T Nation

Warning Labels on Junk Food


#1

http://www.calgaryherald.com/health/Ontario+docs+launch+assault+obesity+urging+tobaccolike+warnings/7432966/story.html

I totally support this!

TORONTO - Ontario doctors have launched an assault on obesity, saying society should aggressively fight the epidemic using the tools that have made major inroads in the battle against smoking.

The campaign calls for graphic warnings â?? like the ones tobacco companies must print on cigarette packages â?? on high-calorie, low-nutritional value foods such as sugar-sweetened soft drinks, french fries and even fruit juices.

It also calls for higher taxes on sugary or fatty foods, lower taxes on healthy foods, and restrictions on sales of junk foods in sports venues and other recreational facilities used by children and teenagers.

The types of changes needed to fight obesity won't come into effect overnight, Dr. Doug Weir, president of the Ontario Medical Association, admitted at a news conference announcing the campaign Tuesday.

But Weir said society needs to start addressing obesity or it will face epidemic levels of weight-induced illnesses, including Type 2 diabetes, heart disease and some cancers.

"If we don't do something about this now, we're going to have a tidal wave of the consequences of those conditions," said Weir, a psychiatrist who said he deals with issues related to childhood obesity on a regular basis in his practice.


#2

I think that’s retarded. If humans need to be spoonfed like that just to avoid morbid obesity, what are we saving them for?

Uh, no, I don’t need a warning sign on that bag of cookies. If I want cookies, I have enough sense to not eat them until I become obese.


#3

A similar thing is going ahead in the UK. All that will happen is that either processed food manufacturers will change the ingredients to make the shit food have a better colour whee, or they’ll successfully lobby for favourable/lenient RDA’s. Probably both.

Wouldn’t need this shit if people bothered to do a bit of their own research into what they should or shouldn’t put into their body


#4

I think a “fat tax” on these products would really do more good. If someone wants to throw their cash away on cookies, and I get better roads to drive on, I’m all for it.


#5

I think it is a really good idea. I think those of us who are really into our health often don’t realise how little many people actually know about what they eat, especially when it comes to things that seem healthy at first such as cereals, fruit juice and ‘health bars’.

I think any education on this subject is a good thing, especially if it is graphic and hard-hitting.

And it’s not just a case of survival of the fittest and letting the less informed eat themselves into an early grave. That has effects on the economy and medical care and in the end costs everyone.


#6

Total bullshit.

It’s nobody’s business to regulate an individuals food intake. Taxing them extra is ridiculous. If you want to make a point, make them pay more for obesity related health care costs.


#7

Wait…so in shape people don’t ever eat cookies?

WTF?

The problem is making it seem like food itself is the problem and not SELF FUCKING CONTROL.


#8

This is so stupid. Get the fucking government off my back. I’m a “relatively” lean 200lbs. If I want to eat a dozen fucking donuts for breakfast and McDonalds for lunch and dinner for a year, I should be free to do so. (That is pretty much my diet as is).


#9

[quote]csulli wrote:
This is so stupid. Get the fucking government off my back. I’m a “relatively” lean 200lbs. If I want to eat a dozen fucking donuts for breakfast and McDonalds for lunch and dinner for a year, I should be free to do so. (That is pretty much my diet as is).[/quote]

Basically this. It isn’t anyone’s business what I eat just because fat people exist. If it isn’t this, it will be something else. What next…a tax on video game playing?

I am actually surprised so many support this seeing as most of us would be labeled “obese” by stats.


#10

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Wait…so in shape people don’t ever eat cookies?

WTF?

The problem is making it seem like food itself is the problem and not SELF FUCKING CONTROL.[/quote]

Of course in shape people eat cookies, I’m not for banning them haha. I just think increased education and awareness in the general population can never be a bad thing.


#11

[quote]furo wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Wait…so in shape people don’t ever eat cookies?

WTF?

The problem is making it seem like food itself is the problem and not SELF FUCKING CONTROL.[/quote]

Of course in shape people eat cookies, I’m not for banning them haha. I just think increased education and awareness in the general population can never be a bad thing.

[/quote]

yeah, but “taxing” does not equal more education. A warning label will do what? Like those people eating ice-cream really think they are eating for health?

People eat crap because they like crap and have no self control. They also feel no sense of responsibility for how they got fat…so they blame the cookies.

I personally have never had a cookie jump in my mouth off the table. I have had “pie” do this…but she was over 18.


#12

[quote]csulli wrote:
This is so stupid. Get the fucking government off my back. I’m a “relatively” lean 200lbs. If I want to eat a dozen fucking donuts for breakfast and McDonalds for lunch and dinner for a year, I should be free to do so. (That is pretty much my diet as is).[/quote]

I’m sure I’ll get flamed for this, and don’t take it personally, but someone can train well and eat crap and end up looking pretty good. It doesn’t mean they are healthy and it certainly doesn’t mean they couldn’t benefit from eating less crap.

This is from someone who had 4 chocolate muffins for lunch, I’m not trying to preach - I recognise that my diet is terrible. I just think this could help.


#13

All I’m implying is that you can use taxation (and I hate to say it, subsidies), to make healthier options more financially appealing, and less healthy options less appealing.

An [extreme] 10% increase in price to unhealthier foods won’t make much a difference to those who occasionally indulge, but will start making an impact on the food budgets of those who constantly indulge.

