taxing junk food

df001i6876

What is junk food ? beef sugar ?quick meals ? cake sweets fat ?Lets all face it we eat it . Greed is greatly to blame .SO lets tax it says the goverment ? And make money. All the food they say his good for you is all ready high in prices. I think its another way off getting money off soft joe public. What do you think.WE all have to eat .

The Corinthian

So we have a “government is evil option” and a “nice alternative that I’m not going to bother explaining to anyone”.

Nice balanced poll. Sure I’ll take that one seriously :rolleyes:

Debate, don’t rhetoric.

Xterminator

The rapid rise in childhood obesity rates, combined with the less active lifestyle the 'computer age' children lead will cause an epedemic of dibetes and heart disease for the growing generations.

I have no problem with a tax which would (a) raise money to pay for the problem it causes, and (b) encourage a shift to healthier snacks and treats like fruit, and wholegrain foods etc.

At the moment it is cheaper for kids to get a burger and fries in McDonalds than say a Ham Salad roll in a deli. And if your watching the pennies, this is likey to influence your choices.

However it will not be enough as a stand alone action. it needs to be part of a concerted effort to tackle the problem.

X

dr_manhattan

the corinthian has a point at that.

Anyhoo: food is a complex issue, right? Because sugar and fat and all sorts of things that can be bad for you can also be... well... okay ;-) for you as long as you exercise.

But I dunno about a tax: perhaps a subsidy for good food, I have no idea. But I will say this -

The fast food / junk food industry is a *direct* result of capitalism and a production line mentality. It is the result of cost cutting and economising on a grand scale, and puts the consumer dead last in terms of priorities. But that's capitalism. You can't make a nasty greedy system nice by adding on taxes and subsidies, it's just a rubbish excuse to keep people happy.

IMHO, the government is not our parents, and does not tell us what to eat, or make it harder for us to eat badly. If we are all such spoiled idiots that we cannot feed ourselves properly... well, I'm tempted to make comments about natural selection, but I won't.

However: people who smoke and refuse to stop are often refused hospital beds for heart disease and lung ailments - should the same be done to people who won't change their diet? Perhaps this is where to strike in oprder to protect the health services from the onslaught of the piggy people ;-)

Sangre

The only way I'd be remotely happy with this was if money made was used to reduce tax on healthy food.

For me I'd much prefer a nice healthy deli roll sandwhich or a salad with some chicken etc., but it is too expensive to do everyday or even most days.

Venom

Originally posted by Sangre
The only way I'd be remotely happy with this was if money made was used to reduce tax on healthy food.

For me I'd much prefer a nice healthy deli roll sandwhich or a salad with some chicken etc., but it is too expensive to do everyday or even most days.

I agree with you that just taxing junk food is not good enough. The government needs to ensure that healthy foods and veg is cheeper to buy as a result of the tax on junk food. Organic farmers should be given subsidies over non organic farmers and the same would apply to free range livestock compaired to battery produced animals.

I disagree with you on the deli food tho as Iv seen so many of these places where the food was not stored, served or prepaired properly. Even tho I dont eat junk food any more ( mostly after reading Fast Food Nation), junk food has never made me ill. I cant say the same about deli food.

Sangre

Originally posted by Venom

I disagree with you on the deli food tho as Iv seen so many of these places where the food was not stored, served or prepaired properly. Even tho I dont eat junk food any more ( mostly after reading Fast Food Nation), junk food has never made me ill. I cant say the same about deli food.

Well I see your point on the health and safety but that really is an entirely different issue altogether. My point is, as a whole I would prefer the healthier choice even based on taste/fulfillment wise but due to price, that isnt possible for me as a student.

Basically if there is just a tax increase on junk food this will only enable other food to put up prices without the general public knowing if it is due to the new tax, basically, it will just increase food inflation.

So if there is a 10% increase on tax, I want say 6% decrease on healthy food, with the rest of the money used to promote health awareness and public fitness programs etc.,

Catsmokinpot

taxing junk food is a good idea people dont get addicted to food like they do cigarettes so i spose if its more expensive than the healthy alternative then people will eat healthy

Sangre

Originally posted by Catsmokinpot
taxing junk food is a good idea people dont get addicted to food like they do cigarettes so i spose if its more expensive than the healthy alternative then people will eat healthy

Of course its not addictive......its just a mere coincidence that the diet indusrty is a multi-billion dollar one.

oscarBravo

Originally posted by Catsmokinpot
people dont get addicted to food like they do cigarettes

I'm afraid they do. The difference isn't as marked as you might think. Of course, there are differences, but there are also many similarities.

