Fat places $2tn burden on world economy, says McKinsey report

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by Muta

That is true. When I played competitive sports as a kid, we either drank water or ate oranges at half. Are they now eating chocolate and slurpees? My coaches would have hit us for that.

Couple of guys on my soccer team would get a smoke in during halftime.

[Bagor]

Let me ask an honest question here.

To what extent and is there a section of the obese population where they could be labelled as addicts?

That is, their condition is a result of their inability to control their intake of certain foods (e.g. pop, candy ...?).

And if so, for people that are willing to try and lose weight and make lifestyle changes (diet,exercise) is there the option of addiction counseling?

[Canehdianman]

Originally Posted by troutman

If people are not overweight and live longer, won't that also put extra burdens on healthcare budgets?

People would work longer if they were healthy I imagine.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Muta

Well, organic implies the removal of synthetic fertilizers and chemicals, irradiation, solvents and chemical food additives from the growth and processing process, so I'm not sure how that isn't a good thing.

Agree with you on the packaging, however. low sodium, low fat, sugar free claims should all go.

Because there is no evidence that the so called organic ferteilizers and pest control methods are safer then the alternative. Is irridiation even prohibited in organic food? Also oragnic doesn't mean no chemicals it means only pre-existing "natural" chemicals are used.

The additional cost of organic food makes healthy food less accessible to the masses. We alread have the problem of subsidized corn making sugared drinks and other sugared products substantially cheaper than they should be. Focusing on organics only makes the alternatives more expensive.

Over all my proposal would be to place a tax on processing rather than sugar and use the tax revenue to subsidize unprocessed food. The goal is to shift people back into eating real food.

[Travis Munroe]

My brother has lived throughout quite a few places in Europe. He was telling me that while in Denmark, it was ridiculous how cheap organic and healthy foods were compared to a simple bag of M&Ms.
He is already a healthy guy but he spoke of how healthy everyone in the area was. What is the negative to having junk food taxed heavily and those taxes subsidizing the healthy food.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by GGG

Because there is no evidence that the so called organic ferteilizers and pest control methods are safer then the alternative. Is irridiation even prohibited in organic food? Also oragnic doesn't mean no chemicals it means only pre-existing "natural" chemicals are used.

The additional cost of organic food makes healthy food less accessible to the masses. We alread have the problem of subsidized corn making sugared drinks and other sugared products substantially cheaper than they should be. Focusing on organics only makes the alternatives more expensive.

Over all my proposal would be to place a tax on processing rather than sugar and use the tax revenue to subsidize unprocessed food. The goal is to shift people back into eating real food.

I know that when I changed the food that I ate and started grocery shopping on the outside lane of the grocery stores avoiding most of the inside rows, my grocery bill probably went up 20% to 30%. That was a real shocker.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

What if instead of a tax we build fat farms and force fat people to go there and run on treadmills 24 hours a day that are attached to giant generating stations.

We could help them becoming healthier and take care of our energy needs and the good news is there would be no tax requirements.

We could feed them pretty cheaply by giving them finely condensed protein paste and the bodies of people who can't survive the dramatic treadmill process.

That's right people, we can feed them people, who are high in all of the essential food requirements and go well with red and white wine.

Perhaps the treadmills could be hooked up to a generator and the could generate electricity.

Seems like a win win

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Canehdianman

People would work longer if they were healthy I imagine.

Ha, LIKE ####!!!

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

What if instead of a tax we build fat farms and force fat people to go there and run on treadmills 24 hours a day that are attached to giant generating stations.

We could help them becoming healthier and take care of our energy needs and the good news is there would be no tax requirements.

We could feed them pretty cheaply by giving them finely condensed protein paste and the bodies of people who can't survive the dramatic treadmill process.

That's right people, we can feed them people, who are high in all of the essential food requirements and go well with red and white wine.

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Perhaps the treadmills could be hooked up to a generator and the could generate electricity.

Seems like a win win

I don't know, you're going to need a lot of electricity to power all those meat, bone and fat grinders. May not be much in the way of surplus.

