We didn't say anything when they came for the smokers...

[Walsingham]

You know as I was reading your post for some reason I thought of Sweden.

 

Indeed. Some may recall I went to Sweden on holiday a few years back.

 

Shall I tell you what penalty 'health' taxation looks like? It looks like a city full of pubs with the only people in them being middle aged businessmen, and no-one else.

 

I might know a lot of right wing idiots. They say a lot of weird nonsense about poor people. But not once have I ever heard them say that poor people shouldn't be allowed to drink or smoke, or make their own life decisions.

 

FULL DISCLOSURE EDIT: I'm not saying my right wing acquaintances are great people. I have heard them say that poor people shouldn't breed. Which, given all the drinking and whopping it up seems rather poorly thought through. Only just thought about it.

Edited February 13, 2014 by Walsingham

[IndiraLightfoot]

I think you're onto something there. Here's an example from Sweden, and how their law-abiding bureaucracy can go too far (I apologize in advance, for the subject is a sensitive one):

Recall the huge tsunami disaster on Boxer Day 2004? Plenty of westerners were on holiday in Thailand then, and as you well know, thousands of them died in the waves of the tsunami. Immediately the phones started ringing in the Swedish foreign office, victims and their relatives phoning for help and rescue. But nope. In Sweden, a holiday is a holiday, so the emergency stand-by was celebrating X-mas. Of course, after hours upon hours, which then turned into two days, Sweden managed to send some Hercules plane to begin SAR operations. However, in Italy, the same kind of phone calls to their correspondent emergency authorities led to a response within the hour. That country had a plane in the air faster than any other Western country. Weirdly enough, many countries pew-pews over Italy's awful postal service, but when a disaster strikes, they excelled. I really dread what would happen if Sweden gets in the middle of a big mess, like a sudden war or a large-scale calamity.

Edited February 13, 2014 by IndiraLightfoot

[213374U]

Hmm. We have some special taxation on tobacco and alcohol over here (IIRC ~9.5€/L for booze), and that doesn't prevent clubs and bars from being chock full after work hours. And boy, there are a lot of watering holes in this country. I don't know how taxing works in Sweden, but you have to account for the fact that the average income for Spain is just a bit over half that of Sweden's. People who can't afford that much hard liquor just get drunk on cheap wine.

 

Rather, it's a cultural thing, I think. Even within the same country, people may not be so inclined to spend time that way in some regions as in others.

 

In other news, sugar does not really lead to obesity. Or rather, not by itself. So yeah, taxing sugar is just a random cash grab by The Man.

Edited February 13, 2014 by 213374U

[Mor]

In other news, sugar does not really lead to obesity. Or rather, not by itself. So yeah, taxing sugar is just a random cash grab by The Man.

Random link on the internet that I don't understand, thank god! I knew that World Health Organization was full of ****, my mama didn't raise no fool    

 

You understand that the linked BBC article about the WORLD health organization report was not written for medical professionals, it almost certainly focused on undeveloped countries that discover cancer as their life standards/expectancy go up(so no reason to get your panties in a bunch, The Man has bigger issue to worry about) and if it recommended anything concerning sugar it is very likely was the standard recommendation about surgery drinks(not news).

 

Which is why I spoke in terms of general policy, after all there people who are far more qualified than me to define what exactly effects obesity.. Surely WHO has couple of them on staff..

[213374U]

 

In other news, sugar does not really lead to obesity. Or rather, not by itself. So yeah, taxing sugar is just a random cash grab by The Man.

Random link on the internet that I don't understand, thank god! I knew that World Health Organization was full of ****, my mama didn't raise no fool    

 

You understand that the linked BBC article about the WORLD health organization report was not written for medical professionals, it almost certainly focused on undeveloped countries that discover cancer as their life standards/expectancy go up(so no reason to get your panties in a bunch, The Man has bigger issue to worry about) and if it recommended anything concerning sugar it is very likely was the standard recommendation about surgery drinks(not news).

 

Which is why I spoke in terms of general policy, after all there people who are far more qualified than me to define what exactly effects obesity.. Surely WHO has couple of them on staff..

 

 

Hold up. That's not a "random link" by any stretch of the word. It's a paper published in a peer-reviewed journal, the American Journal for Clinical Nutrition. The business of these people is science—you know, the stuff that supposedly supports the "findings" and "recommendations" issued by organizations such as the WHO. If you are not used to reading scientfic papers, you can skip the part dealing with the methodology (only of real interest if you are a scientist yourself and are reviewing the paper) and stick to the abstract, results and discussion.

