Should Thailand tax junk food to help fight obesity?

[Jingthing]

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

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

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

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

SC

I used to buy German corn flakes. The unsweetened ones, same corn flakes, were massively more expensive than the sugared ones. The sweet ones are still sold in Thailand. The unsweetened ones are not. I can understand why. There was a demand for them of course but not big enough at those silly price levels. What economic justification can there be to price the same product MUCH HIGHER that just doesn't have sugar? You see this a lot in the food industry. Something does really stink. Also, yes, price levels do impact on demand, very much actually. IMAGINE that same product where the unsweetened ones being MUCH CHEAPER than the sugared ones.

Edited January 11, 2014 by Jingthing

[transam]

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

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

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

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

SC

I used to buy German corn flakes. The unsweetened ones, same corn flakes, were massively more expensive than the sugared ones. The sweet ones are still sold in Thailand. The unsweetened ones were not. I can understand why. There was a demand for them of course but not bit enough at those silly price levels. What economic justification can there to price the same product MUCH HIGHER that just doesn't have sugar? You see this a lot in the food industry. Something does really stink.

You do not understand what Thai folk WANT to eat, they want fat, sugar and salt. You, a farang come along and suggest changing all that via tax and blaming farang influence...... ..........................

[StreetCowboy]

I'm guessing that the German product was a minority-appeal product, while the sweetened brands probably appeal to Thai consumers, and therefore can get economies of scale and efficiency in their importation.

I used to have to pay about four times as much for Irn Bru as for an American-brand cola, and it was only available as the Diet product, but now my preferred supermarket has both Diet and Wholemeal Irn Bru at about double the cost of the American cola - and now it's significantly cheaper than Tiger.

SC

[Jingthing]

You do not understand what Thai folk WANT to eat, they want fat, sugar and salt.

...

Human beings want fat, sugar, and salt. Not specific to Thailand. In the same way, the growth of globesity applies to Thailand as well.

[Jingthing]

I'm guessing that the German product was a minority-appeal product, while the sweetened brands probably appeal to Thai consumers, and therefore can get economies of scale and efficiency in their importation.

I used to have to pay about four times as much for Irn Bru as for an American-brand cola, and it was only available as the Diet product, but now my preferred supermarket has both Diet and Wholemeal Irn Bru at about double the cost of the American cola - and now it's significantly cheaper than Tiger.

SC

I think it is a proper role of government is try to make it at least POSSIBLE for consumers to purchase healthier foods at normal prices compared to unhealthy foods. Especially considering the government pays for a lot of HEALTH CARE in Thailand, it IS their business! Yes that could involve going after big food companies. Conservatives don't. They are happy with government doing nothing to promote reasonable fairness in healthy food choices available to the masses. Again, with the ideology.

Edited January 11, 2014 by Jingthing

[Thai at Heart]

...

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

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

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

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

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

Why do manufacturers need punished because you buy their food?

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

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

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

SC

I hadn't bought a pack of them for 20 years. Won't be buying them again that's for sure.

And yes HFCS is an absolute shocker and it might be storing up a wealth of health problems for us in 30 years time. Humans are not meant to consume that much fructose and we do not metabolise it in the same way as sucrose and glucose.

It really is a franken food derived ironically by the USA food industry when protectionism on USA sugar pushed the price up. So. Whilst everyone is jumping around moaning about government intervention being immoral and destructive, the reason for pricing of sugar and the prevelance of HFCS is because of the express intervention of government.

If they had done nothing, sugar would be considerably more expensive globally and would probably be used less. When it comes to things like HFCS I don't trust industry on iota to declare what they know about it. Believe it or not, I used to work for the tobacco industry and they weren't about to admit anything.

[StreetCowboy]

You do not understand what Thai folk WANT to eat, they want fat, sugar and salt.

...

Human beings want fat, sugar, and salt. Not specific to Thailand. In the same way, the growth of globesity applies to Thailand as well.

Back in the Old Country, there was a health food shop in our little town since about 1980, and there was nothing we'd like better than a quarter of Bombay Mix; but then we were sophisticated and well-educated. Had we not been snobs, then it would not have mattered what was the price differential, we'd have still been into the cafe across the road for a couple of ounces of strawberry bon-bons.

My friend, who was a vegetarian, was always concerned about whether the chips were fried in vegetable oil or animal fat. We told him it was generally vegetable oil, which could well have been true

SC

[David48]

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

I reckon that JT to be quite the athlete.

Considering the energy spend dodging questions and moving the goal posts, he's probably due an Irn Bru ... or two.

[StreetCowboy]

He must be fit, to carry all that round.

[Jingthing]

He must be fit, to carry all that round.

