The "fat" tax on junk food- should it be implemented?

[Sparklycookie]

The UK government want to implement a "fat" tax on junk food products to help control obesity. As well as this, they want to impose a £1,000 fine on fast food restaurants (see http://www.metro.co.uk/news/854379-takeaways-face-1-000-fat-tax-in-a-bid-to-overcome-obesity). Apparently this will stop people eating takeaways and fast food as much and "encouraging people to eat more healthy food."

Personally I think this is going too far. Why punish everyone for the actions of a few who have no self control? Most people know to eat in moderation and enjoy fast food as part of a healthy diet/lifestyle and I think this is what the government are missing.

The people who may not always eat the healthiest should be given advice on how to improve their diet (In an ideal world >>) instead of having things like this forced upon everybody, it's not fair and I don't believe it will work.

[Phoeberg]

My Latin teacher in high school, who was, shall we say, very well rounded, said once that she would be perfectly happy to pay a fat tax and that it wouldn't stop her from buying junk food if she wanted to eat it. So I don't think this tax would stop people buying junk food, and as you said, most people eat junk food in moderation. I enjoy the occasional chocolate bar or pizza, but on the whole I eat pretty healthily. I think the government should focus more on making healthier options more affordable rather than increasing the cost of the unhealthy ones. Just think how cheap a burger and fries from Macdonalds is compared to buying something healthy from a cafe, restaurant or shop.

[Robodl95]

I disagree, I find that most often people go to a fast food restaurant or buy fattening foods because they are either cheaper or more accessible. Obviously it will not solve the obesity problem (people will still buy the foods they really like no matter what probably) but if the unhealthy foods are more expensive then the healthy foods then it may make a difference to some lower income families.

It's much easier for a government to place a tax on things then it is to make things cheaper... I think they're trying though...

[kattenijin]

Why punish everyone for the actions of a few who have no self control?

Because they are talking about more people than the extreme examples of morbidly obese people you see on TV. What most people consider to be "average" weight, is actually the low-end of being obese. If you did a study of what people in England weigh, you'd discover that the average has been creeping up for quite some time. (Holds true in other countries too.)

[Honeywell]

They'd be better off raising awareness about the food industry in general and putting pressure on America to stop subsidizing the big corporations and their criminal disregard for peoples health. Which is the reason why fast food or takeaways are so cheap (and unhealthy) in the first place even in countries outside of the US. (I'm not even going to touch on the cruelty to animals, food growers and workers that's the natural result of the way they do business but there's plenty to be upset about besides the health issues.)

So honestly, even though I'm generally not a fan of these types of taxes anything that raises awareness of just how bad fast food is for you (and costly even though your meal might be dirt cheap) is a step in the right direction, imo. Food, Inc. is an eye opening documentary and while it doesn't really deal with obesity it hammers home the point of how a whole fast food meal can possibly be cheaper than a serving of fresh vegetables from the grocery store--it's not because fast food is really cheaper to produce that's for sure.

http://www.amazon.com/Food-Inc-Eric-Schlosser/dp/B0027BOL4G/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1296770299&sr=8-1

[Phoeberg]

The program mainly affected schools, where children spend a lot of time almost every day. More PE lessons were assigned (I had 4 hours a week in junior high) and school canteens serve home-made meals (I used to eat in primary school and junior high). I also remember there were plans to remove vending machines from schools, but I don't know whether it was enforced or not. I hope it was.

I believe they no longer have vending machines in schools. When I first started high school they did have some, but after a few years they removed them all. They also stoped selling cookies in the school cafeteria and had to stop making foods with high salt content. However salads were still more expensive than fries.

I'm not sure more sport is necessarily the answer. I probably had between 3-4 hours of sport a week during my entire school career, but it was largely pointless. More often than not we did things that weren't active at all, such as dodgeball in which a majority of people were hit within the first minute and spent the rest of the class on the bench, and even if the lesson was something like lacrosse or tennis, most people just stood around because there was nothing the teachers could do to make them participate. However I don't recall a single girl that could be described as anything close to obese. In fact, most girls were well within the correct BMI for their health if not lower. There was only one girl you might have called overweight in my class. Sports lessons are just not effective enough.

The other problem with programs aimed at school children is that it stops abruptly when the child leaves school. Just 19% of the UK's population is under 16 according to the national statistics. 1 in 4 adults are classed as obese as opposed to just 1 in 10 children.

[AlexandraSpears]

Here is what should be done: Give people information and let them decide for themselves.

But here's the sticky part: It's claimed that saturated fat is really, really bad for you. But it's not. Polyunsaturated fat is bad. Saturated fat helps you lose weight (yes, I know, they tell you the opposite).

So you have a woefully misinformed populace, plus a nanny state. That spells disaster.

What people have to do, and should do, is educate themselves, and make an informed decision.

[el_flel]

It's blatantly just another way for the government to try and raise more revenue, it's not about combating obesity at all because adding tax onto junk food won't stop people eating it and I strongly doubt that it's going to encourage people to eat less of it either. It's not enough that we already pay VAT, income tax, council tax, NI payments, and the rest but now they want to tax junk food too. Puhlease.

[HystericalParoxysm]

Obviously it will not solve the obesity problem (people will still buy the foods they really like no matter what probably) but if the unhealthy foods are more expensive then the healthy foods then it may make a difference to some lower income families.

Making crappy food more expensive doesn't make healthy food less expensive automatically, or any more accessible to low-income families. It also doesn't make healthy food any quicker or more convenient to a family that may be relying on fast food as they don't have a whole lot of time to prepare healthy meals - or they may simply not have a clue how to cook.

All taxing fast food/junk food does is put less money in the pocket of people who are living paycheck-to-paycheck. It doesn't solve any of the underlying problems of -why- people might be eating that way (besides just the obvious "it's tasty and I like burgers" reasons). Someone who is in that position will probably just pay the tax.

I would really like to see, instead of this "punish the fatties" method, more emphasis on education: teach people about healthy eating. It seems intuitive, but just look at the prevalence of ridiculous "detox" diets and dangerous diet pills and so forth. If the average consumer truly understood how this stuff worked, those things would not be that popular.

Bring back some form of "home ec" as part of classes in school. Hell, wrap it into the physical education classes. Teach kids how to make some simple, easy meals that are low cost, taste good, and can be frozen and reheated for convenience. Teach them the basics of nutrition and metabolism so they understand why healthy eating is so important. Teach them to shop well - a field trip to the grocery store with a budget and a shopping list.

A lot of these are things parents should be doing, but it seems these are skills that many people lack; parents can't really teach what they don't know and practice in their own lives.

