• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

Sugar Tax, Jamie oliver

Page 4 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

carolina said:
the big problem is that most of these studies that "show links to" heart disease, cancer, etc, are not conclusive
That's what I liked about Forks Over Knives. It looked at some of the largest studies ever, and drew general conclusions, while looking at whole food groups. Basically, people who live in societies who eat a lot of plants are healthier. We don't eat enough plants. Eat more plants.

cellardoor said:
I watched "Fed Up" after you mentioned it earlier in the thread. What was the aspect of it that you felt was bordering on propaganda?
I guess I found the thing more grating and Katy Couric coming off as shrill. The talk about addiction and all. I found it more pushing at emotions, than based on science and studies, and the way it was edited often made me feel like it was set-up to show people who disagreed to have no answers, careless, or even look foolish. Or worse, these companies like McDonalds or Coca Cola are just greedy parasites, basically drug dealers, hooking children on sugar.

My other complaint is that if you step away from the film, and look at society, there are a LOT of people who glance at things like this, which is how many people are reacting to Jamie Oliver, and then demonize all sugars, even all carbohydrates. It doesn't mater how you get them. It's all going to cause an insulin spike and the sugar will turn to FAT!!! These are the same as the Atkins people. These people then go on restrictive diet which is heavy in protein - usually animal protein, and fat, usually animal fat, and lose some weight and call it a success. But any restrictive diet will cause you to lose weight, as you're eating less calories until you can learn to shop and buy your way around this new hurdle you've created and start packing on more calories.

Then again, maybe I saw the film from a completely different set of eyes than what the target audience might be. I already know you shouldn't eat a lot of sugar infused food, processed food, and need to exercise more. And I believe the only person who is going to truly help you, and take care of your well being, is you. You need to eat better, less calories, and exercise more. Almost no amount of taxes on sugar are going to do that.

And as I said before, if you really want to force people to eat better, you'd heavily tax processed food (much of which contains sugar), and to some degree meat and dairy products.

While we're at it, let's make everyone under the age of 60 ride a bike more. :)
 
Aug 4, 2011
2,644
0
0
Great points and the end it still comes down to how much food you put in your mouth.
Look at the huge market for so called low fat or low sugar foods yet obesity is still at a all time high. Most of these foods have the same amount of calories i.e that's the problem not content but quantity.
I love to eat a doughnut, why should I be taxed for eating a doughnut because someone else cant control their eating habit.
 
ray j willings said:
I love to eat a doughnut, why should I be taxed for eating a doughnut because someone else cant control their eating habit.
Because we're trying to control the obesity epidemic. In the end a healthier population is beneficial to everyone. Besides, if more people are obese, more people will be in need of medical help and health insurance fees will go up. So in the end it doesn't really matter if you pay an additional 10 cents for a donut you eat once a week, or 10 euros more for your health insurance.
 
Jul 14, 2009
2,463
0
0
ray j willings said:
Great points and the end it still comes down to how much food you put in your mouth.
Look at the huge market for so called low fat or low sugar foods yet obesity is still at a all time high. Most of these foods have the same amount of calories i.e that's the problem not content but quantity.
I love to eat a doughnut, why should I be taxed for eating a doughnut because someone else cant control their eating habit.
Ray I am glad you brought up one of the major food groups donuts
.I adore the rings of love.In NYC and Brooklyn there are donuts that can change a life.The hibiscus drizzled at Dough are fantastic and Donut Plant puts out products that bring a smile to your face before, during and after your purchase. Eating a deep fried ring of dough used to be easy. Straight forward ingredients and a simple process of cooking. Then the big guys started figuring ways to include things that make a donut that is a day or days old hard to identify.
Your simple math theory about your goz-indaz equalling your goz-outtaz would work if we only ate every few days,but some designer calories are put aside by your body and before our enzyme team can break apart some Archer Daniels bio mess or some Con Agra food mutant we add more food to the pile and our bodies, like taking a test put the hardest things until last..we just never keep up because of a lazy diet and foods that we think are simple are actually loaded with chit that not everybody knows is in there. I don't know if you used donuts as hyperbole but don't again. Along with wood fired pizza,donuts are foods I take very seriously... But I am w you about punishments that go across the board for responsible and irresponsible donut users.
Donut Bar in SD also has epic stuff w Stumptown coffee to accompany
 