 

About the link in the OP, I cannot really comment—apparently you can only access the actual WHO report if you are a subscriber. Funny, considering that a) it is a non-profit organization, and b) their work can influence the policy of governments (i.e. it can affect me).

 

Regardless, what I can say about the BBC article is that it's based on a "predicted" cancer rate increase by the WHO, and then a list of risk factors, only one of which is obesity; special note is made of cervical and breast cancer. The latter is weakly related to obesity, and the former is caused by a virus, but the article goes on a tirade about healthy habits and nutrition nonetheless. I have long ago stopped paying attention to mainstream news outlets, and this is a good example of why.

 

Make no mistake, obesity is unhealthy. But the article is one big non sequitur; maybe the whole WHO report is too, but I can't tell because I'm poor and therefore unworthy of perusing such wisdom.

[alanschu]

The problem with taxing food is that it, as people point out quite a lot, is that it's preventable. That means that, there are other things I can do aside from "eat less junk" to remain healthy.

 

I make a point to not eat too much junk mostly because it helps me keep my weight stable, but the reality is I was "skinny bastard" in that I was skinny, and also a bastard because I didn't have necessarily healthy eating habits but when I go in for physicals the doctor always says "You must eat really well!" No, not really... but I am active and that makes a world of difference. So unless you're actively taxing people simply based on their weight (which is not the best measurement either, since I know triathletes that look like pudgy little guys because that's how their body is despite him having better vitals than I will ever have). The problem with taxing people based on their weight is that you run the risk of placing people in a vicious cycle. One issue with junk foods is that they are cheap, and if you start taking away people's money because they eat too much junk, you're going to predispose them to having to purchase more junk.

 

 

The other thing I don't entirely trust with the government in this regard, is the lobby groups. It could be argued that the huge amount of carbohydrates recommended by the USDA were merely the result of sustained attempts to find a doctor that would endorse the idea and help press it forward. With a large chunk of farmer's dollars behind it. Food also has serious issues in that some of the stuff that was demonized (saturated fat) was replaced with "healthy alternatives" like what we eventually learned to be called "trans fat." Consequence of food intake is in such flux because there are so many confounding variables based on body types/genetics, lifestyle, and so forth.

 

When I went to University and was a lot more sedentary, I gained some weight. I plateaued and ended up seeing huge improvements in my weight (as well as blood pressure and cholesterol) by eliminating trans fats, cutting down on carbohydrates (especially sugars), and eating more saturated fats, while maintaining my participation in some rec sports leagues.

 

 

It's going to require significant changes in how we label things too, because the unfortunate thing is people see "low fat" and assume healthier (when that's possibly not true) without realizing that "low fat" typically means "high sugar" because those pesky food companies have a tendency to try to make their food tasty (which is also why salt can be an issue).

 

 

While I support public health, since I see it as an investment in the human capital of a nation and ultimately a net benefit, I agree with the notion that we'd be better served trying to educate people better. Problem is that lobby funding can be a really compromising effect.

 

 

 

Random link on the internet that I don't understand, thank god!

I'd recommend giving it a read. I wouldn't consider it to be written at too high of a level.

Edited February 15, 2014 by alanschu

[Mor]

The problem with taxing food is that it, as people point out quite a lot, is that it's preventable. That means that, there are other things I can do aside from "eat less junk" to remain healthy.

The problem here is that instead of looking at this as the most serious public health problems of the 21st century, translating it into a discussion about what is the best possible solution, what we have is a lot of critics and nay sayers, which is always easier.

 

Btw, not everyone think that taxing food is a good thing, including me (unless it suppose to be a very limited measure such taxing soft drinks). Because it is almost impossible to implement right, also IMHO few cents here and there are not as effective as the bottom line.(e.g. many obese are under the delusion that they don't eat that much, at least until they actually take a pen and paper and write down every little snack and look at the bottom line number)

 

What I suggested before was:

* You can finance educational campaigns addressed at smokers and pay for extra medical costs due to smoking, through indirect taxation.[cigarettes]

* Drinking is trickier, because its not the alcohol per se(it is even recommended in certain cases), it is about its consumption. Which is kind of hard to address so i'll skip.

* Food is in the same category, it is about consumption, so indirect taxation to address obesity is a collective punishment and can hurt many people who can't afford food. However you can hit it through direct taxation or tax examptions, which will tackle only obese people and wouldn't hit the financially weaker part of society.