Oh, and this:

[waner]

Originally Posted by Realtor 1

My brother has lived throughout quite a few places in Europe. He was telling me that while in Denmark, it was ridiculous how cheap organic and healthy foods were compared to a simple bag of M&Ms.
He is already a healthy guy but he spoke of how healthy everyone in the area was. What is the negative to having junk food taxed heavily and those taxes subsidizing the healthy food.

I am sure there are people who have done more research into this but from a purely anedoctal and personal level I can say that price has little to no effect on my eating habits at all.

I am fat, not obese (I think), but my weight doesn't stop me from doing anything or affect my job. I make enough money that cost of groceries doesn't really play a factor in what I do or don't buy.

I don't eat healthy because healthy food tastes like crap and stopping at Subway, McDonalds, ordering pizza etc. is much easier than planning, organizaing and making a "real" meal. I don't like fruits and veggies, not a fan of chicken, rice is awful.

If the price of chips went up I would just pay the extra cost. If fruits and veggies were cheaper they still taste awful to me. I guess they could make fast food ridiculously expensive and there would be a point where I would be forced to change my eating but that seems pretty doubtful to me.

Edit: maybe I missed it and the point is just to get money from me to supplement the potential money I will cost the system?

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by waner

I am sure there are people who have done more research into this but from a purely anedoctal and personal level I can say that price has little to no effect on my eating habits at all.

I am fat, not obese (I think), but my weight doesn't stop me from doing anything or affect my job. I make enough money that cost of groceries doesn't really play a factor in what I do or don't buy.

I don't eat healthy because healthy food tastes like crap and stopping at Subway, McDonalds, ordering pizza etc. is much easier than planning, organizaing and making a "real" meal. I don't like fruits and veggies, not a fan of chicken, rice is awful.

If the price of chips went up I would just pay the extra cost. If fruits and veggies were cheaper they still taste awful to me. I guess they could make fast food ridiculously expensive and there would be a point where I would be forced to change my eating but that seems pretty doubtful to me.

Edit: maybe I missed it and the point is just to get money from me to supplement the potential money I will cost the system?

NSFW!

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by waner

I am sure there are people who have done more research into this but from a purely anedoctal and personal level I can say that price has little to no effect on my eating habits at all.

I am fat, not obese (I think), but my weight doesn't stop me from doing anything or affect my job. I make enough money that cost of groceries doesn't really play a factor in what I do or don't buy.

I don't eat healthy because healthy food tastes like crap and stopping at Subway, McDonalds, ordering pizza etc. is much easier than planning, organizaing and making a "real" meal. I don't like fruits and veggies, not a fan of chicken, rice is awful.

If the price of chips went up I would just pay the extra cost. If fruits and veggies were cheaper they still taste awful to me. I guess they could make fast food ridiculously expensive and there would be a point where I would be forced to change my eating but that seems pretty doubtful to me.

Edit: maybe I missed it and the point is just to get money from me to supplement the potential money I will cost the system?

That's really what it comes down to IMO. People who eat junk aren't doing it because it's cheaper; they're doing it because they weren't brought up to enjoy healthy foods and/or aren't able or willing to put in the effort to prepare healthy food. Taxing unhealthy foods will in all likelihood just be a regressive tax that will see poorer people (who tend to eat unhealthy food more) hit the hardest.

I've owned low income housing in the past and have had tenants on welfare who spent probably $15-20 a day eating gas station food when they could've lived off of healthier food from the grocery store across the street for far less than that. But their parents probably fed them 7/11 food when they were kids and now that's what they eat.

[Travis Munroe]

If we are talking about $10 for a small bag of M&Ms
No option at a fast food place under $10 & with pop being $5
Frozen Pizzas are $15, order in pizza and it is now $50 per

I don't know how they factor what will be taxed more heavily.
I do know that when I go on my healthy binges, junk food tastes awful. Same goes for when I am on a junk food bender and try to mix in a salad....the salad tastes awful.

If a family of 4 was spending an extra $10 per person per meal it would equal $3,600 a month to eat sh**. Now if you only eat junk for half your meals, you are down to $1,800 extra ..... I do believe the majority of families / people would slowly convert to healthier eating. The healthier you eat, the better you feel and the better you feel, the less likely you are to grab that double Q pounder.

