Should Thailand tax junk food to help fight obesity?

[mogandave]

Are you really saying gasoline is not taxed in Thailand?

If so, you are misinformed.

[transam]

Again, people can play muddying obfuscation games all they like, but YES we do know for a fact an increase in obesity definitely translates into an increase of very serious obesity related diseases. It isn't rocket science, folks, to figure that a decrease in obesity is a desirable thing for a society that both cares about their population's well being and also wishes to save money on health care costs, which in Thailand's case the state IS involved in.

You have dodged a few issues regarding other stuff that LOS should be doing to take care of it's folk that IS supposed to be protected by in place laws, and so you worry about perhaps folk popping off a few years early via your insinuation that farang food influx is far more serious.

[StreetCowboy]

Are you really saying gasoline is not taxed in Thailand? If so, you are misinformed.

I'm really saying that motor fuel is subsidised in Thailand.

"In Thailand, consumer subsidies exist for five energy products: LPG, natural gas for vehicles (NGV),

diesel, electricity and biofuel blends.

In the case of LPG, the government sets an ex-refinery price that is below the cost of production or

acquisition on the world market. It then pays the difference to the LPG refiner or importer. NGV retail

prices are also set below the cost of production. NGV is produced and distributed solely by PTT Public

company limited (the majority government-owned petroleum company) and the government does

not reimburse PTT for losses incurred by selling NGV below cost."

http://www.iisd.org/gsi/sites/default/files/ffs_thailand_czguide.pdf

Edited January 11, 2014 by StreetCowboy

[Jingthing]

Again, people can play muddying obfuscation games all they like, but YES we do know for a fact an increase in obesity definitely translates into an increase of very serious obesity related diseases. It isn't rocket science, folks, to figure that a decrease in obesity is a desirable thing for a society that both cares about their population's well being and also wishes to save money on health care costs, which in Thailand's case the state IS involved in.

You have dodged a few issues regarding other stuff that LOS should be doing to take care of it's folk that IS supposed to be protected by in place laws, and so you worry about perhaps folk popping off a few years early via your insinuation that farang food influx is far more serious.

1. Obesity often kills off people much sooner than so called few years early.

2. I never said the obesity problem in Thailand is only about western food so please stop putting words in my mouth, again and again and again, that I NEVER said

[StreetCowboy]

You haven't really said what you mean by junk food.

Perhaps you'd like to add a little clarity to what specifically you propose should be taxed.

SC

[Thai at Heart]

So again, what have you decided needs to be done about the sugar that is killing all the fat Thais?

It's not my call but I think they should consider a substance tax on ALL sugars. Or if not, at least watch closely to look at results from other countries.

Also make transfats illegal in processed commercial products.

Require labeling for food products in retail stores with clear icons about danger levels for danger substances.

Try to encourage manufacturers to offer actually healthier choices at normal prices (not easy).

PR campaign to make half hulled rice SEXY. (Why not?)

Sure throw in the education campaign as well.

Require labeling for food products in retail stores...

Sure throw in the education campaign as well.

Those are the only two items in your list that I would agree with.

As for the rest, you are assuming that you are better equipped than I to make those choices for me. I find that both arrogant and insulting. I am educated and intelligent enough to make those decisions for myself. If I choose to have two spoons of sugar in my coffee, who are you to tell me that I shouldn't? Who do you think you are to advocate that I should be exorbitantly taxed for that small pleasure?

You exhibit the traits of far too many 'Public Health' jobsworths, who think they should be the moral arbiters of the human condition. What arrogance! What hubris! Just who do you think you are?

I tell you what. I won't seek to pass judgement on your lifestyle if you will extend me the same courtesy, ok? So no more talk of coercion through taxes, ok?

We don't need self-righteous do-gooders hectoring us daily, thank you. We can muddle along just fine without them, and probably enjoy our lives a lot more into the bargain. And if our lives are somewhat truncated as a result of the lifestyle we've chosen, then so be it. You may see quantity as the ultimate goal, but I would go for quality.

