Dieticians call for 20% tax on sugary drinks

[codetrap]

.

[A790]

Originally posted by codetrap
Honestly, all this talk of dietitians and taxes etc isn't going to change squat. It's just another feel good tax. If you truly want to alter the demographic *we* have to think longer term. Start by having those bitchy dietitians in schools teaching children how to eat properly. Offer subsidized or free, non-referral access to a dietitian to all Canadians. Invest in educating people NOW in how to make better choices, and you'll reap the benefits down the road with reduced costs in the future.

Agreed, and the tax on sugar will make sure it's paid for

[Canmorite]

Originally posted by codetrap


Honestly, all this talk of dietitians and taxes etc isn't going to change squat. It's just another feel good tax. If you truly want to alter the demographic *we* have to think longer term. Start by having those bitchy dietitians in schools teaching children how to eat properly. Offer subsidized or free, non-referral access to a dietitian to all Canadians. Invest in educating people NOW in how to make better choices, and you'll reap the benefits down the road with reduced costs in the future.

Would you be ok with subsidizing the cost of these dietitians teaching school children and others to eat properly, with a tax on sugary items? I would. It's a short-term, immediately viable way to do this.

Or we could just raise everyone's income taxes to pay for it. Either way, the dollars have to come from somewhere. Tax on sugary drinks, to pay for dietitians in schools...to lower overall healthcare costs decades down the road.

[A790]

Originally posted by 962 kid
So it's ok for physical activity to cost money because it builds character? Obesity isn't caused by a Coke, it comes from an extended period of low physical activity coupled with chronically poor eating habits. Why start with something as pointless as a couple cent tax on soft drinks if the real goal is to increase overall health as a population? Why not take an approach more akin to the Japanese war on obesity instead of taxing a product that has an admittedly tenuous link to serious health issues?

With respect, your summary grossly misrepresents my position. If we're going to have a conversation about the subject, at least fairly represent what I said to you so that your response represents what was discussed.

Regarding your comments on sports: building character is part of it, sure. So is the lowering of blood pressure, body fat, risks for heart/lung/circulatory diseases, cancers, etc. Many of these sports already have a "tax" via insurance premiums.

Furthermore, obesity is very much diet-centric. Physical activity plays a big part, yes, but that big part is small potatoes compared to the dietary contribution. So, you're right in that obesity isn't caused by a coke. It is caused by the consumption of a lot of cokes, and candy bars, and refined carbohydrates, and so on.

Also, sugars impact on our health is well documented at this point.

Lastly, I don't think you've understood the point I was making (or I didn't do a good job articulating it). In my mind, the tax is less about encouraging healthy habits so much as it's about funding programs, educational initiatives, treatment, and research surrounding the issue as a whole. The alternative to funding those types of initiatives is a blanket tax, and frankly, I find that far less appealing or acceptable of an option.

[962 kid]

Originally posted by A790

With respect, your summary grossly misrepresents my position. If we're going to have a conversation about the subject, at least fairly represent what I said to you so that your response represents what was discussed.

Regarding your comments on sports: building character is part of it, sure. So is the lowering of blood pressure, body fat, risks for heart/lung/circulatory diseases, cancers, etc. Many of these sports already have a "tax" via insurance premiums.

Furthermore, obesity is very much diet-centric. Physical activity plays a big part, yes, but that big part is small potatoes compared to the dietary contribution. So, you're right in that obesity isn't caused by a coke. It is caused by the consumption of a lot of cokes, and candy bars, and refined carbohydrates, and so on.

Also, sugars impact on our health is well documented at this point.

Lastly, I don't think you've understood the point I was making (or I didn't do a good job articulating it). In my mind, the tax is less about encouraging healthy habits so much as it's about funding programs, educational initiatives, treatment, and research surrounding the issue as a whole. The alternative to funding those types of initiatives is a blanket tax, and frankly, I find that far less appealing or acceptable of an option.

Apologies, I shouldn't be attempting to debate at 2AM.

I understand what your point is, I just don't agree with it. I see it as analogous to attempting to curb reckless driving by putting a tax on tires with a treadwear rating under 300. A tax on sugary drinks may provide tons of cash, but it will be siphoned from people - a majority of whom - are able to enjoy such a drink responsibly.

If you want to curb obesity, tax obesity. If you just want to fund "programs and initiatives" targeted at reducing and dealing with obesity, why not institute a blanket tax? The net result would be the same for most people.