[Nekowolf]

I believe taxes are good when used appropriately. A tax like this is certainly not the case. This is either a very poorly thought out plan, or the excuse of how it is supposed to help is merely a ruse. It does not do as is claimed to be intended, just as Prohibition in the States did not stamp out alcohol consumption, and is an example not to be embraced by others. The idea that taxation of a fattening food will decrease obesity numbers is ridiculous, and I'd imagine has nothing but hypotheticals to support it.

[mangaroo]

It's worth noting that the article states the £1000 assessment will be "used to fund healthy eating campaigns and litter-picking." The local government may be more interested in the latter (and, frankly, I think the whole assessment should go toward nutrition education), but the funds for these campaigns have to come from somewhere, and why not fund them from the problem end?

[Black_Barook!]

I say taxes them to the hilt, and then beat the life out of them. I'm speaking of course of fast-food chains. I'm sick and tired of seeing McDonald's pedophiliac grin and Burger King's psychotic smile. *shudders* I'm not happy with Starbucks either, they call themselves a coffee shop? Use half the money to pay thugs to beat the crap out of the likes of Wal-Mart and the other half to invest in more healthy, community centered businesses.

But that's just me. 83

[AlexandraSpears]

I pack my son's lunch because school lunches, IMO, are no better than McDonald's. Sure, it would be easier to hand him a couple bucks, but that's not helping him. I just let him have a school lunch once a week--pizza.

I simply vote with my wallet. I don't like the junk they serve at fast food joints; therefore, I don't visit them very much.

[ElementMK]

The main reason most junk foods are cheaper than healthier alternatives is because their ingredients, such as corn-based *anything* or meat products, are subsidized by the United States government. I imagine the same is the case for the government of the UK. Why would we tax what we're subsidizing? That's incredibly bureaucratic and convoluted. God knows our government needs any more of that.

Let's just reduce or remove the current subsidies and/or apply them to healthier alternatives. Or, you know, stop subsidizing food altogether since we (the United States) already overproduce.

[Mistermook]

I'm not automatically opposed to such a thing. I think "vice" taxes are fine and seem to work to some extent in social engineering. I like my fast food and I'm continually gobsmacked by the protectionist, aggressive tariff/subsidy chain of serving people unhealthy crap in the US, but I liked smoking too when I did it. As long as there's not an out and out ban on such things, and if the taxes aren't so aggressive that they simply promote criminal behavior to sustain them as alternatives, I don't think there's anything wrong with them. I'm not even opposed to such taxes simply to "put money into the pockets of government." It's not like governments sit around and accumulate wealth for the sake of being wealthy in most democracies. If more money comes in, more money is spent, simple as that. That's pretty much the rule when legislators are beholden to taxpayers, regardless of what the "common sense" notions of such things is.

[Sparklycookie]

I totally agree with HP's post. I went on a healthy eating course as part of my GCSEs and it gave me a better insight to nutrition and was very interesting. I think some of that should be included in food tech classes in secondary schools, not just as a separate course.

My mum took one look at the school dinners menu at primary school and went "No way!" because it was chips and everything, and so I've typically always taken a packed lunch into school.

When I went into secondary school, there were vending machines selling chocolate and crisps and fizzy drinks, but they were restricted to before and after school and ended up being removed after a couple of months anyway. In year 11, we were allowed to go up to the Sainsbury's but it was such a long walk, my friend and I just didn't bother! :lol:

Now in sixth form college, not only does the little cafe sell all kinds of chocolate bars and fizzy drinks, we've got two supermarkets, 2 99p stores selling lots of junk food and a ton of fast food restaurants within walking distance. Unfortunately, we only get 15 minutes for break, so if I do buy food out (I normally take a sandwich or something), it's typically fast food because it can be prepared quickly and easily and doesn't cost a lot.

[Honeywell]

<snip>We eat home-made meals on a regular basis and fast food is something we avoid.</snip>Give it a few more years for McDonalds to get established and for your children to grow up eating Happy Meals with toys.

"In Poland, McDonald’s in fact enjoys a considerable success, but mainly amongst young people (20-30 y.o.). It’s quite hard to find an older person in this fast-food or to meet a whole family."

http://www.tastingpoland.com/blog/mc_donalds_kebab.html

[Phoeberg]

I don't believe that British people don't know about how harmful junk food is.

I always assumed this was common sense, but apparently it seems it isn't. I agree that the government or health service should push education and publicity on the long-term issues with eating junk food. It's not just obesity that this would help, but many other undelying health issues that eating such an unhealthy diet can cause. I share a house with several other girls, and the skinniest girl is the most unhealthy. She is a US size 2, but she can eat an entire swiss roll as a snack. In my area we have a recycling scheme and when I put the recycling out a few hours ago I counted four LARGE empty pizza boxes in the recycling. Considering they collect it on a weekly basis that is repulsive. She thinks that because she weighs so little, eating this kind of food isn't affecting her, but she is going to have enormous health problems in the future. I'd hate to see the inside of her arteries!

When I was in Britain my host family gave me a hamburger and French fries for dinner. I was shocked, because I have never experienced it in Poland. I wouldn't personally be able to eat fast food everyday. We eat home-made meals on a regular basis and fast food is something we avoid.

Don't worry, not all British families eat like this! We have a home-made meal almost every night, and we have vegetables for dinner twice a week (yes, just a plate of vegetables!) and salad for dinner twice a week!

[paksetti]

I'll go back to the old "it's cheaper and more accessible" argument again.

Let's say you work from 6am to 6pm with a 45 minute commute both ways, my mother's work schedule.* You can either go to the grocery store and buy some meat, vegetables, cheese and tortillas for four people, (about $17.00), go home and cook it, then eat by about 8:30, or you can go to Taco Bell, and get food for four people for $8.00 and eat by about 7:15. (Which I wouldn't recommend given their "meat" (http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110125/ts_yblog_thelookout/attorneys-question-whether-what-taco-bell-calls-beef-is-actually-beef) among other reasons)
*Thankfully, my father gets us home around six, so I have time to cook us a very quick meal (usually frozen boneless/skinless chicken breasts and chopped vegetables.)




Companies like Walmart are going to start making healthier foods cheaper http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/21/news/la-heb-walmart-healthy-foods-20110121 The government may implement a "fat tax", but I doubt it would have the effect that the largest corporation in the world would by making healthy food more accessible.

[Tempscire]

It also doesn't make healthy food any quicker or more convenient to a family that may be relying on fast food as they don't have a whole lot of time to prepare healthy meals - or they may simply not have a clue how to cook.
Agree overall, especially the home ec point, except for the above sentence. It really does not take very much time to prepare a healthful meal, except inasmuch as cooking anything takes more time than simply eating something. Even then, dump some meat into a slow cooker in the morning, and by the time everyone gets home at night, it's done.