As Kingsley Amis once perspicaciously quipped:

No pleasure is worth giving up for the sake of two more years in a geriatric home at Weston-super-Mare

It isn't the two spoons you choose to put in your coffee it's the 10 hiding in your frosted cereals or your Starbucks wholegrain muffin or frappocino..

[Thai at Heart]

Are you really saying gasoline is not taxed in Thailand? If so, you are misinformed.

I'm really saying that motor fuel is subsidised in Thailand.

"In Thailand, consumer subsidies exist for five energy products: LPG, natural gas for vehicles (NGV),

diesel, electricity and biofuel blends.

In the case of LPG, the government sets an ex-refinery price that is below the cost of production or

acquisition on the world market. It then pays the difference to the LPG refiner or importer. NGV retail

prices are also set below the cost of production. NGV is produced and distributed solely by PTT Public

company limited (the majority government-owned petroleum company) and the government does

not reimburse PTT for losses incurred by selling NGV below cost."

http://www.iisd.org/gsi/sites/default/files/ffs_thailand_czguide.pdf

The sugar price in thailand is also controlled to below the market level.

[Jingthing]

You haven't really said what you mean by junk food.

Perhaps you'd like to add a little clarity to what specifically you propose should be taxed.

SC

Read the thread. It has evolved.

Edited January 11, 2014 by Jingthing

[StreetCowboy]

You haven't really said what you mean by junk food.

Perhaps you'd like to add a little clarity to what specifically you propose should be taxed.

SC

Read the thread. It has evolved.

Correct. That's why I offered you the chance to tell us exactly what you are talking about, rather than trying to extrapolate from the moving goal posts that we have seen to date.

SC

[nisakiman]

Cigarettes, alcoholic drinks and gasoline are taxed everywhere, it's exactly the same kind of tax. Has nothing to do with morality or Puritanism.

As far as cigarettes and alcohol are concerned, it has everything to do with morality and puritanism. Why on earth do you think they call them 'sin taxes'?

[Jingthing]

Correct. That's why I offered you the chance to tell us exactly what you are talking about, rather than trying to extrapolate from the moving goal posts that we have seen to date.

SC

I already did,

Edited January 11, 2014 by Jingthing

[StreetCowboy]

Cigarettes, alcoholic drinks and gasoline are taxed everywhere, it's exactly the same kind of tax. Has nothing to do with morality or Puritanism.

As far as cigarettes and alcohol are concerned, it has everything to do with morality and puritanism. Why on earth do you think they call them 'sin taxes'?

In order to ridicule them.

In the case of cigarettes and alcohol (and petrol) it's all about raising revenue from robust sources for which the demand is inelastic.

SC

[transam]

You haven't really said what you mean by junk food.

Perhaps you'd like to add a little clarity to what specifically you propose should be taxed.

SC

Read the thread. It has evolved.

Correct. That's why I offered you the chance to tell us exactly what you are talking about, rather than trying to extrapolate from the moving goal posts that we have seen to date.

SC

I already did,

Don't think so..............

[Jingthing]

Don't think so..............

Then I can't help you. I would know what I already did, wouldn't I?

[StreetCowboy]

Yes which is why the thinking is now moving towards attacking entire SUBSTANCES, namely SUGAR products.

I think they should consider a substance tax on ALL sugars. Or if not, at least watch closely to look at results from other countries.

Also make transfats illegal in processed commercial products.

a substance tax on sugar would need to include all kinds of sugars (yes corn syrup!), and I think fake ones as in "Diet" soda as well

I am thinking more a tax on SUGAR as a substance is better. I think fake corn syrup needs to be included as well as artificial sweeteners

Is that a fair summary?

SC

[David48]

...

I ask myself even if there might really be an increase, do we actually know if such an increase would have adverse effects on the overall population health?

Yes, health scientists KNOW that an increase in obesity always means an increase in serious obesity related diseases. There is NO question about that. None at all. There is some question about the level of health problems associated with mere overweight (short of obesity) and also keep in mind normal weight and thin people get heart attacks too! Also some people labeled as obese based on rough BMI are actually not obese because of muscle content. BMI really is much better for more average bodied modern people. Muscles weigh a lot.

This is a classical mistake. You are confusing medical/ clinical evidence with evidence for population health and fudging two disciplines. No policy maker in their right mind makes informed decision based on evidence from the former.

To illustrate this mistake: Even if you were to "deprive" the needy who suffer from obesity afflictions of their junk food, the overall mortality and morbidity of the masses may not decline as the needy masses might be subject to a whole range of other contributing factors that increases mortality and morbidity rates. Medical and clinical evidence can never untangle this and is merely indicative for population health scientists.

Since you reduced my two-fold argument about the starting premise to one point, let me quote eminent contributor Naam. "-how many of Thailand's 65 million inhabitants can afford to eat junk food regularly?"

This is the crucial point. A tax on junk food in the West is highly controversial, because it is de facto a tax on the poor; a tax on those with the highest health problems and with the least access to proper health care. Currently this is the exact opposite in Thailand, i.e. junk food is consumed by those who are wealthy and have the best means to access adequate health care.

Overall the JT's thread has highlighted many important issues here that need to be investigated further and clarified in a proper discursive manner.

Morakot, it appears your excellent post has been deemed as above worthy of debate because it doesn't comply with the agenda of this thread.

Which is a shame of course because you have elegantly identified and expalined issues with a critical mind to a level of detail which is commendable.

[David48]

Correct. That's why I offered you the chance to tell us exactly what you are talking about, rather than trying to extrapolate from the moving goal posts that we have seen to date.

SC

I already did,

I've read all the posts on this thread ... sadly JT, you haven't defined them.

Of, course, in a right of reply. you might wish to offer up the posts where you have succinctly defined them.

[Jingthing]

Attacking sugar as a substance is not the same thing as targeting specific commercial products that contain high levels of harmful "food" substances. This issue isn't going away. As different countries try different things, and different countries do nothing, potential effective solutions will become more clear. In history, this globesity problem is rather fresh. The potential societal solutions even fresher.

Ideology has a role. More progressive people do have a tendency to more open minded about potentially effective societal level solutions. More "conservative" people do have a tendency to be more resistant to change of any kind that threatens the STATUS QUO, and social action from governments even more so. This is one reason the USA is going to be very slow in taking this kind of action, because at its core it's a majority center right wing country. Thailand is now in political transition. It's hard to know how it will turn out in regard to the kind of political majority that would be interested in this kind of societal action against Thai globesity. Not anytime soon, that's for sure.

Edited January 11, 2014 by Jingthing

[StreetCowboy]

Attacking sugar as a substance is not the same thing as targeting specific commercial products that contain high levels of harmful "food" substances. This issue isn't going away. As different countries try different things, and different countries do nothing, potential effective solutions will become more clear. In history, this globesity problem is rather fresh. The potential societal solutions even fresher.

Ideology has a role. More progressive people do have a tendency to more open minded about potentially effective societal level solutions. More "conservative" people do have a tendency to be more resistant to change of any kind that threatens the STATUS QUO, and social action from governments even more so. This is one reason the USA is going to be very slow in taking this kind of action, because at its core it's a majority center right wing country. Thailand is now in political transition. It's hard to know how it will turn out in regard to the kind of political majority that would be interested in this kind of societal action against Thai globesity. Not anytime soon, that's for sure.

So what do you actually propose? An excise duty on a certain range of food substances, such as trans fats and a variety of sugars? That will certainly stimulate the industry to keep one step ahead in their search for new sweeteners.

You also proposed a tax on artificial sweeteners; I assume again this would be an excise tax on those specific substances that were deemed to be artificial sweeteners. Again, a tremendous boost to food technology research to keep one step ahead of the exciseman.

SC

[Jingthing]

Not interested in this game to get bogged down in minutiae of exact tax rates or enforcement challenges. This is at general theory level, we're just talking. That kind of detail work is a specialized area. I've made my general position clear. If manufacturers come up with a fake sugar that is proven NOT to stimulate obesity, which I think is in the realm of science, and proven with credible studies, there would no rational reason to target that substance. Before then, of course if all real and fake sugars were targeted the entire area of sweeteners would need firm regulation. I get where this is going and I'm not buying it. It's too complicated, it's impossible. I don't accept that. If the will is there, it's possible.

This concept of targeting ALL sugars and ALL fake sugars is not actually something I've really heard about before. Only the attacking ALL sugars. It seems to me you NEED to do both because of the strong evidence even artificial sugars stimulate obesity. I know it sounds radical. Not sure any country will try it anytime soon, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't.

On transfats, I have already said many times, my suggestion would to be make them 100 percent illegal in all commercial packaged products. I've also said I don't see regulating street food as being a realistic goal. Do I have to say the exact same thing 100 times before it registers?

Edited January 11, 2014 by Jingthing

[StreetCowboy]

Not interested in this game to get bogged down in minutiae of exact tax rates or enforcement challenges. This is at general theory level, we're just talking. That kind of detail work is a specialized area. I've made my general position clear. If manufacturers come up with a fake sugar that is proven NOT to stimulate obesity, which I think is in the realm of science, and proven with credible studies, there would no rational reason to include that substance. Before then, of course if all real and fake sugars were targeted the entire area of sweeteners would need firm regulation. I get were this is going and I'm not buying it. It's too complicated, it's impossible. I don't accept that. If the will is there, it's possible.

Food companies will provide the products that people buy.

Taxation on certain ingredients will encourage them to find alternative ingredients in order to provide those products without the artificial costs that are associated with the current ingredients. Then, the inland revenue's scientists will try to show that these alternative ingredients are also harmful, and therefore should be subject to tax, and so there will be a great boost to food research - ideal for my mate the biochemist, but since it is driven by tax rather than product or health, not particularly productive.

Meanwhile, there will be great opportunities for villains converting subsidised gasahol into syrup, and opportunities to bung the exciseman a little Christmas bonus to adjust your trans fat percentage readings

Meanwhile we treat our population as ignorant consumers unable to make decisions for themselves, reliant on financial carrot-and-stick cajoling from government.. We should blame consumers for what they buy and eat, not the producers.

SC

Edited January 11, 2014 by StreetCowboy

[transam]

Not interested in this game to get bogged down in minutiae of exact tax rates or enforcement challenges. This is at general theory level, we're just talking. That kind of detail work is a specialized area. I've made my general position clear. If manufacturers come up with a fake sugar that is proven NOT to stimulate obesity, which I think is in the realm of science, and proven with credible studies, there would no rational reason to target that substance. Before then, of course if all real and fake sugars were targeted the entire area of sweeteners would need firm regulation. I get where this is going and I'm not buying it. It's too complicated, it's impossible. I don't accept that. If the will is there, it's possible.

This concept of targeting ALL sugars and ALL fake sugars is not actually something I've really heard about before. Only the attacking ALL sugars. It seems to me you NEED to do both because of the strong evidence even artificial sugars stimulate obesity. I know it sounds radical. Not sure any country will try it anytime soon, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't.

On transfats, I have already said many times, my suggestion would to be make them 100 percent illegal in all commercial packaged products. I've also said I don't see regulating street food as being a realistic goal. Do I have to say the exact same thing 100 times before it registers?

No porkies now, what is your waist measurement ?...............Remember, nooooooooooo porkies, be honest.

[Jingthing]

It's not all or nothing mate. Yes I agree most consumers don't have a clue and the big food biz takes advantage of that. The government also has a role in this. As I've already mentioned several times, CLEAR LABELING including Danger Icons for harmful levels of harmful substances should in my view be mandated. Education in schools, public media campaigns, raise awareness, sure, of course.

Edited January 11, 2014 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

No porkies now, what is your waist measurement ?...............Remember, nooooooooooo porkies, be honest.

None of your bloody business. This thread is about Thailand government policy, not about any one person's waist size.

Edited January 11, 2014 by Jingthing

[StreetCowboy]

Trans fats occur naturally in bovine products. I think a more sensible approach would be to force people to have healthy lifestyles by compulsory exercise. Anyone found being fat on the street and not riding a bicycle would be forced to do sit ups, press ups, a bit of running and so forth. Three offences, and you lose your driving license. That would get us fit.

I was in the bike shop today, and I noticed a bloke buying a folding bike that he could carry with him everywhere he went, in anticipation of this

SC

[Jingthing]

Trans fats occur naturally in bovine products. I think a more sensible approach would be to force people to have healthy lifestyles by compulsory exercise. Anyone found being fat on the street and not riding a bicycle would be forced to do sit ups, press ups, a bit of running and so forth. Three offences, and you lose your driving license. That would get us fit.

I was in the bike shop today, and I noticed a bloke buying a folding bike that he could carry with him everywhere he went, in anticipation of this

SC

Actually obesity specialists consensus is that food intake is much more of an important factor in development of obesity than level of exercise.

To wit:

http://slinkingtowardretirement.com/?p=176834

4. The problem is not that we eat too much, but that we are too sedentary.

First lady Michelle Obama’s “Let’s Move” campaign is based on the idea that if kids exercised more, childhood obesity rates would decline. But according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there was no significant decrease in physical activity levels as obesity rates climbed in the 1980s and 1990s. In fact, although a drop in work-related physical activity may account for up to 100 fewer calories burned, leisure physical activity appears to have increased, and Americans keep tipping the scales.

There is compelling evidence that the increase in calories consumed explains the rise in obesity. The National Health and Nutrition Examination found that people take in, on average, more than 500 more calories per day now than they did in the late 1970s, before obesity rates accelerated.That’s like having Christmas dinner twice a week or more. It wouldn’t be a problem if we stuffed ourselves only once a year, but all-you-can-eat feasts are now available all the time. It’s nearly impossible for most of us to exercise enough to burn off these excess calories.

In any case, your idea does sound like something from a totalitarian state. I think it's also a silly idea. Biking everywhere in Thailand would be extremely hazardous in probably most of the places that most Thais live.

Edited January 11, 2014 by Jingthing

[Thai at Heart]

...

I ask myself even if there might really be an increase, do we actually know if such an increase would have adverse effects on the overall population health?

Yes, health scientists KNOW that an increase in obesity always means an increase in serious obesity related diseases. There is NO question about that. None at all. There is some question about the level of health problems associated with mere overweight (short of obesity) and also keep in mind normal weight and thin people get heart attacks too! Also some people labeled as obese based on rough BMI are actually not obese because of muscle content. BMI really is much better for more average bodied modern people. Muscles weigh a lot.

This is a classical mistake. You are confusing medical/ clinical evidence with evidence for population health and fudging two disciplines. No policy maker in their right mind makes informed decision based on evidence from the former.

To illustrate this mistake: Even if you were to "deprive" the needy who suffer from obesity afflictions of their junk food, the overall mortality and morbidity of the masses may not decline as the needy masses might be subject to a whole range of other contributing factors that increases mortality and morbidity rates. Medical and clinical evidence can never untangle this and is merely indicative for population health scientists.

Since you reduced my two-fold argument about the starting premise to one point, let me quote eminent contributor Naam. "-how many of Thailand's 65 million inhabitants can afford to eat junk food regularly?"

This is the crucial point. A tax on junk food in the West is highly controversial, because it is de facto a tax on the poor; a tax on those with the highest health problems and with the least access to proper health care. Currently this is the exact opposite in Thailand, i.e. junk food is consumed by those who are wealthy and have the best means to access adequate health care.

Overall the JT's thread has highlighted many important issues here that need to be investigated further and clarified in a proper discursive manner.

