Should Thailand tax junk food to help fight obesity?

[nisakiman]

A government's job is to govern the country; to use taxes they gather wisely and for the good of the people from whom they take those taxes; to maintain a just and lawful society; to be custodian of the economic activity of the country; to maintain good diplomatic and trade relations with other countries.

Social engineering is not within their remit. They can advise and they can educate, but as soon as they start to coerce, be it via taxation or legislation, then they are starting down the road to totalitarianism. What I choose to eat, drink or smoke is nobody's business but mine.

An increasing number of overweight population is a sign of a country that is becoming increasingly wealthy - it should be celebrated. Unfortunately these days we are seeing a surge in the power of the Neo-Puritans, the prohibitionists, those who would have us deny ourselves all pleasure, don sackcloth and ashes and live like ascetics. Well they can <deleted> off. I have no intention of kowtowing to their petty moralising, particularly given that 95% of the 'science' they use to try and browbeat us with is made up of cherry-picked and manipulated statistics, and outright lies.

"Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy."

H.L. Mencken

[StreetCowboy]

Sorry - wrong thread

Edited January 10, 2014 by StreetCowboy

[WitawatWatawit]

REDUCING OBESITY: TAXING CALORIES IN SOFT DRINKS HELPS BUT NOT BY MUCH

A tax on the calories contained in soft drinks is around 6% more effective at reducing obesity than a general tax on soft drinks but the effect is only a drop in peoples weight of around 1.6 pounds per year. These are the findings of research by Wei Xiao, presented at the Royal Economic Societys 2013 annual conference.

The study analyses the buying patterns of 10,000 American households by looking at data on soft drink purchases from supermarket scanners. Based on the calorie content of soft drinks and the medically accepted view that an intake of 6.614 calories leads to a gain in weight of 1 gram, the author simulates the effectiveness of various soft drink tax policies on peoples weight.

The research suggests that a tax that targets the calorie content will be more effective than a universal tax on soft drinks as some soft drinks are healthier than others. But the author admits that although an obesity tax on soft drinks can cause weight reduction, the effect is small, adding that even without any dietary changes, a humans weight can change in the region of one pound in a day.

http://www.res.org.uk/view/2013ConfMedia4of3.html

[Jingthing]

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

[Showbags]

Everybody should grow honey and flowers.

[StreetCowboy]

If they were to repeal the VAT laws, the reduction in sedentary jobs would have a greater effect on people's health. What we don't need is an increase in unnecessary and complicated taxes that cost more to implement than they raise, and greatly increase the cost to business compared to the revenue raised. If they don't tax sugar, it will be easy enough for me to carry round a wee bag to add a drop to my can of Diet Irn Bru, or I could just ladle coconut syrup into my coffee.

Let's face it, nobody's going to tax me fit, nor anyone else. But such a tax would encourage all sorts of opportunities for moonlighting, smuggling and backdoor blackmarketing - enough to make Al Capone envious.

Do we want to make criminals out of jam-making grannies?

SC

[mogandave]

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.

More attacks, without any attempt at showing how yet another hideously regressive tax is going to do anything but hurt the poor (the people eating white rice) and benefit the rich (the people marketing the rice)

You guys crack me up. You don’t seem to care at all whether something will work, as long as you can throw other people’s money at it and grow government.

Just do anything to make yourself feel better about yourself and screw everyone else.

Typical.

Actually I do care if it works or not and I agree designing things in a more non-regressive way is always better. You are just demonizing me based on your politics. Nothing about me personally.

But it's okay for you to attack me based on your politics, yes? Hypocrite.

You started with rice, then junk food, and now you've got your panties all in a bunch about sugar. The thread has to be fluid so that you can continue dodging anything that requires some level of thought to respond to.

So what is it you recommend doing about the sugar that is killing all the poor, fat, Thais?

Meanwhile, in other threads you're taking about pigging out on pizza and other crap that is loaded with saturated fat, sugar and white flower. Why does that not surprise anyone? Again, you are a hypocrite

I'm not demonizing you, you have been demonizing me. You paint me as me as an evil, mean-spirited, greedy, racisit, homophobic, woman-hater. I just think you a well meaning fool.

[Jingthing]

...

You paint me as me as an evil, mean-spirited, greedy, racisit, homophobic, woman-hater. I just think you a well meaning fool.

Not interested in this kind of bizarre personal crapola but pleased for you that you got the chance to unload that bag of poison off your chest. Hope you feel better.