Specky

If you're dim enough to think it's a good idea to eat a pile of junk food everyday for your dinner then you're probably dim enough to think that you're being really healthy if you go into a so called "deli" and stuff yourself stupid.

Why should I have to pay a levy on my food because I occassionally have a burger?

The government already have a captive audience of impressionable consumers (they're called school children and they're locked up in educational establishments all day every day) so does it really cost a heck of a lot more to teach them about nutrition, obesity, the cost of living etc (along with other handy things like how not to drive like a wanker)? If they can't find time in the school day they could always drop religeous education etc.

Has increasing the price of a packet of fags or a pint of beer stopped people smoking/drinking? Seems not.

Zombrex

I think, while taxing is a good idea, it would be better to require Junk food operators to publish clear details of the naturisal value of their foods (or lack of). For instance I read that France requires McDonalds to put a large sign up in each store saying it is not recommend by doctors to eat in McDonalds more than once a week.

You may say that people aren't stupid, they know it is unhealthy (as the food industry continues to chant), but do they? Really? And do they know how unhealthy?

I am always constantly amazed that people believe some food that is only 10% fat (ie "low" in fat according to the ads) is actually low in fat (never mind the sugar in it), or at these "fat free" yogarts and biscuits are actually health (instead of being crammed full of sugars and chemicals to make up for not having any fat in them).

The worst thing I see is parents giving their kids this crap. I know most parents know a BigMc is not that good, but I have heard parents say "we want him eatting something health so we give little timmy the chicken dippers instead of a burger when we go to McDonalds" And don't get me started on the parents who believe the ads about Sunny Delight, Ribena Toothkind and those Robbinsons drinks ("water is boring.. fill it up with sugar!" i mean WTF!).

Education, espeically to parents, and forcing higher standards of advertisment on the food companies, is IMHO the way to go.

Zombrex

Originally posted by Specky

Why should I have to pay a levy on my food because I occassionally have a burger?

If you only occassionally have a burger then you won't mind so much will you:p

Quatre Mains

- a 'fat tax' sounds ok in a perfect world but lets face it, does VRT go straight back into fixing the roads, or does the tax on smokes go into curing cancer? Introducing such a measure would lead to many problems, such as

1. What foods would be subjected to the tax? We know the obvoius fast food ones, but where would you draw the line?

2. Governments using the tax primarily as a revenue source. Imagine a situation where the govt take-in falls below expectations - would this result in more foods being taxed?

3. Corruption - the tribunals of the future could involve the likes of Michael Martin or Pat Rabbitte being hauled up for getting brown envelopes in order to keep chippers off the 'fatlist'

- a couple of suggestions I would have;

1. Remove VAT from a few known healthy foods, such as wholegrain bread and wheat pasta, and some white meat. It is known that the less well off are more likely to be overweight than the rich, as their diet is dictated by their budget.

2. Make the likes of McDonalds put the nutritional content of their products on the packaging rather than on the website. Believe it or not many people don't know whats in them, especially the cleverly marketed salads, some of which are worse than the burgers!

Cheers
Neil

Specky

If you only occassionally have a burger then you won't mind so much will you

They're my hard earned sheckles...MINE I TELL YOU!

1. Remove VAT from a few known healthy foods, such as wholegrain bread and wheat pasta, and some white meat. It is known that the less well off are more likely to be overweight than the rich, as their diet is dictated by their budget.

Whoa, hang on a minute...Guinness is good for you. Red wine taken in moderation has certain health promoting effects, fat isn't actually bad for you, neither is sugar. Maybe we should increase the VAT on petrol to stop people drinking it....

....telling people the nutritional content of food is like putting health warnings on cigarettes, it simply doesn't work. Remember the DEATH branded cigarettes of a few years ago. Educating people to know what the effects of eating crap all day long may make more of a difference in the longer term, hence my point about teaching the kids something useful along these lines in school. Also showing them how much it actually costs them to go for convenience foods all the time instead of preparing their own would also be worthwhile (I think) for many reasons, not just the unhealthy eating debate.