 

 

 

Random link on the internet that I don't understand, thank god!

I'd recommend giving it a read. I wouldn't consider it to be written at too high of a level.

 

I'd recommend paying attention to the context. It wasn't about the content of the link, but the cheap synthesis to the half assed quote from the opening post, make it seem like an attempt to say 'Hey science is behind me'... What, I implied is that further reading about what WHO recommendation actually were and understand their implication would be advisable. Also assuming that the world health organization are not made of bunch of clueless idiots, whose conclusion can be disproved by googling an article from 1997 is always a good idea... Edited February 15, 2014 by Mor

[213374U]

 

 

Random link on the internet that I don't understand, thank god!

I'd recommend giving it a read. I wouldn't consider it to be written at too high of a level.

 

I'd recommend paying attention to the context. It wasn't about the content of the link, but the cheap synthesis to the half assed quote from the opening post, make it seem like an attempt to say 'Hey science is behind me'... What, I implied is that further reading about what WHO recommendation actually were and understand their implication would be advisable. Also assuming that the world health organization are not made of bunch of clueless idiots, whose conclusion can be disproved by googling an article from 1997 is always a good idea...

 

 

Again, it is not possible to read what the WHO recommendations really are because the report is for subscribers only. You would have figured this out if you had tried to follow up on the article or, heh, even read the post where I commented on this fact. Sorry, but I'm not going to take your word for it that reading the WHO report would change my mind about whether government intervention in regulating sugar consumption is "advisable".

 

Furthermore, I am willing to concede that the paper may have been rendered obsolete by subsequent research. I have not been able to find any such research, but if you can provide evidence otherwise, I'd be more than happy to examine it. But as it stands, the burden of proof is on you. If you wish to discuss any specific part of the paper you don't agree with, please, go right ahead. Hand waving and whining about how you don't like my tone isn't going to make it go away, however.

 

Finally, I suggest you look up "appeal to authority". Simply because something carries an official seal it does not mean it's not utter hogwash. I'm not saying the WHO are a bunch of idiots (that is a red herring and a strawman, look those up too), but I don't trust them any more than I trust you, the Pope, or my mother, in matters scientific. Nothing personal.

 

*edited because read fail

Edited February 15, 2014 by 213374U

[Zoraptor]

The trouble with things like the WHO report and the way it is being used here is that it is, effectively, third hand information. The papers are written by a bunch of people, collated and interpreted by WHO, then a journalist comes along and writes his article.

 

The problem here is that instead of looking at this as the most serious public health problems of the 21st century, translating it into a discussion about what is the best possible solution, what we have is a lot of critics and nay sayers, which is always easier.

 

You don't, really. What you have are a lot of people who don't believe that 'tax it!' is the answer to the problem, or that it is the last thing to try rather than the first. You have had plenty of 'positive' alternative suggestions, not just nitpicking at the tax aspects.

[alanschu]

The problem here is that instead of looking at this as the most serious public health problems of the 21st century, translating it into a discussion about what is the best possible solution, what we have is a lot of critics and nay sayers, which is always easier.

You are effectively being as dismissive as your are implying we are, with this very post.

 

 

I'd recommend paying attention to the context...Also assuming that the world health organization are not made of bunch of clueless idiots

You're only encouraging me to disengage at this point... Your message is increasingly meaningless because I don't see you as someone interested in having a conversation - you've become dismissive and accusatory while utilizing hyperbole to represent mine and others arguments. I encouraged you to read it because you casually dismissed it with snark while claiming ignorance of the subject. The irony, however, of claiming that you don't understand it while dismissing it is NOT a positive reflection of your character. You're not interested in discussing anything. You're interested in mandating. I don't make the assumption that the World Health Organization is a bunch of clueless idiots. I do, however, pay close enough attention to nutrition research over the past 50 years to recognize that what we think is and is not healthy changes a lot. In other words, I'm open to the fact that experts can be fallible and not be correct (just like I can be).

 

Further, there is research (by doctors that perhaps you should not conclude are just a bunch of clueless idiots) that shows correlations between poverty and obesity. When you say something like "you can hit [food] through direct taxation or tax examptions, which will tackle only obese people and wouldn't hit the financially weaker part of society" I can only straight up state YOU ARE WRONG. No, this doesn't mean ONLY poor people are obese, but unless you're suggesting that the causal effect is more "obese people are more likely to be poor" as opposed to "poor people are more likely to be obese" any taxation (exemption or direct, which is the same thing since it's still saying "Those we deem appropriate pay more money") is going to affect poor people more than rich people.