LaFlorecita said:
ray j willings said:
I love to eat a doughnut, why should I be taxed for eating a doughnut because someone else cant control their eating habit.
Because we're trying to control the obesity epidemic. In the end a healthier population is beneficial to everyone. Besides, if more people are obese, more people will be in need of medical help and health insurance fees will go up. So in the end it doesn't really matter if you pay an additional 10 cents for a donut you eat once a week, or 10 euros more for your health insurance.
and who is going to stop eating donuts because they cost 10 cents more? no one.

if governments are serious about obesity, then they should teach people on how to eat and motivate them to eat better and move more. what if instead of charging more for "bad foods", the government decreased taxes for whole foods? why not teach the kids in school on how to eat and the importance of eating well?

taxing something isn't going to resolve anything, it's just avoiding the real problem, which is lack of proper information.
 
Sep 25, 2009
6,983
0
0
...i kinda avoided the thread thinking its title wasn't something i cared for, but then i read the opening post (and some responses) and decided to give ray his due support...

yes, the issue is NOT sugar per se but the excessive consumption by some. and i agree completely, the self-discipline and self-control should be a part of any health impact of the excessive simple sugars consumption.

adults are responsible for what they put in their body. in my book, any adult is also ULTIMATELY responsible for being (and staying) healthy including staying informed about various foods impact on their individual bodies.

it is a common knowledge as well it's common sense - the sugar as a chemical in a typical western diet affects us differently health-wise depending on both our genetic predisposition and our environment.

for instance, my 2 daughters despite being raised in the same 'kitchen' environment, react very differently to sugar. the older one took after me - tall, slim, indifferent to an occasional doughnut or 2, while the younger took after her mother with all the challenges of weight control. the moral of the example is very simple - some w/o being particularly guilty of anything need more effort at self control than others.

then, there's the caloric management issue that any excessive body weight has to do with BEFORE one considers the sugar impacts per se. bottom line, people imo should learn to take the responsibility for their health and body BEFORE they consider if the govt tax on sugar is going to benefit them...
 
carolina said:
LaFlorecita said:
ray j willings said:
I love to eat a doughnut, why should I be taxed for eating a doughnut because someone else cant control their eating habit.
Because we're trying to control the obesity epidemic. In the end a healthier population is beneficial to everyone. Besides, if more people are obese, more people will be in need of medical help and health insurance fees will go up. So in the end it doesn't really matter if you pay an additional 10 cents for a donut you eat once a week, or 10 euros more for your health insurance.
and who is going to stop eating donuts because they cost 10 cents more? no one.

if governments are serious about obesity, then they should teach people on how to eat and motivate them to eat better and move more. what if instead of charging more for "bad foods", the government decreased taxes for whole foods? why not teach the kids in school on how to eat and the importance of eating well?

taxing something isn't going to resolve anything, it's just avoiding the real problem, which is lack of proper information.
This is what I hinted at earlier in the thread. Is it right for governments to subsidise the processed food industry by keeping the price of things like HFCS artificially low? If you move those subsidies from corn by-products to whole foods (as you mention) then that would seem like a reasonable thing to do.
 
carolina said:
LaFlorecita said:
ray j willings said:
I love to eat a doughnut, why should I be taxed for eating a doughnut because someone else cant control their eating habit.
Because we're trying to control the obesity epidemic. In the end a healthier population is beneficial to everyone. Besides, if more people are obese, more people will be in need of medical help and health insurance fees will go up. So in the end it doesn't really matter if you pay an additional 10 cents for a donut you eat once a week, or 10 euros more for your health insurance.
and who is going to stop eating donuts because they cost 10 cents more? no one.

if governments are serious about obesity, then they should teach people on how to eat and motivate them to eat better and move more. what if instead of charging more for "bad foods", the government decreased taxes for whole foods? why not teach the kids in school on how to eat and the importance of eating well?

taxing something isn't going to resolve anything, it's just avoiding the real problem, which is lack of proper information.
If all foods high in (refined) sugar content are taxed, those little increases in price will add up and perhaps the sales will go down by "only" say, 0.5%, it's still something. And the extra money can go into projects and campaigns for healthy food.
Why does it have to be an or/or situation? Why can't the government increase awareness, with the help of the additional money; and also implement the sugar tax?

The only arguments I see are
1) It isn't going to help - well, it certainly won't do any harm.
2) Why should I pay because other people can't control themselves? - that is a terribly egoistic and selfish thought; I think it's good if overall, all unhealthy food gets more expensive, while whole foods get cheaper.
The thing here is - 1 donut or chocolate bar every month won't make you unhealthy. But if you didn't eat that donut or chocolate bar, it would be better for your body, although granted if it is "the occasional donut" the difference won't be nearly as big than if you ate donuts every day and cut them all out.
 
I would think that 10 cents would equate to millions when factored up to an industrial scale. Considering the market is incredible competitive, it would likely mean a reduction in sugar (possibly replaced with sweetener or fat, which is not exactly ideal) rather than a price increase that the customer would see.
 
Aug 4, 2011
2,644
0
0
LaFlorecita said:
carolina said:
LaFlorecita said:
ray j willings said:
I love to eat a doughnut, why should I be taxed for eating a doughnut because someone else cant control their eating habit.
Because we're trying to control the obesity epidemic. In the end a healthier population is beneficial to everyone. Besides, if more people are obese, more people will be in need of medical help and health insurance fees will go up. So in the end it doesn't really matter if you pay an additional 10 cents for a donut you eat once a week, or 10 euros more for your health insurance.
and who is going to stop eating donuts because they cost 10 cents more? no one.

if governments are serious about obesity, then they should teach people on how to eat and motivate them to eat better and move more. what if instead of charging more for "bad foods", the government decreased taxes for whole foods? why not teach the kids in school on how to eat and the importance of eating well?

taxing something isn't going to resolve anything, it's just avoiding the real problem, which is lack of proper information.
If all foods high in (refined) sugar content are taxed, those little increases in price will add up and perhaps the sales will go down by "only" say, 0.5%, it's still something. And the extra money can go into projects and campaigns for healthy food.
Why does it have to be an or/or situation? Why can't the government increase awareness, with the help of the additional money; and also implement the sugar tax?

The only arguments I see are
1) It isn't going to help - well, it certainly won't do any harm.
2) Why should I pay because other people can't control themselves? - that is a terribly egoistic and selfish thought; I think it's good if overall, all unhealthy food gets more expensive, while whole foods get cheaper.
The thing here is - 1 donut or chocolate bar every month won't make you unhealthy. But if you didn't eat that donut or chocolate bar, it would be better for your body, although granted if it is "the occasional donut" the difference won't be nearly as big than if you ate donuts every day and cut them all out.

The government doesn't stop going on about obesity. We have TV shows telling you how to eat. We have healthy
campaigns in schools etc. Its made no difference.
Stop putting all that food in your mouth and you won't be Fat. It really is that simple "control yourself"
There's a TV show we have in the UK called secret eaters. It starts with a overweight family. Each member all claim they eat healthy etc . They are monitored every hour of the day and what do we find out. We find out they don't stop eating. They eat chocolate bars, crisps, cakes, they fill every bit of empty space in their life with food.
It's the same scenario show after show. They are in denial. "I gain weight easy" well if you do go and see a Dr find out if you really do have a issue " I doubt it very much" Instead of carrying on eating and making excuses for your lack of control.

http://www.healthline.com/symptom/unintentional-weight-gain
 
Mar 10, 2009
250
0
9,030
Taxing food won't help to stop people eating junk. Vast majority of people want the quick and easy solutions in everything and the same goes for food. As long as junk food is cheap and easy, people will consume it and ignore the health complications that come with it. Adding to the problem is advancing medical care, which enables people to be unhealthy 'cause they can always rely on pills and surgeons to keep them alive. There are millions of people walking the streets who have caused themselves diseases that would've killed them without modern science. The fear of really doing permanent damage to yourself should be enough to make people make wiser choices with food. Sounds harsh but that's the reality of the situation.
 
ray j willings said:
The government doesn't stop going on about obesity. We have TV shows telling you how to eat. We have healthy
campaigns in schools etc. Its made no difference.
Stop putting all that food in your mouth and you won't be Fat. It really is that simple "control yourself"
Well, for some people that control is easier said that done, and not so simple.

