dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
3711
share rss forum feed


lugnut

@look.ca
reply to A Lurker

Re: [Poll] Should junk food be taxed?

said by A Lurker:

said by urbanriot:

How else can we push parents to raise their kids on a healthy diet of proper fruit juices, rather than coca cola, when the parents are guilty for endorsing it?

This really is the problem. Last time we flogged around the issue I wasn't sure what the answer was. More education in school (right from early ages). Cooking taught in class, with convenient 'take home' recipes for the familes to make together?

Oh, and juice isn't a good substitute for pop. An apple and a bottle of water is a better choice than a big bottle of juice.

»www.mayoclinic.com/health/fruit-···/AN01631

I say screw them all! Abolish all the sin taxes and let Darwin sort it out!!!


urbanriot
Premium
join:2004-10-18
Canada
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Cogeco Cable
reply to A Lurker
said by A Lurker:

More education in school (right from early ages).

Yea, that might be the solution. Basically throw in the towel for the generations of people that are alive today and ensure that the children of tomorrow learn what they need to learn at a young age...

One of the reasons I've been healthy from the get-go is because I was told at the young age of 4, by a stranger in a restaurant, that I shouldn't drink cola, should drink juice instead and a glass of milk a day. My parents cast this man off as a crazy person but it stuck with me and I actually followed his advice... young people are impressionable. It's funny because this was long before the days anyone knew about healthy / unhealthy foods so maybe he was crazy... !

I say start kids off at kindergarten.


ekster
Hi there
Premium
join:2010-07-16
Lachine, QC
kudos:3
Reviews:
·FreePhoneLine

1 recommendation

reply to lugnut
said by lugnut :

I say screw them all! Abolish all the sin taxes and let Darwin sort it out!!!

The problem with that is that modern medicine (which can be very expensive) is destroying Darwin's way of life.

If everyone goes nuts on bad food, drinking and smoking, they won't die, they'll just suffer paralyzing strokes, get their throats punctured, get their kidneys transplanted, get their blood changed, but they'll still live, and someone will have to pay for that.

And it sure as hell won't be them as they'll be too busy being disabled and paralyzed, collecting more paychecks, and someone will have to pay that as well.

I already pay extra to keep myself healthy since all the good food costs more, I sure as hell do not want to pay 5 times more to also keep them alive while they fuck themselves up! :/

lawrence171
Evilly Yours - Evilness

join:2001-12-24
Canada
reply to XoX
Because their numbers are not great enough yet.


capdjq
Premium
join:2000-11-01
Vancouver
reply to J E F F
For the ruling Governments (Federally & Provincially), in these days of declining revenues, its a sure fire way of raising money. Put out a series of reports on the dangers of obesity and then slap a tax on a brainwashed public. Its like the 2-10 cents charge on plastic bags. Someone is making money.
People will eat, smoke and drink what they want regardless of cost. But it sure is a great way to raise money.
--
"Human beings are the only creatures on Earth who claim a God, and the only living thing that behaves like it hasn't got one."



digitalfutur
Sees More Than Shown
Premium
join:2000-07-15
BurlingtonON
kudos:2
More tax on one product means less to spend on another. There's only one taxpayer, not none per level of government. The macro impact of a junk food tax in regressive, with no proof of any measurable benefit. Specifically, no proof that a tax will cause people to eat less junk food. Unlike tobacco and alcohol, 100% of the population consumes food.
--
Logic requires one to deal with decisions that one's ego will not permit.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing - Edmund Burke.


urbanriot
Premium
join:2004-10-18
Canada
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Cogeco Cable
I agree that there's no hard proof concerning a reduction in consumption it is logical to conclude that there will be less kids consuming it on their lunch breaks.

said by digitalfutur:

Unlike tobacco and alcohol, 100% of the population consumes food.

However 100% of the population does not consume junk food.


lugnut

@look.ca
said by urbanriot:

said by digitalfutur:

Unlike tobacco and alcohol, 100% of the population consumes food.

However 100% of the population does not consume junk food.

I defy you to point out any 12 year old in North America who has never tasted a Big Mac. Maybe on some granola worshipping commune or a Mennonite village, but by and large I'd say at least 90% of the population indulges in at least the occasional greaseburger and fries...

peterboro
Avatars are for posers
Premium
join:2006-11-03
Peterborough, ON
reply to urbanriot
said by urbanriot:

However 100% of the population does not consume junk food.

+1. you beat me to it.

