Should Thailand tax junk food to help fight obesity?

[David48]

Eating healthy and exercise regularly are the key to a long and healthy life...

Yes, an excellent Idea, recognised and professed by almost all health professionals.

So, no requirement to 'tax junk food in Thailand'.

Discipline comes from within (Eating healthy and exercise regularly) ... not from without (a tax on junk food).

.

[Jingthing]

Eating healthy and exercise regularly are the key to a long and healthy life...

Yes, an excellent Idea, recognised and professed by almost all health professionals.

So, no requirement to 'tax junk food in Thailand'.

Discipline comes from within (Eating healthy and exercise regularly) ... not from without (a tax on junk food).

.

It doesn't work from a public health policy perspective. Mouthing such cliches (which I reckon almost all people have already heard many many times) does nothing at all to try to change the modern obesogenic environment that has now spread to much of Thailand. Only governments can do that. It's a fair question, should they. Anti-tax zealots, small government extremists of course are going to be purist about just about everything regardless of the social damage caused by total inaction of governments. For them it is often about IDEOLOGY and not really caring that their tired old preaching model simply can't possibly work and is proven NOT to work as a public health solution (look at the radical growth of globesity with populations who have already heard those messages). People more interested in what might actually work and move the numbers away from obesity tend to more open to different approaches.

Please Be Clear:

The topic here is not diet tips. It is about potential government actions (now starting to happen in other countries) to address obesity as a public health problem. Certainly education and health counseling can be part of that, but the question is given the severity of the problem now, is more aggressive action actually worth trying. Mexico waited until it was the most obese large population nation on the planet to decide YES. If such actions do work, the jury is still out, I would think it would be desirable for a country like Thailand to address this at an earlier stage with so much more potential to even PREVENT obesity in millions of their people. Keep in mind, it's a known fact, once obese, the vast majority remain obese for life, "diets" or no diets.

Edited January 10, 2014 by Jingthing

[Showbags]

Hit them in the pocket where it hurts....if they can reach into their pockets that is..

Use the taxes from the people that cannot help themselves and keep on funneling in the crap...to fund their hospital and health issues, instead of funds from everyone else that has to burden the cost.

Same same as seats on a plane, the more your girth, purchase bigger seats...sit them all down backa da bus...then they will have someone to talk to about common interests....but maybe the plane will drag arse a bit.

[Jingthing]

Hit them in the pocket where it hurts....if they can reach into their pockets that is..

Use the taxes from the people that cannot help themselves and keep on funneling in the crap...to fund their hospital and health issues, instead of funds from everyone else that has to burden the cost.

Same same as seats on a plane, the more your girth, purchase bigger seats...sit them all down backa da bus...then they will have someone to talk to about common interests....but maybe the plane will drag arse a bit.

You are talking about a punishment tax.

The obvious focus of the intention of this thread is about SUBSTANCE and PRODUCT taxes, regulations, restrictions, warning labeling, etc. These seem very different things from a punish the fat approach.

The punish the fat approach feels to me as being motivated by a kind of mean spiritness towards fat people and I don't approve of that. However, I have an open mind, and if a punishment approach could actually be shown to be very effective, especially in PREVENTION with youth, I wouldn't rule some variation of that out entirely. There also would political issues with doing that kind of thing as it does come off as mean. Adjustments could be made to exempt the poor perhaps. Not saying that I like this kind of punishment approach, but I think it's an approach that at least deserves to be in the marketplace of free discussion as societies grapple with this problem.

The Japanese forced counseling approach (again not sure if they are still doing this but I know that at least they were), that perhaps can be seen as a mild kind of punishment in that the counseling was mandated. That kind of approach seems to me more humane but again only worth doing if it works!

Edited January 10, 2014 by Jingthing

[soomak]

So let me propose another idea:

Everyone pays a health tax (as in most developed countries), but the tax gets higher as your BMI increases.