I recently read that the average American spends a total of 27 minutes a day preparing food. Total. Contrast to the Nielsen report that the average American also watches 4.5 hours of TV per day. I think apathy and laziness are better culprits than lack of time, ignorance (of how to cook) being at the root of all (because you don't have to be a Cordon Bleu chef to do better than fast food and Hamburger Helper).

[simbalena]

you can go to Taco Bell, and get food for four people for $8.00

Is that really true? In Australia you would be lucky to feed two people on fast food for $8.

[Oaktree]

Based on the campus prices for Taco Bell (which may be slightly inflated due to being on campus), you could feed two people for $9. It's still cheaper than every other place on campus, but you'd probably be able to go cheaper with certain meals you could make at home. Most pastas, so long as you don't go with the fancy preprepared stuff, are pretty cheap. I'm sure there are other things as well. But pare321 is right about fast food being more convenient due to the time factor. Both of my parents work, so dinners in my house are often things that can be done quickly and easily. On the nights that my parents work late, that often means fast food.

[paksetti]

Is that really true? In Australia you would be lucky to feed two people on fast food for $8.

http://www.tacobell.com/whypaymore/

http://www.tacobell.com/menu/2-dollar-meal-deals

They've got "two dollar meal deals" in America.

You'd need pocket change for the tax though. It's 8.86% here. (I forgot about the tax) So you would get chips, taco/burrito and a drink for four people for around $9.00 total. There's four within ten miles of my house, one next door to my school.

[jooxis]

My two cents, just personal experience:

When I lived in the US, I would buy stuff at McDonald's quite often, because of the low prices.

Now that I'm back in Eastern Europe (where McDonald's is not that cheap), I am tempted to buy something at McDonald's every now and then - but often decide not to, because it's too expensive. Even if I sort of really feel like it. And I'm pretty middle-class.

So I guess, making things cost more may have an impact on some people (like me).

[Phoeberg]

It would make me think twice about buying junk food if it did cost more, but it irritates me because I'm not overweight, I just enjoy the occasional unhealthy snack, so why should I be charged a fat tax on those snacks? On the other hand I've had overweight people tell me that they wouldn't stop buying junk food if it had a fat tax on it. They'd rather pay a little extra for something they like and enjoy eating. So I don't think a fat tax would really solve obesity. It might stop some people buying junk food, but plenty more probably wouldn't stop, so you'd still have the problem.

[Mistermook]

Why should I be charged a fat tax on those snacks?
For the same reason it's difficult to buy anthrax even if you're an anthrax researcher with a vested interest in having it around and absolutely no nefarious schemes surrounding your possession of it. Just because you might be using something in a safe, legitimate way doesn't mean everyone else is. Hyper-caloried snack and fast food isn't anthrax, of course, but it's still a public health issue.

If it's really troubling for you to pay a tax on such a thing though, the good news is that infusing food with a surplus of things bad for you is considerably easier and safer to manufacture than anthrax. Buy three of the low calorie meals and eat them, for instance. That's probably what the committed, unrepentant fat people will be doing.

These things aren't aimed at those folks anymore than they're aimed at you, these sorts of vice taxes are solely squared away with the certain percentage of opportunity eaters that might be dissuaded by increased costs on an ongoing basis. It's supposed to make a small nudge in the right direction, which over time might create larger changes. Those changes won't happen in people with serious problems or people without problems, but the people in the middle? Maybe.

[Sunbee]

In the US, I've heard that in some areas of the cities there are no groceries, only gas station type stores, which makes it nearly impossible to buy healthy food unless you own a car. (I've never lived in or visited such an area.) These are very poor and dangerous areas. Areas where most people rely on food stamps to survive. The obesity and diabetes rates are very high in these areas as well. Adding a 'fat tax' isn't going to help that situation at all.
Killing the corn syrup subsidies might help.

[Honeywell]

In the US, I've heard that in some areas of the cities there are no groceries, only gas station type stores, which makes it nearly impossible to buy healthy food unless you own a car. (I've never lived in or visited such an area.) These are very poor and dangerous areas. Areas where most people rely on food stamps to survive. The obesity and diabetes rates are very high in these areas as well. Adding a 'fat tax' isn't going to help that situation at all.
Killing the corn syrup subsidies might help.I agree that it's not going to help that situation at all but it's not going to hurt it either, imo. People in the US relying on food stamps already can't buy prepared food with them which includes fast food. And while the majority of food available in our poorest areas might be complete crap I assume if a tax like this was implemented it would be applied to chips, soda, hoho's and the like. The oodles & noodles, hot dogs and cans of crap with almost zero nutritional value are still readily and cheaply available in the US.

But like Mistermook stated so well above, this type of tax isn't going to help the people who are the worst off but this problem isn't restricted to the poorest among us either. People who do have access to better food and the money to buy it are making the choice to eat the same crap just because it tastes good. Raising awareness isn't a bad first step and a lot of good can come of it, imo.

I agree that for the US the subsidies are the first things that need to go here but frankly that isn't going to happen in a country where there's actually "food defamation" laws. Remember what happened to Oprah when she talked about Mad Cow disease on her show in the 90's? It's absolutely crazy.

I don't think anyone needs to worry about a "fat" tax in the US anytime soon--the food industry won't allow it.

[Mistermook]

Adding a 'fat tax' isn't going to help that situation at all.
A fat tax won't stop rich people from spending more money to gorge themselves on sweets. You don't have a driver's license? It doesn't stop you from getting in the car and driving around. You can. I've done it.

All any of these sorts of things do is put cost impediments as consequences to try to do all the weird shit we kind of hope maybe will keep people alive and happy longer. Seriously, if you don't wear your seatbelt the person flying out the front of your car is gonna be you, and yet we still put a price tag in most states on not wearing one. I've never been thrown from a car with or without my seatbelt on, but it's still there.

Are all of the various taxes and penalties legislators could come up with good ones? Almost certainly not. But in the end I'm just not convinced that adding some modest charge to some foods with the end goal of keeping people healthier is the worst possible way to handle things. It seems very moderate.

It doesn't address those large subsidies for food production by cutting them off, and that's probably a good thing for a first step since forcing radical restructuring to our agricultural economy is probably not the best thing to do in a recession. It doesn't get all "police state" and tell everyone they've got to report somewhere for mandatory jogging. It doesn't even impose some crap "educational" program on schools for forcing kids to sit through poorly worded lectures on good food and bad food, where it might loiter uselessly until the next round of education funding cuts slashed it away rather than fire more teachers.

And it's a money earner too - just like the hardcore smokers are still cheerfully funding all sorts of things with the by now excessive taxes on their habits, I've got no doubt that no matter what the cost of cheesecake someone's always going to be buying a slice. It's not an income tax, all you've got to do to avoid it is to try eating better. In that way it's probably as sensible as a tax on diamonds and sports cars: You want them, be prepared to pay more on them, because they're not necessary and if they're not necessary then it's nearly always at least moderately acceptable to plop a tax on them.