Edited January 10, 2014 by Jingthing

[mogandave]

...

You paint me as me as an evil, mean-spirited, greedy, racisit, homophobic, woman-hater. I just think you a well meaning fool.

Not interested in this kind of bizarre personal crapola but pleased for you that you got the chance to unload that bag of poison off your chest. Hope you feel better.

I feel fine, thanks for your concern. Worked all day then went to a great company New Year Party, our best one yet. Lots of eating, drinking, singing and dancing.

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

[oogster8]

A government's job is to govern the country; to use taxes they gather wisely and for the good of the people from whom they take those taxes; to maintain a just and lawful society; to be custodian of the economic activity of the country; to maintain good diplomatic and trade relations with other countries.

Social engineering is not within their remit. They can advise and they can educate, but as soon as they start to coerce, be it via taxation or legislation, then they are starting down the road to totalitarianism. What I choose to eat, drink or smoke is nobody's business but mine.

An increasing number of overweight population is a sign of a country that is becoming increasingly wealthy - it should be celebrated. Unfortunately these days we are seeing a surge in the power of the Neo-Puritans, the prohibitionists, those who would have us deny ourselves all pleasure, don sackcloth and ashes and live like ascetics. Well they can <deleted> off. I have no intention of kowtowing to their petty moralising, particularly given that 95% of the 'science' they use to try and browbeat us with is made up of cherry-picked and manipulated statistics, and outright lies.

"Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy."

H.L. Mencken

the problem is this forum is full of commies and socialist. they think they know better how to run peoples lives than the people who actually r living it.

heil jingthing you butthole................lol. or is it hiel ....

Edited January 10, 2014 by oogster8

[mogandave]

I find it amusing when people state things as inarguable facts, yet are unwilling or unable to provide any supporting documentation.

For example: Taxes are the primary reason the percentage of smokers in the US has been reduced.

Stated any number of time in the thread, yet nothing to support the claim other than that fact that taxes are high, and smoking is down.

Using the same logic, I think we can make a decent argument that fat people actually live longer.

Fact: People in the US are fatter than they were 30 years ago.

Fact: People in the US live longer than they did 30 years ago.

Fact: Increased obesity is why people in the US are living longer.

[Thai at Heart]

I find it amusing when people state things as inarguable facts, yet are unwilling or unable to provide any supporting documentation.

For example: Taxes are the primary reason the percentage of smokers in the US has been reduced.

Stated any number of time in the thread, yet nothing to support the claim other than that fact that taxes are high, and smoking is down.

Using the same logic, I think we can make a decent argument that fat people actually live longer.

Fact: People in the US are fatter than they were 30 years ago.

Fact: People in the US live longer than they did 30 years ago.

Fact: Increased obesity is why people in the US are living longer.

You do realise that not only do the thai and usa governments not tax sugar so you should happy about that, they actually subsidise it's production.

Hiphip hooray. They went even further beyond taxing it they actually subsidise it. Surely this is the opposite of a regressive tax on sugar and as such must be progressive taxation?

[Jingthing]

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.

[Jingthing]

the problem is this forum is full of commies and socialist.

...

OK, I knew going in this topic was controversial and necessarily linked to different political ideologies. But this is getting ridiculous now.

[MrGaoMungGawn]

I find it amusing when people state things as inarguable facts, yet are unwilling or unable to provide any supporting documentation.

Roses are red.

Case Closed.

[rebbu]

A problem I can see with taxing junk food is that cheap junk food often provides an extra meal for poorer/subsitance families. It's not ideal but you would taking away a cheap meal for some people by taxing cheap junk foods.

[BKK Blues Brother]

Interesting thread and one i was discussing today!

Should we be taxing sugar? The evidence shows that sugar is addictive and the health damage caused by excess sugar consumption means it should perhaps be treated in the same way as alcohol and tobacco.

We regulate (not ‘ban’) the selling of damaging foods and other things to children; alcohol, tobacco. If you’re obese as a child and regain normal weight by adulthood, you can be free of the risks of obesity. But in this review, 50-70% of over 6000 obese children stayed obese as adults and were at risk of the consequences

See this list from Harvard School of Public Medicine of the sugar content of breakfast cereals. Some contain over 40% by weight of sugar!
Healthier options might be more expensive, so a tax on sugar could be unfair on lower income families. It might be better to reduce the cost of healthier options to a comparable cost – but how?

http://www.sochealth.co.uk/2013/01/09/taxing-sugar/

[nisakiman]

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”

[MrGaoMungGawn]

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”

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

It is NOT about this, of course.

The question is about living a healthy life, one which does not overtax the public health system of Thailand.

And this is why you do not want fools loading up on sugar drinks, mostly,

Candy, and sugar.

It is a burden on the health system.

Personally, I think that sugar lends very little which is positive to my life.

I don't much think that sugar to produce alcohol for imbibing is much help to humankind either.

Sugar consumption is generally not a good thing.

But, if I choose to consume it, then I want it as cheap as possible.

We should be able to smoke untaxed cigarettes too

Providing that we sign a pledge not to use public health resources.

The fatter the other males in society,

The better I like it.

Just makes me look better.

If we choose to take risk, like eating sugar, smoking cigarettes, drinking alcohol, engaging in unprotected sex, something i just love,

Then we should ensure that society is not made to pay for our illogical behavior.

I think it is interesting to consider the Mormon society,

Whatever else you might think, they mostly all look so very healthy.

And talk about smiles,

They should have a land of smiles all to themselves.

They are ALWAYS smiling, and way too happy for my tastes.

They probably also have much less taste for junk food.

Smoking, caffeine, and alcohol are definitely out of their picture.

Healthy is actually sexy, too.

Rotten teeth are a turn off.

Fat ugly bloated skin does nothing for me in the sack.

Love handles, I do not like.

If you really want to see slim and trim, in both the feminine and male form,

Take a look at this video.

I wonder how much sugar these girls eat:

Better to look like this,

Rather than to overeat junk food.

Eat fruit.

[StreetCowboy]

I find it amusing when people state things as inarguable facts, yet are unwilling or unable to provide any supporting documentation.

For example: Taxes are the primary reason the percentage of smokers in the US has been reduced.

Stated any number of time in the thread, yet nothing to support the claim other than that fact that taxes are high, and smoking is down.

Using the same logic, I think we can make a decent argument that fat people actually live longer.

Fact: People in the US are fatter than they were 30 years ago.

Fact: People in the US live longer than they did 30 years ago.

Fact: Increased obesity is why people in the US are living longer.

You do realise that not only do the thai and usa governments not tax sugar so you should happy about that, they actually subsidise it's production.

Hiphip hooray. They went even further beyond taxing it they actually subsidise it. Surely this is the opposite of a regressive tax on sugar and as such must be progressive taxation?

That's the excuse for subsidising sugar and petrol. Such subsidies encourage waste and unnecessary use, and are probably the most invidious actual policy of SE Asian governments.

SC

[MrGaoMungGawn]

I find it amusing when people state things as inarguable facts, yet are unwilling or unable to provide any supporting documentation.

For example: Taxes are the primary reason the percentage of smokers in the US has been reduced.

Stated any number of time in the thread, yet nothing to support the claim other than that fact that taxes are high, and smoking is down.

Using the same logic, I think we can make a decent argument that fat people actually live longer.

Fact: People in the US are fatter than they were 30 years ago.

Fact: People in the US live longer than they did 30 years ago.

Fact: Increased obesity is why people in the US are living longer.

You do realise that not only do the thai and usa governments not tax sugar so you should happy about that, they actually subsidise it's production.

Hiphip hooray. They went even further beyond taxing it they actually subsidise it. Surely this is the opposite of a regressive tax on sugar and as such must be progressive taxation?

That's the excuse for subsidising sugar and petrol. Such subsidies encourage waste and unnecessary use, and are probably the most invidious actual policy of SE Asian governments.

SC

The subsidizing of water in China, and elsewhere, is another travesty.

Beijing is dying of thirst, and yet they subsidize water. Very nutty.

I think candy bars here in Thailand are far too expensive.

5 Baht for a Jack & Jill?

Peng Mak!

But, if you don't get drunk every night on subsidized rice liquor, then you can probably afford a few.

And for anyone who stops drinking, candy bars are good to eat.

[oogster8]

the problem is this forum is full of commies and socialist.

...

OK, I knew going in this topic was controversial and necessarily linked to different political ideologies. But this is getting ridiculous now.

you start small then it gets bigger and bigger. if a country is fortunate to have toilet paper....lol- soon jingthing will tell you HOW to wipe your ass....................lol.

ideology is the root of all evil. bad ideolgy. africa could be great if it werent for ideology. instead you have millions of stick people .

