delete/sold

steve24

Likes Bikes and Dirt
I don't think it is only because of the cost that people eat unhealthy food. Many people simply have no idea or do not really care....
It is really easy to phone for a pizza for $5 each, stop at Maccas drive thru on the way home etc.
 

Mywifesirrational

I however am very normal. Trust me.
There are lots of researchers being funded by a crap load of government grants looking at this very problem, without a doubt it is the most important and complex health issue facing this nation and many others.

The problem for insurers is that are not allowed to discriminate against people, but if they can find a way legally to knock back smokers, morbidly obese, even extreme sports they will. Also, it's our premiums that pay for people who don't have enough foresight to keep themselves vaguely healthy.

Junk food is quite cheap compared to fruit and veg. for low socio-economic individuals this is the main problem as they can not afford quality. I'm all for a fat tax and also banning smoking, ABC discussion linked

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/bigideas/fat-tax/4132962
 

Mywifesirrational

I however am very normal. Trust me.
Here's a link to the current federal initiatives looking at nutrition and healthy eating, theres a million off shoots here to all sorts of interesting links.

http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/phd-nutrition-current

Same site, for physical activity

http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/health-pubhlth-strateg-active-resources

Or where our tax dollars is spent in research - some interesting stuff in here, can be hard to find.

http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/

As far as introducing a 'fat tax' on junk food, too many lobby groups are against it and have the money to get their own way, but it seems there is not enough education available to the average peep for them to make intelligent decisions when buying food.
 

Garrath

Likes Dirt
What do we mean by 'fat tax'? Does this mean olive oil is taxed? Fish Oil taxed? What we want to tax is SUGAR.
 

Mywifesirrational

I however am very normal. Trust me.
Fat tax refers to junk food in general, so foods high in calories but low in nutrition. So excessive intake of fat or sugar (and I guess people who binge of protein) will make an individual fat - the term refers to obesity not the macro nutrient.
 

kjd

Likes Bikes
I really believe that the government should stop trying to social engineer the people into living how they think we should live.

Taxing alcohol and cigarettes does not stop anyone from abusing them nor will a fat tax.

I don't like being told what I can and can't do when it comes to choices with my body or what I do in my spare time (I'm a non smoker and occasional drinker). Sure, please let me know the facts about what I do and how it might hurt me but don't force me through taxes or laws to do what you want.

It is like putting a tax on sporting equipment that is deemed a dangerous sport (DH,MX, skydiving etc) because of the costs of fixing their broken bodies.

Sorry but educate don't legislate.
 

Cypher

Likes Dirt
Obesity and 'lifestyle' diseases appear to be a little more complex than just as a result of eating poorly and not exercising - although not doing the right things for your body will surely result in poor outcomes.

Recently a study has come out that if your gut is not colonised by the correct bacteria in the first few weeks of life you may be prone to being overweight as a toddler. Certainly having antibiotics in the first 6 months is having that effect. Mothers who eat well during pregnancy can tip the balance in favour of good bacteria and a good start.

Some people just have the cards stacked against them from the start. The above can explain part of why we have such a problem with obesity now - antibiotics and lack of breastfeeding have been a feature for the last 50 or so years.

If the above is true, a fat or sugar tax is not going to work wonderously well (just like all taxes I suppose). It will work well enough I think. Certainly it is crazy that whole foods are more expensive than refined foods.

I think that this problem is well more complex and will need a whole range of initiatives to solve which can include a tax, education, medical policy changes etc
 
Last edited:

pharmaboy

Eats Squid
I really believe that the government should stop trying to social engineer the people into living how they think we should live.

.
Well said. Since when did govt become the means to stop fully grown adults from making their own decisions?

Quite frankly, its sickening how lobby/pressure groups etc want their own view of the world legislated so they can protect the 5% of incapable by administerng the 95% to all behave normally.