When in doubt, go AD HOMINUM.

[transam]

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

I reckon that JT to be quite the athlete.

Considering the energy spend dodging questions and moving the goal posts, he's probably due an Irn Bru ... or two.

Nooooooooooooooooo......................Perhaps........

Edited January 11, 2014 by transam

[nisakiman]

We are talking here about 'obesity', but what, exactly, is 'obesity? How far above the 'recommended' BMI does one have to go before becoming 'obese'? It's worth remembering that overweight people on average live longer than 'normal weight' people. But we start to get into the medicalisation of conditions that are really not medical conditions at all, because the pharmaceutical companies have no morals whatsoever where it comes to profits.

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.

It would seem that the definition of 'obese' is quite arbitrary. But as I mentioned, much of this is driven by the pharmaceutical companies.

Selling sickness: the pharmaceutical industry and disease mongering – 2002

“There’s a lot of money to be made from telling healthy people they’re sick. Some forms of medicalising ordinary life may now be better described as disease mongering: widening the boundaries of treatable illness in order to expand markets for those who sell and deliver treatments.

Pharmaceutical companies are actively involved in sponsoring the definition of diseases and promoting them to both prescribers and consumers. The social construction of illness is being replaced by the corporate construction of disease.”

“Within many disease categories informal alliances have emerged, comprising drug company staff, doctors, and consumer groups.
Ostensibly engaged in raising public awareness about underdiagnosed and undertreated problems, these alliances tend to promote a view of their particular condition as widespread, serious, and treatable.

Because these “disease awareness” campaigns are commonly linked to companies’ marketing strategies, they operate to expand markets for new pharmaceutical products.”

“As the late medical writer Lynn Payer observed, disease mongers “gnaw away at our self-confidence.”
http://www.bmj.com/content/324/7342/886.1

And it's not only Big Pharma who use these tactics, the healthist zealots are past masters at fudging figures to create a panic where no cause for panic exists, in the hope of forcing governments into a knee-jerk reaction

Like imposing a 'sugar tax', for instance.

[Jingthing]

Here:

http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/guidelines/obesity/BMI/bmicalc.htm

I totally agree overweight and obesity are not the same thing.

I totally agree BMI is not a perfect tool but it is a useful rough guideline, especially for non-body builder types (MOST people).

Waist size is perhaps more important for health risks.

Many many people who are BMI "overweight" really are perfectly fine, but probably worth a closer look at individual factors to see any real personal risks.

People BMI obese are most likely actually not perfectly fine risk-wise, except for very unusual bodies.

Even many obese people can be relatively healthy by eating well and exercising.

I totally agree that mere overweight (short of obesity) is not always a very serious health risk and that for some things, like surviving heart attacks, overweight people do better than normal weight people.

I do see why overweight is seen as a "red flag" especially in children, as overweight often leads to obesity, obesity DOES carry significant health risks, and once a child is obese, statistically they are very likely to be obese for life (a usually shorter life). So it is personal and social interest to PREVENT obesity in as many people as possible, especially important with children.

Nobody is claiming perfect science in any of this, but some general things ARE known.

Edited January 11, 2014 by Jingthing

[kevvy]

#582"

It's worth remembering that overweight people on average live longer than 'normal weight' people"

My Grandfather was a huge man . His son was a slim man(my father) , My grandfather lived till he was 87 years.It took 6 men to carry his coffin when he died. He was a farmer in Victoria Australia

Kevvy

[Jingthing]

Again, overweight is not the same as obese and it is a given that BMI categories are far from a perfect measure. However, when looking at large populations, it is useful to have these rough guidelines to see trends and problems. So if obesity based on BMI is increasing rapidly as they have in Thailand, that is a bona fide red flag.

Medicalization of obesity is a separate and controversial issue. In other words, is obesity itself a disease, or rather only a condition (basically being very fat!) that is closely associated with other diseases. There is a political and financial aspect to this question. I think it is a side issue and doesn't really matter that much to this discussion here ... the underlying medical situation for obese people remains the same regardless of how you label obesity.

Edited January 11, 2014 by Jingthing

[Thai at Heart]

We are talking here about 'obesity', but what, exactly, is 'obesity? How far above the 'recommended' BMI does one have to go before becoming 'obese'? It's worth remembering that overweight people on average live longer than 'normal weight' people. But we start to get into the medicalisation of conditions that are really not medical conditions at all, because the pharmaceutical companies have no morals whatsoever where it comes to profits.

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.

It would seem that the definition of 'obese' is quite arbitrary. But as I mentioned, much of this is driven by the pharmaceutical companies.