When I turned 40 it was a lot easier to gain weight, for example. Not that I'm obese mind you, but I did notice it.

Having said that, I think you're right and agree with your general assessment. We can make all the rules, taxes, campaigns, documentaries, we want, but it's up to the individual to eat better and exercise more.

The only way I see the government really having an impact would be to do something radical. A small tax would change little. Maybe over 50 years, like the way tobacco has been taxed. So for large change we would need a massive tax on processed food; massive subsidies for whole foods; and a heavy handed restriction banning advertising of junk food, processed food, and probably most meat and dairy, or make people hunt their own meat. And we should probably force people to commute by bicycle by greatly building bike lanes and bike paths, and stopping maintenance on roads. Or restricting gasoline purchase for people under the age of about 60. That would probably get people to eat almost no junk, and a lot more salad, and be a lot more fit. But in a free country, once you open that door of autocratic control...
 
So, because in the end it is up to those people to make a difference, we can't help them with it? Really? Even though it's clear many of these people need every bit of help they can get?
It's kind of the same as saying you won't donate to any sort of charity - "it doesn't concern me, the charity doesn't benefit me in any way". Is this what it has come to? What an egocentrical point of view.
 
Oct 23, 2011
3,557
0
0
LaFlorecita said:
So, because in the end it is up to those people to make a difference, we can't help them with it? Really? Even though it's clear many of these people need every bit of help they can get?
It's kind of the same as saying you won't donate to any sort of charity - "it doesn't concern me, the charity doesn't benefit me in any way". Is this what it has come to? What an egocentrical point of view.
But do the people themselves think they need all the help they can get? What if the people themselves just want to have cheap doughnuts without government interference? Forcing our help upon them is maybe a bit paternalistic.

I'm not saying I'm necessarily opposed to these types of taxes by the way, I'm just saying it's more complicated than 'oh, this food is unhealthy and it's causing some problems, let's tax it'. To what extent is the government responsible for bringing about a more desirable behaviour in the population that it governs? In a sense it can be seen as pretty paternalistic for the government to go and tax foods they think you should stay away from........
 
Aug 4, 2011
2,644
0
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
ray j willings said:
The government doesn't stop going on about obesity. We have TV shows telling you how to eat. We have healthy
campaigns in schools etc. Its made no difference.
Stop putting all that food in your mouth and you won't be Fat. It really is that simple "control yourself"
Well, for some people that control is easier said that done, and not so simple.

When I turned 40 it was a lot easier to gain weight, for example. Not that I'm obese mind you, but I did notice it.

Having said that, I think you're right and agree with your general assessment. We can make all the rules, taxes, campaigns, documentaries, we want, but it's up to the individual to eat better and exercise more.

The only way I see the government really having an impact would be to do something radical. A small tax would change little. Maybe over 50 years, like the way tobacco has been taxed. So for large change we would need a massive tax on processed food; massive subsidies for whole foods; and a heavy handed restriction banning advertising of junk food, processed food, and probably most meat and dairy, or make people hunt their own meat. And we should probably force people to commute by bicycle by greatly building bike lanes and bike paths, and stopping maintenance on roads. Or restricting gasoline purchase for people under the age of about 60. That would probably get people to eat almost no junk, and a lot more salad, and be a lot more fit. But in a free country, once you open that door of autocratic control...
This is why I continue to lift weights even though I know it goes against my bike riding full potential.
I think as we get older we just slow down naturally. Life goes faster " seems to in my case" and we tend to enjoy the rest enjoy being with our loved ones. Where as when we are younger we just keep going. When I single I was skinny as fu$4 I was always moving. Being in a relationship definitely IMO chills you out.
Its always a full fat family or couple very rarely do you see one person in a family slim and the rest fat. Same for partners. They are usually both slim or both fat " eating habits"


Yes, your metabolism does slow down as you age, but the amount is minuscule and the only reason it does slow down is because you tend to lose a tiny bit of muscle mass as you age.