Japan was requiring counseling to people whose waist size reached even mildly overweight (35.5 inches in men) but I don't have info whether this program is still in effect or whether it was judged to be effective. It seems to make sense to see the move towards obesity in a person as a red flag, the question is what outside actions help or don't help. I don't agree with your punishment BMI tax model because the causes of obesity are varied and complex and also some of the most obese people are also the most poor people. So for those people it's much more regressive than a substance tax because with a substance tax there is a choice to choose healthier options that are not subject to extra tax. Such as water for soda.

It's not a punishment, it's just adjusting the health tax to the costs this person creates to the healthcare system, same as smokers do. Fat people have more health problems - diabetes, heart problems, cancer, you name it.

BTW insurance companies do check your health and ask if you smoke and determine the premiums accordingly, don't see why a the public healthcare system can't do that.

[Jingthing]

In my view, the most horrible public reaction to this would be to try NOTHING aggressive. What exactly might help would be a work in progress, but we already see what happens when societies do nothing (and let big food businesses do anything they like).

[Jingthing]

So let me propose another idea:

Everyone pays a health tax (as in most developed countries), but the tax gets higher as your BMI increases.

Japan was requiring counseling to people whose waist size reached even mildly overweight (35.5 inches in men) but I don't have info whether this program is still in effect or whether it was judged to be effective. It seems to make sense to see the move towards obesity in a person as a red flag, the question is what outside actions help or don't help. I don't agree with your punishment BMI tax model because the causes of obesity are varied and complex and also some of the most obese people are also the most poor people. So for those people it's much more regressive than a substance tax because with a substance tax there is a choice to choose healthier options that are not subject to extra tax. Such as water for soda.

It's not a punishment, it's just adjusting the health tax to the costs this person creates to the healthcare system, same as smokers do. Fat people have more health problems - diabetes, heart problems, cancer, you name it.

BTW insurance companies do check your health and ask if you smoke and determine the premiums accordingly, don't see why a the public healthcare system can't do that.

Private and public health insurance companies are different animals.

Talking about the kind of private health insurance company that can reject unhealthy applicants and raise the rates on higher risk.

Those are profit making enterprises.

Public health care systems have a different goal -- PUBLIC health. They are generally designed to pool the risk for everyone, not for profit.

So I think you are totally wrong about this. For a PUBLIC health care system to raise the rates charged to the public based on their health risk factors would generally be very politically controversial.

Yes, they COULD do that, the question is SHOULD they. I get it, you say they should. Your focus is finance, my focus is actually addressing the core of the problem, preventing the obesity and helping the currently obese to at least move in right direction. Punishing fat people with extra fees might make the finance more fair, but will it reduce the actual problem?

Edited January 10, 2014 by Jingthing

[Thai at Heart]

Eating healthy and exercise regularly are the key to a long and healthy life...

Yes, an excellent Idea, recognised and professed by almost all health professionals.

So, no requirement to 'tax junk food in Thailand'.

Discipline comes from within (Eating healthy and exercise regularly) ... not from without (a tax on junk food).

.

It doesn't work from a public health policy perspective. Mouthing such cliches (which I reckon almost all people have already heard many many times) does nothing at all to try to change the modern obesogenic environment that has now spread to much of Thailand. Only governments can do that. It's a fair question, should they. Anti-tax zealots, small government extremists of course are going to be purist about just about everything regardless of the social damage caused by total inaction of governments. For them it is often about IDEOLOGY and not really caring that their tired old preaching model simply can't possibly work and is proven NOT to work as a public health solution (look at the radical growth of globesity with populations who have already heard those messages). People more interested in what might actually work and move the numbers away from obesity tend to more open to different approaches.

Please Be Clear:

The topic here is not diet tips. It is about potential government actions (now starting to happen in other countries) to address obesity as a public health problem. Certainly education and health counseling can be part of that, but the question is given the severity of the problem now, is more aggressive action actually worth trying. Mexico waited until it was the most obese large population nation on the planet to decide YES. If such actions do work, the jury is still out, I would think it would be desirable for a country like Thailand to address this at an earlier stage with so much more potential to even PREVENT obesity in millions of their people. Keep in mind, it's a known fact, once obese, the vast majority remain obese for life, "diets" or no diets.

I whole heatedly blame 7-11.