Morakot, it appears your excellent post has been deemed as above worthy of debate because it doesn't comply with the agenda of this thread.

Which is a shame of course because you have elegantly identified and expalined issues with a critical mind to a level of detail which is commendable.

It is extremely debatable as to whether it is a defacto tax on the poor.

The outcome is yet not completely quantifiable. If the result is that the manufacturers of high sugar food, simply reduce the amount of sugar in the product to keep the same price, how is that a penalty on the poor?

If they put only 3 spoons in a coke instead of 6, and the consumers don't notice, but the price stays the same hire is this a penalty on the poor?

Bear in mind, it is a well known practice to know that the sweetest say soda drinks of a sector sell the most. There is another option I suppose which would be to mandate a maximum percentage of added sugar to any drink or foodstuff.

I had a bowl of frosted shreddies the other day and man oh man how sweet it was. Cheerios aren't any better. Kelloggs and Nestlé need their asses kicked over this. I was in Mcds in the uk the other day and when you actually study the menu to see the sugar and calories in the stuff (as mandated by law)it really becomes apparent how pointless it is as food.

Edited January 11, 2014 by Thai at Heart

[StreetCowboy]

...

It is extremely debatable as to whether it is a defacto tax on the poor.

The outcome is yet not completely quantifiable. If the result is that the manufacturers of high sugar food, simply reduce the amount of sugar in the product to keep the same price, how is that a penalty on the poor?

If they put only 3 spoons in a coke instead of 6, and the consumers don't notice, but the price stays the same hire is this a penalty on the poor?

Bear in mind, it is a well known practice to know that the sweetest say soda drinks of a sector sell the most. There is another option I suppose which would be to mandate a maximum percentage of added sugar to any drink or foodstuff.

I had a bowl of frosted shreddies the other day and man oh man how sweet it was. Cheerios aren't any better. Kelloggs and Nestlé need their asses kicked over this. I was in Mcds in the uk the other day and when you actually study the menu to see the sugar and calories in the stuff (as mandated by law)it really becomes apparent how pointless it is as food.

Why do manufacturers need punished because you buy their food?

Why didn't you eat corn flakes, and add on as much sugar as you wanted?

You'll die from lack of calories faster than from lack of vitamins or minerals; it's up to you how you take them, and whether you take enough or too much.

Anyway, JT's going to hammer artificial sweeteners, so low-calorie sodas will be expensive too, because fat people drink those.

SC

[Jingthing]

Seeking out unsweetened cereals in Pattaya, the choice of non-sugared ones is EXTREMELY limited. Of course you can buy grains, oatmeal, etc. but it's like the game is rigged. The one or two choices that are unsweetened of course very expensive. Are people demanding the sweet sugars? Yes. But something really stinks in the healthier choices being so limited and so expensive. I do not believe demand tells the whole story in what's on the shelf. I think the companies manufacture the demand to some or a great degree.

So yes I do think the large food companies (with assistance of retailers) share some of the blame for globesity. I don't pretend to have all the answers on how to "persuade" them to be better, but the problem is there.

Edited January 11, 2014 by Jingthing

[StreetCowboy]

Seeking out unsweetened cereals in Pattaya, the choice of non-sugared ones is EXTREMELY limited. Of course you can buy grains, oatmeal, etc. but it's like the game is rigged. The one or two choices that are unsweetened of course very expensive. Are people demanding the sweet sugars? Yes. But something really stinks in the healthier choices being so limited and so expensive. I do not believe demand tells the whole story in what's on the shelf. I think the companies manufacture the demand to some or a great degree.

So yes I do think the large food companies (with assistance of retailers) share some of the blame for globesity. I don't pretend to have all the answers on how to "persuade" them to be better, but the problem is there.

Well it's up to the consumer to hit them where it hurts, and buy healthy products., to the best of their ability.

I'd rather pay for more hospitals than necessary than pay for more tax inspectors and interfering bureaucrats than necessary.

SC