I say this because I'm absolutely opposed to general food taxes such as most state's have done away with, but some places stubbornly cling to. Like Alabama, where my extended lives and I visit on occasion? I'm not opposed to taxes, but putting a tax on milk and eggs and fresh vegetables seems remarkably stupid by anyone's estimation.

[Sunbee]

But you can buy Papa Murphey's take and bake pizza with food stamps. (If you don't have that chain, it's a place where you get an uncooked pizza.) You can buy frozen burritos and other frozen meals. You can buy chips and cookies and fruit punch and those sorts of things. I think soda is still a food stamp food. Maybe those aren't technically junk foods, but they have the same contents. Now, I don't agree with food stamps in the first place. (Yes, I know people who benefit from them.) I think it's a poor solution to a real problem.
On the other hand, current sales taxes don't apply to food stamp purchases. I'd expect that new fat taxes wouldn't either. I do think it's silly and not at all cost effective to subsidize a product on one hand and tax it on the other.
I'm more concerned about people, who are poor, who are in a situation where obtaining healthy food requires a great deal of effort. Because, you know, hauling food for a family on a bus from the grocery in the suburbs with little kids in tow back home to the inner city, that's a rough thing for anyone to have to do. We have a higher rate of obesity in the poor than the wealthy in the US. If we want to fix obesity, we need to consider that. (It would also help with health care, but that's a different topic.)

[SuicidiaParasidia]

im pretty sure theyve gotten around a fat tax in my country simply by keeping the original price, but lowering the amount of junk food you get for each pack. >:|

[Mistermook]

That's not a bad solution really, if your goal is to keep people from eating till they're a health statistic.

[DigitalSympathies]

IMHO, putting in a tax would have little or no effect on the people they need to target - those who can't pay themselves, the kids. I mean, sure, let's put all this crap in a cheap store-brand Alphabet soup and say it helps you, but have the good, pure, name-brand stuff loaded with the right stuff but with similar names to confuse people. It happens a lot, I've spoken to a dietitian and she agrees. A food manufacture expert at an open seminar at my old school had a 2-hour-long thing on this. Fast food is cheap because they can make it quickly - to indirectly quote (I think) a book I read someplace, "What would you rather have? Forests or cheap hamburgers?"

In the Renaissance it was considered you were wealthy if you were fat. Now it's reversed because food for the poor isn't natural like it was. It's loaded with stuff that's promoted as "good for you" but is just NOT MEANT for human consumption. The body doesn't know what to do with it.

Being thin is also bad. You don't have enough, so you can't accumulate fat. Fat is good in moderation. As an "overweight" person, I agree that I am a victim of poor nutrition.

BTW, I still have vending machines and cookies and junk in my school's canteen. Go figure. :/

[Oaktree]

In the Renaissance it was considered you were wealthy if you were fat. Now it's reversed because food for the poor isn't natural like it was. It's loaded with stuff that's promoted as "good for you" but is just NOT MEANT for human consumption. The body doesn't know what to do with it.

I beg to differ. Your body is only capable of processing and storing the things that it does know what to do with. Anything else either does nothing or acts as a toxin. For example, our bodies are capable of processing D-glucose, but not L-glucose. I don't want to bore you with chemistry if you're not interested in the nitty gritty, but that means that one form of glucose can be processed and used as an energy source, while its mirror image cannot. Its mirror image also does not taste like sugar because our taste buds have not evolved to allow us to enjoy the flavor of the substance, probably because we gain no nutritional value from it.

There are certain broad classes of chemicals that your body can handle that can include specific artificial substances, but the artificial things are generally handled in the same way as the natural substances that fall under the same class of chemical. Fats are transported in the blood whether they are cis-unsaturated, trans-unsaturated, or saturated. The problem arises with trans-unsaturated fats because something in their particular shape raises LDL and lowers HDL. I could speculate about why, though I don't really know. Not all trans-fats are unnatural, though; there are two trans-fats, vaccenyl and conjugated linoleyl, that occur naturally in meat and dairy products. Now, this doesn't mean that trans-fats are any better for you than they would be if they were all unnatural. Saying something is natural does not mean it is good for you. Though the concept of 'good for you' vs. 'bad for you' is a strange one in nutrition, regardless. Nutrition is good in moderation. Too much and you gain weight, too little and you suffer the effects of vitamin and mineral deficiency. Just the right amount keeps you healthy.

Long story short, too late, I'm picking nits with you. Unnatural does not necessarily mean bad for you, just as natural does not necessarily mean good for you. It is the relative abundance of particular substances in your diet that determine your level of nutritional health.

[Tempscire]

Breaking this thought down a little more:
In the Renaissance it was considered you were wealthy if you were fat. Now it's reversed because food for the poor isn't natural like it was.
Now it's reversed because the natural food for peasants left them thin...and the natural food the nobles ate made them fat. (I know your next thought is a point about moderation, which is key, both then and now, just that this thought wasn't expressed very clearly or accurately in the above quote.)

It's loaded with stuff that's promoted as "good for you" but is just NOT MEANT for human consumption.
Since when is anything not meant for human consumption put in food? That's the kind of thing that leads to class-action lawsuits. Or are we getting into the "meant," as in it didn't spring up whole from the earth and instead had to be synthesized... unlike natural, wholesome arsenic, say. All the natural "good for you" stuff is not so pure and holy that it can't be replicated or provided through sources other than, e.g., an actual apple off a tree (the "good stuff" therein still being a mix of chemicals and molecules that react with other molecules in your body).

The only things I can really think of that get advertised as "good for you" in cheap, preprocessed junk (which, mark my words, will not be advertised as overall "good for you" by any company that, again, wants to avoid class-action lawsuits) are things that actually are good for you, like vitamin C or calcium. The problem is that people look at their box of Pop-Tarts, see that it has calcium, fiber, and a few hints of real fruit inside, and they think that that balances out all the sugar and fat also crammed in there. And cheapo foods have TONS of sugar and fat (and sodium, etc). And they're cheap, so poor people eat them frequently...more than proper eating in moderation would say is good for them.

Even wealthier folk can run into problems with this and HFCS: studies suggest it doesn't digest differently than other sugars, and as the ever-helpful Corn Refiners Association helpfully reminds us, is fine in moderation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEbRxTOyGf0) (link goes to one of their terrible, terrible commercials). The problem is that these days it's very hard to moderate your intake when in it's in everything from soda to ketchup to whole-wheat bread. Tada, one facet of the obesity problem.