Without their raft of fridges and air conditioning half the stuff would be inedible or unpalatable.

They have single handedly transported crap food to a street corner near you, in the last 15 years.

[stedyedy]

Its only because these types of food products are cheap here in nz theve done the same thing but because theres so much competition between food makers its next to impossible,imagine how much business would go bankrupt heck there are companies merging with there competitors because of that very fact.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[Thai at Heart]

In my view, the most horrible public reaction to this would be to try NOTHING aggressive. What exactly might help would be a work in progress, but we already see what happens when societies do nothing (and let big food businesses do anything they like).

It is being debated in the uk right now.

They are discussing forcing a 30% reduction in added sugar in processed food. Salt has been reduced and no one noticed.

[transam]

Many are missing a point, the number 1 daily occurrence with Thai folk is eating. Those who have been here a while know that. The farang food intervention in LOS is all new, folk are trying it, but I can tell you that after a ''healthy'' start the McD's in my town are near always empty , strange that eh.

Kids like sugary and salty stuff and parents who have come into a better salary range want to spoil their kids, a fact. Obesity is about money in the pocket to eat or do what they want. Very few fat kids in the sticks, UNLESS their bodies are continuing family statistics regarding size, are fat. Many folk I have known have looked over weight but eat little, we are all different, but I think cash in pockets of Thai folk is perhaps increasing the waistlines of their kids. Even if there was noooooooo farang food outlets this would still happen.

[Jingthing]

Many are missing a point, the number 1 daily occurrence with Thai folk is eating. Those who have been here a while know that. The farang food intervention in LOS is all new, folk are trying it, but I can tell you that after a ''healthy'' start the McD's in my town are near always empty , strange that eh.

Kids like sugary and salty stuff and parents who have come into a better salary range want to spoil their kids, a fact. Obesity is about money in the pocket to eat or do what they want. Very few fat kids in the sticks, UNLESS their bodies are continuing family statistics regarding size, are fat. Many folk I have known have looked over weight but eat little, we are all different, but I think cash in pockets of Thai folk is perhaps increasing the waistlines of their kids. Even if there was noooooooo farang food outlets this would still happen.

So attacking SUGAR as a substance rather as a product (like soda) makes more sense then. I agree! Dude, you clearly haven't processed this thread if you think the consensus is that the problem is ONLY western imports. Thailand itself, the REAL modern Thailand, has transitioned into it's own style of an obesogenic nation.

Edited January 10, 2014 by Jingthing

[StreetCowboy]

So specifically what would you tax?

White rice?

Sugar?

Cooking oil?

Salt?

Flour?

Restaurant meals?

Or only fast food outlets? Not roadside places that offer lard fried in old engine oil, and not the fancy places that you or I might go to, just the foreign-titled ones that we don't like...?

Meat with fat on it?

Coconut oil?

Why not just employ lard-leaveners to fine people for being fat, or for thinking about food?

The thing is that some people just naturally carry a bit more in their blubber layer than the rest of us, so a lot of it would need to be at the discretion of the inspector...

I think you're on to a winner here, JT, and I can see this being particularly popular in a health-conscious society like Thailand

SC

Edited January 10, 2014 by StreetCowboy

[Jingthing]

Based on current international trends, I would start on SUGAR but I would also closely monitor the effectiveness, no point in doing something that doesn't work. I would make all transfats in packaged products illegal and require all packaged products in stores have warning label icons understandable by all. I would encourage manufacturers to reduce the bad stuff in their packaged products and make labeling designed to trick customers (calling something Healthy that isn't) illegal as well.

Just a start. As said before, I don't see street food as something that can realistically be regulated. There is evidence just attacking SUGAR levels might be effective.

Edited January 10, 2014 by Jingthing

[StreetCowboy]

 

Based on current international trends, I would start on SUGAR but I would also closely monitor the effectiveness, no point in doing something that doesn't work. I would make all transfats in packaged products illegal and require all packaged products in stores have warning label icons understandable by all.