Consumers only have so much disposable income for food and will possibly shy away more often from junk food if it is taxed higher.


digitalfutur
Sees More Than Shown
Premium
join:2000-07-15
BurlingtonON
kudos:2
reply to urbanriot
If the definition of junk food is as broad as the OMA wants it, e.g. fruit juice, pizza, chocolate milk, and all desserts containing sugar included, then everyone consumes it. Most in moderation.

OTOH I'd say that over 90% of doctors consume prepared gourmet food that can be as unhealthy as junk food. There's no "fat tax" on those products, and unsurprisingly, the OMA didn't recommend one.
--
Logic requires one to deal with decisions that one's ego will not permit.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing - Edmund Burke.


J E F F
Whatta Ya Think About Dat?
Premium
join:2004-04-01
Kitchener, ON
kudos:1
reply to digitalfutur
As urbanriot See Profile said, not everyone buy junk food so not everyone would be affected by it. Actually, part of the tax could technically go to subsidize healthy food.
--
If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. - Albert Einstein


yoyomhz

join:2003-02-15
Beverly Hills, CA

1 edit
reply to digitalfutur
Click for full size
What we need, is to teach people how stuff works.

Why is half the food in supermarkets so poor in nutrition, the body is forced to borrow nutrients from it's reserves just to digest such junk?

Big corporations control most of the food we eat - so we need to go into schools and teach the kids how these big corporations are screwing up their health, for profit, the same way Hollywood is prodcuing mostly crap, for profit.

99% of the population is clueless about their food, and where it comes from, and how it's more profitable to sell nutritionless crap to the sheeple.

What we need, is to teach people how stuff works.


urbanriot
Premium
join:2004-10-18
Canada
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Cogeco Cable

1 edit
Oh, God, you couldn't have just linked to that without breaking this thread? Whatever point you wanted to prove is invalid, you're just pissing people off with the sheer size of that image.

Edit: Thank you for fixing that (or thanks to whoever fixed it)


yoyomhz

join:2003-02-15
Beverly Hills, CA

1 edit
Here's another point: What people think is good for them - isn't.

Despite being highly processed and not at all healthy, consumers still purchase box after box of “natural” and organic breakfast cereals thinking it’s good for them.

The fact is, Kellogg supports GMOs for use in “natural” products. According to the grassroots organization GMO Free USA, Kellogg is actively working against requiring the labeling of GMOs having contributed $33,000 so far to propaganda campaigns to defeat it.

Best not to trust food companies with your most important meal of the day and go barcode free with your breakfast choices. The soaked cereals of traditional cultures are an excellent choice or, if you really need a cold breakfast cereal, make a truly healthy one yourself so that it doesn’t contain the extruded, denatured, allergenic cereal grains of the heavily processed, boxed variety that are falsely promoted on the label as somehow healthy because they are natural or organic.

»www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com/···th-gmos/




And another point:
Corporations owning some of the nation's most popular organic brands (Horizon, Silk, Kashi, Cascadian Farms, R.W. Knudsen's, etc.) have joined Monsanto and the biotechnology industry in fighting California citizen initiative, Proposition 37, that will mandate GMO labeling . And if we win in California, companies will then likely be forced to label GMOs nationwide.
»www.cornucopia.org/


urbanriot
Premium
join:2004-10-18
Canada
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Cogeco Cable
reply to digitalfutur
said by digitalfutur:

If the definition of junk food is as broad as the OMA wants it, e.g. fruit juice, pizza, chocolate milk, and all desserts containing sugar included, then everyone consumes it. Most in moderation.

OTOH I'd say that over 90% of doctors consume prepared gourmet food that can be as unhealthy as junk food. There's no "fat tax" on those products, and unsurprisingly, the OMA didn't recommend one.

That point ties into my earlier agreement with you and El Quintron, that moderating the functionality of this tax may be unwieldy. I was replying to your insinuation that everyone consumes junk food and even following broad definitions, there are still people that do not consume junk food.

I'm certain though, that we could reach a compromise on what definitely constitutes as junk food - soft drinks, energy drinks, chocolate bars, donuts, etc.

Rather than quibble about what is questionably junk food, we should focus on the 'food' that definitively junk, whose only purpose is to provide emotional enjoyment at the cost of a negative affect on health.


yoyomhz

join:2003-02-15
Beverly Hills, CA
reply to J E F F

The Ontario Medical Association is urging the government to introduce a tax on junk food in an effort to encourage people to make healthier choices.

The Ontario Medical Association wants to make it look like people are dumb sheep, and need to be told and 'taxed' what to eat and what not to eat. It's true people need to be told what to eat, but not by the Ontario Medical Association.



yoyomhz

join:2003-02-15
Beverly Hills, CA
reply to J E F F
One thing we can do is force greedy corporations to be more honest. Instead of putting the blame on the 30% of Canadian kids who are obese, we can start making laws to force crooked corporations not to add MSG to their food, - for starters.