For example, a 60 year old man is never going to have as much muscle mass as a 25 year old man even if they follow the exact same workout and diet plans.

Older people also tend to carry more fat. So the best thing you can do to protect your metabolism as you age is to build a lean and muscular body and maintain it for the rest of your life.

So yes in this case, the saying “If you don’t use it, you lose it” really is true.

Don’t use your age as an excuse to let yourself go. There’s no reason why you can’t be old and still look *** incredible. As long as you continue to lift weights and eat right, your metabolism will be just fine.
 
Aug 4, 2011
2,644
0
0
LaFlorecita said:
So, because in the end it is up to those people to make a difference, we can't help them with it? Really? Even though it's clear many of these people need every bit of help they can get?
It's kind of the same as saying you won't donate to any sort of charity - "it doesn't concern me, the charity doesn't benefit me in any way". Is this what it has come to? What an egocentrical point of view.

Its not charity situation. That's a ridiculous comparison. When the F%%K did it become so hard for people to eat sensible. My wife [ vegetarian] loves her job . Its pretty full on yet every evening she spends 30/60 minutes working on her martial arts. Its not easy when you have 2 kids and the pressures of urban living don't make it easy time wise. What's the excuse for over eating when plenty of people don't. Lazy mo fo's with no control. They want to sit there and lap up the dumbed down TV Crap and order enormous portions of take away food that gets delivered to their door. Put your shoes on go to the supermarket i.e walk and by yourself something a bit more healty to eat. I can see a future of wider front doors and airplane seats.
People need to wake up for themselves. Why do we see articles celebrating some one who has lost 8 stone ? Why not do a article about someone who had control and did not gain 8 stone of weight in the first place.
Not being fat is not an achievement :eek:
People are becoming more stupid. We know exactly why we get fat so wake up people and stop letting food control your life.
 
ray j willings said:
Its not charity situation. That's a ridiculous comparison. When the F%%K did it become so hard for people to eat sensible. My wife [ vegetarian] loves her job . Its pretty full on yet every evening she spends 30/60 minutes working on her martial arts. Its not easy when you have 2 kids and the pressures of urban living don't make it easy time wise. What's the excuse for over eating when plenty of people don't. Lazy mo fo's with no control. They want to sit there and lap up the dumbed down TV Crap and order enormous portions of take away food that gets delivered to their door. Put your shoes on go to the supermarket i.e walk and by yourself something a bit more healty to eat. I can see a future of wider front doors and airplane seats.
People need to wake up for themselves. Why do we see articles celebrating some one who has lost 8 stone ? Why not do a article about someone who had control and did not gain 8 stone of weight in the first place.
Not being fat is not an achievement :eek:
People are becoming more stupid. We know exactly why we get fat so wake up people and stop letting food control your life.
Wow.
 
Maaaaaaaarten said:
But do the people themselves think they need all the help they can get? What if the people themselves just want to have cheap doughnuts without government interference? Forcing our help upon them is maybe a bit paternalistic.

I'm not saying I'm necessarily opposed to these types of taxes by the way, I'm just saying it's more complicated than 'oh, this food is unhealthy and it's causing some problems, let's tax it'. To what extent is the government responsible for bringing about a more desirable behaviour in the population that it governs? In a sense it can be seen as pretty paternalistic for the government to go and tax foods they think you should stay away from........
Of course, it is a difficult situation and there is no perfect solution. There needs to be a lot of discussion before such a tax is implemented. But to write it off as unnecessary or undesirable without as much as a second thought is folly.
 
yes, but how do you define sugary foods or fatty foods?

example, I usually buy 1 kg of peanut butter, made using only roasted peanuts. it's mostly fat, like any other nut butter on the market. I also have 1 kg of cashew butter, made using roasted cashews and a very little amount of vegetable oil. the nutritional facts are almost identical.

would it be fair to tax them differently just because one of them has a little bit of vegetable oil added?
there are a lot of food products that can be classified has healthy or non-healthy, it just depends on you ask.
 