 

Presumably only white sugar that makes people fat, and not demerara sugar that posh people like you and I put in our tea and coffee

[transam]

Many are missing a point, the number 1 daily occurrence with Thai folk is eating. Those who have been here a while know that. The farang food intervention in LOS is all new, folk are trying it, but I can tell you that after a ''healthy'' start the McD's in my town are near always empty , strange that eh.

Kids like sugary and salty stuff and parents who have come into a better salary range want to spoil their kids, a fact. Obesity is about money in the pocket to eat or do what they want. Very few fat kids in the sticks, UNLESS their bodies are continuing family statistics regarding size, are fat. Many folk I have known have looked over weight but eat little, we are all different, but I think cash in pockets of Thai folk is perhaps increasing the waistlines of their kids. Even if there was noooooooo farang food outlets this would still happen.

So attacking SUGAR as a substance rather as a product (like soda) makes more sense then. I agree! Dude, you clearly haven't processed this thread if you think the consensus is that the problem is ONLY western imports. Thailand itself, the REAL modern Thailand, has transitioned into it's own style of an obesogenic nation.

Gawd...........................Nooooooooooooooooo, it's about MORE money in the pocket. YOU think a guy on 200 bht a day will buy his kid a 100 bht BigMac............

Thai folk LOVE sugar and salt, PERIOD, more money in pockets buys MORE of the same..................

[Jingthing]

So try nothing then. Fine. I guess you win.

[transam]

So try nothing then. Fine. I guess you win.

Taxing the poor is NOT going to do much is it. It will take the poor out of a little luxury that the well off will still indulge. Yes/No ?

[Jingthing]

So try nothing then. Fine. I guess you win.

Taxing the poor is NOT going to do much is it. It will take the poor out of a little luxury that the well off will still indulge. Yes/No ?

Let's see what happens in Mexico over time and then we can talk. No social policy doesn't have negative side effects. That doesn't mean that sometimes the side effects aren't worth it. Beyond that I will not answer your loaded baiting question, I don't do that.

[David48]

 

Based on current international trends, I would start on SUGAR but I would also closely monitor the effectiveness, no point in doing something that doesn't work. I would make all transfats in packaged products illegal and require all packaged products in stores have warning label icons understandable by all.

 

Presumably only white sugar that makes people fat, and not demerara sugar that posh people like you and I put in our tea and coffee

Back in the days when I was a youngster ... it was the sugar cubes that made the tea drinking all fancy like.

Plus the Stirling silver tongs used to politely drop in ... was that one lump or two Khun SC ?

Then, if you could sneak in a nick a cube or two and feel it melt away in your mouth ... and your teeth melted at the same time ... ah ... the good old days.

I know they weren't demerara sugar but thanks for transporting me back there for a wee minute ...

.

[transam]

So try nothing then. Fine. I guess you win.

Taxing the poor is NOT going to do much is it. It will take the poor out of a little luxury that the well off will still indulge. Yes/No ?

Let's see what happens in Mexico over time and then we can talk. No social policy doesn't have negative side effects. That doesn't mean that sometimes the side effects aren't worth it. Beyond that I will not answer your loaded baiting question, I don't do that.

You have avoided a few of my posts which are not baited..........we can vote on that if you like.............

This is a Thai thread and nothing to do with Mexico and their eating habits.....Get a grip man.

[Jingthing]

So try nothing then. Fine. I guess you win.

Taxing the poor is NOT going to do much is it. It will take the poor out of a little luxury that the well off will still indulge. Yes/No ?

Let's see what happens in Mexico over time and then we can talk. No social policy doesn't have negative side effects. That doesn't mean that sometimes the side effects aren't worth it. Beyond that I will not answer your loaded baiting question, I don't do that.

You have avoided a few of my posts which are not baited..........we can vote on that if you like.............

This is a Thai thread and nothing to do with Mexico and their eating habits.....Get a grip man.

Of course it has to do with Mexico. Mexico is an example of a country that has decided to take AGGRESSIVE government action. Thailand isn't there yet and may never be. Over time the world will look at what happens in Mexico. If the results are impressive, there will be stronger arguments for Thailand and other countries to consider similar government policies.

[transam]

I think Mex has more problems than a BigMac.

Stay on topic, you have avoided my input regarding Thai folk.............

[ToddWeston]

 

Based on current international trends, I would start on SUGAR but I would also closely monitor the effectiveness, no point in doing something that doesn't work. I would make all transfats in packaged products illegal and require all packaged products in stores have warning label icons understandable by all.

 

Presumably only white sugar that makes people fat, and not demerara sugar that posh people like you and I put in our tea and coffee

Back in the days when I was a youngster ... it was the sugar cubes that made the tea drinking all fancy like.

Plus the Stirling silver tongs used to politely drop in ... was that one lump or two Khun SC ?

Then, if you could sneak in a nick a cube or two and feel it melt away in your mouth ... and your teeth melted at the same time ... ah ... the good old days.

I know they weren't demerara sugar but thanks for transporting me back there for a wee minute ...

.

David you're were spoilt, I only got sugar in my tea if I was sick:) I still do it to this day if I'm sick.

Taxing the poor will work as well as the luxury tax on the rich.

Edited January 10, 2014 by ToddWeston

[Jingthing]

It's hilarious how the politically right wing can't get their heads out of the dogmatic anti-taxation mantra, when the root of the motivation for any of this is improved public HEALTH outcomes.

[transam]

It's hilarious how the politically right wing can't get their heads out of the dogmatic anti-taxation mantra, when the root of the motivation for any of this is improved public HEALTH outcomes.

So the poor stay healthy and the well off die early is OK in your opinion....?

[Jingthing]

It's hilarious how the politically right wing can't get their heads out of the dogmatic anti-taxation mantra, when the root of the motivation for any of this is improved public HEALTH outcomes.

So the poor stay healthy and the well off die early is OK in your opinion....?

Bait away. At least someone is having fun. Glad to help!

[krisb]

Many are missing a point, the number 1 daily occurrence with Thai folk is eating. Those who have been here a while know that. The farang food intervention in LOS is all new, folk are trying it, but I can tell you that after a ''healthy'' start the McD's in my town are near always empty , strange that eh.

Kids like sugary and salty stuff and parents who have come into a better salary range want to spoil their kids, a fact. Obesity is about money in the pocket to eat or do what they want. Very few fat kids in the sticks, UNLESS their bodies are continuing family statistics regarding size, are fat. Many folk I have known have looked over weight but eat little, we are all different, but I think cash in pockets of Thai folk is perhaps increasing the waistlines of their kids. Even if there was noooooooo farang food outlets this would still happen.

So attacking SUGAR as a substance rather as a product (like soda) makes more sense then. I agree! Dude, you clearly haven't processed this thread if you think the consensus is that the problem is ONLY western imports. Thailand itself, the REAL modern Thailand, has transitioned into it's own style of an obesogenic nation.

Thailand in the city has grown a waistline, not in the villages out back.

Offer a village kid Phad krapow or a KFC supreme deluxe whatever with extra cheese. I would back the Krapow a winner 9 out of 10 times. It's not a junk food issue, it's a sugar issue.

Jingthing, your Thailand is from a city pov, but there is also the country towns, from what I see compared to Australia, quite slim.

I blame sugar.

[transam]

It's hilarious how the politically right wing can't get their heads out of the dogmatic anti-taxation mantra, when the root of the motivation for any of this is improved public HEALTH outcomes.

So the poor stay healthy and the well off die early is OK in your opinion....?

Bait away. At least someone is having fun. Glad to help!

Perhaps FIRST you should point your finger at roadside stalls selling unrefrigerated food, non hygienic practices that are causing problems to folk that are not regulated. NOT to franchises that provide food that has noooooooooo probs in this area.

You miss my point that your ''not good'' food is the food of the well off and NOT the food of the ordinary Thai.

[Jingthing]

I've already said it is clearly linked to urbanization.

Call me a fool, but I think government doing something might possibly be better than doing nothing, given the current bad trends in doing nothing.

No not just anything.

Not saying it's easy to figure the best tactics but some other countries are acting as test labs and that is going to become more clear eventually.

Edited January 10, 2014 by Jingthing