Selling sickness: the pharmaceutical industry and disease mongering 2002

Theres a lot of money to be made from telling healthy people theyre sick. Some forms of medicalising ordinary life may now be better described as disease mongering: widening the boundaries of treatable illness in order to expand markets for those who sell and deliver treatments.

Pharmaceutical companies are actively involved in sponsoring the definition of diseases and promoting them to both prescribers and consumers. The social construction of illness is being replaced by the corporate construction of disease.

Within many disease categories informal alliances have emerged, comprising drug company staff, doctors, and consumer groups.

Ostensibly engaged in raising public awareness about underdiagnosed and undertreated problems, these alliances tend to promote a view of their particular condition as widespread, serious, and treatable.

Because these disease awareness campaigns are commonly linked to companies marketing strategies, they operate to expand markets for new pharmaceutical products.

As the late medical writer Lynn Payer observed, disease mongers gnaw away at our self-confidence.

http://www.bmj.com/content/324/7342/886.1

And it's not only Big Pharma who use these tactics, the healthist zealots are past masters at fudging figures to create a panic where no cause for panic exists, in the hope of forcing governments into a knee-jerk reaction

Like imposing a 'sugar tax', for instance.

Note that the companies like weight watchers and slim shake are owned by massive food companies these days. I guess they have the healthy and non healthy divisions. The food companies make money on either side of the fat or non fat business.

[Jingthing]

The "diet" industry's business model is for lifetime customers. Their logo should be this:

Really, really, PREVENTION is the key to meaningful changes in societal obesity levels.

Edited January 11, 2014 by Jingthing

[oogster8]

try analyzing the next 5 obeese people you see. I bet thais wont hit number 5 first.

[Jingthing]

try analyzing the next 5 obeese people you see. I bet thais wont hit number 5 first.

So your assertion is the problem isn't serious enough in Thailand to consider any societal action, correct? I have provided links before refuting that, about the rapid rate in the growth of obesity in Thailand showing a classic pattern of globesity. Should Thailand wait another decade or two until it can compete with the big boys from countries like Mexico? As PREVENTION is the best solution to this, its surprising more people don't see the wisdom in going after this aggressively at an earlier stage when the trend is clear and there is such a great opportunity for preventing the problem in many millions of Thai people.

Edited January 11, 2014 by Jingthing

[soomak]

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

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

Its certainly not called sin tax where I come from, it's called sales tax. And has nothing to do with morality, nobody thinks smoking cigarettes or alcohol is a sin, it's just bad for your health, and of the people around you (if you smoke).

That's why they put regulation on those things: an age requirement, can't smoke in a public place, can't drink and drive, etc.

[StreetCowboy]

He must be fit, to carry all that round.

When in doubt, go AD HOMINUM.

Or ad hominem, if you're frightened of being politically incorrect.

I wasn't really intending that as a contribution to any debate, but rather as a humourous aside.

I was musing on my own weight while sunbathing by the pool a moment ago, and I reckon I'd like to lose about 39 cans of stout, and I'm struggling to see where I can get it from. There's others I know carrying round half a barrel, which is not something I could do all day.

SC

[oogster8]

try analyzing the next 5 obeese people you see. I bet thais wont hit number 5 first.

So your assertion is the problem isn't serious enough in Thailand to consider any societal action, correct? I have provided links before refuting that, about the rapid rate in the growth of obesity in Thailand showing a classic pattern of globesity. Should Thailand wait another decade or two until it can compete with the big boys from countries like Mexico? As PREVENTION is the best solution to this, its surprising more people don't see the wisdom in going after this aggressively at an earlier stage when the trend is clear and there is such a great opportunity for preventing the problem in many millions of Thai people.

YOU really irritate me. You ever heard of FREEDOM? if a thai girl wants to guzzle down a gallon of EST cola with her veggie burger-thats her choice- not yours.

If you want to take her aside and warn her of the dangers of drinking a gallon of EST cola per sitting- please be free to do so.

but please leave a corrupt govt alone. they have enough on their plate already.

you leftist just want to control people you think are not as smart as u.

govts lie my eye dont. fat euro women all over bkk thai fatties not so much.

Edited January 11, 2014 by oogster8

[Jingthing]

...

You ever heard of FREEDOM?

...

Why yes! I believe I have!

Would you like super size FRIES what that "Taste of Freedom" sugar soda?

I agree talk of the current Thai government dealing with these kinds of issues effectively with limited corruption is an aspirational concept. No argument there.

Edited January 11, 2014 by Jingthing

[StreetCowboy]

I think young Thais, particularly girls, tend to put on weight that drops off later.

I say that based primarily on my experience with helping out at the kids' rugby club, so presumably reasonably healthy little girls, but distinctly roly-poly. I don't see the equivalent in the older cohorts.