--------------------------------------------------------

There's a great deal of deception in the labeling of food products found at your local grocery store and even at many health food stores. A disturbing trend I've noticed is that many vegetarian products and grocery items billed as "healthy" or "natural" are using chemical additive taste enhancers found in an ingredient listed right on the label.
The taste enhancer is MSG -- monosodium glutamate -- a chemical that has been associated with reproductive disorders, migraine headaches, permanent damage to the endocrine system leading to obesity and other serious disorders. MSG is a chemical compound that simply does not belong in the body in the concentrations provided by these foods. It is used by food manufacturers as a taste enhancer -- something to cover up the bland tastes of these foods and make them more appealing to consumers. But food manufacturers don't want to list MSG on the labels, especially when they know that consumers will avoid purchasing products that list MSG.

So what do they do instead? They hide the ingredient in another ingredient called "yeast extract", then they put yeast extract in the product and list "yeast extract" right on the label. So this is the scam: all sorts of natural health products and vegetarian products are using chemical taste enhancers in the form of yeast extract but failing to disclose to consumers that they actually contain MSG. And if you look around at the natural health products in health food stores and grocery stores, you'll find that yeast extract is a rather prominent ingredient. It's used in soups, in vegetarian mixes, in some tofu mixes, and even so-called natural frozen foods.

Learn more: »www.naturalnews.com/001528_dange···AVrHoyij


yoyomhz

join:2003-02-15
Beverly Hills, CA
reply to J E F F
Let's not add a tax to McDonalds.

Lets just go into the schools, and teach the kids how McDonalds adds 22 chemical additives, and produces a lot of their food in Oklahoma, with tons of preservatives, so the crap can be shipped thousands of miles all across the country before it's warmed up and sold to the people.

do you want cheap crap loaded with perservatives? Buy fast food.


digitalfutur
Sees More Than Shown
Premium
join:2000-07-15
BurlingtonON
kudos:2
reply to urbanriot
Well, junk food is already taxed. In Ontario, the RST applies to all the products you listed, but not to "healthy" food.

Food that is "definitely junk" does not negatively affect heath unless other factors, such as excessive consumption or a sedentary lifestyle, are also present.

But it's all moot anyway, because a government that implemented such a tax would be voted out at the next election cycle, since the tax would have to be very high to affect purchasing behaviour, or to sufficiently fund a "subsidy" on "healthy" food. Otherwise it's just another tax grab disguised as beneficial public policy.

...Still waiting for the OMA to recommend tax on junk gourmet food, there is lots of it that is emotionally satisfying.
--
Logic requires one to deal with decisions that one's ego will not permit.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing - Edmund Burke.


urbanriot
Premium
join:2004-10-18
Canada
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Cogeco Cable
said by digitalfutur:

Food that is "definitely junk" does not negatively affect heath unless other factors, such as excessive consumption or a sedentary lifestyle, are also present.

I don't believe you can say that or I can debate that since we don't know the effects of various chemicals or regular consumption of items that you and I would agree are junk food.

Even last year they're suggesting that sugar is far more toxic to us than we're willing to admit and what we consider regular consumption is causing all sorts of diseases in people.

Robert H. Lustig, MD, UCSF Professor of Pediatrics in the Division of Endocrinology is a huge opponant of regular sugar consumption and he has an hour and a half lecture here

»youtu.be/dBnniua6-oM
where he references a long list of studies concerning the dangers of additional sweetning.

No idea if he's a crackpot or on the level but he was covered in a 2 part 60 minutes segment concerning the possible toxicity of sugar - »www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-5···ar-toxic

One of the videos here - »www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7403942n


A Lurker
that's Ms Lurker btw
Premium
join:2007-10-27
Wellington N
said by urbanriot:

Even last year they're suggesting that sugar is far more toxic to us than we're willing to admit and what we consider regular consumption is causing all sorts of diseases in people.

Well, unless you're sucking on a piece of sugar cane or sugar beet, there's a lot of processing to make white granulated sugar. I didn't realise until a friend went rabidly vegan that most white sugar isn't technically vegan either.

Hey, in the end, tax all the junk food you want. I don't eat it, but I really don't think taxing stuff is the answer. Lowering the cost of healthier food might help, but people still have to be willing and capable of picking it. It's more about education, but I'm not sure that adults are willing to listen. You can make true junk food (items with no real nutritional value) prohibitively expensive, but it likely won't work. Either that or it will give the junk-food eating people like peterboro more ammunition to dismiss the overweight as worthless. Not that peterboro eats junk food, but he's rather dismissive already to those he labels as fatties.

said by peterboro:

I've noticed that s well. I'll send you a PM about what I think least it get all the fatties riled up and the thread locked.

Just wanting to get his words right....


A Lurker
that's Ms Lurker btw
Premium
join:2007-10-27
Wellington N
said by A Lurker:

Lowering the cost of healthier food might help, but people still have to be willing and capable of picking it.

Question for those in less urban areas of Canada. I've noticed when travelling in the US (on the cheap) that choice of fruits and veggies are very poor in smaller centers. Not only are they expensive, but the selection is limited and the quality sucks. Is that also common to small towns here?


Anav
Sarcastic Llama? Naw, Just Acerbic
Premium
join:2001-07-16
Dartmouth, NS
kudos:5
reply to J E F F
Perhaps anything packaged with a half life of more than 3 days after being opened should be banned LOL.
milk - passes (sour after 24 hours)
twinkies - fails (half life of 4 years)

graniterock
Premium
join:2003-03-14
London, ON
Reviews:
·WIND Mobile
·TekSavvy Cable
reply to J E F F
I'm of the thought to provide positive reinforcement. Make gym memberships tax deductable. Most healthy food is already untaxed (review and make sure it all is). Give tax breaks to resturaunts that provide meals under a certain fat / calorie count. etc. etc.

Increasing the tax rate from 13% to 20% at a fast food joint likely won't work.


J E F F
Whatta Ya Think About Dat?
Premium
join:2004-04-01
Kitchener, ON
kudos:1
reply to Anav
said by Anav:

twinkies - fails (half life of 4 years)

Pretty sure that twinkies stay good indefinitely.

Haven't had one for a long time.

Wasn't Woody looking for twinkies in Zombieland?
--
If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. - Albert Einstein

Sukunai
Premium
join:2008-05-07
kudos:1
Reviews:
·ELECTRONICBOX
reply to J E F F
said by J E F F:

I have mixed feelings about this:

»www.cp24.com/news/oma-urges-new-···.1007550

Junk food is already taxed (at 13%) but should we tax it more?

Poll


Votes:



" Should junk food be taxed?"

I wouldn't mind if they taxed every fast food joint viciously. I wouldn't mind them beating up on the junk in convenience stores.

I generally need that crap as much as any of us need cigarettes. Granted smoking is still dumber than a Big Mac or an Oh Henry Bar.


A Lurker
that's Ms Lurker btw
Premium
join:2007-10-27
Wellington N
reply to J E F F
said by J E F F:

Pretty sure that twinkies stay good indefinitely.

»www.snopes.com/food/ingredient/twinkies.asp

I actually don't think I've ever had a twinkie...

I do remember in college though being completely grossed out that the bread I'd bought was white one day and completely moldy the next.


J E F F
Whatta Ya Think About Dat?
Premium
join:2004-04-01
Kitchener, ON
kudos:1
said by A Lurker:

»www.snopes.com/food/ingredient/twinkies.asp

I actually don't think I've ever had a twinkie...

Two words: party pooper.
--
If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. - Albert Einstein


A Lurker
that's Ms Lurker btw
Premium
join:2007-10-27
Wellington N
said by J E F F:

said by A Lurker:

»www.snopes.com/food/ingredient/twinkies.asp

I actually don't think I've ever had a twinkie...

Two words: party pooper.



Nah, just thinking that I never went in for that kind of stuff. I was just trying to think if I had a twinkie, and I don't think so. I know what they are, just never bought one. Now, knowing it will stay fresh for 25 days... don't think so! Generically I'm not a sweets person. I brought doughnuts for the guys working today and never took one.

I tend to put a little vitamin c crystals into my protein shakes as I find they run too sweet for my tastes. I bought some truly unsweetened powder at one point but it's truly tasteless. I'll add frozen fruit which cuts the sweetness most of the time, but sometimes its still not enough. Even though I give more of it away than I eat I tend to do the same with homemade jams. They always have a tartness to them. You can't really cut the sugar fruit ratio much (or they don't gel) but adding a little tartness makes them so much better.

peterboro
Avatars are for posers
Premium
join:2006-11-03
Peterborough, ON
reply to A Lurker
Click for full size
A pic in case some of our resident pervs get the wrong idea!
said by A Lurker:

I actually don't think I've ever had a twinkie...

I had a pink one with white cream in university once but who didn't experiment and do crazy things like that.