Fat studies?

[Arrian]

To add on to what LotM is saying, one problem with government involvement is that what's deemed good for you seems to change pretty often. It's not like we've got it all figured out and can put food items in neat categories of "good" and "bad."

That being said, there are some obvious places to start. My public school cafeterias fed us utter and complete crap. You could eat a burger & fries every day if you wanted to. Sure, it was your choice, but do we really expect kids to make the healthy choice? Hmm, burger & fries or [insert healthy, less yummy option here]. Cue Jeopardy music...

Yeah, most of 'em are gonna eat the burger & fries most of the time. That seems like something ripe for some intervention.

edit: intervention by *local* gummint. The folks whose property taxes pay for the school - so the municipal goverment(s) of the town(s) that use the school.

-Arrian

[Jon Miller]

I have noticed that the fresh food at nicer grocery stores is nicer..

JM

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor

You could put a tax on supermarket-sold fries, for starters.
You could also give an official "stamp" to restaurants and fast-food joints that do not sell excessively fatty food. This stamp would mean that they don't have to pay as much sales tax on their products than the non-stamped restaurants (the procedure to gain or lose the label would be similar to pretty much any other activity that can obtain or lose an official label).

Generally speaking, for processed food products available in supermarkets, you could have a specific stamp. All products that don't match the dietary requirements for their category (excessive fat is one component, but not the only one - excessive salt is also a matter of concern) don't get the stamp. The sales tax would be significantly higher.

Before you worry about how gigantic such an effort would be, we already have such an omnipresent "stamp" over here, which is the "Green Point". It shows that the consumer good is recycle-able. When a company wants to market a consumer product, it will often contact the organization that manages the Green Point, in order to get certified. It costs some. But after that, it's official. The Green Point is something you'll find on almost every package in a French or German supermarket (don't know if it's generalized in the rest of Europe)

Fat, unlike tobacco, is a normal component of a healthy diet, consumed in moderation. You CANT discourage it like you would tobacco.

Oh, and BTW, smoking was on the decline here long before it was over there, is my strong impression.

Fat by itself is a normal component of a healthy diet. But it's overwhelmingly present in processed foods. Taxing ordinary food components, for people to cook with, would be pretty much useless, as it's impossible to know how healthy the cooking will be. However, it's very possible to tax a processed product that's unhealthy, because we know full well the dietary qualities of a standardized processed product.

Whats a processed food? Cheese is processed. Butter is processed. Bread is processed. Anything that isnt fresh fish, meat, produce, or unprocessed grain is "processed"

Beleive me, from personal experience, Brie is quite as dangerous to ones glyceride level and LDL level as french fries are. Any govt program that implies otherwise is sending a wrong, and dangerous, message. The Snack Food Association would be quick to point that out, and theyd be right.

And again, whats the assumption about the role of a "processed food" in diet. French fries in moderation, accompanying a low fat main course, are not playing the negative dietary role as when the main course is high fat, or too much fries are consumed. A dry cereal, thats high in fat, may take the place of say eggs and potatoes that are much higher in fat, and may be "better" than say, a side dish thats lower in fat but takes the place of a vegetable salad.

[Jon Miller]

Stuff with loads of weird chemicals I consider processed.

And a lot of stuff in america has far too much:
Corn Syrup
Partially Hydrogenated Oils

These things are absolute crap for you.

JM

[Jon Miller]

For me, as a vegeterrian, I can consume very low levels of fat/etc and still have bad LDL and glyceride levels.

For my LDL and glyceride levels to become decent, I have to exercise.

Just pointing out that diet isn't the only factor.

JM

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Stuff with loads of weird chemicals I consider processed.

And a lot of stuff in america has far too much:
Corn Syrup
Partially Hydrogenated Oils

These things are absolute crap for you.

JM

weird chemicals are weird, and it may be wise to avoid them, but theyre not connected to obesity.

Similarly, corn syrup is generally a (cheap) substitute for cane sugar, and has equivalent health effects.

Oils are generally partially hydrogenated so that they are solid at room temp, like animal fats. Thats why they did it to margarine, so it would be more like butter.

[Jon Miller]

Yeah, partially hydrogenated oils are still evil though.

Also, most other countries use a lot less corn syrup than us.. and are healthier for it.

I try to minimize consumption of those two things (only if it is a treat do I allow myself them).

JM

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Also, most other countries use a lot less corn syrup than us.. and are healthier for it.

controlling for total sweetener intake? Im dubious.

[Jon Miller]

Most people from other countries find american stuff too sweet.

Link to evils of partially hydrogenated oils: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partially_hydrogenated

JM

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Whats a processed food? Cheese is processed. Butter is processed. Bread is processed. Anything that isnt fresh fish, meat, produce, or unprocessed grain is "processed"

Yes. All of those products are likely to be in supermarkets (especially in the US, where mom-and-pop bakers aren't really that significant).

I'm not in favour of taxing all of them, but only those that are very likely to lead to health concerns. And yeah, butter and most cheeses are pretty obvious targets (there are much healthier alternatives in order to get fats or milk products)

Beleive me, from personal experience, Brie is quite as dangerous to ones glyceride level and LDL level as french fries are. Any govt program that implies otherwise is sending a wrong, and dangerous, message. The Snack Food Association would be quick to point that out, and theyd be right.

Yes.
You assume I wouldn't tax French products?

And again, whats the assumption about the role of a "processed food" in diet. French fries in moderation, accompanying a low fat main course, are not playing the negative dietary role as when the main course is high fat, or too much fries are consumed. A dry cereal, thats high in fat, may take the place of say eggs and potatoes that are much higher in fat, and may be "better" than say, a side dish thats lower in fat but takes the place of a vegetable salad.

Please.
If you eat fries occasionally, you won't suffer from the tax any significantly. Just like the occasional smoker will barely suffer from the tax if he buys one cigarette pack in the year.
Besides, the "stamp" won't be given solely on the grounds of fat. There's more to dietetics than that. I'd imagine the criteria would compare the product with an "idealtype" of healthy diet, and will see whether the product fills its role satisfyingly, or if the product is an unhealthy way of filling the role. If it's the former (and most industrial products will quickly fall in the former category), then stamp and low tax. If it's in the latter, then no stamp and high tax.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Yes. All of those products are likely to be in supermarkets (especially in the US, where mom-and-pop bakers aren't really that significant).

Why should products in supermarkets be taxed differently? Ive eaten french fries from McDonalds, from a smaller chain called five guys (apparently not even nationwide) and from mom-and-pop luncheonettes. All were equally unhealthy. If you want to sneak in social engineering in favor of small businesses, you should do so directly on grounds of merit. BTW, there are still a few non-chain supermarkets, here, and a great number of chains of small retail stores. In fact we have chains of "continental style" bakeries, notably Panera and Au Bon Pain. The baguettes at Au Bon Pain are, AFAIK, nutritionally identical to those sold at Safeway (a national supermarket chain)

[Fake Boris]

People like to study and observe phenomenons through a wide array of perspectives and disciplines, just let them do their research and rely on peer review to sort the wheat from the shaft.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Yes.
You assume I wouldn't tax French products?

No, but it seems to me you have a bias in regards to lifestyles, types of enterprises, etc that, while they may be fine on their own , are not nutritionally justified. i certainly would rather have home made homefries than those from the local diner, and ones from the diner than from Mcdonalds, but Im not going to fool myself that the homogenizing corporate entity with the yellow arches is ipso fact less healthy.

[Arrian]

Wheat from the shaft

"Men's studies - clearly shaft, that!"



-Arrian

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Sandman
That's nice. 'Fat studies' will fight you tooth and nail every step of the way, in your war against fat people.

Your delusions about a "war against fat people" aside...

That could very well happen if that area of study is deemed insignificant and left to extremists. As for these courses specifically, I haven't taken a stand. I've been arguing against the notion that the cultural factors influencing our nation's waistline is an insignificant area of study.