 

Lets examine confounding variables too. Is our lifestyle more sedentary than it was in the past? Are things that can help with diabetes and obesity, like sports and fitness programs, prohibitively expensive (and as such perhaps an aggravating circumstance that helps influence the obesity-poverty correlation) compounding the issue? (aside: there's a correlation between sedentary activity and poverty as well!) Maybe we should tax cable/satellite TV, TV manufacturers, video game developers, and all the other aspects that have helped lead us to increasingly sedentary lifestyles. Lets get rid of escalators and elevators in buildings. Lets make the 100 closest parking stalls at shopping centers disabled only, requiring people to actually get out and walk a little ways when shopping. Maybe schools (and parents) shouldn't be so hyper protective of children during recesses and prevent them from doing a lot of physical activities.

 

 

You want to discuss "the best possible solution?" I don't think it's targeting food. I think it's making fun, athletic abilities more engaging. I still play basketball to this day because I loved playing it with my friends growing up. That seed was planted because in Junior High, my family paid zero dollars in dues for me to join the basketball team. As such, I was addicted to the sport enough that I was willing to pay the $200 dues to play on my high school basketball team.

Edited February 16, 2014 by alanschu

[Mor]

You don't, really. What you have are a lot of people who don't believe that 'tax it!' is the answer to the problem, or that it is the last thing to try rather than the first. You have had plenty of 'positive' alternative suggestions, not just nitpicking at the tax aspects.

That is a strawmen argument, no one think that 'tax it, is the answer to all problems, especially me.

 

As far as I seen all the proposed solution require a lot of money(and of limited effectiveness). So either you think that money grow on trees or happy to chunk the cost/responsibility on everybody else. After all it is the easiest thing, instead of giving obese people a reason to work on themself, lets shovel it tax everyone. That not a 'positive' alternative, that is a spin on where the money should come from.

[Zoraptor]

Yes, everyone else is suggesting things of limited effectiveness and high cost while your suggestions of tax increase with rebates or whatever it was you came up with for not targeting the poor is both effective and low cost. Or not, seeing as it's a bureaucratic nightmare where you have people being weighed yearly or whatever to decide how much tax they pay.

 

I'll give it more rebuttal than it deserves: it's a bureaucratic nightmare that will cost massively in admin, it will require people going to doctors or whatever once a year as an added cost*, they'll use crappy, simplistic but 'objective' metrics like BMI (which make extremely fit but muscle mass based sportsmen classify as obese), there will be loopholes, those who can afford accountants will be able to avoid it/ those with enough money will ignore it so it won't discourage those with money, it doesn't tackle the base problem at all but treats the symptom, if you have to claim the money back a lot of poorer people won't know how or that they can. There's an almost unlimited number of potential problems.

 

Now, you might say that that is just nitpicking or whatever, but they are real potential problems. You cannot wish them away by saying that everything will be OK just because. That also isn't being negative when suggestions have been made to, for example, improve education around the issue, ie treating the problem rather than the symptom. I mean, from the examples I give below you don't have taxes applied for melanoma based on whether you're tanned or not when you visit the doctor,  because there's a metric asteriskton of Other Stuff that contributes to those potential problems apart from being tanned.

 

*Actually that is something I would support, just without the nanny tax attached. Most health problems are very much stitch-in-time situations, catch them early and they'll be a tiny fraction of the long term cost, that's how the various breast/ prostate/ bowel/ melanoma screening programs work.

[alanschu]

I'll give it more rebuttal than it deserves: it's a bureaucratic nightmare that will cost massively in admin, it will require people going to doctors or whatever once a year as an added cost*, they'll use crappy, simplistic but 'objective' metrics like BMI (which make extremely fit but muscle mass based sportsmen classify as obese), there will be loopholes, those who can afford accountants will be able to avoid it/ those with enough money will ignore it so it won't discourage those with money, it doesn't tackle the base problem at all but treats the symptom, if you have to claim the money back a lot of poorer people won't know how or that they can. There's an almost unlimited number of potential problems.

Reading this made me think of all the people doing things like cutting weight prior to their "weigh in" and stuff like that. I'm sure that'd be great for long term fitness too!

[Mor]

You are effectively being as dismissive as your are implying we are, with this very post.

That or I have a different point of view, in which discussion started several pages back and we have recycled several page loads of nay.