Like I also said, I don't think that telling people something is bad for them really works all that well. They've been doing it for years with fags and booze and it hasn't really worked.

Educating people on the by-products and side effects maybe, and on the effect on their pocket long term would probably have more of an effect. Hello little Johnny, would you like a Playstation? Well if you buy the necessary bits and pieces to make a sandwich every day instead of eating in McDonalds you'll save €x per week and will have your Playstation in y weeks. That sort of thing. People care far more about material things these days than being alive to enjoy them

Sparks

Fat Tax you say?



I'm not too worried....

Specky

oooo...I could lag my loft with that lot, save a fortune on heating bills!

Quatre Mains

df001i6876

Originally posted by Wicknight
I think, while taxing is a good idea, it would be better to require Junk food operators to publish clear details of the naturisal value of their foods (or lack of). For instance I read that France requires McDonalds to put a large sign up in each store saying it is not recommend by doctors to eat in McDonalds more than once a week.

You may say that people aren't stupid, they know it is unhealthy (as the food industry continues to chant), but do they? Really? And do they know how unhealthy?

I am always constantly amazed that people believe some food that is only 10% fat (ie "low" in fat according to the ads) is actually low in fat (never mind the sugar in it), or at these "fat free" yogarts and biscuits are actually health (instead of being crammed full of sugars and chemicals to make up for not having any fat in them).

The worst thing I see is parents giving their kids this crap. I know most parents know a BigMc is not that good, but I have heard parents say "we want him eatting something health so we give little timmy the chicken dippers instead of a burger when we go to McDonalds" And don't get me started on the parents who believe the ads about Sunny Delight, Ribena Toothkind and those Robbinsons drinks ("water is boring.. fill it up with sugar!" i mean WTF!).

Education, espeically to parents, and forcing higher standards of advertisment on the food companies, is IMHO the way to go.

Mc Donalds should only serve adult 18 +over ? only kids if there with there parent. And not give free toys I agree with you nice one. But were kids eat we can not stop them .

Specky

Mc Donalds should only serve adult 18 +over ? only kids if there with there parent. And not give free toys I agree with you nice one. But were kids eat we can not stop them .

??

The most vulnerable kids, the ones who are being conditioned into believing that eating junk is a normal part of everyday life are already taken to McDonalds by their parents. They're being driven into the place in push chairs and given a happy meal to "shut them up" so that their mothers can have "a bit o' peace 'cos he/she's wreckin' me head"....

Where I would agree there needs to be some changes in the advertising but this is already being/has been done. I used to particularly enjoy:

McDonalds ad No.1 - Dad doesn't want to talk to his daughter about sex education and the responsibilities of contraception or respect for one's own body and that of another - so he takes her for a happy meal.

McDonalds ad No.2 - Kids bring dog into kitchen and run amok, vandalising all available cooking utensils and crockery. Dad discovers them and rather than punishing or admonishing them in any way, or too lazy to wash a dish himself, he opts for the easy option and indulges the children's food fetishes with a trip to the burger joint. The ad finishes with the children acknowledging to each other their dominance over the family authority figure and clearly make indications that they will be intending to repeat the act in the future.

McDonalds ad No.3 - Small child cunningly forges McDonalds gift token and cons father into its authenticity, thus affirming his ascendancy into a life of crime and deception that will ultimately result in a considerable burdens on the state's penal system, a breakdown of this particular family and an erosion of societal values as a whole.


I love them I tells ya!


....oooo just gotta sneak another peek at Mary Harney....mmmmm.....large fries....mmmm......

Xterminator

Originally posted by Specky
Like I also said, I don't think that telling people something is bad for them really works all that well. They've been doing it for years with fags and booze and it hasn't really worked.

I think you are wrong.

The number of smokers has fallen considerably, and public attitudes towards smoking have crucially reached the point where non smoker no longer are wiling to accept it. And after March 29th, i expect the numbers smoking to decline terminally.