The quip about the link between sugar and health was a response to your comment: "It's easy to devalue the risks sugar imposes on you because they are more or less intangible. There are many reasons someone could have heart disease, for example- who's to say the sugar is at fault? I get it, though the science doesn't support it. Lots of science says sugar is at fault for, or a contributing factor to, a whole bunch of awesome ailments. " If the risks are more or less intangible, why not target something more material?

[A790]

Originally posted by 962 kid
The quip about the link between sugar and health was a response to your comment: "It's easy to devalue the risks sugar imposes on you because they are more or less intangible. There are many reasons someone could have heart disease, for example- who's to say the sugar is at fault? I get it, though the science doesn't support it. Lots of science says sugar is at fault for, or a contributing factor to, a whole bunch of awesome ailments. " If the risks are more or less intangible, why not target something more material?

Fair enough. My sentiments on that piece are that just because the costs are intangible doesn't mean they don't exist. They are hard to directly measure, but they can be measured just the same.

Why do you feel a blanket tax is more appropriate compared to a consumption tax? I'm not exactly a taxation expert so I would appreciate learning more about why you feel the way you do.

[mazdavirgin]

Originally posted by A790
Furthermore, obesity is very much diet-centric. Physical activity plays a big part, yes, but that big part is small potatoes compared to the dietary contribution. So, you're right in that obesity isn't caused by a coke. It is caused by the consumption of a lot of cokes, and candy bars, and refined carbohydrates, and so on.

Also, sugars impact on our health is well documented at this point.

Please provide some actual papers that prove that obesity is caused by candy bars, cokes and refined carbohydrates versus simple over consumption of calories. I'll give you a hint. You won't find any such papers that pass scientific muster. There's a reason for that. You can be fantastically fat/obese if all you eat is a healthy diet and you simply eat too much. Want to lose weight? Put the damn fork down.

[msommers]

Originally posted by mazdavirgin


If you want to address obesity I don't really think a tax on sugar is appropriate since health experts don't even agree on this topic. Over consumption and lack of activity is the only agreed upon causes. Blaming specific foods is fad diet bull shit nonsense. You might as well say we should tax rice as well since hell it's high in carbohydrates which are one step away from sugars.

People are fat plain and simple because they eat too much and move too little. Trying to tax sugar is just lunacy. Why specifically the witch hunt against sugar when there's just as much hubbub about red meat or high carb grains? Tax red meat, tax potatoes, tax rice etc... Where do you draw the line? It's not that long ago that people thought eggs were horrible for you. Should we have been taxing eggs?

My stance on this issue is that, items that you and I would generally classify as junk food, contribute nothing at all to what could be conceived as a healthy diet. My opinion is that this differs greatly from a health fad.

It's not that everything with the ingredient 'sugar' (or its other forms) should be subjected to a tax. Rather, items like juice from concentrate, pop, chocolate bars, candy etc.

Originally posted by 962 kid
How is it fair for you to assume that my consumption of soft drinks will necessitate a coronary bypass in the future, while writing off the possibility of long term damage caused by years of high impact activities? How about costs of joint replacements, ACL, MCL, or achilles reconstruction, rotator cuff surgery, concussions, etc etc? I'd say there's a better chance I'll need one of those than a coronary bypass before I croak.

I agree, it is not fair for me to assume that upon you. With respect to sports or any exercise-induced injury, I can guess that it certainly costs the health care system a lot of money.

I've thought about these but I'll ask you a few questions to get your insight:

1) Are the rates of injuries as you describe increasing or decreasing?
2) Is the rate of enrollment in sports or exercise programs increasing or decreasing?
3) Is the rate of obesity increasing or decreasing?

In my opinion, the difference lies in that sports or exercise should be a part of people's lives because all the data points to a physically healthier and mentally happier population. Injury prevention is a huge market and no one intends to get injured.

Conversely, individuals could argue that soft drinks and chocolate bars make people happier, however they do not make the Canadian population physically healthier but en masse make us less healthy.

Originally posted by codetrap
So, here's the big question for you. All these additional costs. Who's actually paying? Is it the taxpayer, or the private health insurance?

My Dad's diabetic medicine is 90% covered by their private health care, and that is a direct effect of him being overweight. So, tell me again how a sugar tax is going to reduce your tax burden?

I don't recall actually posting that study but thank you for sharing it...

Anyways to answer your first question, who's paying for the following factors, outlined in that study, that have a relationship to obesity?