 

I encouraged you to read it because you casually dismissed it with snark while claiming ignorance of the subject.

...

I don't make the assumption that the World Health Organization is a bunch of clueless idiots. I do, however, pay close enough attention to nutrition research over the past 50 years to recognize that what we think is and is not healthy changes a lot. In other words, I'm open to the fact that experts can be fallible and not be correct (just like I can be).

The point was that he had no idea what the WHO suggested, jumping on quote from secondary source, written for casual reader, only so that he claim that he is backed by science.

 

From what I read, the report never suggested that "sugar" is the culprit for obesity per se. It suggested that sugar consumption and obesity are related and called for discussion on how to encourage people to change their lifestyles, with tax on sugared drinks being suggested as one such solution, which is a long way from what that guy suggested this article bring.(which is pretty much accepted all around, other than some fringe)

 

So yes I dismissed the way the article was used, as just another person on the interested fishing for things to reinforce his position. But if you wish me to further comment on it, I also dismiss the presented assumption of what the article means in regard to obesity, the syn used to link it to the WHO recommendations and the conclusion that was built on it.

 

The are hundreds articles arguing which is the best method to loose weight, about nutritional aspects of various foods etc. Which is why I didn't bother with specifics, but the bottom line and speaking of changes in the past 50 years, today healthy diet becoming only more and more common recommendations by health professionals, even in seemingly unrelated orthopedics(e.g. for knees)

 

As for this specific article, maybe to you it is important the sucrose content in diet, to me it was important that in all cases diet led to : "decreases in depression, hunger, and negative mood, and increases in vigilance and positive mood with time .. weight loss"

 

 

Further, there is research (by doctors that perhaps you should not conclude are just a bunch of clueless idiots) that shows correlations between poverty and obesity. When you say something like "you can hit [food] through direct taxation or tax examptions, which will tackle only obese people and wouldn't hit the financially weaker part of society" I can only straight up state YOU ARE WRONG. No, this doesn't mean ONLY poor people are obese, but unless you're suggesting that the causal effect is more "obese people are more likely to be poor" as opposed to "poor people are more likely to be obese" any taxation (exemption or direct, which is the same thing since it's still saying "Those we deem appropriate pay more money") is going to affect poor people more than rich people.

Maybe I should have been more clear. The "it" part refers to the "issue" i.e. obesity, not "food". Maybe it contributed to your confusion concerning the poor (previous comment), other than this its all about personal responsibility.

 

As for correlations between between poverty and obesity, it was never dismissed, it just doesn't change the bottom line. (previous comment)

Edited February 16, 2014 by Mor

[Bos_hybrid]

Next we'll be forced to report when we have sex, so the government can tax that.

[Nonek]

Was it the Celt's who used to have a belt tax amongst their warriors? The more holes made in ones belt, the more tax one would have to pay, sounds a little mythological to me but you never know.

[Meshugger]

 

 

Next we'll be forced to report when we have sex, so the government can tax that.

 

People will get around that by filing that they didn't achieve orgasm in their partner and therefore they are eligible to a tax-deductible. This ofcourse have to go to the review-board of the local health department, peer-reviewed by an independent doctor and approved by consentual relations administrator with a grade on what rate of satisfaction  achieved. This will then be forwarded to the local internal revenue board, which will rate the deductible based on metrics that has been researched in the gender studies department at the local university. The metrics researched at the university is an ongoing project, that is funded by taxpayers money, which is up for review biannually by the faculty board in order to mirror the changes in social and healthy behaviour of society as a whole.

 

Since these instruments exist on a local, state and federal level, we should not easily question the necessity of them since a lot of jobs depend on them. You do not support unemployment on a massive scale, now do you?

Edited February 16, 2014 by Meshugger

[Mor]

Yes, everyone else is suggesting things of limited effectiveness and high cost while your suggestions of tax increase with rebates or whatever it was you came up with for not targeting the poor is both effective and low cost. Or not, seeing as it's a bureaucratic nightmare where you have people being weighed yearly or whatever to decide how much tax they pay.

I didn't said that it either A OR B kind of thing... and from the looks of it you made a huge mess of my comments(did you read older comments?)

 

Anyway, the first stage of dealing with such a problem is by educational campaigns to encouraging people to change their lifestyles. Such campaigns are both costly and usually ineffective, because most hate change and being told how to live by some spam camping. For example with tobacco consumption, Words were like the wind, its not until prices came up that people started to feel it in their pocket that trend change came. However, like I pointed out before, tobacco abuse and obesity is like apples and oranges in this regard, best thing you can have is very minimal indirect taxes on something like softdrinks to bring awareness, otherwise it is not a matter of bureaucratic nightmare, but simply impossible to moderate consumption.

 

I support direct taxes**, because I don't think that the government should tax food i.e. get into my dinner plate, and dictate what I should and shouldn't eat IMHO is a dangerous precedent, it take away my choice and impossible todo right, because it puts a manual labor who need more calories per day and some couch potato who can't shut his pie hole in the same spot. While direct taxes is the best way I can see to achieve the goal of Obese people bearing the full costs of their consumption and associated medical and social costs(think about as users fee), giving them an incentive to change(loose weight, feel better, gain money win win win) or continue as they want on their own dime.

 

Al those mantras about correlation between obesity and whatever, for the most part are nothing but enabling people to get fat and shovel the responsibility to others. For example there is a correlation between poverty and bad teeth, so? Bottom line is that obesity ~similarly to bad teeth is preventable, it should be each person's responsibility to control himself(not to neglect himself), not wait for the government todo it for you with everyone's tax big money spending.

 

Do you agree/disagree with the points I make, if so why and or what is your alternative? lets keep the discussion concerning specific implementation until after we can agree on that.

 

 

** 'direct tax' is another name for 'income tax', while 'indirect taxes' is'consumer tax' on products. I just thought that it might be useful to add this, just in case this terminology in previous posts confused anyone.

Edited February 16, 2014 by Mor

[Orogun01]

Was it the Celt's who used to have a belt tax amongst their warriors? The more holes made in ones belt, the more tax one would have to pay, sounds a little mythological to me but you never know.

In quick google search I've found taxes stranger than that; eg: the beard tax, the disagreeing with the king tax or the existence tax.

Its becoming clear that tax might be a legal form of robbery by which the government charges you for privileges that don't come from them. 

[213374U]

 

The point was that he had no idea what the WHO suggested, jumping on quote from secondary source, written for casual reader, only so that he claim that he is backed by science.

 

From what I read, the report never suggested that "sugar" is the culprit for obesity per se. It suggested that sugar consumption and obesity are related and called for discussion on how to encourage people to change their lifestyles, with tax on sugared drinks being suggested as one such solution, which is a long way from what that guy suggested this article bring.(which is pretty much accepted all around, other than some fringe)

 

So yes I dismissed the way the article was used, as just another person on the interested fishing for things to reinforce his position. But if you wish me to further comment on it, I also dismiss the presented assumption of what the article means in regard to obesity, the syn used to link it to the WHO recommendations and the conclusion that was built on it.

 

[...]

 

As for this specific article, maybe to you it is important the sucrose content in diet, to me it was important that in all cases diet led to : "decreases in depression, hunger, and negative mood, and increases in vigilance and positive mood with time .. weight loss"

 

 

I'll take squirming under pressure for $200, Alex.

 

So, I have no idea what the report actually recommends (by my own admission) but you repeatedly suggest that reading it will make all pieces fit together. Until you can provide a full copy of the report, this is an article of faith, and therefore a non-argument.

 

Sugar consumption and obesity are linked because of, among other things, what Zoraptor suggested a few pages ago, look his post up—he also broke down the link to poverty. Sugar consumption is not a cause of obesity, as per the paper I linked to (which, by your own admission and reinforced by your own comments, you do not understand). It is a factor, much like poverty. ITT you have consistently displayed an inability to differentiate between these two concepts. The cause of obesity is net calorie surplus. This isn't rocket science. Taxing sugary ("X") is as random as taxing bacon, bananas or baked potatoes.

 

It's great that you agree that hypocaloric diets resulting in improved body fat % will also net improvements in "blood pressure, mood and vigilance", even in diets where up to 43% of overall caloric intake is ingested as sugar, because that is precisely the point I was making. So yeah, sorry bro, but science does back me on this. Your jimmies seem awfully rustled about this, but you haven't really made any effort to explain how it actually isn't so, first dismissing it as a "random link" and then switching to attack my "synthesis" with off-hand remarks without explaining what it is that you disagree with.

 

So yeah, I'm going to defer to those who opine that you aren't interested in discussion other than to flatten all opposition to your point of view, regardless of reasons or evidence. Well, have fun being "right".

Edited February 16, 2014 by 213374U

[Mor]

So, I have no idea what the report actually recommends (by my own admission) but you repeatedly suggest that reading it will make all pieces fit together

What I suggested is that

(1) you should read what the WHO report actually says about "sugar", or at least looked up for secondary source before you jumped to dismiss it. Because the WHO was almost certainly familiar with your single 1997 article(assuming that it is actually notable) and other like it on the subject before they made their recommendation.

(2) Since you are not an expert, making statements about a report you don't know about based on a single article from 1997, titled as "Metabolic and behavioral effects of a highsucrose diet during weight 1oss" claiming that it disprove the WHO recommendation or rather the two words about it that you picked from the bbc article, that you might want to look for secondary source.

(3) That IMO your conclusion concerning this specific recommendation wasn't supported by that article. Btw, note that your article speaks about dietary fat, in fixed cal diet. While reduce soft drinks consumption will lower your cal intake(among other things).

 

(4) Most importantly in your attempt to win, you quoted out the important part i.e.

The are hundreds articles arguing which is the best method to loose weight, about nutritional aspects of various foods etc. Which is why I didn't bother with specifics, but the bottom line and speaking of changes in the past 50 years, today healthy diet becoming only more and more common recommendations by health professionals

This basically one of the reason why I am against indirect taxes on food. Leave the food industry to their own devices and they will bury us in lobbying, bureaucracy and loopholes (i.e. through donations, sponsored researches or simply reclassifying their food products like nothing has changed) Which is why I am concerned with the bottom line, and leave the specifics to the medical experts...

 

So while I don't mind discussing possible implementation and their cons/pros, we shouldn't let the trees get in the way of the forest... as I noted in my post above, first we make sure our basis are covered i.e. answer:

1. Is obesity a. preventable b. most serious public health problems?

2. Is the Government should address the most serious public health problem?

3. What is the most effective way to address this preventable issue and Who should pay for it?

Edited February 16, 2014 by Mor

[213374U]

 

So, I have no idea what the report actually recommends (by my own admission) but you repeatedly suggest that reading it will make all pieces fit together

What I suggested is that

(1) you should read what the WHO report actually says about "sugar", or at least looked up for secondary source before you jumped to dismiss it. Because the WHO was almost certainly familiar with your single 1997 article(assuming that it is actually notable) and other like it on the subject before they made their recommendation.

(2) Since you are not an expert, making statements about a report you don't know about based on a single article from 1997, titled as "Metabolic and behavioral effects of a highsucrose diet during weight 1oss" claiming that it disprove the WHO recommendation or rather the two words about it that you picked from the bbc article, that you might want to look for secondary source.

(3) That IMO your conclusion concerning this specific recommendation wasn't supported by that article. Btw, note that your article speaks about dietary fat, in fixed cal diet. While reduce soft drinks consumption will lower your cal intake(among other things).

 

(4) Most importantly in your attempt to win, you quoted out the important part i.e.

The are hundreds articles arguing which is the best method to loose weight, about nutritional aspects of various foods etc. Which is why I didn't bother with specifics, but the bottom line and speaking of changes in the past 50 years, today healthy diet becoming only more and more common recommendations by health professionals

This basically one of the reason why I am against indirect taxes on food. Leave the food industry to their own devices and they will bury us in lobbying, bureaucracy and loopholes (i.e. through donations, sponsored researches or simply reclassifying their food products like nothing has changed) Which is why I am concerned with the bottom line, and leave the specifics to the medical experts...

 

So while I don't mind discussing possible implementation and their cons/pros, we shouldn't let the trees get in the way of the forest... as I noted in my post above, first we make sure our basis are covered i.e. answer:

1. Is obesity a. preventable b. most serious public health problems?

2. Is the Government should address the most serious public health problem?

3. What is the most effective way to address this preventable issue and Who should pay for it?

 

 

(1) Appeal to authority, appeal to authority, appeal to authority. Seriously, look it up. Stop banking on the WHO "almost certainly" knowing jack squat about anything and either produce the evidence yourself (the full report) or drop the matter. Note that I haven't dismissed the report outright because I have not read it, but continuing a discussion on what a document may or may not contain is pointless. I could, just as easily, assume that the report is wrong because the WHO has been wrong in the past, and you could not disprove this fallacious argument either. You clearly do not understand how the burden of proof works.

 

(2) Again, appeal to authority, though this is formulated differently—simply an attack on my credentials, which you do not know anything about, in contraposition to the tacitly accepted authority of the WHO wise men. Accepted by you, that is. It is also grounded on misrepresenting my point as a rebuke of the WHO report, which it is not. It is only tangentially related, unless the report specifically claims that sugar is the cause of obesity. Impossible to know without a copy of the report.

 

(3) Re-read the paper. I'm not going to hold your hand and explain to you how experiments work, but the stuff you are referring to is irrelevant to the findings because the only variable that is modified between the experiment and control groups is the proportion of calories that is ingested as sugar, with both groups being in a caloric deficit throughout the experiment. Less sugary drinks are irrelevant if you are compensating with chips, peanut butter or anything else that messes with your caloric bottom line and puts you in a surplus.

 

(4) I quoted that part out because it is unrelated to this particular contention point (i.e. the taxation of sugar). I (and others) have already written enough about that in previous posts.

 

("attempt to win", if you say so. These days I'd rather learn something than "win", whatever that means)

Edited February 17, 2014 by 213374U

[Mor]

Less sugary drinks are irrelevant if you are compensating with chips, peanut butter or anything else that messes with your caloric bottom line and puts you in a surplus.

Amazing, you needed an article for that.. As for the rest, I'll just leave this link for you, which include several more recent studies on the topic, which directly address the issue of "soft drink tax", Have fun.

Edited February 17, 2014 by Mor

[213374U]

 

Less sugary drinks are irrelevant if you are compensating with chips, peanut butter or anything else that messes with your caloric bottom line and puts you in a surplus.

Amazing, you needed an article for that.. As for the rest, I'll just leave this link for you, which include several more recent studies on the topic, which directly address the issue of "soft drink tax", Have fun.

 

 

Yes, you actually need evidence to support any assertion that you expect other people to take seriously. I don't expect anyone to meekly nod in agreement with anything I post, just like I'm not buying anything you say just because you or the WHO say it. Shocking, I know. Regardless, I'm glad we are making progress, at least we have established that sugar consumption is not the cause of obesity. With that in mind, let's re-examine how it can be a basis for justifying a tax aimed at fixing obesity. (hint: it cannot)

 

I find it particularly perplexing that your rebuttal consists of a link to the WP page containing references to studies that examine the predicted effects of soft drink taxes, because it in fact points to studies that chiefly reinforce what has already been said in this thread (i.e. not your stance):

 

• ineffective at directly reducing calorie intake (~56 cal less per day with a 18% tax? Really? Dieting will usually aim to put you at a deficit of 500 cal per day)
• great for increasing state revenues (at the tune of ~$885M estimated in 2014 for the state of Florida alone)
• ineffective at changing the calorie bottom line, and I quote:  "Research from Duke University and the National University of Singapore released in December 2010 tested larger taxes and determined that a 20 percent and 40 percent taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages would largely not affect calorie intake because people switch to untaxed, but equally caloric, beverages"
• for a much more informed and articulate discussion than I'm capable of of the two studies there that somewhat (1.3% decrease in obesity) support your position, check here and here. Of particular interest are the points raised about the low sensitivity of high consumers to price increases—a point noted by the authors themselves—and the lack of empirical evidence to justify implementing these taxes, not to mention their political feasibility.

 

As a result of the above, I can only conclude that not only you did not follow up on the WP citations—a healthy habit, to be sure—but you didn't even bother reading what you were linking to! Boy, linking randomly sure is fun! Here, I can do it too:

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority ( )

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_logic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrelevant_conclusion

[Mor]

Yes, you actually need evidence to support any assertion that you expect other people to take seriously. I don't expect anyone to meekly nod in agreement with anything I post, just like I'm not buying anything you say just because you or the WHO say it.

 

I find it particularly perplexing that your rebuttal consists of a link to the WP page.

That was a rebut, as much as my previous post was an attempt to engage in discussion on that topic with you. As oppose too a topic I don't care about. And feeling that explaining my initial comment and what I do and don't care about, might be better than ignore you for the third time. That didn't work, so we will have to agree to disagree. I still think exactly what I said in that initial post concerning your link/conclusio and you can think whatever you want about me or the topic.

 

What I am interested in discussing, is (1) anything related to the bigger picture i.e. notion that the need to address obesity is some kind of prosecution as implied in the title, as oppose to being common sense (2) people who can answer the three basic points I noted at the bottom of post #146 and are willing to discuss what is the best possible solution, as oppose to looking for ways to discredit the solution they don't like.

Edited February 17, 2014 by Mor