If you want to help a problem in your eyes, then motivate for education, not legislation
 

pharmaboy

Eats Squid

The government is meant to look after the country and its population


Who said thats the job of govt?

nanny state
: a government that makes decisions for people that they might otherwise make for themselves, esp those relating to private and personal behaviour
 

pharmaboy

Eats Squid
Even disregarding that statement about the government looking after the country, Id like to hear what your view is on the rest of my post, It directly relates to the issue of "government interfering". its not just about changing others, they are not taking away free will they are creating a more ideal situation for eating foods and for those who are healthy it rewards us rather than punishes us with higher prices and premiums.

Even discounting all that this idea is the government is trying to encourage people to be healthier not force them, how is that a bad thing.......would you get angry at someone trying to save lives..no, they are not taking away any choice or forcing anything on anyone, they are creating a balanced and ideal living situation....its that simple.

The only ban I will 100% support is smoking, its unfair that they should smoke and damage my health. If you want to make a choice to damage your healthy do it on your own but don't mess others up. This is partly the same argument for this type of idea, the government is trying to make a ideal living situation and unhealthy decision will be a choice. Right now people are forced to eat unhealthy, they don't have a choice if their money doesn't let them, for these people let unhealthy food be a choice, don't make healthy food be a choice.
That is forcing people to eat a certain way too, it isn't about controlling the idea, it's about flipping the current situation so the living situation is ideal, there is no choice been removed it just makes the dynamic ideal and smart, by healthy living been rewarding and easier. healthy individuals pay more for being healthy its bullsh*t.

Right now our situation is this
unhealthy food = normal majority and cheap
healthy food = unique minority for wealthier people

The goal is to flip this, not eliminate choice but flip the way our society is to improve overall health, decrease health costs and create a ideal living situation for struggling family and a awarding situation for those who eat healthy.

You are effectively limiting choice, by increasing prices via tax, when as you acknowledge, the target market is poorer - Further, the most important point, is that taxation on these products would punish all - so even if your BMI is 25, you exercise 6 times a week, and have a life expectancy of 90, you still have to pat extra for your fast food. I dont agree at all that its worth penalising the majority to exert extra control on a minority.

Smoking - banning smoking is the same - your fear of second hand smoke by my understanding of the science is unfounded (unless you work in a smoking bar, which there arent a lot of these days). Tax on cigarettes only applies to smokers - this is different to the fast food carte blanche idea.

people arent forced to eat unhealthy - this is a misnomer. eating unhealthy isnt cheaper, this is not a misnomer, its simply bullshit.

What causes eating unhealthy is a lack of skills to cook food, and laziness - sorry, time. The best correlation to obesity etc is education level - this also correlates with income. One thing that needs to be done is more research, what effects satiety etc is not well understood, nor is what interventions that work well known.

Hell, dietitians seem not to know whats going on in a behaviourial sense on this front.

Some simple stuff - protein satiates for longer, food delivered as a soup likewise, slightly smaller plates modify behaviour, chewing twice as long leads to earlier satiety, reducing kj intake by a smallish amount (say 10%), works far better than aggressive dieting - there are i am sure plenty of others. BUT the dietitian approach is here is the groups of food you should eat and the quantities - nad its so far from normality from most people that it never works - you need to slowly modify peoples "normal" over a long period of time, and dont expect to change peoples taste - you needed to do that when they were 12.

There are 2 superb examples of what is wrong with the current approach, the English woman who does you are what you eat, and Rosemary Stanton. there got that off my chest.
 

frenchman

Eats cheese. Sells crack.
The only ban I will 100% support is smoking, its unfair that they should smoke and damage my health. If you want to make a choice to damage your healthy do it on your own but don't mess others up. This is partly the same argument for this type of idea, the government is trying to make a ideal living situation and unhealthy decision will be a choice. Right now people are forced to eat unhealthy, they don't have a choice if their money doesn't let them, for these people let unhealthy food be a choice, don't make healthy food be a choice.
That is forcing people to eat a certain way too, it isn't about controlling the idea, it's about flipping the current situation so the living situation is ideal, there is no choice been removed it just makes the dynamic ideal and smart, by healthy living been rewarding and easier. healthy individuals pay more for being healthy its bullsh*t.

Would you be angry if the government found a way to make our air cleaner to eliminate pollution no of course not, it is the same deal create a ideal living situation, the choices are still there to eat unhealthy if one chooses so.
I'll stop smoking my B&H when you buy a fucking Prius.

Eating unhealthy isn't forced upon anyone due to money constraints. Most vegetables when in season cost next to nothing. The problem is joe bloggs doesn't know how to cook it nor wants to spend any time learning how.

You would be pissed off if the government found a way to eliminate pollution. You would be driving that Prius and I wouldn't be smoking and we'd both be miserable because we aren't allowed to have our little luxuries in life of a v6 ute and a packet of cigarettes.

In the meantime I'll continue driving my hilux, eating a baguette followed by a cigarette.

Bonjour.
 
Last edited:

moorey

Boom!
I really believe that the government should stop trying to social engineer the people into living how they think we should live.

Taxing alcohol and cigarettes does not stop anyone from abusing them nor will a fat tax.

I don't like being told what I can and can't do when it comes to choices with my body or what I do in my spare time (I'm a non smoker and occasional drinker). Sure, please let me know the facts about what I do and how it might hurt me but don't force me through taxes or laws to do what you want.

It is like putting a tax on sporting equipment that is deemed a dangerous sport (DH,MX, skydiving etc) because of the costs of fixing their broken bodies.

Sorry but educate don't legislate.
My wife works in healthcare, and its common knowledge that without smoking, alcohol and fast foods, there would be tumbleweeds rolling through the wards.
I respect your right to smoke (or not)/drink/eat shit, but I'm sick of tax dollars being wasted on people who bring sickness on themselves, and are clogging up the emergency dept/waiting list at hospitals...and making me have to wait for surgery/treatment when I fall off my bike and bust my arse on regular occasions.

Off topic, but it makes my blood boil to see people in ICU, recovering from tobacco related disease, start to recover from extensive surgery and rehabilitation, only to have their partner wheel them from the bed to the carpark for a fag.
:smash:
 

Trigger02

Likes Bikes and Dirt
Let people do what they want and tax them for thier crappy way of living. but in saying that, even smokers live 40 years beyond what the human body was suppose to.
 

steve24

Likes Bikes and Dirt
I think more food labeling/ info would be great but we are still way ahead of other countries.
In Europe it is still optional to label nutritional values.
More control over foods with missleading labels such as "only 1g of fat per serve" (fine frint shows serving size is 5g, so 20% fat....).
My eyes are getting bad and i can't read many labels as they are too small....

I also don't believe people are forced to eat poorly because of cost. Coles advetise "feed your family for $10", i don't think you can even feed the family with junk food for that.

How many people who CHOOSE to eat crap food buy smokes/ drugs/ alcohol regardless of the cost?

I like the idea of whole/ healthy food being a cheaper option but that won't make my wife eat wholemeal bread or stop eating wedges and 1/2 litre of cream/ week.....
 

Mywifesirrational

I however am very normal. Trust me.
I'll stop smoking my B&H when you buy a fucking Prius.

Eating unhealthy isn't forced upon anyone due to money constraints. Most vegetables when in season cost next to nothing. The problem is joe bloggs doesn't know how to cook it nor wants to spend any time learning how.

You would be pissed off if the government found a way to eliminate pollution. You would be driving that Prius and I wouldn't be smoking and we'd both be miserable because we aren't allowed to have our little luxuries in life of a v6 ute and a packet of cigarettes.

In the meantime I'll continue driving my hilux, eating a baguette followed by a cigarette.

Bonjour.
It has been well established that junk food is significantly cheaper than fresh fruit and veg. It in an important factor in low socioeconomic areas (along with others that have been mentioned).

I worked in public health prior to returning to uni, you may want to visit a COPD clinic and met a few oldies who are terminal well before their time, I haven't yet met a smoker who didn't regret their decision to smoke in the end. But it's your health and it's your decision, but ultimately it's the rest of us who where smart enough not to smoke that will be paying for your treatment in the end.

Collins and Lapsley 2007 - the economic cost of smoking to the community.

In 2004–05, social costs of tobacco abuse totalled just under $31.5 billion, more than 56% of the total estimated social costs of drug abuse in Australia in that year. Of the total estimated social costs of tobacco abuse, 38% were tangible costs and 62% were intangible.
 
Top