SC

[Jingthing]

I think young Thais, particularly girls, tend to put on weight that drops off later.

I say that based primarily on my experience with helping out at the kids' rugby club, so presumably reasonably healthy little girls, but distinctly roly-poly. I don't see the equivalent in the older cohorts.

SC

Fat to the point of actual obesity? Because I'm skeptical. It is well known a large majority of obese kids DO grow up to obese adulthood.

[transam]

I think young Thais, particularly girls, tend to put on weight that drops off later.

I say that based primarily on my experience with helping out at the kids' rugby club, so presumably reasonably healthy little girls, but distinctly roly-poly. I don't see the equivalent in the older cohorts.

SC

Fat to the point of actual obesity? Because I'm skeptical. It is well known a large majority of obese kids DO grow up to obese adulthood.

Please answer my points regarding Thai food leaving out the big farang companies. The food Thais have eaten for a long time, fat, salt and sugar laden.

[Jingthing]

I think young Thais, particularly girls, tend to put on weight that drops off later.

I say that based primarily on my experience with helping out at the kids' rugby club, so presumably reasonably healthy little girls, but distinctly roly-poly. I don't see the equivalent in the older cohorts.

SC

Fat to the point of actual obesity? Because I'm skeptical. It is well known a large majority of obese kids DO grow up to obese adulthood.

Please answer my points regarding Thai food leaving out the big farang companies. The food Thais have eaten for a long time, fat, salt and sugar laden.

As I already explained, increasing wealth is ONE (and an important) factor contributing to globesity. See the link I posted about that before. So eating more of already popular traditional foods would be a factor. But there are multiple factors. If you're suggesting I have governmental answers for everything, you're barking up the wrong tree. For that aspect, I would suggest education programs and public health campaigns, even though there isn't a lot of evidence they are really very effective, probably better than nothing. I really don't know what you expect out of me, like if I can't provide ideas for 100 percent solutions (which NOBODY can) then any of these ideas that address PART of the problem are worthless, so then better to do nothing, is that it?

Edited January 11, 2014 by Jingthing

[StreetCowboy]

I think young Thais, particularly girls, tend to put on weight that drops off later.

I say that based primarily on my experience with helping out at the kids' rugby club, so presumably reasonably healthy little girls, but distinctly roly-poly. I don't see the equivalent in the older cohorts.

SC

Fat to the point of actual obesity? Because I'm skeptical. It is well known a large majority of obese kids DO grow up to obese adulthood.

I think obese according to this web site.

http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/guidelines/obesity/BMI/bmicalc.htm

Apparently I would be obese if I was three inches shorter, which I find surprising, or if I was carrying another crate of Tiger.

Thinking about it, that would be like a waist band with 18 cans, a couple on each leg and one in each shirt pocket, which would be a fair whack of extra lard to carry.

I don't think I would tell Castro Giovanni that he was obese, though.

Is it well known (and more importantly, is it true) that Thai children retain their shape as they get older, and that the podgy children I see running about the rugby pitch grow up to be podgy hookers (or props or locks, as appropriate)?

SC

[Jingthing]

It would be surprising if Thai childhood obesity long term outcomes are much better than in other countries. I can't rely on the anecdote of one person to believe that though. Believe what you want though! I do not value personal anecdotes for making social policy. Again not all obese juveniles become obese adults, but most do.

One long-term (average follow-up = 17 years) study of a biracial population of more than 2000 children (ages 2 to 17 years) from Bogalusa, LA (The Bogalusa Heart Study) found that an exceptionally high percentage of obese children become obese adults. According to their findings, 77% of overweight children remain obese as adults.

http://www.gastricbypassfamily.com/ObeseChildrenAndAdults.html

You know, I acknowledge there are valid arguments against Thai government action against obesity:

1. Ideological (more of an irrational reason so discountable)

2. Government too corrupt to do anything of this kind (strong point)

3. Taxation has the danger of being regressive, unpredictable bad side effects of legislation (strong points)

4. Obesity isn't a problem in Thailand and it is not growing rapidly (VERY weak point)

5. Obesity is not a health issue (VERY weak point)

Edited January 11, 2014 by Jingthing

[transam]

OP, you understand nothing about LOS, you want to bring in farang tax mentality to control stuff...... Kids still ride around on bikes with keys given by parents, yet you want to fix eating habits by a tax. KIDS STILL DRIVE BIKES with no insurance, license, whatever and you want to tax the easy way about eating, yet the government cannot control stuff that has fines that near everyone ignores. Yeh, you tax the poor about farang food that they don't want anyhoooo and the well off can still pay.

Take a loooooooooooong look at what Thai folk eat, YOU will tax it all........... .