't any reason that a kid needs to be in a tanning bed, they can earn their skin cancer the hard way by being outside.

[Walsingham]

Not entirely on topic but I thought this was worth discussing. California has banned the use of tanning beds by people under the age of 18. There are a number of harmful activites that minors are not allowed to do like smoking, drinking, etc because the idea is their judgement is not developed enough to appreciate the risks. I guess this could be considered on par with smoking and drinking because excesses of each is indisputably dangerous.

 

Opinions?

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/09/...E7982DJ20111009

 

I think I'm pretty consistent in arguing that kids don't reason effectively, due to a combination of factors, including susceptibility to peer pressure/advertising as much as raw mental immaturity.

[Humodour]

Exorbirant taxes on cigarettes combined with public education has made a hell of a dent in smoking and that is not a bad thing.

 

IMO, education had a far larger affect in reducing smoking than the taxes ever did. Ive never known one person to quit smoking because it was too expensive, only for their health. Now that I think about it, Im not sure Ive ever seen anyone quit any vice due to cost.

 

But how many people didn't START smoking in the first place because it was too expensive?

[Humodour]

Not entirely on topic but I thought this was worth discussing. California has banned the use of tanning beds by people under the age of 18. There are a number of harmful activites that minors are not allowed to do like smoking, drinking, etc because the idea is their judgement is not developed enough to appreciate the risks. I guess this could be considered on par with smoking and drinking because excesses of each is indisputably dangerous.

 

Opinions?

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/09/...E7982DJ20111009

 

Tanning beds are a bad idea in general, but certainly such beds which rely on ultraviolet-A radiation should probably be banned: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-10-07/uv-r...28/?site=sydney

[Humodour]

The problem with ALL the apllied sciences is twofold, and you've touched on both aspects:

 

1. No coherent statement of intent - in this case what 'healthy' looks like, and what we are prepared to do to get it

2. No coherent architecture for organising, collating, sifting all the thousands of technical papers and lab results.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if a million worthwhile results each years are simply thrown away like trash because of the above.

 

It's something which even happens inside big organisations. I know a particular engineering firm who spent three years trying to find an answer to a question which had already been solved by another department five minute's walk away.

 

IBM has a rather promising solution to the problems you pose: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/artic...XQUkVCjDHJlRU8w

 

And I want to make the point, so that there is no confusion for anybody scared of technology and robotics: Watson only ADVISES doctors. The final diagnosis will still be up to them.

[Oblarg]

Not entirely on topic but I thought this was worth discussing. California has banned the use of tanning beds by people under the age of 18. There are a number of harmful activites that minors are not allowed to do like smoking, drinking, etc because the idea is their judgement is not developed enough to appreciate the risks. I guess this could be considered on par with smoking and drinking because excesses of each is indisputably dangerous.

 

Opinions?

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/09/...E7982DJ20111009

 

Not a bad bit of legislation, as far as I can tell.

[Calax]

Not entirely on topic but I thought this was worth discussing. California has banned the use of tanning beds by people under the age of 18. There are a number of harmful activites that minors are not allowed to do like smoking, drinking, etc because the idea is their judgement is not developed enough to appreciate the risks. I guess this could be considered on par with smoking and drinking because excesses of each is indisputably dangerous.

 

Opinions?

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/09/...E7982DJ20111009

 

I think I'm pretty consistent in arguing that kids don't reason effectively, due to a combination of factors, including susceptibility to peer pressure/advertising as much as raw mental immaturity.

Just wanna point out... that the arbitrary definition of an adult as being 18 is rather rediculous.

[Gorth]

Not entirely on topic but I thought this was worth discussing. California has banned the use of tanning beds by people under the age of 18. There are a number of harmful activites that minors are not allowed to do like smoking, drinking, etc because the idea is their judgement is not developed enough to appreciate the risks. I guess this could be considered on par with smoking and drinking because excesses of each is indisputably dangerous.

 

Opinions?

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/09/...E7982DJ20111009

 

I think I'm pretty consistent in arguing that kids don't reason effectively, due to a combination of factors, including susceptibility to peer pressure/advertising as much as raw mental immaturity.

Just wanna point out... that the arbitrary definition of an adult as being 18 is rather rediculous.

Especially if you ask the 17 year olds

 

What would the alternative be though, sitting a written test to pass into adulthood? Measuring hormone levels in the bloodstream? Bring the severed head of a traditional enemy? Going on a pilgrimage? Somewhere, somebody has to make that "arbitrary" line