• Type 2 diabetes
• Cardiovascular diseases (hypertension, coronary heart disease, and cerebrovascular disease)
• Osteoarthritis
• Gallbladder disease
• Asthma
• Mental illnesses (e.g. depression and anxiety)
• 14 types of cancer
• Bladder cancer
• Colorectal cancer
• Endometrial cancer
• Esophageal cancer
• Kidney cancer
• Leukemia
• Liver cancer
• Multiple myeloma
• Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma
• Ovarian cancer
• Pancreatic cancer
• Postmenopausal breast cancer
• Prostate cancer
• Stomach cancer

That's an excellent question and one I cannot answer but I can try to look into it later.

However, you could provide some insight as you mention your Dad's private health plans specifically. The question I would have for you is: Does your Dad's private plan cover 90% of whatever the cost is with each of those factors, or just specifically diabetic medications, where prescriptions are given by a General Physician X-amount of times per year at X-dollars billed to AHS per visit ($50 rings a bell)? I'm genuinely curious what is all covered as I have very basic health insurance through the Graduate Studies program.

http://ihaveaplan.ca/rte/en/Universi...HealthCoverage

Regardless, your example highlights the very problem. Why does your Dad (unfortunately) have diabetes? Moreover, 10% of his medication is not paid for by him as a direct result of being overweight as indicated by you and only you (on this forum) know why, specifically, he is overweight.

The linked study does not specifically break down the cost to each entity as it defines "direct cost" as:

Direct costs are defined as those costs borne by the
health care system, the community and the patient’s family (diagnosis and treatment costs).

Direct health care costs in this study included the value of goods and services for which payment was made and resources used in treatment, care, and rehabilitation related to illness or injury. The following 5 direct cost components were assessed in this study:

1. Hospital care expenditures
2. Drug expenditures
3. Physician care expenditures
4. Expenditures for care in other institutions (e.g. nursing homes, residential facilities for people with mental and physical disabilities, and drug and alcohol problems)
5. Additional direct health care expenditures (includes expenditures for other health professionals, capital investments, public health, prepayment administration and health research)

And one of the results:

The highest costs attributable to overweight and obese BMI status were associated with coronary heart disease ($307.1 million, 2005$), osteoarthritis ($167.7 million, 2005$), type 2 diabetes ($161.5 million, 2005$), hypertension ($125.5 million, 2005$), and cancer ($117.8 million, 2005$).

Now the big question I foresee everyone jumping on me for (and respectfully it's warranted), is this the fault of sugar? The answer is I don't know right and it would take a significant amount of time to find (if even available) data to support that sugar is the one and only factor. But none of us need to look because to singularly say sugar is the cause of obesity is truly unfounded. However, I believe that it would absolutely naive of any of you to suggest that chocolate bars, candy, pop, and so on did not contribute to these issues, and therefore increase costd for the public health care system.

[zieg]

I'm all for it. Been on a major fitness/health kick since the fall and learned a ton about nutrition in that time. Cut all kinds of junk out of my diet and I don't miss it one bit. Now I walk through 7/11 and think most of this stuff should be illegal, using bright colors and sugar with zero nutritional benefit to make sales to people who either don't know how bad it really is, or have weak willpower. Or both. I was never 'fat' per se, but nearing the top of the healthy BMI range with no exercise, so it was only a matter of time.

Ban it or at least tax the shit out of it and dump the money into healthcare. Maybe pictures of fat people on the box with warnings just like tobacco products. In a way they are in very much the same category.

[A790]

Originally posted by mazdavirgin
Please provide some actual papers that prove that obesity is caused by candy bars, cokes and refined carbohydrates versus simple over consumption of calories. I'll give you a hint. You won't find any such papers that pass scientific muster. There's a reason for that. You can be fantastically fat/obese if all you eat is a healthy diet and you simply eat too much. Want to lose weight? Put the damn fork down.

Yea, we're arguing the same point I think. My response was worded that way it was due to the nature of the way 962kid rephrased my statements.

Also, I can produce lots of data on sugar consumption and its impact on your insulin and metabolic response. Furthermore, my arguments (rephrased again) are on the overall health impacts of sugar, of which obesity is a big but not exclusive component.

An example that illustrates the relationship of sugar-laden foods and the body's response is here: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritio...d-blood-sugar/

If that isn't specific enough for you I'm sure I can find more.

Regardless of whether or not you like the study I cited or the verbiage I used, the relationship between sugar and health risks, including obesity, is well studied, documented, and established. So, my question would be: what is the value in arguing semantics? And further to that, what is the point you're trying to make?

[962 kid]

Originally posted by A790

Fair enough. My sentiments on that piece are that just because the costs are intangible doesn't mean they don't exist. They are hard to directly measure, but they can be measured just the same.

Why do you feel a blanket tax is more appropriate compared to a consumption tax? I'm not exactly a taxation expert so I would appreciate learning more about why you feel the way you do.

I don't feel that either tax is appropriate, but if I were to choose I'd take the blanket tax and I'll explain my personal reasoning.

A few months ago I decided to stop eating out 2-3x carefree meals a day. I've been far more cogniscant of what I'm eating and have been prepping meals. As an unintended side effect of this, I've felt comfortable with consuming a fully sugared drink every second week or so to keep me on track, which is something I almost never did before. Am I less healthy now? No. Will a tax on that drink stop me from purchasing it? No. It will however financially punish me regardless of my other dietary choices.

If I'm going to be paying to help someone else with obesity, I'd prefer to pay it as a blanket tax and consider it a charitable act instead of being punished for different, yet healthier eating habits.

Originally posted by msommers

I agree, it is not fair for me to assume that upon you. With respect to sports or any exercise-induced injury, I can guess that it certainly costs the health care system a lot of money.

I've thought about these but I'll ask you a few questions to get your insight:

1) Are the rates of injuries as you describe increasing or decreasing?
2) Is the rate of enrollment in sports or exercise programs increasing or decreasing?
3) Is the rate of obesity increasing or decreasing?

In my opinion, the difference lies in that sports or exercise should be a part of people's lives because all the data points to a physically healthier and mentally happier population. Injury prevention is a huge market and no one intends to get injured.

Conversely, individuals could argue that soft drinks and chocolate bars make people happier, however they do not make the Canadian population physically healthier but en masse make us less healthy.

Please don't take my comments as an argument against physical activity. I just don't fully understand why people turn a blind eye to the cost of sports related injuries while being so quick to chastise and condemn people for eating junk food. I don't see why it matters if you intend to be injured or not - there is a very real risk involved with almost any type of strenuous activity. You may never be injured, but by the same reasoning you could live a full life as an overweight person and die the same death as a skinny person. There is a cost associated with both lifestyles, but could you imagine the uproar if a tax on footballs or rugby helmets were proposed?

I don't know the answers to your first two questions offhand which likely gives you the insight you were looking for. I will however say that in my circle of acquaintances, the incidence of long term sports related injury is significant. 2 of my former coworkers have been relegated to a life of desk work from back and knee injuries, another had his shoulder reconstructed, and another had Achilles tendon surgery. Ages ranging from 30-55, sports were basketball, football, baseball, and hockey respectively.

[01RedDX]

.

[codetrap]

.

[01RedDX]

.

[962 kid]

Originally posted by 01RedDX


Because there aren't tens of millions of people affected by sports related injuries in North America.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...ports/2612429/

http://www.stopsportsinjuries.org/media/statistics.aspx

Not quite tens of millions of people, but hardly insignificant considering that those articles only talk about children and acute injuries.

[01RedDX]

.

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by 01RedDX


A calorie isn’t a calorie

Yes it is.

Feel free to argue that some calories aren't absorbed as easily as others, sure, but at the end of the day, it's a pretty good general measure.

It's hilarious how people get all bent out of shape when you challenge their religion

[codetrap]

.

[01RedDX]

.

[msommers]

Originally posted by codetrap
90% Private Insurance, and he pays the other 10% out of pocket.

I find it sad that people here want to tax obesity. It's thinly veiled prejudice and discrimination. Sizeism? Anyways, it doesn't address the underlying issues, it just punishes the symptoms. But hey, it's much easier to stereotype and discriminate than it is to understand and empathize.

You're right, I was having a brain-fart this morning on how private insurance works.

Regarding the second point, rates of type 2 diabetes is increasing and trends show it's going to get worse. Genetic susceptibility and external factors like diet and exercise are the two leading causes. I absolutely believe decreasing our sugar intake will help combat that increase.

I am not going to pry as it's not my or anyone elses' business about your family history. However understand that I completely empathize how tolling depression can be on a person's health and also the risk factors that come into play when looking at hereditary diseases. But diet and exercise would have, to some varying degree, improved his help and potentially avoided having type 2 diabetes, despite those underlying conditions.

To me this is not taxing obesity because of genetic predisposition, rather it's taxing unhealthy choices people make that can eventually lead to obesity, a very expensive health care problem.