With regards to the campaign to drink sensibly (there is no mass campagain to stop drinking at the moment!), there is evidence that our attitudes to this is changing.
An example would be the change in attitude to drink driving. While it used to be ,nod-wink, tolerated, now it has become socially unacceptable for someione to drink and drive, even if not caught by the guards.
It used to be fairly acceptable to have a pint with your lunch, and go back to work, it is an instantly sackable offense in most jobs.

I think the lesson is you must change the public opinion by a campaign of information. And to fund this ... it can either come from the already stretched taxpayers pocket, or some new source of revenue!

PS Obesity will cost us tens of millions in the long run through the medical consequences alone.

X

leeroybrown

Aside from the idea of taxing junk food being a silly idea it's simple economics that the government can only add a certain percentage of tax to CPI rated items every year, otherwise they push inflation up too much. As it is Charlie McCreevey is adding ~1.3% per annum to inflation. He can't really tax us much more.

Specky

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree then

I don't really see any real decrease in the number of people smoking. My wife gave up (after consitant nagging from me :rolleyes: ) about a year ago, but that was for child bearing reasons and (yay) looks like she's going to stay off them for good, other than that I don't know anyone else who's given up.

There were more people caught for drink driving last christmas than the one before. Now I would be the first to point out that the number of convictions for any offence is not a fair reflection on the rate of offending, however, if it is such a taboo as you suggest then I would expect to see some reduction in this. Sharon Shannon done the other day for drink driving and told off for telling fibs in court, naughty squeezer!

To be honest I've never really known people here to drink at lunchtime unlike in the UK where it is very common to wander back into work flushed and giggly after a long luncheon.

The view is that penalty points has reduced speeding...but unfortunately I think the biggest problem is people driving stupidly without consideration for other road users and this is harder to quantify than just saying "you're going too fast". Figures wouldn't seem to be all that conclusive yet on the penalty point issue. Personally I think you have to severely inconvenience people to deter them. Banning fags in the pubs is a good thing...a good proportion of people will be too lazy to get up off the bar stool to go outside for a fag.

But that's off subject. I have said it already, education is the key to making people realise how silly it is to live on bad food, not just fast food from the chipper, convenience food in general including a lot of the ready made stuff in the shops. But you have to get them young, adults have already got the salt/sugar associations conditioned into them and they find it hard to break them.

Venom

Education can never compete with ad's for happy meals showing the latest toys from that new Walt Disney movie that kids will want. Telling a child not to do or eat something is always going to lose when compaired to offering the child a tasty meal with a toy.

This whole fat tax is just wishfull thinking and considering how fooked up this country, they will just impose the ban on all food types.

Specky

This whole fat tax is just wishfull thinking and considering how fooked up this country, they will just impose the ban on all food types.

ALL food types? Blimey...thin times ahead

The Corinthian

I get the impression that most people here are kind of missing the point of why kids eat junk food. It’s not really the free toys, or even the tastiness of such meals that breed the consumption of such meals, but that parents buy them and eventually kids identify with them.

Look at the phenomenon of chippers in Ireland. A highly common occurrence is that rather than cooking a nutritious meal for the kids, a mother (or parent, to be PC about it) will simply get take out. In many cases kids are simply given the money to go down to the chipper and grab a meal. It’s astonishing to find how many households in this country live off a staple diet of ‘batter-burgers and chips’ - and it wasn’t free toys and a marketing clown that sold them on this. Why? It’s convenient, the savings one makes cooking for oneself rather than getting fast food are generally small and people simply don’t know how to cook any more.

Ironically, most Irish chippers are owned and run by Italian families - who will tend to eat a more Mediterranean diet rather than the stuff they serve out to the hoi polloi.

So the cornel of the problem is with how parents choose to feed and educate their offspring. Taxation of fast food may affect this, but it’s frankly just another quick fix solution that will simply scratch the surface of the problem and create another convenient moral tax. Encouraging parents to cook for their kids at home should be the emphasis.

Specky

Here here Corrinthian

....and while you're at it could somebody please move these chocky bickies off my desk....mmmm.....chocoliscious......

rs

Laziness is the problem, and that's it.

How many people go to the chipper and thinking they are going for a healthy meal? or to mac donalds for a healthy meal?

I don't think so.

Pretty much everyone knows eating like that will make you fat and unhealthy, yet so many people do it.

People have more money and less free time, and all too often it is easier to order a take-away than cook a decent meal.