[sayyadina]

I think it sorta makes sense to put junk-food in the same category, tax-wise, as alcohol and tobacco. It wont stop people from using/eating, but it will make a statement about its content.

[pinketamine]

I think it sorta makes sense to put junk-food in the same category, tax-wise, as alcohol and tobacco. It wont stop people from using/eating, but it will make a statement about its content.

This is only useful for those who can't afford healthy food if you reduce the price of healthy food at the same time. You can't make the cheap thing more expensive and let the expensive thing being expensive, because that would cause some people not to have enough money to even buy food.

[Mistermook]

Obviously, looking at the obesity figures across the West, we're quite far away from pricing people into starvation just yet. I'd love some subsidies for healthier food, but no one will starve if bags of chips suddenly halved in size for the same price point.

[pinketamine]

Well, maybe I'm the only one who has been more than a week eating only rice and pasta with nothing because I didn't have money to buy anything else.
I generally don't agree with increasing prices of food if the family incomes don't grow too. I remember traveling to US and finding food such as fruit much more expensive (proportionally) than shit like donuts, I think that just doesn't make sense. If you don't have a lot of money, you'll probably choose the cheap option.

[Sunbee]

You'll get more calories from the junk for your dollar than you do from the healthful if you compare apples and something like chips. So if you're a poor single parent with little time to cook because you're holding down two part-time jobs to make ends meet, you're going to get whatever fills your kids bellies that you can afford. No one wants to see their kids go hungry, and there's a direct time/money trade off. I stay home. I have time to cook from scratch, and I can feed six of us for under $500 a month on healthful food. But I spend a lot of time in food prep and cooking. If I had to work outside the home, I wouldn't be able to spend the hours every week baking bread (my family goes through ten loaves a week, easily) and soaking and cooking beans, making cereal, etc. Technically we're below the poverty level--but that's by choice because of a) family size and b) me not working outside the home. We actually have a lot more flex in our budget by being a one-income family than many of our two-income friends who have to pay for day care, after school care, and pre-prepared food, plus additional costs of the second job (extra gas, etc).

The other question, especially in the USA, is who gets to decide what's junk food? I look at what our local public schools serve for lunch and I see junk food. I say, if it's made with white flours, it's junk. Do you agree? I'm pretty sure there's at least one vegan out there that would hold a position of any meat-based food is junk. There's a raw foodie that says cooked food is junk. Who gets to decide? Anyone believe that the manufacturer's lobbyists are not going to help the politicians figure it out?

[Tempscire]

I remember traveling to US and finding food such as fruit much more expensive (proportionally) than shit like donuts, I think that just doesn't make sense.
Well, besides subsidies making certain ingredients artificially cheaper, consider that fresh, unprocessed ingredients spoil. A pack of ramen noodles can sit on the shelf for months (at least). A head of lettuce, zucchini, etc. are going to wilt and shrivel and get thrown away in far less time. I'm sure the latter is more annoying to ship (and therefore costly), as well, since an effort has to be made not to crush or bruise anything, unlike items that can be sealed in cardboard boxes and efficiently stack together without the need to be delicate.

So...it does make sense as a direct cause/effect thing, at least, if not as a reflection of healthy values.

[jje1000]

I remember traveling to US and finding food such as fruit much more expensive (proportionally) than shit like donuts, I think that just doesn't make sense. If you don't have a lot of money, you'll probably choose the cheap option.

What in the world happened in the last 50 years that made fruit and veggies so much more expensive than processed foods?

I guess local farming's become too difficult to survive by with the centralization of production and the dispersal of the population into the suburbs :/

[DigitalSympathies]

What I meant by my earlier post is that food way back when didn't have all this chemical processed crap in it that isn't really meant to be in the food itself. People didn't inject their meat with hormones or add Splenda to their yogurt, things which both can have very terrible consequences on your body over a long period of use and time. People who eat hormone-added meat can grow hair in odd places or even get disorders. Splenda has no nutritional value and therefore you can actually starve yourself of stuff that real sugar gives your body. Ever seen that Oprah episode about how they can now grow chickens fatter and faster than ever? 40 days compared to Iforgetthenumberbutitwasreallyupthere?

[Mistermook]

What I meant by my earlier post is that food way back when didn't have all this chemical processed crap in it that isn't really meant to be in the food itself.

... Again, and we've covered this before, food hasn't been this perfect non-enhanced thing preciously rescued from evil chemicals since...ever I guess. One of the first things humans discovered after the invention of agriculture was fermentation, and if you don't imagine there are nasty chemical processes possible when the whole idea for making your food keep is to toss it into a clay pot and let it rot, but specially rot, then you've got another thing coming. Let's think, for a moment, about all the wonderful sorts of things that are "supposed" to be in food too: salmonella, botulism, Hepatitis A, Mycotoxins and E. Coli? They're "all natural," so they must be good for you!

Processing food isn't all bad, and it isn't all good either. Anyone who tries to tell you differently is lying or doesn't know what they're talking about. We want safe food, and safe food demands processing a lot of the time. There are things we can put into food that aren't good for us, like loading things up with sugar and bad carbohydrates because our bodies are stupid and want things that aren't good for them, but there are also things that we often must do to food to ensure we're not all dropping dead in large numbers like back in the good ole' days.

We don't live in the world we evolved in. Modern humanity can't, and shouldn't idealize, wandering the African grasslands scrounging for termites and chasing antelope for our primary food sources. What we evolved for was a high protein, low carb diet to sustain us to about thirty at which point we'd drop dead from old age or getting eaten by lions. I'm perfectly fine with saying, "I'm glad we're past that." What we should do though, as our population grows and our needs and capabilities grow more complex, is carefully examine our diet for what's best for us. That doesn't mean declaring "chemicals bad!" or advocating organic, free range antelope hunting or something, it means using what resources we have available to meet our needs the best using the least of those resources to satisfy the most of us.

[Mistermook]

I guess local farming's become too difficult to survive by with the centralization of production and the dispersal of the population into the suburbs :/
It's also a matter of how much produce isn't sourced inside any given country at all, because labor costs elsewhere in the world (or at least labor costs for a given crop) are lower and if you ship in tremendous bulk you can eat your transportation costs in the mark-up.

Oh, and the grain industry gets a tremendous subsidy from the government here in the US, just like the beef industry. The heartlands might have diversified a little more, except I'm not sure it's profitable to attempt to grow anything not on the short list of government dole on the large farms stretching across the center of the country any longer, when they're also competing with Central and South America, not to mention Canada.

[Tempscire]

Splenda has no nutritional value and therefore you can actually starve yourself of stuff that real sugar gives your body.
Given the prevalence of some kind of sugar just about everywhere in the typical Western diet, I really don't think that's a problem. :p Besides, "the stuff real sugar gives you"? Energy. Calories. A jolt of serotonin. Sugar's not exactly a nutritional mother lode, either.