Re:

carolina said:
yes, but how do you define sugary foods or fatty foods?

example, I usually buy 1 kg of peanut butter, made using only roasted peanuts. it's mostly fat, like any other nut butter on the market. I also have 1 kg of cashew butter, made using roasted cashews and a very little amount of vegetable oil. the nutritional facts are almost identical.

would it be fair to tax them differently just because one of them has a little bit of vegetable oil added?
there are a lot of food products that can be classified has healthy or non-healthy, it just depends on you ask.
I think you'd have to say saturated fats rather than fats in general. I guess the fat in nuts and vegetable oil is unsaturated.
 
Ray and LaForencita - Relax a little. It's just a discussion. I think you both can respect each others' opinion as one you can merely disagree with, yes?

As to being fit in your 60's and beyond, it's definitely possible. Look at Jack Lalanne. While he did eventually pass away (at 96), he was still working out big time in his 80's and astoundingly fit. Even after heart valve surgery at I think 94, he was still working out at least some, swimming and lifting weights every day up to the end. Now Jack was something beyond human, but there are plenty of fit people you hear about all the time over 60. Ned Overend just turned 60, and is still hammering away on a bike, like a machine, a terminator. Cross training (swimming, weights, a little running) are a big key to that. He's also really in tune with his body and knows when to rest and how much. But his diet is interesting in that it's mostly healthy whole foods, but there's not much he won't eat either, including some sweets even. So, should someone like Ned pay more tax on sweet foods he likes? Why? Because it's making him fat and unhealthy? Really?! http://www.bicycling.com/training/tips/ned-overend-s-secrets-riding-forever

As to what to tax, this reminds me of the recent complaint by Kind bars, when they were upset when they couldn't label their bars healthy according to the FDA, because it was somewhat high in fat, and above a threshold for saturated fat, though all of the saturated fat comes from coconut oil, none from animal products, and the rest of the fat from nuts and seeds. What if Kind stopped putting coconut oil in their bars, but added more sugar? Who's right here? And is oversight really a solution? This blogger has a point, saying it benefits consumers, in that it makes people pay closer attention to what's in their food. And I think he has a point.

http://blog.myfitnesspal.com/how-the-kind-bar-label-controversy-benefits-consumers/

So who's going to create the big list of foods to tax and at what amount? And for what country? And in the US, should it be by the entire federal government, or let the states decide? I can't speak so much about Europe, but in the US the political system is so horribly corrupted by bribery, I'm sure the food industry lobbyists with the biggest checks would write the bill to determine that. But that's another story, for another thread I suppose.
 
Aug 4, 2011
2,644
0
0
I like to have a free choice of food. I don't see why I should have to pay more for a pizza etc.
I had a friend who put on a chunky amount of weight. He mainly was eating pasta, he does not have a sweet tooth.
He was just eating to much, big portions. Should we tax pasta :eek: He did not realise the difference between the dry weight and cooked weight. Its quite a difference same goes for rice etc. Company's should make it clear on the amount of calories cooked weight. Keep it simple.

200 cals of pasta = 57grms dry
200 cals of cous cous = 56grms dry
200 cals of rice = 54grms dry .
 
ray j willings said:
I like to have a free choice of food. I don't see why I should have to pay more for a pizza etc.
I had a friend who put on a chunky amount of weight. He mainly was eating pasta, he does not have a sweet tooth.
He was just eating to much, big portions. Should we tax pasta :eek: He did not realise the difference between the dry weight and cooked weight. Its quite a difference same goes for rice etc. Company's should make it clear on the amount of calories cooked weight. Keep it simple.

200 cals of pasta = 57grms dry
200 cals of cous cous = 56grms dry
200 cals of rice = 54grms dry .
This argument doesn't really make sense. You are already paying VAT on pizza, but not on a bag of potatos. On the other hand, some crops are subsidised and so are artificially cheap, while others are not. This doesn't mean certain food is unavailable to you, but just that you pay more or less for certain things in a way that you're not necessarily even aware of.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS