France To Tax Fatty Foods For Healthcare

Just something for Americans who want a full gov't run healthcare system to think about. Not only will we run the possibility of deficit problems like the French and end up needing more taxation but we'll have to seriously eliminate certain things we put into ourselves or else the gov't system will become over consumed and burdened.

 

They already have taxations similar to those in France in America. The USA also already has by-laws against serving trans fat foods in restaurants, fast food joints, etc.

Health is the new tomorrow. Join today.

 

I believe there is a name for when the government starts attempting to control people's lifestyles (it begins with an f and ends with an m). We saw the same thing in Nazi Germany. It's no different today. The only ones in for a rude awakening are the ones who are gullible enough to fall for it, thinking the government cares about them and is just doing it for their "well-being."

 

:smilielol5:

Anyhoo...

'Fat tax' could save thousands of lives, says study:

Imposing a tax on unhealthy foods could prevent more than 3,000 deaths a year in the UK, researchers said today.
A 17.5% price rise on fatty, sugary and salty foods could avert thousands of fatal heart attacks and strokes, according to the study.
The government has rejected calls to introduce such a tax but obesity experts said the findings showed the time was right to reconsider the option.

The first model involved only taxing foods with high levels of saturated fats, such as whole butter, cheese, cakes, pastries and puddings.

The second model involved rating foods against an "unhealthiness score", with, for example, spinach scoring -12 and chocolate digestive biscuits scoring +29. All foods with a score greater than +8 would be taxed. This approach, it was estimated, would prevent 2,300 deaths and add 4% to weekly food bills.

The third - and most effective - model taxed a wider range of products, including those that might not rate so poorly on the unhealthiness score but would be seen as alternatives to the most unhealthy foods.

It would prevent up to 3,200 deaths from heart disease and stroke every year, equivalent to a drop of 1.7% across the UK. Food expenditure would go up by 4.6% - 67p a week, or around £2bn a year nationally.

Maura Gillespie, the head of policy and public affairs at the British Heart Foundation, said: "Further evidence is needed on the effect of targeted food taxes before we can support a 'fat tax'.
"Meanwhile, we call on the government and industry to help people make healthier food choices. We want the government to take all possible action to keep the price of healthy foods and drinks low."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2007/jul/12/health.politics

Motion, we have managed it for 60 years

http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/News/NHS60/index.htm

 

A government-funded study can pretty much come to any conclusion it wants to influence the public opinion of ignorant and gullible people who take every word they read at face value.

Gee, the "experts" say it's good for me, so it MUST be! They're "experts," so therefore they wouldn't lie to me or be paid off to come to a favorable conclusion.

They had bogus studies like this in the US when there was so much talk in the news about mandating the HPV shot for all schoolage girls, until it was later discovered that girls were dropping like flies after taking the shot. Many of the studies show that the vaccine does not prevent cancer, but has a much more likely chance of causing cancer. Most of the idiot public doesn't know this, though, because they get all their information from the TV. They see these ads on TV telling them how great the vaccine is, and they don't think twice about sending their daughter to the doctor to roll up her sleeve.

 

It was not a government funded study - THEY REJECTED IT :
"The government has rejected calls to introduce such a tax".

Related quote:

In 2004, then prime minister Tony Blair rejected the idea for a tax on fatty foods such as cakes and biscuits, saying it would make Britain too much like a "nanny state".

It was researcher from the University of Oxford and Nottingham University: http://jech.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/61/8/689

It is not so much "experts" it is untrained reporters latching onto research that will make good headlines.
In this case it was fairly balanced, in other cases not so.

 

Of course they're "rejecting" it now. They need to put propaganda out there first, to soften people up to the idea, thinking it will be for their benefit. Then once the government does decide to come forward and propose it, people are more likely to go along with it. That's how governments work. They always play both sides of an issue.

So maybe the study was not directly-funded by the government, but you can be sure it was funded by a foundation or NGO linked to government, as these types of studies almost always are.

 

It sounds too much like you have convieniently flipped your script.
Sorry, I don't mind one theory or the other...they always make some sense on their own.
But please do make up your mind.

Atleast read what is written carefuly before you jump to a conclusion.
It makes you seem like you have just gone through your theory back catalogue, with your eyes closed, picked a record, and thrown it on the record player.

Anyhoo...I can gaurantee most of the general public have no idea what the government thinks, on one issue to the next.
Like you say -
"ignorant and gullible people... take every word they read at face value"
Including me and you to a certain degree.

To my knowledge the government have rejected the idea twice.

My related quote was related to this:


The Prime Minister's Strategy Unit is considering increasing duties on some food and having a sports drive to fight obesity, according to the Times.
The newspaper claims a document urges a fatty food tax as a "signal to society" because the number of obese British people has risen sharply in 20 years. A Downing Street spokesman said the government had no plans for such a tax.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3502053.stm

Regardless of this, people will still think the government would always want to raise taxes anyway they can, and are heading us all into a "nanny state".

I'll repeat: University of Oxford and Nottingham University: http://jech.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/61/8/689

I don't think you will find they are government funded.
But you can certainly try.

 

Heavy taxes isn't an effective means to deter use for whatever product; It only ends up causing the consumer to spend more for whatever product that is being purchased.


Oil, fatty foods, cigarettes, alcohol... We just end up paying more.

I honestly don't care what studies say, especially studies done by the government. You can just about 'prove' anything with these 'studies'.

These studies go against common sense.

Example: http://www.gocomics.com/tomthedancingbug/2008/07/26/

 

How about we heavily tax our fatty/unhealthy foods here in the U.S.?
That way, low-income/jobless people won't be able to feed themselves and their kid a meal for $5 at McDonalds, and there will be a nice, refreshing series of riots when the shit hits the fan, and the poor become more desperate.
It's kind of funny, in a way completely lacking of humor, that unhealthy food is far cheaper than healthy food, and takes less preparation (so those without kitchens can eat it).

Do you have a source for that anywhere? Mainly the bold part

 

Why shouldn't the government have higher taxes for oil, fatty foods, cigarettes, alcohol and other damaging goods??

If the people want to purchase unhealthy or detrimental goods, why shouldn't they pay a tax on it so that the government can keep dishing it out and delivering garbage to them?

 

This is very peculiar logic.

I have to spend more on groceries because there are people out there that can't, for whatever reason, control their eating habits?

The prices for groceries has gone so high and I have no idea how I am going to manage. Now I have to worry about taxes making my groceries even MORE expensive. What a ridiculous idea.

I don't need the government to babysit me.

No offense, but you aren't making sense.

There are other ways to protect the public.

Control the huge influx of junk food advertising. Do something about the psychological tactics that supermarkets use to get you to buy all types of junk food. Let us figure that out.

Again, I don't need a babysitter. If I want to use something that is detrimental, than that's my business.

Also, we have to go back to how effective taxation actually is. Common sense tells us that it isn't very effective. My sister, for instance, still smokes as many packs a day as she ever did. Taxes just caused her to spend more for her cigs.

I forgot what country it was - somewhere in Norwegian area - but they tax alcohol heavily because people over there are heavy drinkers (due to longer winters, alcohol is used to help alleviate this)... The heavy taxes didn't solve the problem, it only caused people to spend more on their beer.


EDIT - Aris, pls read -

(Btw, my anger wasn't directed towards you - I apologize for sounding snappy - I am just pissed off. I am 120lbs, have an autoimmune disorder, on a fixed budget... I can't afford this nonsense, including millions of others.)

"Why shouldn't the government have higher taxes for oil, fatty foods, cigarettes, alcohol and other damaging goods??"

Why should the government have that money? It makes more sense for our citizens to keep their money.

 

Supermarket tactics -

http://money.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=275230

Correlation between TV ads and childhood obesity -

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/06/business/media/06cnd-kids.html

McDonalds Avertisement budget -

http://www.mcdonalds.com/corp/invest/pub/sec.html
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070323055547AADAQnU

These are just some of the examples.

If we deal with these issues, then I promise you, the obesity epidemic would be significantly reduced. Taxes, if it actually worked, is only a band aide solution. You have to go at the source of the problem - Treat the cause rather than the symptom.

 

Ughhh, with a fat tax you may be little effected. That's the idea. If you buy garbage and crap that is going to give you cardiovascular problems and strokes in the future, you will have to pay a tax on those foods. If you go eat at fast food joints, you pay the fat tax. But if you buy produce and make healthier choices, you are exempt of paying the fat tax. That's how it works.

And it's okay, I have my own personal beliefs that make me a little snapfish from time to time.
EDIT: spelling

 

I'm not in favour of an entire tax overhaul, but it's an interesting subject, and when the state is paying for medical services such as they are in Canada, they have a vested interest in keeping people healthy. There is an obesity epidemic out there, and a large part of it has to do with poor consumer choice.

EX: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20040420/ont_fattax_040420?s_name=&no_ads=
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2004/04/20/fattax_040420.html
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1081954476892_77363676/?hub=Canada

 

Why is it increased taxation, restriction and legislation to control the consumer's lifestyle is always seen in the consumers best interest, but is never to be considered when evaluating the shortcomings of corporations?

 

California has actually tried it and had to repeal it because of retail confusion mainly. You tax a Hershey bar but you don't tax a granola bar?

http://www.lao.ca.gov/1999/tax_expenditure_299/tep_299_salestax1.html

 

If they want to keep people healthy, would it not make more sense to deal with the causes of obesity?

Gardener makes a good point. Corporations (like McDonalds) are at least partly responsible with poor habits.

Commercials have a huge effect on the public and the increasing number of junk in our foods has a direct impact on public health.

Corporations shouldn't go unchecked.

"Even health groups say a fat tax doesn't address the multiplicity of problems that contribute to obesity, including sedentary lifestyles."



----

" You tax a Hershey bar but you don't tax a granola bar?"

Ya, exactly, how do you even define JUNK FOOD?

Isn't there also the principal? Why can't I choose my own lifestyle and pay extra for it?

 

Sedentary Lifestyle Not To Blame For Obesity

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/110112.php

Study: Sedentary Lifestyles, Not Food, Responsible for Obesity

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/468495/study_sedentary_lifestyles_not_food.html

And to top it off...

Fast food and sedentary lifestyle: a combination that leads to obesity

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/83/2/189

 

"Sedentary Lifestyle Not To Blame For Obesity

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/110112.php"

Sorry for the confusion, but I that wasn't an opinion of mine. I was just quoting the article aristartle has shown me. The part that I DID back was this:

"Even health groups say a fat tax doesn't address the multiplicity of problems that contribute to obesity"

I have seen similar studies like those before and they seem to be on the money.

What I am getting at is this:

What really causes us to goto fast food restaurants as often as we do? I think that the answer to that question is this: The amount of advertising, number of these restaurants popping up in poor neighborhoods, refreshment machines in schools (as well as the food that is served in schools), sedentary lifestyle (with combination of stuffing your face with junk) and culture.

Taxes aren't going to do much good. Go after the schools that uses vending machines, corporations, and put restrictions on the number of advertisements promoting junk food.

I live in the bronx and I can see a viacom sponsored ad of McDonalds nearly everywhere. It's ridiculous.

If it were up to me, I'd ban McDonalds or put as many sanctions on them as possible. They ruin our society and environment...