Parents are to blame when children are overweight. Everything a child has, food and money etc. It all comes from the parents.

The funny thing is, that being obese as a teenager and staying obese will reduce your life expectancy by about the same as if you were a pack a day smoker from your teenage years.

Yet I don't see many parents giving their kids cigarettes.

Strange.

Specky

Yet I don't see many parents giving their kids cigarettes.

I do.

They even save the little mights the bother of holding the thing and lighting it up, they happily puff away for them then just let the kiddies breath in the lovely healthy atmosphere.

From what I've seen parents tend to be pretty tolerant of their children's actual smoking habits too. No more "around the back of the bike sheds", it's all pretty open now. When I was a kid you'd be terrified that someone would see you and tell your parents what you'd been up to, or even give you a clip around the ear themselves....but them were the days

ixoy

Is the fat tax proposed on take out meals or also burgers/chips in supermarkets? I eat a few frozen meals and cook my own as well. I rarely touch take out - I get that greasy unhealthy feeling off of it. I think there's something to be said for a tax, depnding entirely on how the money is spent. However - and this is important - there should be a subsequent discount on items like fresh fruit and vegetables to present a viable alternative. We need to make the difference between the two greater, to increase people's willingness to seek an alternative.

dr_manhattan

"Education can never compete with ad's for happy meals showing the latest toys from that new Walt Disney movie that kids will want. Telling a child not to do or eat something is always going to lose when compaired to offering the child a tasty meal with a toy."

I think this is the crux of what it all comes down to: and so many debates about ethical issues / health issues versus social pressures / the easy option arrive at this point too:

I agree that education should be the solution. But like a parent trying to compete with images of britney spears in her knickers whilst educating their kids about sexuality, it's a question of a society that was never really designed, it just grew from various factors and pressures.

So we have a situation where we cannot trust advertising, yet our kids are exposed to it 24/7. We recognise that advertising works better than education, yet we have not attempted to make education work better because the resources to make expensive ad campaigns lie entirely in the private (AKA greedy and untrustworthy) sector.

So what gives?

Using the smoking issue as a parallel, as well as taxing the product (which IMHO is stupid) there have been explicit ad campaigns showing diseased arteries, lungs, etc.

now, these ads have only been possible after a sustained campaign by medical and social groups to break the grip of the tobacco industry on advertising: in the 70s, we were still having cigarettes (remember the hamlet ads?) advertised on TV.

So couldn't we have pictures of obese people's arteries, stomachs, hearts, livers? I dunno... would it work?

I saw a while back that a US journalist spent a month eating McDonald's and his health deteriorated to the degree that he was vomiting daily, close to liver collapse and, on examination after the month, was described by his doctors as malnourished. Surprise, surprise ;-)

but with regard to advertising, unfortunately, the catering / food industry is a lot more far-reaching and powerful than that: the destructive influences of both fast food AND supermarket chains on the economy is huge, and thus I would assume that government departments are wary of placing blanket taxes on any area of food. I'd also imagine that, once these taxes were applied, the gamut of foodstuffs would be so broad that these companies would have no problems exploiting loppholes in legislation to sell us crap with a healthy label.

So what I'm *trying* to say is that junk food seems to be a major effect of capitalism as applied to the economics of the restaurant trade: it's a problem with "the system" if you want to get all lefty about it.

So how do we solve that? The problem that it's so much better for catering businesses to supply substandard produce dressed up as food, because it's more profitable and their customers are (in the short term) happier?

I have no idea ;-) but I'd like to hear opinions, ahem.

Specky

Hmmm...a potato is also a vegetable, you can go to the supermarket and buy a sack of them, fry 'em up and stuff yourself stupid.

Milk, cheese and eggs are good for you so maybe they should be reduced price too....oh hang on a minute, fat fat fat and cholesterol. Hmm...

It's not the content that's the important thing it's the quantity and balance of what you consume, coupled with a healthier lifestyle (I'm beginning to sound like a meusli commercial I'll be going on about L.Cassei Immunitas next.....ooo Danon....)

You can't get a mortgage (this is just an example) or insurance when you're 75 because the chances are you'll peg it before you've handed over any cash (I know the bank keep the house and are then laughing all the way to the........erm...bank...).