Financial motivation seems to be a pretty effective strategy for making health improvements. Many of the newer health care plans offer “discounts” on their rates if you meet certain health criteria, and the incentive of saving an extra $20 a paycheck for having lower blood pressure seems to work.

I think if it were immediately obvious (financially) that the unhealthy options are going to get more expensive, the publicity of the public outcry would lead to people actually starting to make some changes.


#14

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]furo wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Wait…so in shape people don’t ever eat cookies?

WTF?

The problem is making it seem like food itself is the problem and not SELF FUCKING CONTROL.[/quote]

Of course in shape people eat cookies, I’m not for banning them haha. I just think increased education and awareness in the general population can never be a bad thing.

[/quote]

yeah, but “taxing” does not equal more education. A warning label will do what? Like those people eating ice-cream really think they are eating for health?

People eat crap because they like crap and have no self control. They also feel no sense of responsibility for how they got fat…so they blame the cookies.

I personally have never had a cookie jump in my mouth off the table. I have had “pie” do this…but she was over 18.[/quote]

Yeah fair enough. I’m not sure I approve of the taxing, I was more referring to the labelling. I just think graphic warnings would help, especially in the cases of foods that aren’t typically regarded as unhealthy.


#15

[quote]furo wrote:

[quote]csulli wrote:
This is so stupid. Get the fucking government off my back. I’m a “relatively” lean 200lbs. If I want to eat a dozen fucking donuts for breakfast and McDonalds for lunch and dinner for a year, I should be free to do so. (That is pretty much my diet as is).[/quote]

I’m sure I’ll get flamed for this, and don’t take it personally, but someone can train well and eat crap and end up looking pretty good. It doesn’t mean they are healthy and it certainly doesn’t mean they couldn’t benefit from eating less crap.

This is from someone who had 4 chocolate muffins for lunch, I’m not trying to preach - I recognise that my diet is terrible. I just think this could help.[/quote]

But that’s the point. I knew a guy who weighed over 210lbs with arms bigger than most here and lean who ate a sleeve of cookies as most of his food intake all day along with a Muscle Milk shake.

He needs more education? Why? Health is a relative word that simply means “free of disease”…so the idea that the in shape guy with the good blood work who trains daily for hours needs to eat less cookies doesn’t have much basis in science fact.

I have heard Mariusz Pudzianowski eats like crap also. He needs more education?

Why?

It worked for him.


#16

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I think that’s retarded. If humans need to be spoonfed like that just to avoid morbid obesity, what are we saving them for?

Uh, no, I don’t need a warning sign on that bag of cookies. If I want cookies, I have enough sense to not eat them until I become obese.[/quote]

Concur.

Plus, taxes are for raising necessary money for the government, not controlling or rewarding behavior.


#17

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I think that’s retarded. If humans need to be spoonfed like that just to avoid morbid obesity, what are we saving them for?

Uh, no, I don’t need a warning sign on that bag of cookies. If I want cookies, I have enough sense to not eat them until I become obese.[/quote]

Concur.

Plus, taxes are for raising necessary money for the government, not controlling or rewarding behavior.[/quote]

But poor health in society is a cost we all end up bearing thanks to how our government spends the money.

A healthier society ultimately lowers the tax burden.


#18

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I think that’s retarded. If humans need to be spoonfed like that just to avoid morbid obesity, what are we saving them for?

Uh, no, I don’t need a warning sign on that bag of cookies. If I want cookies, I have enough sense to not eat them until I become obese.[/quote]

Concur.

Plus, taxes are for raising necessary money for the government, not controlling or rewarding behavior.[/quote]

But poor health in society is a cost we all end up bearing thanks to how our government spends the money.

A healthier society ultimately lowers the tax burden.[/quote]

Yeah, but the problem is making loose links to “poor health” based on non-scientific judgment.

Cookies are not UNHEALTHY. Making an entire diet of cookies is unhealthy.

It isn’t even teaching the right message.

If I want pancakes, I need a warning label making me think it somehow magically causes people to become fat?


#19

[quote]LoRez wrote:
All I’m implying is that you can use taxation (and I hate to say it, subsidies), to make healthier options more financially appealing, and less healthy options less appealing.

An [extreme] 10% increase in price to unhealthier foods won’t make much a difference to those who occasionally indulge, but will start making an impact on the food budgets of those who constantly indulge.

Financial motivation seems to be a pretty effective strategy for making health improvements. Many of the newer health care plans offer “discounts” on their rates if you meet certain health criteria, and the incentive of saving an extra $20 a paycheck for having lower blood pressure seems to work.[/quote]

Ontario government will not use those tax dollars for what they are supposed to. It would just be another dipping fund for them.

Paying more for food isn’t likely to deter people from buying junk. Last week at the grocery store, I saw that Doritos are over $4 a bag now. They still fly off the shelves.

I do like the idea of discount incentives on rates for meeting certain health criteria. That would most likely not be considered across the board though because that would just reduce profits by offering discounts instead of making money by raising rates.


#20

[quote]LoRez wrote:
All I’m implying is that you can use taxation (and I hate to say it, subsidies), to make healthier options more financially appealing, and less healthy options less appealing.

[/quote]

  1. Why is this the government’s business?
  2. Attempting to shape behavior with taxation is a sadly oft-abused power of our modern form of government. Taxes should be fair, equitable and expressly not imposed for the purpose of shaping a given behavior (e.g., buying a Prius or whatever).