It's also a matter of how much produce isn't sourced inside any given country at all, because labor costs elsewhere in the world (or at least labor costs for a given crop) are lower and if you ship in tremendous bulk you can eat your transportation costs in the mark-up.
Also, people have gotten used to having fresh produce of all kinds year round, not just when they're in season. This is made possible by shipping produce in from farms all over the country/globe.

[sayyadina]

This is only useful for those who can't afford healthy food if you reduce the price of healthy food at the same time. You can't make the cheap thing more expensive and let the expensive thing being expensive, because that would cause some people not to have enough money to even buy food.

Why not? Some people dont have any money anyway. I dont respect "poverty" that much. ;)

But seriously, What you are saying is that its better for the poor "poor" people to have their junk than nothing at all. Eqally cynical IMO :)

...Im now going to get totally psyched if you don´t mind:

There are foods that has kept people alive in generations, like potatoes and turnips, that does not cost a dime really. (Ok, prices varies from country to country.) Lets say junkfood suddenly becomes too expensive and people starve and get undernourished from overeating potatoes and cabbage only.I bet the world and the governments had to react to that and some action had to be taken because people in wealthy nations are now to thin (and sick and weak because of it), not to fat. This creates overwhelming compassion in most people. We want to help!

Solution: we lower the prices on junkfood over night. Makes it almost free of charge and hands it out to innocent children and crippled elders and the helpless "poor" people, like charity. Eat! That would simply be weird and unthinkable, especially on behalf of the capitalist common sense. Fastfoodchains want to earn money on a free market. They sell a "seroius product", or so they say. The will lash out and turn it around by the power of Money and criminalize the "poor" victims of unhealthy food and make them even more miserable. (and fat)

Hence: Junkfood becomes an illegal drug. People who crave junkfood are labeled criminals by the avearge citizen, by media, by neighbours and friends. Fastfood-chains will still exist as respectable "restaurants" by hiding the truth from the masses. (their food is poison and they refuse to pay normal wages to their employes) How should a civilized society handle that? Probably by helping people to "eat right" and healthier and put the rest of the "junkies" in jail, either by physical restraint or mentally by judging. Pretty much like we already do (judging).The crime-rate will finally peak when starved and aggressive "poor" people rebel against the health-fascists and rally the streets for hamburgers and french fries. "We have the right to eat!" they say. Others will start a legal process against the foodchains, and loose.

Still, rehabilitating the fastfood-abusers would create jobs for thousands of people. Coaching and weightwatching and whatnot makes the world litterally go around in this scenario, and the fastfood-giants also gets richer than ever. Everyone is happy with the status quo, exept the "poor" people who never been happy, nor will be. Ever.

Finally, no one honestly cares for the "poor". Poor people are supposed to be pale and thin and somewhat romantic martyrs, not jabba-the-huts! Fatness is something exclusive, invented by the rich for the rich. Who do they think they are now? With every breath and heartbeat we now condemn obeisity,and only because they take up too much space in the airplanes and are generally smelly. Not because we truly care for their health or well-being. They are simply disgusting over-eaters who really should take more responsability and make informed choices. Thats what people say, if one cares to listen. Its a witch-hunt. We hate fat people.

This will, in turn, lead to several cases of homicide. Fat (and pressumable "poor") people hide in fear for the armed and extremely dangerous. ´Cause there is a new type of gangstas in the streets now. The Fatslayers. An posse of morally offended health-nuts. This "movement" grows and expands from country to country. The police and the rest of the legal system knows, but will not act. We all agreed to get rid of the fat (poor) people, one way or another. We can do it. In silence. Hatred will always win in this peculiar scenario.

Still, halfdescent people and help-organisations will cry out: "We need to respond to this horrors!" But instead, we will slowly get used to it...

One could agree. It has gone too far, and it takes two to tango. This particulal crippled couple concists of two equally sick components. The slim and really good people who also have money, and the fat and poor people who has no saying in the dance, ´cause the other half destroyed their initiative eons ago.

Personally, I dont give a damn. But it hurts just the same.

So, I stick to my taxes. It´s boring but safe. Like most politicians I too belive taxes regulates attitudes. No one wants chaos or anarchy or hatred as an official political solution. We can only accept small gradual changes in a very gray area called "society".

*appologizes for spelling&grammar-errors.

[Purity4]

I would like to point out that junk food (chips, soda, fast food, pizza) are in fact not the cheapest option, but low quality food available in the grocery store is the cheapest and keeps well in the pantry thanks to all the chemicals in them. It's the packaged foods in the middle of the store I have always avoided, but I have noticed that since I've taken over food shopping from my spousal unit (buying more fresh foods and organic foods) I've run out of my monthly food budget halfway through the month and the next two weeks we'll be eating what is in the freezer and pantry rather than fresh foods.
Potatoes and low-quality bread are certainly cheaper than fresh whole organic asparagus and organic whole grain sprouted grain bread, but that is exactly the type of food that does lead to obesity. That type of carbohydrate is what contributes to low-insulin production and is not filling or nutritious in the least bit.
When you're hungry all the time, without an adequate food supply and without proper usable nutrition, then the body thinks it is starving, which it is, and goes into starvation mode. That means the metabolism slows down and any calories taken in is stored as fat rather than being immediately utilized. Unfortunately, a lot of people do stereotype obesity and make assumptions about what a fat person's diet must be, and are often very wrong.
I submit poor nutrition from buying cheap, not necessarily junk, but low quality foods, is what in fact contributes to obesity among the poor who are not privileged with a wide array of nutritious options.

[Honeywell]

I submit poor nutrition from buying cheap, not necessarily junk, but low quality foods, is what in fact contributes to obesity among the poor who are not privileged with a wide array of nutritious options.Eating too many calories is what causes obesity. It doesn't matter if your calories come from Twinkies or broccoli. Sure the Twinkies might have zero nutritional value and the partially hydrogenated oil will kill you but they won't make you fat if you don't eat over eat them. I don't argue that the hyper-caloried junk food makes it easy to exceed the number of calories your body needs in a day but I think people, in America at least, don't really know the amount of calories their bodies actually need.

I know when I was growing up the rule of thumb for an active, adult female was 1,200 calories a day and yet I routinely see nutritional information on food that is based on a 1500-2500 calorie diet when people are less active than ever before. But it's in the food industries best interest if people over eat--they sell more product that way. What's outrageous is that the government in America not only allows it but subsidizes it.

Which brings me back to my initial posts in this thread--the food industry is the main problem in my opinion so anything that raises awareness and draws attention to the fact they're selling a shit-ton of food that no one should actually be eating is a step in the right direction. Everyone will be better off, poor people included.