[StreetCowboy]

Do you think we should use tax to encourage people to eat more green vegetables, exercise more, and swear less?

Perhaps we could use tax to reduce crime, and make burglar alarms tax deductible. In fact, why not let any apparently good cause divert our tax system and make it more complicated?

SC

[soomak]

A government's job is to govern the country; to use taxes they gather wisely and for the good of the people from whom they take those taxes; to maintain a just and lawful society; to be custodian of the economic activity of the country; to maintain good diplomatic and trade relations with other countries.

Social engineering is not within their remit. They can advise and they can educate, but as soon as they start to coerce, be it via taxation or legislation, then they are starting down the road to totalitarianism. What I choose to eat, drink or smoke is nobody's business but mine.

An increasing number of overweight population is a sign of a country that is becoming increasingly wealthy - it should be celebrated. Unfortunately these days we are seeing a surge in the power of the Neo-Puritans, the prohibitionists, those who would have us deny ourselves all pleasure, don sackcloth and ashes and live like ascetics. Well they can <deleted> off. I have no intention of kowtowing to their petty moralising, particularly given that 95% of the 'science' they use to try and browbeat us with is made up of cherry-picked and manipulated statistics, and outright lies.

"Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy."

H.L. Mencken

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

Most people (certainly in Thailand) have zero knowledge about nutrition, they only know what tastes good and what they are used to eat. This was fine 200 years ago when food was 100% natural and usually scarce. It's not enough today, when most food is processed, filled with chemicals, artificial tastes and colors, salt, sugar and processed fats.

All governments in developed countries regulate food (heard of the FDA?); the question here is should fast food, or in particular sugar, be regulated.

[StreetCowboy]

 

A government's job is to govern the country; to use taxes they gather wisely and for the good of the people from whom they take those taxes; to maintain a just and lawful society; to be custodian of the economic activity of the country; to maintain good diplomatic and trade relations with other countries.

Social engineering is not within their remit. They can advise and they can educate, but as soon as they start to coerce, be it via taxation or legislation, then they are starting down the road to totalitarianism. What I choose to eat, drink or smoke is nobody's business but mine.

An increasing number of overweight population is a sign of a country that is becoming increasingly wealthy - it should be celebrated. Unfortunately these days we are seeing a surge in the power of the Neo-Puritans, the prohibitionists, those who would have us deny ourselves all pleasure, don sackcloth and ashes and live like ascetics. Well they can <deleted> off. I have no intention of kowtowing to their petty moralising, particularly given that 95% of the 'science' they use to try and browbeat us with is made up of cherry-picked and manipulated statistics, and outright lies.

"Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy."

H.L. Mencken

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

Most people (certainly in Thailand) have zero knowledge about nutrition, they only know what tastes good and what they are used to eat. This was fine 200 years ago when food was 100% natural and usually scarce. It's not enough today, when most food is processed, filled with chemicals, artificial tastes and colors, salt, sugar and processed fats.

All governments in developed countries regulate food (heard of the FDA?); the question here is should fast food, or in particular sugar, be regulated.

 

Gasoline is not taxed everywhere. In Thailand and in Malaysia, it is subsidised. I think in the UAE either there is no tax, or there is a subsidy.

In Malaysia, and I believe in Thailand also, some foodstuffs are subsidised. Thailand spends a lot of money on the rice subsidy scheme.

In the EU, food production was subsidised because there was a concern that 'strategically' we needed our own food supply. I don't see that the same argument applies to Thailand's rice industry, and to the extent that the rice subsidy has been successful, it has diverted labour away from more productive industries into inefficient agrarian industries.

Instead of relying on the heavy fist of bureaucracy and the incompetent and corrupt weight of taxation to improve people's health, I suggest education is a far more effective, cheaper and less painful way of achieving improvement. Perhaps you think Thais are not very receptive to education, and need a sharp poke in the wallet to be motivated to do anything constructive

SC

[oogster8]

if we tax stupid people we would have less of them.....................lol.

[transam]

if we tax stupid people we would have less of them.....................lol.

Eh... ..........How much do ''you'' have to pay ?.......................

[oogster8]

if we tax stupid people we would have less of them.....................lol.

Eh... ..........How much do ''you'' have to pay ?.......................

To fight thai inGROWN toenails jingthing wants to limit the growth of toenails. I wonder if the thai legislature will take this up in their next session......................lol.

[Morakot]

...

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 Nam.

-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.

Edited January 11, 2014 by Morakot

[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.