Should Thailand tax junk food to help fight obesity?

[Jingthing]

Big on topic news released today!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-25576400

The number of overweight and obese adults in the developing world has almost quadrupled to around one billion since 1980, says a report from a UK think tank.

...


To combat the rising tide of obesity, Mr Wiggins recommends more concerted public health measures from governments, similar to those taken to limit smoking in developed countries.

He said: "Politicians need to be less shy about trying to influence what food ends up on our plates.

"The challenge is to make healthy diets viable whilst reducing the appeal of foods which carry a less certain nutritional value."

[mogandave]

Big on topic news released today!

_72041607_percentage_of_overweight_adults_region_464gr.gif

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-25576400

The number of overweight and obese adults in the developing world has almost quadrupled to around one billion since 1980, says a report from a UK think tank.

...

To combat the rising tide of obesity, Mr Wiggins recommends more concerted public health measures from governments, similar to those taken to limit smoking in developed countries.

He said: "Politicians need to be less shy about trying to influence what food ends up on our plates.

"The challenge is to make healthy diets viable whilst reducing the appeal of foods which carry a less certain nutritional value."

This says nothing about taxing rice...

[David48]

Big on topic news released today!

The number of overweight and obese adults in the developing world has almost quadrupled to around one billion since 1980, says a report from a UK think tank.

In the 34 years (since 1980) does the report also mention the population growth in the Developing Countries?

I didn't see an specific facts for Thailand ... just the Asian Nations grouped together which, from a Thai perspective, makes it statistically irrelevant.

Does the report suggest a Fat Tax or a junk food tax?

.

[Jingthing]

Already documented here multiple times that Thailand is up there in Asean countries in obesity rates. Some have more serious problems than others and Thailand is a more serious case. Again, already documented.

The graph shows PERCENTAGES of populations. Do the math.

No the article didn't mention rice. Where did anyone get the impression this topic is limited to rice?!?

No the article doesn't suggest taxation measures. More of a general call for more ACTION from governments. Whatever works.

It is in the earlier stages of knowing for sure what government measures might work and yes of course there are cultural factors that are different in different countries.

One flaw in the article is I think they overblow the obesity problem by including overweight people with the obese. I don't think they should do that. It's more accurate to separate the two classes.

Some credible obesity experts don't even believe that mere overweight status is much of a health risk, in fact in some aspects there are health benefits in that (such as surviving heart attacks). Yes normal and underweight people can get heart attacks too. Overweight people are of course ON THE ROAD to obesity and that should be a concern, but again misleading to group the classes together.

Another thing about the overweight, not obese people. With the former there is much more potential on the PREVENTION front. It is statistically rare for an obese people to ever in life become normal weight and maintain that for at least 5 years. So those people for the most part are already screwed. (Morality sermons about this are irrelevant, not saying they shouldn't try, am saying MOST fail which is a fact.)

BUT for overweight people, policies that might help them PREVENT progression to obesity could be very helpful to societies in general to limit the extent of the obesity pandemic.

Back to a no brainer idea. How about transfats in Thailand. Shouldn't that be illegal to put into commercial foods? It is a proven killer. Why would it be legal?

Edited January 3, 2014 by Jingthing

[MrGaoMungGawn]

Already documented here multiple times that Thailand is up there in Asean countries in obesity rates. Some have more serious problems than others and Thailand is a more serious case. Again, already documented.

The graph shows PERCENTAGES of populations. Do the math.

No the article didn't mention rice. Where did anyone get the impression this topic is limited to rice?!?

No the article doesn't suggest taxation measures. More of a general call for more ACTION from governments. Whatever works.

It is in the earlier stages of knowing for sure what government measures might work and yes of course there are cultural factors that are different in different countries.

One flaw in the article is I think they overblow the obesity problem by including overweight people with the obese. I don't think they should do that. It's more accurate to separate the two classes.

Some credible obesity experts don't even believe that mere overweight status is much of a health risk, in fact in some aspects there are health benefits in that (such as surviving heart attacks). Yes normal and underweight people can get heart attacks too. Overweight people are of course ON THE ROAD to obesity and that should be a concern, but again misleading to group the classes together.

Another thing about the overweight, not obese people. With the former there is much more potential on the PREVENTION front. It is statistically rare for an obese people to ever in life become normal weight and maintain that for at least 5 years. So those people for the most part are already screwed. (Morality sermons about this are irrelevant, not saying they shouldn't try, am saying MOST fail which is a fact.)

BUT for overweight people, policies that might help them PREVENT progression to obesity could be very helpful to societies in general to limit the extent of the obesity pandemic.

Back to a no brainer idea. How about transfats in Thailand. Shouldn't that be illegal to put into commercial foods? It is a proven killer. Why would it be legal?

I keep telling you guys, but no, you just become defensive and even more illogical in your thinking.

It is all about the glop, too much glop in Thailand now.

You have the Franchises that sell nothing but glop, just walk through any SEVEN and all you see on the shelves is glop.

If you took out all the junk food in Seven, and all the cigarettes and sugar drinks, what would you be left with?

Nothing!

So you really gotta get rid of the SEVENS, and you know where they came from originally, don't you?

That is right, TEXAS, the HOME of the GLOP.

Big Macs are glop, as well as almost every USA franchise except maybe for SubWay.

We all know that sugar can be addictive, because it provides a sugar high, just like a drug.

Now what you need to do is read more of the Sugar Doctor at Harvard or Yale or someplace, who has done most of the truly groundbreaking work in sugar consumption.

Really interesting lecturer, and he spends most of his time lecturing to doctors, and heart specialists.

The whole biochemistry of the relationship between sugar and ill health is right there to be read by anyone.

As the people here get richer, and as their tastes change in very early childhood, then we are going to see more obesity.

But from your graph, you can see the problem in Thailand is still very low compared with many developed countries.

You might ask the question HOW do you preserve the culture and eating habits in Thailand in order to promote better health.

The more the SEVENS infiltrate Thailand, the worse it is for everyone.

A TAX is not enough, you also need education, and the provision of alternative healthier foods which taste good.

Walking through a SEVEN or McD is disgusting, with all the brightly colored glop.

It always ruins my appetite.

Glop!

[Jingthing]

I am not convinced kids respond to health education messages.

I agree -- get the GLOP out of people's FACES!

But how. It ain't easy. Big money is behind the GLOP.

And yes I do think it's obvious any public health efforts need to be focused on youth and prevention. That's the best potential societal benefit. There is no panacea. Nothing is going to help everyone or even most people. But it's clear to me stuff can be done than could help a lot of people.

I grew up with this:

Total fail.

Edited January 3, 2014 by Jingthing

[transam]

Already documented here multiple times that Thailand is up there in Asean countries in obesity rates. Some have more serious problems than others and Thailand is a more serious case. Again, already documented.

The graph shows PERCENTAGES of populations. Do the math.

No the article didn't mention rice. Where did anyone get the impression this topic is limited to rice?!?

No the article doesn't suggest taxation measures. More of a general call for more ACTION from governments. Whatever works.

It is in the earlier stages of knowing for sure what government measures might work and yes of course there are cultural factors that are different in different countries.

One flaw in the article is I think they overblow the obesity problem by including overweight people with the obese. I don't think they should do that. It's more accurate to separate the two classes.

Some credible obesity experts don't even believe that mere overweight status is much of a health risk, in fact in some aspects there are health benefits in that (such as surviving heart attacks). Yes normal and underweight people can get heart attacks too. Overweight people are of course ON THE ROAD to obesity and that should be a concern, but again misleading to group the classes together.

Another thing about the overweight, not obese people. With the former there is much more potential on the PREVENTION front. It is statistically rare for an obese people to ever in life become normal weight and maintain that for at least 5 years. So those people for the most part are already screwed. (Morality sermons about this are irrelevant, not saying they shouldn't try, am saying MOST fail which is a fact.)

BUT for overweight people, policies that might help them PREVENT progression to obesity could be very helpful to societies in general to limit the extent of the obesity pandemic.

Back to a no brainer idea. How about transfats in Thailand. Shouldn't that be illegal to put into commercial foods? It is a proven killer. Why would it be legal?

I keep telling you guys, but no, you just become defensive and even more illogical in your thinking.

It is all about the glop, too much glop in Thailand now.

You have the Franchises that sell nothing but glop, just walk through any SEVEN and all you see on the shelves is glop.

If you took out all the junk food in Seven, and all the cigarettes and sugar drinks, what would you be left with?

Nothing!

So you really gotta get rid of the SEVENS, and you know where they came from originally, don't you?

That is right, TEXAS, the HOME of the GLOP.

Big Macs are glop, as well as almost every USA franchise except maybe for SubWay.

We all know that sugar can be addictive, because it provides a sugar high, just like a drug.

Now what you need to do is read more of the Sugar Doctor at Harvard or Yale or someplace, who has done most of the truly groundbreaking work in sugar consumption.

Really interesting lecturer, and he spends most of his time lecturing to doctors, and heart specialists.

The whole biochemistry of the relationship between sugar and ill health is right there to be read by anyone.

As the people here get richer, and as their tastes change in very early childhood, then we are going to see more obesity.

But from your graph, you can see the problem in Thailand is still very low compared with many developed countries.

You might ask the question HOW do you preserve the culture and eating habits in Thailand in order to promote better health.

The more the SEVENS infiltrate Thailand, the worse it is for everyone.

A TAX is not enough, you also need education, and the provision of alternative healthier foods which taste good.

Walking through a SEVEN or McD is disgusting, with all the brightly colored glop.

It always ruins my appetite.

Glop!

What were you doing in McD's ?............... ..............

[samran]

Big on topic news released today!

_72041607_percentage_of_overweight_adults_region_464gr.gif

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-25576400

The number of overweight and obese adults in the developing world has almost quadrupled to around one billion since 1980, says a report from a UK think tank.

...

To combat the rising tide of obesity, Mr Wiggins recommends more concerted public health measures from governments, similar to those taken to limit smoking in developed countries.

He said: "Politicians need to be less shy about trying to influence what food ends up on our plates.

"The challenge is to make healthy diets viable whilst reducing the appeal of foods which carry a less certain nutritional value."

This says nothing about taxing rice...

you are the only one going with the rice jihad.

[Thai at Heart]

UK rationing was introduced cos there was not enough food to go around. Nooooooooooothing to do with with the gov being intrusive, just plain practicality. And guess what, the populous became fit.

In any case no government is going to do that short of a famine or wartime, so it's only of academic interest.

No, it's about cash..............If folk have cash, they will eat what ever they want. End of story.....

It's not that simple really. In the USA for example the cheapest foods are usually the crappiest foods. It's not only about cost but the quality of the food regardless of the the cost.

Claiming the cheapest foods in the US are the "crappiest" is simply not true.Quit making stuff up and stating it as fact.

McDonald's has been statistically proven to be the cheapest restaurant meal on a calories/$ basis. Mass produced food is cheap and just about every food scientist in the world knows that the sweeter and saltier you can make a food the more it sells on a repeat basis.

[Jingthing]

McDonald's type food in countries like Thailand is aspirational. In countries like the USA, it's loso and yes the cheapest food eating out (but of course very popular). I am guessing most of the processed junk food in Thailand is more from 7-11 and similar places than McDs.

[Thai at Heart]

Already documented here multiple times that Thailand is up there in Asean countries in obesity rates. Some have more serious problems than others and Thailand is a more serious case. Again, already documented.

The graph shows PERCENTAGES of populations. Do the math.

No the article didn't mention rice. Where did anyone get the impression this topic is limited to rice?!?

No the article doesn't suggest taxation measures. More of a general call for more ACTION from governments. Whatever works.

It is in the earlier stages of knowing for sure what government measures might work and yes of course there are cultural factors that are different in different countries.

One flaw in the article is I think they overblow the obesity problem by including overweight people with the obese. I don't think they should do that. It's more accurate to separate the two classes.

Some credible obesity experts don't even believe that mere overweight status is much of a health risk, in fact in some aspects there are health benefits in that (such as surviving heart attacks). Yes normal and underweight people can get heart attacks too. Overweight people are of course ON THE ROAD to obesity and that should be a concern, but again misleading to group the classes together.

Another thing about the overweight, not obese people. With the former there is much more potential on the PREVENTION front. It is statistically rare for an obese people to ever in life become normal weight and maintain that for at least 5 years. So those people for the most part are already screwed. (Morality sermons about this are irrelevant, not saying they shouldn't try, am saying MOST fail which is a fact.)

BUT for overweight people, policies that might help them PREVENT progression to obesity could be very helpful to societies in general to limit the extent of the obesity pandemic.

Back to a no brainer idea. How about transfats in Thailand. Shouldn't that be illegal to put into commercial foods? It is a proven killer. Why would it be legal?

Including the over weight and the obese in the same stats is I think a little disingenuous.

However, let us remind ourselves as I pointed out earlier. The domestic price of sugar in thailand is fixed below the global price. The thai government is effectively encouraging people to eat more sugar.

I wonder if this is a global first because it is truly crazy in light of all the research. If you think the tobacco lobby is bad, sugar are massive too.

They work behind the scenes to challenge legislation and rules just like tobacco.

[Jingthing]

There is actually some good news in grouping the statistics. Like I said, IF the large group that is overweight not obese can be STOPPED from reaching obesity that is a huge health benefit for society. The trend is obvious. If Thailand was smart, the time to attack this on a societal level would be NOW. Knowing Thailand ... oh well.

[Jingthing]

I changed my vote to "don't care" simply because every time this topic comes up it's never about solutions to obesity. We're forced to believe this is an epidemic/pandemic and if we dare suggest will power, exercise and proper eating is a means to control ones weight we are taking so far into the weeds I lose interest rapidly.

As for taxing junk food why not, I'd also like to tax people who wear Lycra and Crocs.

On the topic of brown rice in the prison system the term is used because of the colour of the water it's cooked in.

I truly think you are confusing the personal with SOCIETAL policy. People can or can't do what they can, but societies can ALSO do stuff as well. You may for ideological reasons be against societies trying to do anything for social improvement goals, that's your right, but you'll always have LOTS of opposition to that POV.

Let's break this down.

Suppose every Thai today receives an urgent telegram in the mail:

1. Have will power!

2. Don't eat too much!

3. Eat healthy food!

4. Exercise plenty!

Seriously, think about this hard. What percentage of people from underweight to super morbidly obese do you reckon haven't heard messages like that many times before, especially the fatter people.

Seriously, think about this hard, do you actually think such PREACHING would actually turn things around for many people at all?

If you do, fine. I think it would be a totally worthless exercise and more about the message sender getting the feeling they have done "something" rather than actually addressing the core issues head on.

You know, your POV really reminds me of fundamentalist Christians spreading the "Good News" of Christ. Many of them believe if you spread the word to the heathens, then those who fail to get right with Jesus and thus burn in the HELLFIRES get what they deserve. It was up to them, purely, heaven or hell, they've done the job, spreading the word.

So if people burn in eternal hell / become obese and stay obese ... heck they didn't heed the message, so too bloody bad.

Dude, people already got that BASIC elementary stuff that you're pushing. All over the world. Yet all over the world obesity increases anyway.

Social policy tweaks, changes to the FOOD ENVIRONMENT for the masses, yes something more aggressive than the redundant moralistic message preaching you propose is clearly needed to actually make progress against the growth of obesity. Actual experts working in the field already know this.

Some basic ideas to get started:

Legally required clear labeling for sugar content and transfat content in commercial foods including DANGER LEVEL icons easily understood by all the masses

Legally require MAJOR retail chains to offer healthy alternative choices side by side with the crap. Invest in PROMOTING these choices. Make them COOL.

Make it illegal to market on labels a product as "healthy" when it is not! This is a trick many food companies pull.

Legally require ALL products destined for ANY retail store to have the clear labeling. So even the small retailers contain the clear label products.

Better yet -- make adding transfats ILLEGAL

I think going after street food is culturally impossible, at least for now.

Edited January 3, 2014 by Jingthing

[David48]

I changed my vote to "don't care" simply because every time this topic comes up it's never about solutions to obesity. We're forced to believe this is an epidemic/pandemic and if we dare suggest will power, exercise and proper eating is a means to control ones weight we are taking so far into the weeds I lose interest rapidly.

As for taxing junk food why not, I'd also like to tax people who wear Lycra and Crocs.

On the topic of brown rice in the prison system the term is used because of the colour of the water it's cooked in.

I truly think you are confusing the personal with SOCIETAL policy. People can or can't do what they can, but societies can ALSO do stuff as well. You may for ideological reasons be against societies trying to do anything for social improvement goals, that's your right, but you'll always have LOTS of opposition to that POV.

Let's break this down.

Suppose every Thai today receives an urgent telegram in the mail:

1. Have will power!

2. Don't eat too much!

3. Eat healthy food!

4. Exercise plenty!

Seriously, think about this hard. What percentage of people from underweight to super morbidly obese do you reckon haven't heard messages like that many times before, especially the fatter people.

Seriously, think about this hard, do you actually think such PREACHING would actually turn things around for many people at all?

If you do, fine. I think it would be a totally worthless exercise and more about the message sender getting the feeling they have done "something" rather than actually addressing the core issues head on.

You know, your POV really reminds me of fundamentalist Christians spreading the "Good News" of Christ. Many of them believe if you spread the word to the heathens, then those who fail to get right with Jesus and thus burn in the HELLFIRES get what they deserve. It was up to them, purely, heaven or hell, they've done the job, spreading the word.

So if people burn in eternal hell / become obese and stay obese ... heck they didn't heed the message, so too bloody bad.

Dude, people already got that BASIC elementary stuff that you're pushing. All over the world. Yet all over the world obesity increases anyway.

Social policy tweaks, changes to the FOOD ENVIRONMENT for the masses, yes something more aggressive than the redundant moralistic message preaching you propose is clearly needed to actually make progress against the growth of obesity. Actual experts working in the field already know this.

Some basic ideas to get started:

Legally required clear labeling for sugar content and transfat content in commercial foods including DANGER LEVEL icons easily understood by all the masses

Legally require MAJOR retail chains to offer healthy alternative choices side by side with the crap. Invest in PROMOTING these choices. Make them COOL.

Make it illegal to market on labels a product as "healthy" when it is not! This is a trick many food companies pull.

Legally require ALL products destined for ANY retail store to have the clear labeling. So even the small retailers contain the clear label products.

Better yet -- make adding transfats ILLEGAL

I think going after street food is culturally impossible, at least for now.

WOW ... JT ... you take the 6 degrees of separation to a higher level ...

I reckon that there has to be an Business Opportunity in there somewhere for you!

OH ... may I ask a wee question?

"Legally require ALL products destined for ANY retail store to have the clear labeling" ... what language were you considering this Labelling in?

OH ... nothing I have read indicates that transfat has any benefit and, if anything could come of this crusade ... the banning of transfats is one I could support.

Transfats ... seem ... just so un-natural.

.

[Jingthing]

This being Thailand it wouldn't be reasonable to expect a language other than Thai. As an expat, I'd like to see English as well, but that wouldn't be a priority for the Thai government. The ICONS could be easily designed to be universally understood. Getting into details now. The important thing now is to GET STARTED. I remain pessimistic they will, but some of these basic concepts aren't rocket science and can be copied directly from other countries.

[ToddWeston]

I changed my vote to "don't care" simply because every time this topic comes up it's never about solutions to obesity. We're forced to believe this is an epidemic/pandemic and if we dare suggest will power, exercise and proper eating is a means to control ones weight we are taking so far into the weeds I lose interest rapidly.

As for taxing junk food why not, I'd also like to tax people who wear Lycra and Crocs.

On the topic of brown rice in the prison system the term is used because of the colour of the water it's cooked in.

I truly think you are confusing the personal with SOCIETAL policy. People can or can't do what they can, but societies can ALSO do stuff as well. You may for ideological reasons be against societies trying to do anything for social improvement goals, that's your right, but you'll always have LOTS of opposition to that POV.

Let's break this down.

Suppose every Thai today receives an urgent telegram in the mail:

1. Have will power!

2. Don't eat too much!

3. Eat healthy food!

4. Exercise plenty!

Seriously, think about this hard. What percentage of people from underweight to super morbidly obese do you reckon haven't heard messages like that many times before, especially the fatter people.

Seriously, think about this hard, do you actually think such PREACHING would actually turn things around for many people at all?

If you do, fine. I think it would be a totally worthless exercise and more about the message sender getting the feeling they have done "something" rather than actually addressing the core issues head on.

You know, your POV really reminds me of fundamentalist Christians spreading the "Good News" of Christ. Many of them believe if you spread the word to the heathens, then those who fail to get right with Jesus and thus burn in the HELLFIRES get what they deserve. It was up to them, purely, heaven or hell, they've done the job, spreading the word.

So if people burn in eternal hell / become obese and stay obese ... heck they didn't heed the message, so too bloody bad.

Dude, people already got that BASIC elementary stuff that you're pushing. All over the world. Yet all over the world obesity increases anyway.

Social policy tweaks, changes to the FOOD ENVIRONMENT for the masses, yes something more aggressive than the redundant moralistic message preaching you propose is clearly needed to actually make progress against the growth of obesity. Actual experts working in the field already know this.

Some basic ideas to get started:

Legally required clear labeling for sugar content and transfat content in commercial foods including DANGER LEVEL icons easily understood by all the masses

Legally require MAJOR retail chains to offer healthy alternative choices side by side with the crap. Invest in PROMOTING these choices. Make them COOL.

Make it illegal to market on labels a product as "healthy" when it is not! This is a trick many food companies pull.

Legally require ALL products destined for ANY retail store to have the clear labeling. So even the small retailers contain the clear label products.

Better yet -- make adding transfats ILLEGAL

I think going after street food is culturally impossible, at least for now.

If you read my post I said "I don't care" but thanks for telling me how to knit the sweater when all I really needed to know was where to buy one.

I'll take all my degrees, opinions and the experience I've garnered over 20 years with the hundreds/ thousands I've counselled on weight loss who actually lost weight and spread the word, Amen.

If, in a moment of weakness, I fall for another thread on obesity please ignore my common sense approach.

[Jingthing]

Happy you feel you have done good work on a one on one basis.

However, how is it an intelligent person like you doesn't get this particular topic is about SOCIAL policy, the bigger picture?

One on one counseling and governmental regulations are different matters.

Well, of course they can be related in the sense of government health systems paying for such counseling. Nobody is against counseling and education. The question is that anywhere near ENOUGH to tackle this issue in a statistically significant way for society as a WHOLE? I say, of course it isn't. That's obvious.

Also you seem fixated on the WEIGHT LOSS aspect of this. The more socially significant aspect of the social policy is PREVENTION because as any credible obesity specialist knows, once obese, a person has a very difficult, often lifetime issue.

It's off topic, but can you tell me what percentage of people you counseled went from obesity to normal weight and kept it off for at least five years? Do you even KNOW? Not a guess based on a few anecdotes. KNOW as in credible scientific statistics. If it's much over a few percent you should be shockingly rich because your words might just be MAGIC. While you're at it, call Oprah!

Edited January 3, 2014 by Jingthing

[nisakiman]

Social engineering is a euphemism for eugenics. Interested parties juggle the figures to their advantage, because there's a well paid sinecure in it.

In a revealing article in Effective Clinical Practice (March/April 1999) Lisa M. Schwartz and Steven Woloshin conclude that the number of people with at least one of four major medical conditions (actually risk factors) has increased dramatically in the past decade because of changes in the definition of abnormality.

Overweight:

Body Mass Index (BMI) is defined as the ratio of weight (in kg) to height (in meters) squared and is an inexact measure of body fat, though it supposedly establishes cutoff points of normal weight, overweight, and obesity.

Old definition: BMI > 28 (men), BMI > 27 (women)
People under old definition: 70.6 million
New definition: BMI > 25
People added under new definition: 30.5 million
Percent Increase: 43%

The definition was changed in 1998 by U.S. National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute.

http://easydiagnosis.com/secondopinions/newsletter17.html

One of the main reasons we are being constantly hectored about smoking, drinking and eating is because the would-be prohibitionists have got their snouts deep in the trough of taxpayer funding, so the alleged 'dangers' inherent in all these personal lifestyle choices (which in reality should be nothing to do with the state) have to be constantly hyped up to keep the funding rolling in. How else will the Righteous pay the mortgage and run the SUV?

That's why there is so much junk science bandied around these days. 'Research' nowadays involves some single-issue lobby group funding a research project, but basically telling the researchers what answer they expect, and to build a study which will generate the required result. It happens all the time. They are quite blatant about it. Those results are then put out as a press release to a supine media who never check the facts, merely print the results verbatim. And that is why we end up with such idiocy as 'recommended units of alcohol' (a figure that the 'experts' admit was plucked out of thin air with no scientific basis), and 'Passive Smoking'. the theory of which has been comprehensively demolished by all the major studies. But as long as the media are too lazy to actually indulge in what used to be called journalism, the lies will continue to be propagated, and believed, by the media fed masses.

People are bigger now because we have more food available due to modern agricultural methods. A hundred years ago starvation was a real threat, and only the rich could afford to be overweight; but now anyone can afford to overeat, so naturally there are a lot more overweight people. The answer lies not in state interference - there's far too much of that already - but in simple dissemination of the facts (not hyperbole, as is the current fashion), and to allow people to make their own decisions based on those facts.

[Jingthing]

It doesn't make a heck of a lot of difference whether OBESITY itself is classified as a disease or not! Yes it changes some financial matters with insurance health coverage but it doesn't impact on the objective health conditions of the people you label or don't label. Obesity is strongly causative for a number of obesity related disease conditions. In the USA obesity has now officially been labelled a disease. At the same time governmental regulations to actively fight obesity in the USA are not aggressive. So there isn't any correlation between the labeling and the government action.

Again nobody is against disseminating so called facts and health information. To consider just doing that and stopping, and expecting that to be a magic bullet in the modern obesogenic environment seems to me absurdly naive. To MAJORLY address this at a macro level, you really must address the bigger social issues. It's much more than just about individuals.

What we choose to eat plays a large role in determining our risk of gaining too much weight. But our choices are shaped by the complex world in which we live—by the kinds of food our parents make available at home, by how far we live from the nearest supermarket or fast food restaurant, even by the ways that governments support farmers. In the U.S. and many parts of the world, the so-called food environment—the physical and social surroundings that influence what we eat—makes it far too hard to choose healthy foods, and all too easy to choose unhealthy foods. Some even call this food environment “toxic” because of the way it corrodes healthy lifestyles and promotes obesity.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/obesity-prevention-source/obesity-causes/food-environment-and-obesity/

BTW, as in the previous post, I totally agree that to label people who are OVERWEIGHT (by BMI) and not actually OBESE as having a disease or even to label them as abnormal (as in not "normal" weight) is kind of crazy. Obesity itself, I think there are good arguments both ways on whether it should be labeled a disease.

Edited January 3, 2014 by Jingthing

[MrGaoMungGawn]

Already documented here multiple times that Thailand is up there in Asean countries in obesity rates. Some have more serious problems than others and Thailand is a more serious case. Again, already documented.

The graph shows PERCENTAGES of populations. Do the math.

No the article didn't mention rice. Where did anyone get the impression this topic is limited to rice?!?

No the article doesn't suggest taxation measures. More of a general call for more ACTION from governments. Whatever works.

It is in the earlier stages of knowing for sure what government measures might work and yes of course there are cultural factors that are different in different countries.

One flaw in the article is I think they overblow the obesity problem by including overweight people with the obese. I don't think they should do that. It's more accurate to separate the two classes.

Some credible obesity experts don't even believe that mere overweight status is much of a health risk, in fact in some aspects there are health benefits in that (such as surviving heart attacks). Yes normal and underweight people can get heart attacks too. Overweight people are of course ON THE ROAD to obesity and that should be a concern, but again misleading to group the classes together.

Another thing about the overweight, not obese people. With the former there is much more potential on the PREVENTION front. It is statistically rare for an obese people to ever in life become normal weight and maintain that for at least 5 years. So those people for the most part are already screwed. (Morality sermons about this are irrelevant, not saying they shouldn't try, am saying MOST fail which is a fact.)

BUT for overweight people, policies that might help them PREVENT progression to obesity could be very helpful to societies in general to limit the extent of the obesity pandemic.

Back to a no brainer idea. How about transfats in Thailand. Shouldn't that be illegal to put into commercial foods? It is a proven killer. Why would it be legal?

I keep telling you guys, but no, you just become defensive and even more illogical in your thinking.

It is all about the glop, too much glop in Thailand now.

You have the Franchises that sell nothing but glop, just walk through any SEVEN and all you see on the shelves is glop.

If you took out all the junk food in Seven, and all the cigarettes and sugar drinks, what would you be left with?

Nothing!

So you really gotta get rid of the SEVENS, and you know where they came from originally, don't you?

That is right, TEXAS, the HOME of the GLOP.

Big Macs are glop, as well as almost every USA franchise except maybe for SubWay.

We all know that sugar can be addictive, because it provides a sugar high, just like a drug.

Now what you need to do is read more of the Sugar Doctor at Harvard or Yale or someplace, who has done most of the truly groundbreaking work in sugar consumption.

Really interesting lecturer, and he spends most of his time lecturing to doctors, and heart specialists.

The whole biochemistry of the relationship between sugar and ill health is right there to be read by anyone.

As the people here get richer, and as their tastes change in very early childhood, then we are going to see more obesity.

But from your graph, you can see the problem in Thailand is still very low compared with many developed countries.

You might ask the question HOW do you preserve the culture and eating habits in Thailand in order to promote better health.

The more the SEVENS infiltrate Thailand, the worse it is for everyone.

A TAX is not enough, you also need education, and the provision of alternative healthier foods which taste good.

Walking through a SEVEN or McD is disgusting, with all the brightly colored glop.

It always ruins my appetite.

Glop!

What were you doing in McD's ?............... ..............

Ministering to the misguided, obviously.

I see all the poor children in there, spending money on glop, to feed the fat cats in huge multinationals,

And my heart goes out to them.

So I gotta go in, and exhort them to follow a different path,

If not back to godliness, at least back to healthiness.

Glop.

Edited January 3, 2014 by MrGaoMungGawn

[David48]

Hi JT ... I just dropping by in-case you feel lonely.

Looks like it's just a conversation with yourself now, or, at best, the faithful few.

.

[Jingthing]

Hi JT ... I just dropping by in-case you feel lonely.

Looks like it's just a conversation with yourself now, or, at best, the faithful few.

.

Please, Sir, I do not welcome such Off Topic personal gossip messages of this kind. This is a serious topic. Thanks.

How serious, you might ask? This serious:

And the danger is huge: Obesity kills more than 2.8 million people every year, according to the World Health Organization.

On the actual topic I found something of interest.

While it's an American story, it relates directly to any country trying to deal with globesity.

Its a really interesting concept, because it asserts that attacking the "guilty" substances with a broad brush as opposed to just specific food products, like sugar sodas, could actually be much more effective in the goal -- attacking globesity.

The most bang for the tax and health buck they suggest is -- ALL SUGAR.

Of course just because it might be a great idea, and make a significantly positive public health impact doesn't mean that Thailand (or the USA etc.) would actually have the cajones to try it. I think they won't. So for the tax phobics, relax, it won't happen.

Here is the academic study that backs up the assertion:

http://papers.nber.org/tmp/23753-w19781.pdf

A simple tax could be a big tool in ending America's obesity epidemic.

Adding a 20-percent tax on sugar would cut Americans' total caloric intake by 18 percent and reduce sugar consumption by more than 16 percent, according to a new study from the National Bureau of Economic Research.

Economists Matthew Harding of Stanford and Michael Lovenheim of Cornell analyzed the details of more than 123 million food purchases made in the U.S. between 2002 and 2007 and tried to simulate the effects of various taxes on American buying habits. They found that the most effective strategy for improving public health would be to implement a broad-based tax on sugar. Taxes on fat and salt would help, too, cutting total calories by an estimated 19 percent and 10 percent, respectively, according to the study.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/07/tax-sugar-fight-obesity_n_4555135.html

Edited January 9, 2014 by Jingthing

[Showbags]

Excellent idea JT...I had no idea they taxed junk food in the west, but makes great sense.

[David48]

Hi JT ... I just dropping by in-case you feel lonely.

Looks like it's just a conversation with yourself now, or, at best, the faithful few.

.

Please, Sir, I do not welcome such OT personal gossip messages of this kind. This is a serious topic. Thanks.

JT, what does 'OT' mean?

Thanks ...

[David48]

Excellent idea JT...I had no idea they taxed junk food in the west, but makes great sense.

But they don't ... do they.

I thought the article was simply hypothesising a 'what if' scenario.

.

[Jingthing]

Excellent idea JT...I had no idea they taxed junk food in the west, but makes great sense.

But they don't ... do they.

I thought the article was simply hypothesising a 'what if' scenario.

.

Mexico in North America is the west. Also some South American countries are the west. Romania and Denmark are in the west. I'm sure there are more. I'm not up to researching a current comprehensive list.

This isn't an issue that is going away.

Edited January 9, 2014 by Jingthing

[David48]

Excellent idea JT...I had no idea they taxed junk food in the west, but makes great sense.

But they don't ... do they.

I thought the article was simply hypothesising a 'what if' scenario.

Mexico in North America is the west. Also some South American countries are the west. Romania and Denmark are in the west. I'm sure there are more. I'm not up to researching a current comprehensive list.

Is that New Mexico in the USA or Mexico in America?

And thanks for that JT, as I was asking a question ... so how could I be wrong?

Knowing your passion, I guess you're correct with your statements, but do you have the links to provide the facts, or is it suppositions and assumptions on your behalf.

.

[Jingthing]

Google is your friend, mate.

Edited January 9, 2014 by Jingthing

[David48]

Google is your friend, mate.

Note to self.

JT implies that it's OK to make proposed factual statements without the supporting evidence.

Good to know.

Calling all Flat Earth believers ...

[Jingthing]

...

Note to self.

...

Perhaps keep your "notes to self" to yourself?

Dude, I do post a lot, but one thing I will NOT do is ever feel obligated to respond like a servant to each and every snarky demand from a member who is clearly more into playing catty personality games than the topic. Anyone can see the evidence of that and judge for themselves.

Cheers.

Edited January 9, 2014 by Jingthing