[Purity4]

Obesity is not just caused by a high caloric intake. It is also caused by a too low calorie diet. I have seen it time and time again with people I used to work with who recorded their daily intake of calories, protein, carbs, etc. More often than not, they were consuming less than 1000 calories mostly from carbs, not nearly enough protein and missing many essential nutrients in their diet. They were tired and inactive because they were starving, yet because of their low calorie intake, their body was massively saving every single bit of intake as fat, which was why they were so tired. The little food they ate wasn't going for energy, it was being saved as fat. When they increased their meal frequency, protein levels and total daily calories, their bodies no longer thought they were in a famine and they finally, eating more, eating better, lost weight without a change in activity level.

[Honeywell]

Obesity is not just caused by a high caloric intake. It is also caused by a too low calorie diet. I have seen it time and time again with people I used to work with who recorded their daily intake of calories, protein, carbs, etc. More often than not, they were consuming less than 1000 calories mostly from carbs, not nearly enough protein and missing many essential nutrients in their diet. They were tired and inactive because they were starving, yet because of their low calorie intake, their body was massively saving every single bit of intake as fat, which was why they were so tired. The food wasn't going for energy, it was being saved.If your body needs 1000 calories a day to maintain its weight you are not going to gain weight eating 1000 calories no matter where those calories come from. You're just not.

If someone is eating a 1000 calories a day and still gaining weight their body is burning less than a 1000 calories a day. That doesn't mean that the best approach is too eat even fewer calories--you'd probably be better off doing whatever you can to increase the amount of calories your body burns.

ETA:
Do people really think there are "bad" calories that make you fat and "good" calories that don't? Going by the disagrees I'm going to assume there are--which goes to show how much the food industry (which includes all the "diet food") impacts what we eat. Or don't they teach this stuff in health class anymore?

Here's some really basic information everyone should know:

"Does it matter what types of foods the calories come from? Yes and no. When it comes to calories and managing your weight, the answer is no. A calorie is a calorie is a calorie."
http://www.health.gov/dietaryguidelines/dga2005/healthieryou/html/chapter5.html

[Sunbee]

The newer research shows that a calorie is really not just a calorie. Different molecules are used by our bodies in different ways. Protein takes more energy for our bodies to process into usable fuel than glucose does, in fact, more than we get out of it. This is why trappers used to starve to death while feasting on rabbit every day--rabbit is a very lean meat, no fat, and they didn't have fruits or vegetables to go with it. This is why, while the Atkins diet is horrible for the liver, it's very useful in certain situations for folks with some health conditions, as long as supervised by a doctor, and why the South Beach diet, which functionally is a modification of the Atkins diet, works so well.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1 Here's a recent article on the other effects of fructose and glucose besides just being fuel for our bodies.

[Honeywell]

The newer research shows that a calorie is really not just a calorie. <snip> Of course a calorie isn't just a calorie when it comes to nutrition and what's good and bad for us no one is disputing that--or even that our bodies metabolize them differently.

But that article you linked doesn't show anything that I can see that even remotely suggests you can exceed the number of calories your body needs (as long as they're the right type) and you won't gain weight. The closing paragraph even states:

"Sugar scares me too, obviously. I’d like to eat it in moderation. I’d certainly like my two sons to be able to eat it in moderation, to not overconsume it, but I don’t actually know what that means, and I’ve been reporting on this subject and studying it for more than a decade. If sugar just makes us fatter, that’s one thing. We start gaining weight, we eat less of it. But we are also talking about things we can’t see — fatty liver, insulin resistance and all that follows. Officially I’m not supposed to worry because the evidence isn’t conclusive, but I do."

Can you (or anyone) show me the studies where a person exceeds their needed calories each day eating "good calories" and doesn't gain weight? Or the opposite, a study where a person doesn't exceed their needed calories but eats "bad, empty, fat or sugar calories" where they do gain weight?

[Purity4]

I think you completely missed my point, Honeywell. I was telling you that a lower calorie diet, causing a body to go into starvation mode, lower as in too low for your activity level, less calories in then what you burn, can in fact cause weight gain. I've seen it happen. When a body's metabolism is modified by a too-low-calorie diet, it will save everything as fat. The way that body works changes compared to a person who has never 'starved'. That starvation mode causes the body to save everything that comes into it, even if it's healthy food, if it's less than what that body needs, and it will be stored as fat.

[Honeywell]

I think you completely missed my point, Honeywell. I was telling you that a lower calorie diet, causing a body to go into starvation mode, lower as in too low for your activity level, less calories in then what you burn, can in fact cause weight gain. I've seen it happen. When a body's metabolism is modified by a too-low-calorie diet, it will save everything as fat. The way that body works changes compared to a person who has never 'starved'. That starvation mode causes the body to save everything that comes into it, even if it's healthy food, if it's less than what that body needs, and it will be stored as fat.Actually, I didn't miss your point I just don't think your anecdotal evidence stands up to science and I've yet to see any scientific proof that shows otherwise.

"In regard to metabolism, if you are overweight/overfat, you can not cause your metabolism to decrease below a level needed to lose weight while you have extra weight/fat on you, and you can not "lose more weight by eating more calories/food." This is a misunderstanding of the principles of metabolism that does not apply to overweight people trying to lose weight." --National Health Association (http://www.healthscience.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=512:are-you-in-the-starvation-mode-or-starving-for-truth&catid=102:jeff-novicks-blog&Itemid=267)

"The idea that "not eating enough" causes the body to stop losing weight because it goes into "starvation mode" is a popular myth among dieters." --Weight Watchers (http://www.weightwatchers.com/util/art/index_art.aspx?tabnum=1&art_id=35501)

[Tempscire]

That starvation mode causes the body to save everything that comes into it, even if it's healthy food, if it's less than what that body needs, and it will be stored as fat.
Yeah, but at some point the body needs energy and has to go into those fat reserves. It can't just keep hording and never using; it's impossible. Thus why the typical image of starvation (not just malnourishment, but starvation) is of stick-thin, skeleton-stretching-skin people. If undereating did nothing but contribute to obesity, there wouldn't be anorexics wasting away to 80 pounds.

[SuicidiaParasidia]

Yeah, but at some point the body needs energy and has to go into those fat reserves. It can't just keep hording and never using; it's impossible. Thus why the typical image of starvation (not just malnourishment, but starvation) is of stick-thin, skeleton-stretching-skin people. If undereating did nothing but contribute to obesity, there wouldn't be anorexics wasting away to 80 pounds.

actually, kids who starve are also able to have an image of being stick figures with pot bellies. this is not because they're full; its because the muscles of the stomach have relaxed/atrophied after not having food for a very long while, thus causing the balloon shape.

http://images.wikia.com/psychology/images/4/47/Starved_girl.jpg

/the more you know~

[Tempscire]

actually, kids who starve are also able to have an image of being stick figures with pot bellies. this is not because they're full; its because the muscles of the stomach have relaxed/atrophied after not having food for a very long while, thus causing the balloon shape.

/the more you know~
I'm aware of that. A distended belly is not the same as stored fat from your body going into starvation mode, now, is it? The discussion up until now has not been focused on this effect, e.g.
... less calories in then what you burn, can in fact cause weight gain. I've seen it happen. When a body's metabolism is modified by a too-low-calorie diet, it will save everything as fat. ... That starvation mode causes the body to save everything that comes into it, ... and it will be stored as fat.
You might also notice the rather skeletal shape of that child's limbs. What was your point? I could throw up some pictures of some concentration camp victims if you like. Lots of chubbiness here (http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/images/holocaust4.jpg) (warning: graphic image of naked dead bodies).

--
Also, I'd love to see the rationale behind people disagreeing with my last post. This is both basic physics and biology. Your body has to burn something for energy. Even if you do nothing but lie in bed, your body is burning calories. If you aren't consuming that energy, it will turn on itself. That's why we store fat in the first place: so that our bodies have a reserve of energy when it needs it (once those are used up, it starts breaking down muscle). If you aren't consuming anything, and you're still alive to need to carry out basic bodily functions, your body will find something to consume. Even if you get a temporary fat gain from starving, if you keep on starving, it won't last long.

[SuicidiaParasidia]

I'm aware of that. A distended belly is not the same as stored fat from your body going into starvation mode, now, is it? The discussion up until now has not been focused on this effect, e.g.

was just adding to your point? never said it was stored fat...and have no idea where you could get that from in my writing, but *shrug* okay.

my only point was that you can appear "fat" or "round" but still be starving, so really a persons bodily shape is only one element of it.

you only mentioned a skeletal-like appearance, so i thought id throw that up there for anyone who didnt know about stomach distention. >_>

[Tempscire]

was just adding to your point? never said it was stored fat...and have no idea where you could get that from in my writing, but *shrug* okay.
Heh, sorry. :faceslap: Definitely read it the wrong way then.

[Purity4]

--
Also, I'd love to see the rationale behind people disagreeing with my last post.

I did not click on the disagree button, although I do disagree with you.
I'm not that great with words, apparently, so here is a video (http://www.hulu.com/watch/196879/fat-head) that presents some of the concepts behind what I was telling you before.

Which would be... it's not just about calories in/calories burned. It's more complicated than that.

[Honeywell]

I did not click on the disagree button, although I do disagree with you.
I'm not that great with words, apparently, so here is a video (http://www.hulu.com/watch/196879/fat-head) that presents some of the concepts behind what I was telling you before.

Which would be... it's not just about calories in/calories burned. It's more complicated than that.This thread drives me crazy but since I think it's insane to gain information from a movie by a "comedian and former health writer" and then back it up with pseudoscience and common diet fads/myths I thought I'd post one more time for people to disagree with :p and urge people to consider the source before accepting anything as fact. Just because something makes sense, seems like it should work that way or sounds right doesn't mean it is--often it's not.

[el_flel]

Yeah, but at some point the body needs energy and has to go into those fat reserves. It can't just keep hording and never using; it's impossible. Thus why the typical image of starvation (not just malnourishment, but starvation) is of stick-thin, skeleton-stretching-skin people. If undereating did nothing but contribute to obesity, there wouldn't be anorexics wasting away to 80 pounds.I don't understand why people have disagreed with this. What is there to disagree with? It's scientific fact!

ETA: Any disagreers care to explain? Because I'm flummoxed.

[Tempscire]

Which would be... it's not just about calories in/calories burned. It's more complicated than that.
I'll admit upfront I haven't watched the video you linked, since it said it was over an hour long, but if by your calories in/out statement you're referring to consumption of fats, sugars, fiber, vitamins, and so on outside of a pure calorie counting basis, and the difference between eating only 1000 calories worth of bacon per day so you lose weight while your arteries harden, then sure, yeah. But that's in the "malnourished" category, not "starvation." (Though really starvation is a form of malnourishment.)

Your body needs more than just energy to survive and be healthy, but energy is a big factor. You need to burn calories (calories as in a unit of energy) to be able to assimilate the other stuff (and indeed to do any life process). If you stopped eating today and kept it up for the next month or two, you would start wasting away. Body needs energy. If there's no energy consumed from food, it will start using fat and muscle from itself, which is why people gradually turn into living skeletons. Catabolysis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catabolysis) is the term.

I don't understand why people have disagreed with this. What is there to disagree with? It's scientific fact!
I half-expected someone to try calling me out by pointing out that not all anorexics are stick-thin waifs. Now I sort of think I'm just getting trolled via the disagree button, because (as you note) I haven't said anything that wasn't demonstrable, scientific fact! Seriously, somebody refute any of the following, because this is starting to drive me crazy:


Body needs energy.
Body will cannibalize itself to get energy.
Body will lose mass, starting with fat, as this happens.
Malnutrition is not the same as starvation.

[thislookskindacool]

I support it. This is actually the remedy for the issue with universal health care. Those opposed to universal health care bitch about how they don't want to pay for someone else s unhealthy lifestyle with their taxes, so countries with universal health care put a higher tax on cigarets, booze, junk food ex/..... those individuals living an unhealthy lifestyle that may lead to an increase in their medical bills pay extra no matter what.....

[SimsLover50]

I'm opposed to 'vice taxes' which means excessive tax on things like alcohol, cigarettes, etc. I believe in a flat tax only on all income. Not on items a person may buy or chooses to buy.

My feeling is even if fast food is taxed people will still purchase it. And I doubt it will help with obesity either.

Obesity is a complex issue of genetics, lifestyle and portion control and appetites. There is no silver bullet to control it or the health issues it causes.

[mewichigo34]

Yes,and I think the US should have one.We have it way worse over here.

[Saturnfly]

I lurve junk food, but I am mentally capable of drawing the line between a treat and having too much. Implementing a fat tax wouldn't stop people who are addicted to crappy food from eating it, it's like saying "we'll put the price of tobacco up to make people stop smoking" when realistically they're just making more money since people are addicted to nicotine.
Junk food is full of additives and flavourings which makes them addictive.

Here's an idea, though, stop focusing on junk food, start making healthy food more affordable. Instead of plaguing the streets with KFC and McDonalds, put in some salad bars or vegan restaurants or something. A salad shouldn't cost $15, it's a bit of freaking lettuce.

More crap and expenses go into a burger than a salad. Salad can taste good (should I stop with the salad?).

There should be more promotion of vegetarianism as well. Just a thought.

I haven’t been to McDonalds in 8 years since I became a vegetarian.