So if you smoke, drink heavily, have life threatening hobbies or eat like a b@st@rd shouldn't you pay a bit more for your health insurance? I'm no "Kate Moss" myself (couldn't think of a skinny bloke off hand, apologies to anyone who knows me and the imagined images of me on the cat walk in a little Gucci number...) so I'd probably pay a bit extra too, but it seems more sensible to put the money there than in the government's coffers for them to fail to spend in the right place.

ShaneHogan

Originally posted by Specky

Has increasing the price of a packet of fags or a pint of beer stopped people smoking/drinking? Seems not.

No, but tax increases have proven to be the most effective way of reducing tobacco consumption - See www.otc.ie if you want to read the research.

Specky

I agree that education should be the solution. But like a parent trying to compete with images of britney spears in her knickers whilst educating their kids about sexuality, it's a question of a society that was never really designed, it just grew from various factors and pressures.

ROFL....the thought of my mum competing with Britney Spears in her knickers will keep me amused for the rest of the day...

Specky

No, but tax increases have proven to be the most effective way of reducing tobacco consumption - See www.otc.ie if you want to read the research.

OK so stop fannying around and make them €50 a box!

Exageration maybe but the price hikes have just made it possible for people to tighten their belts and carry on smoking. They just have less money to spend on things like healthy food for the family and going places with the kids so the parents can keep the fags up...this has happened, I have seen it with people in my own extended family.

RainyDay

Originally posted by Venom
Education can never compete with ad's for happy meals showing the latest toys from that new Walt Disney movie that kids will want. Telling a child not to do or eat something is always going to lose when compaired to offering the child a tasty meal with a toy.

That's easy to fix. Just ban advertising aimed at children, like they did in Sweden.

Specky

I saw a while back that a US journalist spent a month eating McDonald's and his health deteriorated to the degree that he was vomiting daily, close to liver collapse and, on examination after the month, was described by his doctors as malnourished. Surprise, surprise ;-)

There is also the well publicised case of the guy in the US who lost some crazy amount of weight by eating only from one particular range of calorie controlled doodads at SubWay. So you have to be a bit careful on the whole definition of fast food and take away etc. He probably could have done exactly the same thing and cost himself a whole lot less if he'd bothered his big chunky bum to do a bit of shopping and made the sambos himself but that just illustrates the point about people's value dilema. Convenience (for which they will pay a price) versus health...not (as the fat tax assumes) cost versus health.

Stark

Who are the government to say what's healthy food?

Like Specky said, there's no guarantee that milk, cheese and eggs are good for you. I guess it depends on the person, for your metabolism and lifestyle, are the protein and vitamins a good trade off against the saturated fat?

The last time the government did this they made carbohydrate loaded food dirt cheap. That's fine if you're metabolism is geared towards burning carbohydrates slowly, but if you're someone like myself who burns them too rapidly, then white bread and its ilk will only make you fatter and make you crave other carbhydrates and sugar (possibly one reason for the massive surge in obesity, and the sugar cravings most obese people will tell you about).

I think this is a way over-simplified solution, that will just serve to add more money to the governments pockets.

Personally I think home-economics and PE should have a more prominent role in schools. Maybe have a home-ec class every day where kids bring in veggies etc. and cook their own lunches? An hour of PE every day would also combat obesity and improve kids concentration. But no, that's seen as "too special a treat" for the kids. (I remember in school the first thing we were punished with was having PE taken off us and not being allowed out in the yard during break time).

Specky

That's easy to fix. Just ban advertising aimed at children, like they did in Sweden.

and replace it with.....advertising aimed at adults I presume. Like the McDonalds ad with the three blokes trying to decide whether to have Indian, Chinese or McDonalds...or some more shampoo ads so we can get our kids obsessing even more than they already do about their appearance.

Ban ads altogether, that would be fine with me, I'm sick of having my viewing pleasure interrupted. But the shows on tv themselves are also advertising, they portray a lifestyle which impresses upon the kids.

I know a better idea, switch the bloody telly off and talk to your children

RainyDay

Originally posted by Specky
and replace it with.....advertising aimed at adults I presume.

The Swedes ban ads aimed at kids under 12, and before/after/during all kids programs. The Greeks ban ads for childrens products up to 10 pm at night.

Originally posted by Specky
I know a better idea, switch the bloody telly off and talk to your children

Fully agree.

Senor_Fudge

**** this country anyway

Stark

Tell them all about the birds and the bees and how it will remain a foreign concept if they don't lose some weight.

Senor_Fudge

lol

Kev

Why not go straight to the source of the problem and tax fat people.
Once a year you report for a body fat percentage check or jiggle test and charge people according to how fat they are.
It seems a lot fairer to me.

Specky

Yeah! and get them to pay for all the pavements they're breaking up too!

hold on...gotta stop typing 'cos my hand flab is jiggling uncontroillably ...bly.....bly......bly.....

dr_manhattan

"Personally I think home-economics and PE should have a more prominent role in schools. Maybe have a home-ec class every day where kids bring in veggies etc. and cook their own lunches? An hour of PE every day would also combat obesity and improve kids concentration."

K, well said: to be honest, there's a tiny part of me that will buy reasonable conspiracy theories - and one of the ones that I cannot dismiss is how convenient it is for an established elite to keep poor people in a trap where even their diet contributes to low attention spans = lower education rates = easier aggression = susceptability to further advertising.

Not that I'm saying that there's a world council of evil controlling this - it just works well as a social model of oppression. It's always possible that the reason we were so useless (for example) at rebelling against colonial occupation was all we were eating was potatoes ;-)

Anyways - specky, that remark about switching off the TV is pretty much the point of the matter, IMHO. People do not eat **** by nature - they simply seem to eat what they're told is okay to eat. So keeping kids away from the lies and garbage on the TV is a good idea...

However, that's easy for me to say, as I'm not a parent. Without TV, parents have to manage their kids all the time, the poor bastards, hahahaha.

And as for taxing the 'volumetrically gifted' (lol) - hmmm... that may be an idea. I've always harboured an idea that they're a different species anyways hahahaha

(and btw, that is a JOKE)

Catsmokinpot

Originally posted by Sangre
Of course its not addictive......its just a mere coincidence that the diet indusrty is a multi-billion dollar one.

ok you might think that but people only over eat because other people and society and the media make them depressed about how they look i know im one of the chubby people

Specky

I am one of the "poor b@st@rds" you refer to and it is a bit of a worry about influences on your kids when they're outside of your control but I'd have to say plonking them in front of the telly is just pure laziness. Why have kids in the first place if that's all you're going to do with them.

Now, I have to say as a child of the 60s and 70s I was brought up on a diet of telly and radio, there's hardly a tv programme from that era that I don't know the theme tune to along with the characters and plots, however we had to be chased in off the streets by our parents when it got dark otherwise we'd have stayed out all night. The difference now seems to be people have to chase their kids out of the house otherwise they'd sit in front of the box all day.

OK, sometimes it's real tempting to sit them in front of a video, especially on those hangover days or when you just can't be bothered doing stuff but a balance in this is also the key. It was scarey to see the mesmorised look on my little girl's face when she was just a few months old if you let her look at the TV. Easy to see how they could stick like that for the next 18 years or so....

It may also sound highly sentimental and somewhat corny but despite the hard work (and they are hard work) kids are also an absolute joy to be treasured, not to be stuck in another room, out of sight out of mind.

Cork

Originally posted by dr_manhattan
"Personally I think home-economics and PE should have a more prominent role in schools. Maybe have a home-ec class every day where kids bring in veggies etc. and cook their own lunches? An hour of PE every day would also combat obesity and improve kids concentration."

As a nation - we are getting fatter. People no longer prepare meals. They eat breatest going to work. They don't exercise.

They'll probably expess surprise if they are knock on health effects.

They should be tax breaks for stay at home parents. PE should be in schools.

FAT Food should be taxed - to do otherwise will be a health time bomb.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Cork
As a nation - we are getting fatter. People no longer prepare meals. They eat breatest going to work. They don't exercise.

They'll probably expess surprise if they are knock on health effects.

They should be tax breaks for stay at home parents. PE should be in schools.

FAT Food should be taxed - to do otherwise will be a health time bomb.

That's super.

Are you going to share with us some reasoning behind those statements? It would be terrable if people considered your arguments to be those of simply a 'knee-jerk' Muppet.

Specky

Jerking your knee actually burns calories so perhaps it's not a bad thing....