Taxation is a hugely effective means of curtailing behaviors.

It was used in US to tax cigarettes to death.

Depends on the habit.

It didn't do much for cigarettes in the USA. I watched the price go from $0.50 per pack to over $4.00 per pack. The only thing that made a difference was making it illegal to smoke indoors, to protect neighbors from second-hand smoke.

IMO giving the government the ability to choose what is a good food and what is a junk food is also a bad idea.

The vegan lobby gets in there and decided that meat is a fattening food, and before you know it, there's a tax on meat.

Same for fat. And we know the sugar/starch lobby keeps telling us fat is what is making us fat, even though we got obese on a low-fat diet.

Just thinking out loud here: If you want the people to be thinner, put a tax on health care for obese people. The fatter you are, the higher your copay is. After, all, fat people cost the health care system more, and for most of us, being fat is preventable.

I'm sure there are reasons against this, too.

Depends on where you are - the federal tax on cigs is only a little over $1/pack, but state taxes on cigarettes range from 17 cents (Missouri) to $4.35 (NY). In addition most states charge sales tax (varies by state - ranges from 0% to nearly 10%), and some localities and cities have additional sales taxes (in some localities it's higher than the state tax). In all, the price for a pack of cigarettes ranges from a little over $6 to nearly $12.



Making it illegal to smoke in confined spaces certainly helped, especially in offices, restaurants, and stores.

Another thing that I believe has helped is really cracking down on underage cigarette sales. There was a time when parents could hand their little kid some money, and send them out on their bike to the corner store to buy them some cigarettes. And you know that if that kid had enough money of their own, they'd probably buy 2 packs and keep one for themselves, or sneak the occasional cigarette from mom or dad's pack when they weren't paying attention. Some parents even introduced their kids to the fine art of smoking, teaching them how to look cool with a cigarette hanging out of their mouth.

But kids can't buy cigarettes any more. Little kids, it's obvious they're underage. But local police depts have cracked down on underage sales so much that around here, the local police depts would recruit underage teens who looked like they were at least in their 20's to go into grocery stores, pharmacies, gas stations and anywhere else that sold tobacco to try to buy tobacco.

The cashier selling the cigarettes is supposed to confirm age with positive ID from anyone who looks like they might possibly be under the age of about 35 or 40 before selling them any tobacco products, and of course if the cashier neglects to card someone who happens to be under age and actually sells them tobacco, the cops are conveniently waiting right outside the store, so it doesn't go well for that cashier. It doesn't go well for the store either.

I think that's what has led to so many grocery stores and pharmacies around here discontinuing tobacco sales altogether. Pretty sure the convenience stores still sell tobacco, and of course there are some smoke and vape shops that specifically sell all things tobacco - but I think the fact that it's not quite as convenient to even buy tobacco as it used to be has helped cut down on smoking too, since they're not sold in nearly as many places as you used to be able to buy them.

Now that it's not quite so easy to for teens to get cigarettes, I think that has helped cut down on the total number of people even taking up the habit.

Nicorette and nicotine aversion drugs have helped some too - I used to have a customer who kept trying over and over to quit smoking. Apparently it was his New Year's resolution every year - He'd buy the Nicorette patches every January, but apparently his addiction was just too strong because he'd be back the next year trying again. I know someone else who even took a nicotine aversion drug, but for her it wasn't just about the nicotine addiction - it was about the nearly lifelong habit of lighting up, so she gave up and went back to smoking.

_________


I don't favor a health care tax on the obese as such. For far too many people it really isn't their fault they're obese, especially considering that the very same health care system has been giving us the wrong weight control information for the last 40-some years, and they're still constantly insisting that the only healthy way to lose weight is low fat/high fiber and 54 g of protein/day is plenty, be sure to exercise at least XX amount of time daily.

At the same time, the same health care professionals issuing dire warnings about the dangers of LC/Keto: unbalanced diet, unsustainable, heart attack on a plate, you'll have no energy, your body needs 300 g carbs daily, at least an absolute minimum of 130 g carbs daily, don't even think about going any lower than that.

If people trust their health care providers, they're following those recommendations. They're already blaming themselves for not being able to follow the advice perfectly, lose weight and keep it off for good. No need to tax them for trying to do what they've been told is the right thing to do for perfect health.

________

As far as a UPF tax - I think what the article said about taxing the companies that make addictive but nutritionally useless foods makes sense.

If the companies prefer to improve the UPF composition to meet certain nutrition standards instead of paying the tax, that's a least better.

If they want to keep it just as junky and addictive as possible and just go ahead and pay the tax, they'll need to increase the cost of the junk food to cover the tax. If the price goes up enough because of the tax, then less of that UPF will be sold. The more the price increases to cover what the company is paying as a junk food production tax, they'll eventually price those products out of the market, so the fewer people there are who will buy it. It'll eventually become a product that's not profitable enough to continue producing. They'll come up with something else, but perhaps learn something from the UPF tax and not make such junky food in the future.

The teens switched to raping, per my teen

Why should a metabolic disease be taxed??

Yes, I agree diet is the driving force but to belittle the people who are obese and have been given no effective remedy is degrading.

Perhaps we need more change at the medical advice level.


Overall, I would like to see aisles of snacks disappear. I love Diritos and indulge in a big back every 4-5 years. But I look I to carts at register and see poor choices, items that qualify as either meat or vegetable. Lots of breads and processed foods.


Another aspect is that the medical doctors specifically pediatricians, were to pressure moms into feeding low fat milk to stop the childhood obesity. How do I know?? Constant pressure from a pediatrician and staff. IMHO 2% v.5% is not a big dietary change when kids are regularly fed chips and pop tarts. I also knew a growing brain needs that fat. What we know now is that milk fat mitigates some of the blood glucose surge.

Also, vitD3 is added to fluid milk. No other dairy. My pediatrician want my kids to take vitD in pill form but never tested. Son developed bone issues that when told to give more calcium 🙄, I addressed all the nutrients required to build bone via using Mr Google.

Our medical system needs major improvement.

If you have a medical reason, verified by a doctor, you should be exempt from the tax.

But if you just eat too much, and/or eat the wrong foods, you should pay more for health care than those who are disciplined.

But the gov't should not be able to tax specific foods because they are fattening. Why? If the sugar lobby gives a candidate for office a million dollars in campaign funds (tacit bribe), what are the chances of a sugar tax? And what would be the chances of a fat tax? After all, sugar and fat equal flavor.

Since being obese makes your health care cost more, shouldn't the obese by choice pay more?

I would rather see the removal of subsidies on the main ingredients in junkfood. Then they would be priced higher, like they should be, without penalty taxes. Though taxes on sugar make sense, the food czars would probably then move on to taxing bioavailable real foods made from animals.

I have to wonder how this would even work with the current push for plant based foods, "My Plate", minimal protein, minimal fats, high fiber, and lots of carbs. <---- That's what's currently considered to be a healthy diet for everyone, especially those who need to lose weight.

The vast majority of health care professionals are going to insist that a pure calories in/calories out equation is the only way for their obese patients to lose weight, and restrict them to somewhere in the neighborhood of 1200-1500 calories, with the vast majority of those calories from carbs.

The logic is that a gram of carbohydrate only provides 4 calories, but a gram of fat provides 9 calories - the equation says that you cut your fat consumption because every gram of fat has 2.25 times the calories of a gram of carbohydrate. So you can theoretically eat 2.25 times more carbohydrate for the same number of calories, so that on that low fat/high fiber diet your stomach won't feel so empty. (ironically, protein is also 4 calories per gram - but you supposedly don't "need" more than 54 g of protein daily, and you can get that pitifully small amount from fat-free plant based foods... so doctors will advise you to cut out most animal based proteins)

Carbs are important in that equation because you'll need all those carbs to fuel your workouts in order to use more calories.

Or at least that's how the standard weight loss theory goes - and it's an extremely rare medical professional, dietician or nutritionist who will even consider that might not be the best way to lose weight and maintain weight loss.


Never mind that even health care professionals and dieticians have seen the long term results of the Biggest Loser contestants. The few who have been able to keep the weight off seriously struggle because such a low calorie, primarily carb based diet is simply not sustainable. The very few who have managed to keep most of their weight off after doing that show basically work at it like it's a full time job - counting calories, and exercising intensely for hours every day.


So what you're proposing is that everyone who is obese somehow figures out on their own that super low calories isn't going to work long term, and decides on their own to make the change to a low carb diet (or some diet that actually works long term for them), because I can guarantee you that **no one in a position of authority over what constitutes a healthy diet would dare tell them to eat low carb. Oh sure they'll tell them to cut out the fast food and junk food - and cutting those out may help some because that helps cut back on carbs, but as long as they're still eating mostly carbs, they're going to be craving more and more carbs, and will either start regaining weight, or just give up altogether and go back to the junk food.

[**At least they won't get that message from health care professionals and dieticians/nutritionists in the US - keep in mind that the article quoted above is from the UK, where they have a national health care system - and there is at least the beginnings of an official stance in the UK about cutting carbs to control diabetes, thanks to Dr Unwin's success with diabetic patients.]


Or the doctors can put all the morbidly obese on GLP-1 drugs, which will accomplish the same thing as the low cal/mostly carbs diet, but they need to be on those drugs for life to keep the weight off. And with the price of those drugs, they'll already be paying more, since the co-pay for brand name drugs is generally based on a percentage of the drug's full price.

I would hope that Drs in the US are pushing low fat/high fiber/more carbs because they're truly convinced it's the best way to eat for health.

The food industry though? Considering that the tobacco companies started buying up UPF food companies when tobacco sales started dropping, and subsequently applied their experience in making tobacco products more addictive to the UPF industry, I doubt they give a single thought to anyone's health, and are only concerned about their bottom line. The only way they'll change how they conduct business is if it is no longer profitable to run their business that way - it has to start costing them more to produce junky UPFs than customers are willing to pay in order for them to give up their current business model.

Obese people are not obese because they want to be.

Correct and beneficial information from doctors is virtually non-existent. It's still eat from the pyramid material.

I had to see a dietitian because I had gestational diabetes. Recommended three meals, three snacks. Apples, bananas, graham crackers.

Fortunately, I had read DANDR, so tossed all the handouts in the trash when I got home. And followed DANDR.

However, even Dr A did not recommend a weight loss level. I gained eating good quality foods. Because I was put on insulin!! During last month, I lost 10#. We now know a ketogenic diet is safe.

Without reading DANDR, I would not know about a proper diet. Unfortunately, the insulin made the situation worse. ( Insulin levels managed by an Endo during second pregnancy. All about more insulin, not about food.)

When I went back years later,it was same woman same talk. She had learned nothing new. And certainly my own primaries have been poor at best. From not recognizing a stroke to no support when Hba1c hit 6.1......

Even my mother doesn't believe the nutritional info J share with her. It must be doctor approved.

Ive had 4 years more nutrition at university than any doctor. Doctors dont learn nutrition here in the US.

How are people to learn another way when doctors poopoo a ketogenic diet?

Pediatricians post a plate, With a glass of milk. I taught my kids better nutrition than that. But we are surrounded with crap. I ate at a good restaurant the other day, and felt off soon after eating there. What was in the sauce, a butter sauce? How much sugar was in the salad dressing??

Who is protecting the public from poor quality food? Ive been to that restaurant before, but I will not go back. The place is popular and packed. Eating at home, I know every ingredient.

Should I be taxed for being fat?? But what if I eat low carb and dont have any health issues??

( I have an ex-friend that looks like jabba the hut. And his wife. And two adult kids. He gets free health care. And uses hospital services for complications of his obesity. No matter how many YT videos put out by Dr Berry and Dr Cywes I sent him , he did not change. I stopped contact with him. A lost cause. The medical professional needs an overhaul on nutrition. That is a big factor. No doctor told him to change his food.)

Dr Ken Berry has speared headed the American Diabetes Society to combat the deleterious info put out by the ADA.


The US doesn't have universal health care, at this time. Getting obesity and its associated metabolic diseases under control would save billions$$.

Do those same subsidies also feed the cattle, hogs and chickens????bet they do.