Again, in my personal experience, I can eat out/junk several times a week and feel (at least think I feel) good. This becomes the norm. When I go on a health kick I am amazed at how much better I feel and it is not until then when I buy a couple burgers and realize just how ####ty it is for the body.

[Azure]

Isn't there a fast food joint in the US that serves very healthy foods for great prices?

Can't remember the name. Saw it on Business Insider a month ago.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by GGG

Because there is no evidence that the so called organic ferteilizers and pest control methods are safer then the alternative. Is irridiation even prohibited in organic food? Also oragnic doesn't mean no chemicals it means only pre-existing "natural" chemicals are used.

The additional cost of organic food makes healthy food less accessible to the masses. We alread have the problem of subsidized corn making sugared drinks and other sugared products substantially cheaper than they should be. Focusing on organics only makes the alternatives more expensive.

Over all my proposal would be to place a tax on processing rather than sugar and use the tax revenue to subsidize unprocessed food. The goal is to shift people back into eating real food.

Yeah, it really chaps my ass these days that so many people hold "organic foods are healthier" as some sort of objective truth, despite there being a severe lack of supporting evidence.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Yeah, it really chaps my ass these days that so many people hold "organic foods are healthier" as some sort of objective truth, despite there being a severe lack of supporting evidence.

AcGold, paging AcGold.

Originally Posted by AcGold

I find the large majority of GMO food to be inferior to organic food in taste and nutritional value, all except for celery, organic celery actually tastes worse. You guys can argue about the safety of GMO's but at the end of the day there are noticeable differences in quality between GMO and non GMO food. If people want the cheaper GMO option they should be allowed, it's supposed to be a free market. But hating on people for preferring organic food is silly, the best of all is people who say there is no difference between organic and non-organic foods.

Originally Posted by AcGold

what horrible disinformation, you most definitely can tell the difference. Well I can. If you blindfolded me I guarantee I would know. GMO does not have the same nutritional value as GMOs, how can you say something so blatantly untrue? GMO carrots don't even taste like carrots, I could tell GMO apart from organic carrots just by smelling them. Wait.... are you trolling me here?

Originally Posted by AcGold

I know the difference, you know the difference didn't think it would be an issue because it's common sense. Obviously not all non-gmos are organic. However, it would be nice if they made it more clear in stores.

Originally Posted by AcGold

go to a normal grocery store and an organic store and look at the produce. Strong smell and strong color are associated with nutritious food while the GMO counterpart often has relatively no smell, color or taste. Think for yourself, have you ever yourself actually tested it and looked at the difference in food quality? You get the normal spinach and it's floppy, damp and light green while the organic kind is crisp, dark green with a strong taste of spinach. The nutritional difference between the two should be obvious, the quality of food correlates to its health benefits. Why do I need a study to back up what's common sense?

[saillias]

Workplace culture really hurts my diet efforts, personally.

Bringing a lunch to work in Tupperware containers and just eating that, takes A TON of willpower. I have a meeting at 11:30 where lunch is provided but I ate at 10:30 and I know everyone will be looking at me funny saying "are you gonna eat? Are you ok?" Donuts and pizza are always sitting around the kitchen area, people will bring candy around and offer it to you at holiday times, it gets to a point of peer pressure where I feel like I'm not a team player if I don't take a donut because someone felt generous and made a stop at Tim Horton's that day.

Going out to eat at restaurants, often mandatory requirement of a white collar job as well, and you can't count the calories on restaurant food. So yeah honestly the biggest impediment to my nutrition and diet plan is the job.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

AcGold, paging AcGold.

Doesn't he claim to have a degree in psychology? I don't have a degree in psychology, but one of the first studies we reviewed in an introductory psychology course that I took examined precisely how unreliable anecdotal evidence is, and thus the necessity for supporting claims with empirical/statistical evidence.

[WhiteTiger]

Because taxing cigs at crazy rates has made people stop smoking...

[ExiledFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

Because taxing cigs at crazy rates has made people stop smoking...

They have indeed.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2...perts_say.html

"For example, France tripled cigarette prices by raising taxes at least 5 per cent higher than the inflation rate every year between 1990 and 2005. At the same time, the country managed to halve cigarette consumption and double tobacco revenues."

A sugar tax is a great idea. We need to make healthy foods cheaper and bad foods more expensive.