I do not want the government deciding what foods are healthy to eat and what foods are unhealthy and should be taxed because the government has shown itself, over many decades, to be ignorant of what consitutes a healthy way of eating.

I do not want the medical profession, so ignorant of what constitutes good nutrition and what eating habits support ill health, to decide who is allowed to be obese and who should be taxed for it.

The science on the dangers of cigarettes was clear and unequivocal. Nutrtional science, as Dr Richard Feinman stated in his book “The World Turned Upsidedown” is an oxymoron. Taxing cigarettes made sense based on the science. Taxing food and the obese makes no sense since it would be based on eroneous data.

I agree that taxing foods is wrong. Having the government telling me what I can and cannot eat is wrong, because, the governors don't know, and the governors can be influenced.

If the sugar companies put a couple of millions in the campaign funds of a candidate, do you think that candidate would tax sugar? (substitute any other food for sugar).

One person may do better eating a vegan diet, another a carnivore diet, and so many variables in between. Who is to say what is best for everyone, even if tacit bribes aren't part of the equation?

I agree with Ms Arielle in that obese people are not that way because they want to be. But I also think that many are obese because they are more interested in the foods they love than being lean.

I come from an obese family. Parents and siblings are all over 300 pounds. I was well on the way. Extend this to grandparents, and most of the aunts and uncles on both sides of the family. I didn't have much of a chance, and they didn't set a good example.

Did my parents choose to be obese? No but daily trips to the doughnut store, lots of pasta, dessert at every meal, snacks galore, sweet cakes for breakfast french fries, white bread, apple pie, and other bad habits didn't help.

My dad got type 2 diabetes, and instead of cutting out the sweets, he ate drugs that upped his insulin until the insulin burned out the blood vessels feeding his heart and those inside his kidneys.

Every day he would have doughnuts and coffee with his obese brother, who is also not with us anymore. He knew the doughnuts and the other sweets were the problem, but chose to eat them anyway. He didn't choose to be obese, but didn't choose to control his cravings either.

As a young guy well over 250 and rising, I saw my parent's early demise as one of my possible futures. That woke me up.

I tried a few until I found out what diet was right for me, which may or may not be the best diet for the next person. My weight is in the 170s and holding for decades now. It puts my BMI at the top of the normal range.

I eat a limited diet, and my portions are much smaller than the average person's. I want to eat more, and I love doughnuts, french fries, macaroni, layer cake, and a zillion other things I don't eat anymore. After 30+ years, I still miss them.

If you don't have a medical reason why you are obese, I firmly believe you should pay more for your health care.

Why should people like me who fight to keep their weight down. Those who deny themselves doughnuts, key lime pies, macaroni, pancakes, cinnamon buns, french fries, bread, and dozens of other foods we love, even though we dearly miss them, pay for people who choose to eat the wrong foods and cost the health care system billions of dollars.

After all, drivers who get a lot of tickets pay more for car insurance. Shouldn't obese people pay more for health insurance?

It certainly would be a fairer way than taxing certain foods.

In the end, medical science couldn't save my dad's heart and kidneys, or mom's brain after multiple strokes. They lived a shorter life, but enjoyed eating a lot more than I do. They didn't choose to be obese, but it was their choice.

You've mentioned repeatedly that if there's a metabolic or medical reason for being obese, then there should be no higher co-pays/insurance premiums, but that everyone has the choice to control their diet and therefore control their weight.

But diabetes IS considered to be a metabolic illness, as well as a medical condition. I don't know how long ago your Dad passed away from diabetes complications - but I'm pretty sure it's always been considered a metabolic and medical condition - which is why they treat it with drugs when diet is not effective.

And in most cases, diet isn't effective - at least not long term, because if you already have enough insulin resistance (technically called metabolic syndrome, i.e. a metabolic condition) to be diagnosed as diabetic, then more than minimal carbs are likely to exacerbate the severity of the metabolic syndrome, raising blood sugar, increasing weight, resulting in giving up on even trying to control it with diet.

I think we need to clarify that not only is the diabetic diet entirely too high in carbs these days to fully control the blood sugar, but also that it was too high in carbs to fully control the blood sugar of a diabetic even back in the early 70's - which is when I was put on a diabetic diet to control my hypoglycemia. If not for the fact that I found the allowed portions of carby foods such as bread and potatoes to be so pathetically small that I thought it would be much easier to simply cut them out altogether than to try to limit how much I consumed, I would not have done as well as I did on that diet. Consequently, my carbs were considerably lower than the typical diabetic diet allowed even back then.

Nowadays, a diabetes diagnosis is automatically considered to be a metabolic condition to be primarily handled as a medical condition by drugs such as metformin, and insulin injections. Some doctors may give their newly diagnosed patient a diabetic diet to follow, but it's so much higher in carbs than it was back in the 70's (especially with the magical thinking that high carb foods that have a little fiber in them will somehow miraculously prevent the high carb content of the food from raising blood sugar significantly), and the entire medical industry seems to have a defeatist attitude about anyone following a diabetic diet anyway, because they know it's near impossible to undo generations of traditionally high carb diets (like you grew up with), not to mention decades of eating high carb before it catches up with them in the form of a diagnosis of obesity, metabolic syndrome, or diabetes.

A lot of doctors don't even bother to talk about controlling carbs to bring blood sugar numbers down these days - I know someone who had a shockingly high, full-blown diagnosable A1c about 8 months ago. The Dr was willing to give this person a few months to "try" to bring it down through diet, then do another A1c. He obviously did not think it was possible to make much of a difference. But this person went on an all-out carb controlled diet, testing blood sugars 2 hours after every single meal to determine what carb level was problematic, as well as which foods were affecting higher readings the most, measuring and tracking every single food consumed. The results were of course what those of us who are LCers would expect: The A1c came down dramatically, to the point that the Dr was utterly shocked, said he'd never seen anyone bring it down that much through diet alone.




You bucked the trend with your own stubborn determination that you were absolutely not going to be caught in the same downward spiral of poor health as the rest of your family. That shows what is truly unusual fortitude in the face of generations of eating habits passed down to you.

It also shows fierce determination to avoid the temptations in all those middle aisles of the grocery stores with their snacks, candies, sodas, and other pre-fab foods, as well as the lure of the dangerous parts of the perimeter of the store (bakery area, sweetened yogurts, pudding, custards and such in the dairy area), and last but not least the impulse candy and snacks while waiting in the checkout line. You have every right to be proud of your fierce determination to stick to your diet...

But you also managed to find a diet that worked well for you. Yes, you said you tried a few diets before you found the one that worked for you.

But how many low cal/low fat diets did you try? That's what most people try to do because those are the "healthy" diets - and they've tried dozens and dozens of them, believing each one to be truly different diets that somehow work differently. There are hundreds (if not thousands) of diets out there like that - As long as someone with metabolic syndrome or diabetes is still afraid to try any kind of LC diet, they're simply not going to see good blood sugar control - or be able to sustain weight loss.

(The individual I mentioned who improved their A1c so much in just a few months that the Dr was shocked at the results? That person is still very much caught up in the "fat is evil" propaganda, still eating minimal fats, especially avoiding saturated fats and cholesterol, and trying to avoid any animal fats whenever possible, which means eating minimal protein because - animal proteins = bad because there's always some sat fat and cholesterol in them, even if only a little bit)



... and this brings us back to the fact that metabolic syndrome and diabetes ARE considered to be medical reasons for obesity.

Two side notes.

One.
Dr Atkins explained how I'm a carb addict. If I eat a slice of cake, I want MORE. As a late teen, I ate the whole cake in one night. Then made another the next day.

I almost cried that I was not a failure. The key was don't eat the carby foods. Eat from the safe list.

Dr Cywes carries the torch now, as he is a carbalocic, too.

I don't have will power around food. So off limits foods are not purchased. My boys know to take snack foods to their room, out of my sight.

Two.

Dr Berry has spear headed a new diabetes group. American Diabetes Society. Where people will receive correct information. Hope they can withstand attacks that are sure to come.

This is a Comment piece in a similar vein, published in The Telegraph earlier this week: