Should Thailand tax junk food to help fight obesity?

[mogandave]

...

Progressive want to help poor fat Thais to be healthier, and anyone that questions any of their nonsensical ideas must be attacked and discredited as a greedy, mean-spirited, right-wing hater that cares nothing for anything or anyone but their money and themselves.

...

You auditioning for a job in the Hillary Clinton campaign?

Suggest you consider cooling down. It's just talk here. Thais are going to the streets soon and the issue isn't a sugar tax!

She's going to campaign? I thought you guys were just going to appoint her.

I'm not hot about anything. You want to throw your politics around and attic the right, then you start squealing when I do the same. Seems a little hypocriteical to me.

Take it easy killer, It's just talk.

Baked a killer pineapple upside-down cake today and it all but fell out of the pan.

[Thai at Heart]

I don't doubt there are ethnic differences in this regard. Like my ethnicity has a very high rate of lactose intolerance and IBS in females. It's not "racist" for scientists to study these kinds of differences. It's helpful.

As I am part Cherokee/Choctaw, I have seen the effects of increased rates of obesity and diabetes firsthand. Although it does sometimes work the other way around, too. Cheap and abundant corn and corn based products introduced into the European diet has probably contributed to obesity as well. Although I would guess almost any group would improve their relative health if they limited portions. But fast food culture, another American invention, works directly against that notion. Bigger portions and larger plates = bigger people with more health problems. Western food lifestyles are seductive and what warnings and labeling that are available in the US seem to be absent here. That said, people do need to be free to make their own choices. It would be nice, however, if the choices were informed ones.

Indeed informed decisions are the start. But really. These health guidelines barely tell a story.

I reckon it should just be bloody well colour coded so that it is immediately obvious when added refined or HFCS sugars are added. As I said, there were some frosted shreddies in the fridge that a nephew bought over Xmas.

I have never eaten anything so sweet. If the measurements are to be bwlieved it was 25%,sugars of different types. It was incredible. Never again but is it reaponsible to even allow it on there shelves in that way?

http://www.acaloriecounter.com/breakfast-cereal.php

Just look how many of them contain HFCS, it's staggering.

[mogandave]

FYI, for anyone interested in addressing the issue of the Western diet on non-Western peoples. Here is info from the CDC:

Why do some racial and ethnic groups have higher rates of diabetes?

Diabetes can indeed run in families," meaning that heredity often makes someone more likely to develop diabetes. Researchers believe that certain genes affecting immune response can play a role in the development of type 1 diabetes, while genes affecting insulin function can contribute to the development of type 2 diabetes. While African Americans, Hispanic/Latino Americans, American Indians, Asian Americans, and Pacific Islander Americans have a slightly lower rate of type 1 diabetes, they are at a higher risk for type 2 diabetes than the rest of the population.

Many researchers think that some African Americans, Hispanic/Latino Americans, American Indians, Asian Americans, and Pacific Islander Americans inherited a "thrifty gene" which helped their ancestors store food energy better during times when food was plentiful, to survive during times when food was scarce. Now that feast or famine situations rarely occur for most people in the United States, the gene which was once helpful may now put these groups at a higher risk for type 2 diabetes.

In addition, poverty, lack of access to health care, cultural attitudes and behaviors are barriers to preventive and diabetes management care for some minority Americans.

http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/consumer/groups.htm

Give it 30 years and I have a sneaking suspicion that HFCS will be blamed for an explosion of diabetes.

Its just not right for humans to consume that much fructose in huge volume.

You mean another 30 years? It's already been around 50.

I thought HFCS consumption was on the decline, no?

[mogandave]

I have never eaten anything so sweet. If the measurements are to be bwlieved it was 25%,sugars of different types.

25% by weight, volume or caloric content?

Edited January 11, 2014 by mogandave

[Thai at Heart]

FYI, for anyone interested in addressing the issue of the Western diet on non-Western peoples. Here is info from the CDC:

Why do some racial and ethnic groups have higher rates of diabetes?

Diabetes can indeed run in families," meaning that heredity often makes someone more likely to develop diabetes. Researchers believe that certain genes affecting immune response can play a role in the development of type 1 diabetes, while genes affecting insulin function can contribute to the development of type 2 diabetes. While African Americans, Hispanic/Latino Americans, American Indians, Asian Americans, and Pacific Islander Americans have a slightly lower rate of type 1 diabetes, they are at a higher risk for type 2 diabetes than the rest of the population.

Many researchers think that some African Americans, Hispanic/Latino Americans, American Indians, Asian Americans, and Pacific Islander Americans inherited a "thrifty gene" which helped their ancestors store food energy better during times when food was plentiful, to survive during times when food was scarce. Now that feast or famine situations rarely occur for most people in the United States, the gene which was once helpful may now put these groups at a higher risk for type 2 diabetes.

In addition, poverty, lack of access to health care, cultural attitudes and behaviors are barriers to preventive and diabetes management care for some minority Americans.

http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/consumer/groups.htm

Give it 30 years and I have a sneaking suspicion that HFCS will be blamed for an explosion of diabetes.

Its just not right for humans to consume that much fructose in huge volume.

You mean another 30 years? It's already been around 50.

I thought HFCS consumption was on the decline, no?

Not from what I just read. It is still on the increase. One oddity it causes is because it is cheaper than sugar in the USA it has allowed ever increasing sizes of fizzy drinks to be produced at little or no cost increase.

It is a franken food and as an article pointed out, we consumed 20 spoons of refined sugar per year 20,000 years ago. Today with 2 sodas per day, we consume that daily.

All of us can do with consuming less sugar,but HFCS is an odd product which was introduced in the 70-80s. When did the obesity problem in the USA take off?

It is in so many things, but I am going to make a real effort to cut both refined sugar and HFCS. Do we need it really?,

[MrGaoMungGawn]

I don't doubt there are ethnic differences in this regard. Like my ethnicity has a very high rate of lactose intolerance and IBS in females. It's not "racist" for scientists to study these kinds of differences. It's helpful.

It is not racist to speak of racist differences that are based on science.

It is racist to imply that American Indians are fat due to racist differences, and whatever else this poster was implying.

Do you really think the races are that different that our metabolic rates are different due our separate set of genes peculiar to our racial group?

Hogwash.

Asian lactose intolerance may be in part due to dietary differences starting early age, also.

The new Asians in Taiwan are drinking a ton of milk these days, and are able to easily digest this sugar,

But still remain allergic to melamine.

[Jingthing]

Anyway, any theoretical Thai government policies to address the growth of obesity here would be applied to people living in Thailand of all ethnic persuasions, which is my way of saying ...

Edited January 11, 2014 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

I shouldn't have to pay more for my food because lardies have no self-control

You know while I think the causation of obesity is complex (though no doubt too many calories is the BIGGEST cause) and the morality argument weakens a lot when you're talking about children, you do point a difference between taxing sugar and taxing ciggies.

EVERYONE needs to eat FOOD. Not specific foods. But some kind of food. On the other hand, nobody really NEEDS ciggies. So people wouldn't make similar complaints as you about ciggie taxes, it wouldn't make sense, as in

I shouldn't have to pay more for my ciggies because the tobacco junkies have no self-control

Here is a good basic summary of the varied causes of people developing obesity:http://www.mdjunction.com/obesity/videos

Edited January 11, 2014 by Jingthing

[MrGaoMungGawn]

I shouldn't have to pay more for my food because lardies have no self-control

You know while I think the causation of obesity is complex (though no doubt too many calories is the BIGGEST cause) and the morality argument weakens a lot when you're talking about children, you do point a difference between taxing sugar and taxing ciggies.

EVERYONE needs to eat FOOD. Not specific foods. But some kind of food. On the other hand, nobody really NEEDS ciggies. So people wouldn't make similar complaints as you about ciggie taxes, it wouldn't make sense, as in

I shouldn't have to pay more for my ciggies because the tobacco junkies have no self-control

Here is a good basic summary of the varied causes of people developing obesity:http://www.mdjunction.com/obesity/videos

Are you saying that gravitational force is not a factor?

I say it is, for example, if gravitational force were twice what it is, 20 Newtons per Kilo instead of 9.8,

Then we would have slimmer bods,

Because no one could walk around with the force twice what we now tolerate.

If you weigh 80 kilo, and 2 meters long,

Then on this alternate earth you would still be 2 meters long, but the equivalent of 60 kilo in weight.

So, I think that people would tend to be less fat.

Also, if you were forced to work more, then you would weigh less.

And, I assume if you tax junk food, it will have positive health benefits for children, and then throughout their lives.

But if you taxed to heavy, then you would gradually have bootleg sugar runners.

And they might lose weight due to their excessive running.

I preferred to live in a society where everyone was less obese, and walked more, and were happier, and looked better, and lived longer.

Now, the same society with big macs, are not as well off judged by all these metrics.

[Thai at Heart]

I shouldn't have to pay more for my food because lardies have no self-control

You know while I think the causation of obesity is complex (though no doubt too many calories is the BIGGEST cause) and the morality argument weakens a lot when you're talking about children, you do point a difference between taxing sugar and taxing ciggies.

EVERYONE needs to eat FOOD. Not specific foods. But some kind of food. On the other hand, nobody really NEEDS ciggies. So people wouldn't make similar complaints as you about ciggie taxes, it wouldn't make sense, as in

I shouldn't have to pay more for my ciggies because the tobacco junkies have no self-control

Here is a good basic summary of the varied causes of people developing obesity:http://www.mdjunction.com/obesity/videos

Are you saying that gravitational force is not a factor?

I say it is, for example, if gravitational force were twice what it is, 20 Newtons per Kilo instead of 9.8,

Then we would have slimmer bods,

Because no one could walk around with the force twice what we now tolerate.

If you weigh 80 kilo, and 2 meters long,

Then on this alternate earth you would still be 2 meters long, but the equivalent of 60 kilo in weight.

So, I think that people would tend to be less fat.

Also, if you were forced to work more, then you would weigh less.

And, I assume if you tax junk food, it will have positive health benefits for children, and then throughout their lives.

But if you taxed to heavy, then you would gradually have bootleg sugar runners.

And they might lose weight due to their excessive running.

I preferred to live in a society where everyone was less obese, and walked more, and were happier, and looked better, and lived longer.

Now, the same society with big macs, are not as well off judged by all these metrics.

Unfortunately, on this issue,governments are already up to their eyeballs in it having mucked the market up already.

Basically, if they hadn't touched it, people would already be paying more for sugar and a coke would have gradually increased in price way beyond what it is now.

Basically we don't need all this refined sugar.

[nisakiman]

Ok, so just to throw the cat in amongst the pigeons, I came across this little item this evening:

Science teacher goes on McDonald's-only diet to prove it's not where you eat, but what you eat (and how much you exercise) that matters.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/01/06/mcdonalds-nutrition-fast-food-mcdonalds-menu/4339395/

Which rather illustrates the fact that taxing something in an attempt to achieve a particular result is a very blunt and inaccurate instrument. Not only is it ill-targeted, but it is likely to produce far more unintended consequences than would be immediately apparent, as does most heavy-handed social engineering legislation.

[Jingthing]

Ok, so just to throw the cat in amongst the pigeons, I came across this little item this evening:

Science teacher goes on McDonald's-only diet to prove it's not where you eat, but what you eat (and how much you exercise) that matters.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/01/06/mcdonalds-nutrition-fast-food-mcdonalds-menu/4339395/

Which rather illustrates the fact that taxing something in an attempt to achieve a particular result is a very blunt and inaccurate instrument. Not only is it ill-targeted, but it is likely to produce far more unintended consequences than would be immediately apparent, as does most heavy-handed social engineering legislation.

Meaningless point really to the taxing sugars as a SUBSTANCE in all commercial foods concept.

In any case, here's another more critical view of that particular McD's story, but again it's not related to taxation of sugars.

Unsurprisingly, the effect of weight loss on metabolism means that most people who lose weight gain it back—study after study has shown that most people can lose lots of weight in the short term, but few people can keep it off. (By the time Cisna gains back his lost weight, the Today Show will have moved on to another incredible, feel-good weight-loss story—perhaps someone will lose 40 pounds eating only submarine sandwiches or pizza. Oh, wait.)

http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2014/01/06/mcdonald_s_diet_high_school_teacher_john_cisna_loses_37_pounds_sets_terrible.html

Relating more to the topic, it brings up the unfortunate fact that once obese, child or adult, it is MASSIVELY DIFFICULT to lose weight to normal weight AND keep it off LONG TERM. This underlines the incredible importance of PREVENTION. Most people who become obese have developed a lifetime problem, there are no two ways about it. The most elegant answer is to nip it in the bud, as a society. Countries like the USA and Mexico are threatened to their very core by the health costs and productivity losses from obesity related diseases. Thailand is still at a stage where it can be super smart and REVERSE the trend. Yes, I know they won't, but yes, I think they really should.

In a story called “The Fat Trap,” Tara Parker-Pope, a longtime health writer and the editor of the Times’s Well blog, writes about both the latest research explaining why most people cannot keep weight off and about her own struggle to lose weight.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2011/12/29/the_new_york_times_magazine_the_fat_trap_and_the_impossibility_of_lasting_weight_loss.html

Edited January 11, 2014 by Jingthing

[Thai at Heart]

Ok, so just to throw the cat in amongst the pigeons, I came across this little item this evening:

Science teacher goes on McDonald's-only diet to prove it's not where you eat, but what you eat (and how much you exercise) that matters.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/01/06/mcdonalds-nutrition-fast-food-mcdonalds-menu/4339395/

Which rather illustrates the fact that taxing something in an attempt to achieve a particular result is a very blunt and inaccurate instrument. Not only is it ill-targeted, but it is likely to produce far more unintended consequences than would be immediately apparent, as does most heavy-handed social engineering legislation.

So I presume you agree in doing away with the subsidy and importing sugar from Brazil and Thailand to substitute expensive American sugar.

After all, governments intervening for social reasons is just terrible, and leads to unintended consequences such as the invention of HFCS.

[nisakiman]

Ok, so just to throw the cat in amongst the pigeons, I came across this little item this evening:

Science teacher goes on McDonald's-only diet to prove it's not where you eat, but what you eat (and how much you exercise) that matters.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/01/06/mcdonalds-nutrition-fast-food-mcdonalds-menu/4339395/

Which rather illustrates the fact that taxing something in an attempt to achieve a particular result is a very blunt and inaccurate instrument. Not only is it ill-targeted, but it is likely to produce far more unintended consequences than would be immediately apparent, as does most heavy-handed social engineering legislation.

So I presume you agree in doing away with the subsidy and importing sugar from Brazil and Thailand to substitute expensive American sugar.

After all, governments intervening for social reasons is just terrible, and leads to unintended consequences such as the invention of HFCS.

Apples and oranges. You refer to an economic exercise. I was referring to a social engineering exercise.

[StreetCowboy]

I don't doubt there are ethnic differences in this regard. Like my ethnicity has a very high rate of lactose intolerance and IBS in females. It's not "racist" for scientists to study these kinds of differences. It's helpful.

It is not racist to speak of racist differences that are based on science.

It is racist to imply that American Indians are fat due to racist differences, and whatever else this poster was implying.

Do you really think the races are that different that our metabolic rates are different due our separate set of genes peculiar to our racial group?

Hogwash.

Asian lactose intolerance may be in part due to dietary differences starting early age, also.

The new Asians in Taiwan are drinking a ton of milk these days, and are able to easily digest this sugar,

But still remain allergic to melamine.

Yes, different 'races' have different metabolisms. Go to any international school in Asia, and measure pulse and temperature and you will see differences between caucasian and oriental children.

SC

[mogandave]

FYI, for anyone interested in addressing the issue of the Western diet on non-Western peoples. Here is info from the CDC:

Why do some racial and ethnic groups have higher rates of diabetes?

Diabetes can indeed run in families," meaning that heredity often makes someone more likely to develop diabetes. Researchers believe that certain genes affecting immune response can play a role in the development of type 1 diabetes, while genes affecting insulin function can contribute to the development of type 2 diabetes. While African Americans, Hispanic/Latino Americans, American Indians, Asian Americans, and Pacific Islander Americans have a slightly lower rate of type 1 diabetes, they are at a higher risk for type 2 diabetes than the rest of the population.

Many researchers think that some African Americans, Hispanic/Latino Americans, American Indians, Asian Americans, and Pacific Islander Americans inherited a "thrifty gene" which helped their ancestors store food energy better during times when food was plentiful, to survive during times when food was scarce. Now that feast or famine situations rarely occur for most people in the United States, the gene which was once helpful may now put these groups at a higher risk for type 2 diabetes.

In addition, poverty, lack of access to health care, cultural attitudes and behaviors are barriers to preventive and diabetes management care for some minority Americans.

http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/consumer/groups.htm

Give it 30 years and I have a sneaking suspicion that HFCS will be blamed for an explosion of diabetes.

Its just not right for humans to consume that much fructose in huge volume.

You mean another 30 years? It's already been around 50.

I thought HFCS consumption was on the decline, no?

Not from what I just read. It is still on the increase. One oddity it causes is because it is cheaper than sugar in the USA it has allowed ever increasing sizes of fizzy drinks to be produced at little or no cost increase.

It is a franken food and as an article pointed out, we consumed 20 spoons of refined sugar per year 20,000 years ago. Today with 2 sodas per day, we consume that daily.

All of us can do with consuming less sugar,but HFCS is an odd product which was introduced in the 70-80s. When did the obesity problem in the USA take off?

It is in so many things, but I am going to make a real effort to cut both refined sugar and HFCS. Do we need it really?,

Well, I just read something different. Be that as it may, it is my understanding that the biggest component in the cost of “fizzy” drinks is logistics. I do not believe that an increase in the price in whatever sweetener they use is going to significantly impact the retail price significantly. Now if the price doubled or tripled, you would start to see some increase.

Using terms like “franken food” gives genetic engineering a bad name. Don’t forget, people 20,000 years ago were lucky if they lived to be 30.

While I’m sure I could do with less, I consume almost no processed sugar. I drink coffee and water, and 90% of the meals I eat are prepared in my kitchen. As far as blaming HFCS for obesity, keep in mind, life expectancy in the US has increased since the widespread introduction of HFCS. I am not advocating the use of HFCS or claiming is healthy, I am just pointing out that posting up a couple statistics and pretending one is responsible for the other makes no sense.

Is it your position that companies should only be allowed to market things we need? Who decides what we need and don’t need? Bathing with hot water is not healthy and dries out ones skin, we don’t need it, and we waste energy and hurt the environment to heat the water. Should the government step in and outlaw hot water for bathing? Or how about just taxing it such that only the rich suffer the negative effects and we help the poor to have a more radiant complexion?

A final note, let’s don’t lose track of the fact that (as someone else previously pointed out) large scale use of HFCS was a direct result of US government intervention.

[Somsrisonphimai]

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

I say we should start giving tax incentives to smart people, so we can have more of them,555.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[Thai at Heart]

Ok, so just to throw the cat in amongst the pigeons, I came across this little item this evening:

Science teacher goes on McDonald's-only diet to prove it's not where you eat, but what you eat (and how much you exercise) that matters.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/01/06/mcdonalds-nutrition-fast-food-mcdonalds-menu/4339395/

Which rather illustrates the fact that taxing something in an attempt to achieve a particular result is a very blunt and inaccurate instrument. Not only is it ill-targeted, but it is likely to produce far more unintended consequences than would be immediately apparent, as does most heavy-handed social engineering legislation.

So I presume you agree in doing away with the subsidy and importing sugar from Brazil and Thailand to substitute expensive American sugar.

After all, governments intervening for social reasons is just terrible, and leads to unintended consequences such as the invention of HFCS.

Apples and oranges. You refer to an economic exercise. I was referring to a social engineering exercise.

What is putting a tax on something if it's not an economic exercise. Sugar is subsidised at farm level to achieve a supposed social benefit that even right wingers might say was good. I.e. keeping farmers in jobs.

If so, why can't it be taxed at consumer level to dissuade it's consumption.

It can't be that ideologically subsidies are good but taxes are bad. That's called having your cake and eating it. The low sugar version of course.

The least they can do is remove the subsidy so at least the consumer pays the real price and processed foods reflects its true cost in comparison.

[Jingthing]

Yeah something REALLY stinks if the food most implicated in globesity ... SUGAR ... is made artificially CHEAPER by government. Wrong direction!

[Thai at Heart]

FYI, for anyone interested in addressing the issue of the Western diet on non-Western peoples. Here is info from the CDC:

Why do some racial and ethnic groups have higher rates of diabetes?

Diabetes can indeed run in families," meaning that heredity often makes someone more likely to develop diabetes. Researchers believe that certain genes affecting immune response can play a role in the development of type 1 diabetes, while genes affecting insulin function can contribute to the development of type 2 diabetes. While African Americans, Hispanic/Latino Americans, American Indians, Asian Americans, and Pacific Islander Americans have a slightly lower rate of type 1 diabetes, they are at a higher risk for type 2 diabetes than the rest of the population.

Many researchers think that some African Americans, Hispanic/Latino Americans, American Indians, Asian Americans, and Pacific Islander Americans inherited a "thrifty gene" which helped their ancestors store food energy better during times when food was plentiful, to survive during times when food was scarce. Now that feast or famine situations rarely occur for most people in the United States, the gene which was once helpful may now put these groups at a higher risk for type 2 diabetes.

In addition, poverty, lack of access to health care, cultural attitudes and behaviors are barriers to preventive and diabetes management care for some minority Americans.

http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/consumer/groups.htm

Give it 30 years and I have a sneaking suspicion that HFCS will be blamed for an explosion of diabetes.

Its just not right for humans to consume that much fructose in huge volume.

You mean another 30 years? It's already been around 50.

I thought HFCS consumption was on the decline, no?

Not from what I just read. It is still on the increase. One oddity it causes is because it is cheaper than sugar in the USA it has allowed ever increasing sizes of fizzy drinks to be produced at little or no cost increase.

It is a franken food and as an article pointed out, we consumed 20 spoons of refined sugar per year 20,000 years ago. Today with 2 sodas per day, we consume that daily.

All of us can do with consuming less sugar,but HFCS is an odd product which was introduced in the 70-80s. When did the obesity problem in the USA take off?

It is in so many things, but I am going to make a real effort to cut both refined sugar and HFCS. Do we need it really?,

Well, I just read something different. Be that as it may, it is my understanding that the biggest component in the cost of fizzy drinks is logistics. I do not believe that an increase in the price in whatever sweetener they use is going to significantly impact the retail price significantly. Now if the price doubled or tripled, you would start to see some increase.

Using terms like franken food gives genetic engineering a bad name. Dont forget, people 20,000 years ago were lucky if they lived to be 30.

While Im sure I could do with less, I consume almost no processed sugar. I drink coffee and water, and 90% of the meals I eat are prepared in my kitchen. As far as blaming HFCS for obesity, keep in mind, life expectancy in the US has increased since the widespread introduction of HFCS. I am not advocating the use of HFCS or claiming is healthy, I am just pointing out that posting up a couple statistics and pretending one is responsible for the other makes no sense.

Is it your position that companies should only be allowed to market things we need? Who decides what we need and dont need? Bathing with hot water is not healthy and dries out ones skin, we dont need it, and we waste energy and hurt the environment to heat the water. Should the government step in and outlaw hot water for bathing? Or how about just taxing it such that only the rich suffer the negative effects and we help the poor to have a more radiant complexion?

A final note, lets dont lose track of the fact that (as someone else previously pointed out) large scale use of HFCS was a direct result of US government intervention.

I think that I pointed that out. I am very sceptical about the behaviour of big business when they have a vested interest in the use of a product that is to their benefit. I used to work for tobacco.

HFCS is a strange product and we have little proven research about it's effects and yet it is being consumed in the USA is huge volume. I found a link that shows that in the EU and fortunately Thailand the consumption is extremely low.

So the USA is going through a huge dietary experiment for the last 40 years and obesity has boomed. One effect of hfcs is that it has allowed portion sizes of sweet foods to increase without increasing the cost.

I just think after reading that hfcs is a bastard food, but that also the refined sugar business is hardly one to be trusted either.

They won't get richer by selling less sugar at the end of the day. When I said do we need it? I was saying on a personal level. I think we would all benefit by actively reducing both sugar and HFCS intake.

What might be shocking is what the companies know about the effects of hfcs. If my experoence in tobacco was anything to go by, the companies new infinitely more than the government did due to their own research.

[soomak]

Its called personal choice, or, up to you, as they say here.

Dont see too many fat knackers working in the Issan rice fields, or Bkk building sites.

Is that because they exercise every day, or cant afford fat knacker comfort food?

I sure as heck dont want the gov't (of any country) telling me what I can and cannot eat (taxes by stealth or not).

Eat what you want, drink what you want, exercise or not up to you, not my problem.

Thankfully TIT and I aint paying taxes to support some gov't initiative.

See Sth Korea for gov't action, TIT its not about health, its about face.

Next time you are in Bkk take a wander into any mall at the weekend and see the locals stuffing their faces in Western junk food outlets, no face to be gained by eating guay tiaow in the Big C foodcourt.

Obese people have much more health problems -> much higher health costs. If healthcare is subsidized (I believe it is even in Thailand), than the non-obese Thais are paying for it.

Of course if you are a foreigner living in Thailand, it's really not your problem, but we are talking hypothetically here as we really have no actual say in this matter.

[Jingthing]

Since SUGAR has correctly become a big focus on this thread, I'd like to share some quotes from an excellent HBO documentary about the obesity epidemic in the USA (which has even been described as a threat to national security), which of course is at similarly very severe levels to Mexico.

The documentary series is called -- The Weight of the Nation.

The trends in Thailand are headed in the SAME direction. (Which, BTW, has already previously been well documented on this thread with links, so no need to repeat again and again, yes?)

These quotes of course relate to the USA. I don't know whether they would be similar or not in Thailand. In any case, there is little doubt that Thais are consuming too much sugar, much of it in drinks including energy drinks, and that excessive sugar is linked to development of obesity. As people in Thailand know, it's actually quite a chore to AVOID sugar here, it is so pervasive and excessive in the overall food environment.

http://theweightofthenation.hbo.com/

Sugar-sweetened beverages are the largest source of sugar in the diets of children and adolescents.

About 46% of adults' added sugar intake comes from sugary drinks.

Edited January 12, 2014 by Jingthing

[StreetCowboy]

Its called personal choice, or, up to you, as they say here.

Dont see too many fat knackers working in the Issan rice fields, or Bkk building sites.

Is that because they exercise every day, or cant afford fat knacker comfort food?

I sure as heck dont want the gov't (of any country) telling me what I can and cannot eat (taxes by stealth or not).

Eat what you want, drink what you want, exercise or not up to you, not my problem.

Thankfully TIT and I aint paying taxes to support some gov't initiative.

See Sth Korea for gov't action, TIT its not about health, its about face.

Next time you are in Bkk take a wander into any mall at the weekend and see the locals stuffing their faces in Western junk food outlets, no face to be gained by eating guay tiaow in the Big C foodcourt.

Obese people have much more health problems -> much higher health costs. If healthcare is subsidized (I believe it is even in Thailand), than the non-obese Thais are paying for it.

Of course if you are a foreigner living in Thailand, it's really not your problem, but we are talking hypothetically here as we really have no actual say in this matter.

I'd rather subsidise (health care for) fat people than interfering bureaucrats.

Edited January 12, 2014 by StreetCowboy

[transam]

The OP has moved on to another of his.............fatty thingy threads.........

[Jingthing]

The OP has moved on to another of his.............fatty thingy threads.........

I can handle multiple threads mate.

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[mogandave]

FYI, for anyone interested in addressing the issue of the Western diet on non-Western peoples. Here is info from the CDC:

Why do some racial and ethnic groups have higher rates of diabetes?

Diabetes can indeed run in families," meaning that heredity often makes someone more likely to develop diabetes. Researchers believe that certain genes affecting immune response can play a role in the development of type 1 diabetes, while genes affecting insulin function can contribute to the development of type 2 diabetes. While African Americans, Hispanic/Latino Americans, American Indians, Asian Americans, and Pacific Islander Americans have a slightly lower rate of type 1 diabetes, they are at a higher risk for type 2 diabetes than the rest of the population.

Many researchers think that some African Americans, Hispanic/Latino Americans, American Indians, Asian Americans, and Pacific Islander Americans inherited a "thrifty gene" which helped their ancestors store food energy better during times when food was plentiful, to survive during times when food was scarce. Now that feast or famine situations rarely occur for most people in the United States, the gene which was once helpful may now put these groups at a higher risk for type 2 diabetes.

In addition, poverty, lack of access to health care, cultural attitudes and behaviors are barriers to preventive and diabetes management care for some minority Americans.

http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/consumer/groups.htm

Give it 30 years and I have a sneaking suspicion that HFCS will be blamed for an explosion of diabetes.

Its just not right for humans to consume that much fructose in huge volume.

You mean another 30 years? It's already been around 50.

I thought HFCS consumption was on the decline, no?

Not from what I just read. It is still on the increase. One oddity it causes is because it is cheaper than sugar in the USA it has allowed ever increasing sizes of fizzy drinks to be produced at little or no cost increase.

It is a franken food and as an article pointed out, we consumed 20 spoons of refined sugar per year 20,000 years ago. Today with 2 sodas per day, we consume that daily.

All of us can do with consuming less sugar,but HFCS is an odd product which was introduced in the 70-80s. When did the obesity problem in the USA take off?

It is in so many things, but I am going to make a real effort to cut both refined sugar and HFCS. Do we need it really?,

Well, I just read something different. Be that as it may, it is my understanding that the biggest component in the cost of fizzy drinks is logistics. I do not believe that an increase in the price in whatever sweetener they use is going to significantly impact the retail price significantly. Now if the price doubled or tripled, you would start to see some increase.

Using terms like franken food gives genetic engineering a bad name. Dont forget, people 20,000 years ago were lucky if they lived to be 30.

While Im sure I could do with less, I consume almost no processed sugar. I drink coffee and water, and 90% of the meals I eat are prepared in my kitchen. As far as blaming HFCS for obesity, keep in mind, life expectancy in the US has increased since the widespread introduction of HFCS. I am not advocating the use of HFCS or claiming is healthy, I am just pointing out that posting up a couple statistics and pretending one is responsible for the other makes no sense.

Is it your position that companies should only be allowed to market things we need? Who decides what we need and dont need? Bathing with hot water is not healthy and dries out ones skin, we dont need it, and we waste energy and hurt the environment to heat the water. Should the government step in and outlaw hot water for bathing? Or how about just taxing it such that only the rich suffer the negative effects and we help the poor to have a more radiant complexion?

A final note, lets dont lose track of the fact that (as someone else previously pointed out) large scale use of HFCS was a direct result of US government intervention.

I think that I pointed that out. I am very sceptical about the behaviour of big business when they have a vested interest in the use of a product that is to their benefit. I used to work for tobacco.

HFCS is a strange product and we have little proven research about it's effects and yet it is being consumed in the USA is huge volume. I found a link that shows that in the EU and fortunately Thailand the consumption is extremely low.

So the USA is going through a huge dietary experiment for the last 40 years and obesity has boomed. One effect of hfcs is that it has allowed portion sizes of sweet foods to increase without increasing the cost.

I just think after reading that hfcs is a bastard food, but that also the refined sugar business is hardly one to be trusted either.

They won't get richer by selling less sugar at the end of the day. When I said do we need it? I was saying on a personal level. I think we would all benefit by actively reducing both sugar and HFCS intake.

What might be shocking is what the companies know about the effects of hfcs. If my experoence in tobacco was anything to go by, the companies new infinitely more than the government did due to their own research.

In my opinion, anyone not skeptical of any organization big or small that generates revenue is a fool.

Any if the government had kept their nose out of it, consumption would have been very low in the US as well.

Again, I do not believe the cost sweetener is enough to have a significant effect on portion sizes, particularly in drinks. Most of the cost is in transportation. Think about it, a bottle of water is not much cheaper than a bottle of cola.

So would it surprise you if you found out there was nothing wrong with HFCS, but that the refined sugar industry what funding a lot of studies to make HFCS look bad? Coke uses HFCS in the US and sugar in Mexico, and Mexicans are fatter. As far as I know, Coke could could well be using sugar in Thailand, why would they not?

Let's keep in mind, that as "they" get richer, a lot of people get "rich" with them.

I thought the government knew better than anyone, no?

I used to work for tobacco too, three packs a day...

[MrGaoMungGawn]

The OP has moved on to another of his.............fatty thingy threads.........

I can handle multiple threads mate.

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Exactly, JingThing and you are the real thing.

But,

I have often wondered aloud how many computer monitors you have hooked up to your box.

I always figured you must have about 3 or 4 GPUs and 8 30-inch Apple monitors, if they even make them that big.

What is the maximum number of unlrelated comments you can post in under a minute, I mean complex comments of more than 30 words?

And, you seem to never sleep, like Napolean or something.

Edited January 12, 2014 by MrGaoMungGawn

[Thai at Heart]

FYI, for anyone interested in addressing the issue of the Western diet on non-Western peoples. Here is info from the CDC:

Why do some racial and ethnic groups have higher rates of diabetes?

Diabetes can indeed run in families," meaning that heredity often makes someone more likely to develop diabetes. Researchers believe that certain genes affecting immune response can play a role in the development of type 1 diabetes, while genes affecting insulin function can contribute to the development of type 2 diabetes. While African Americans, Hispanic/Latino Americans, American Indians, Asian Americans, and Pacific Islander Americans have a slightly lower rate of type 1 diabetes, they are at a higher risk for type 2 diabetes than the rest of the population.

Many researchers think that some African Americans, Hispanic/Latino Americans, American Indians, Asian Americans, and Pacific Islander Americans inherited a "thrifty gene" which helped their ancestors store food energy better during times when food was plentiful, to survive during times when food was scarce. Now that feast or famine situations rarely occur for most people in the United States, the gene which was once helpful may now put these groups at a higher risk for type 2 diabetes.

In addition, poverty, lack of access to health care, cultural attitudes and behaviors are barriers to preventive and diabetes management care for some minority Americans.

http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/consumer/groups.htm

Give it 30 years and I have a sneaking suspicion that HFCS will be blamed for an explosion of diabetes.

Its just not right for humans to consume that much fructose in huge volume.

You mean another 30 years? It's already been around 50.

I thought HFCS consumption was on the decline, no?

Not from what I just read. It is still on the increase. One oddity it causes is because it is cheaper than sugar in the USA it has allowed ever increasing sizes of fizzy drinks to be produced at little or no cost increase.

It is a franken food and as an article pointed out, we consumed 20 spoons of refined sugar per year 20,000 years ago. Today with 2 sodas per day, we consume that daily.

All of us can do with consuming less sugar,but HFCS is an odd product which was introduced in the 70-80s. When did the obesity problem in the USA take off?

It is in so many things, but I am going to make a real effort to cut both refined sugar and HFCS. Do we need it really?,

Well, I just read something different. Be that as it may, it is my understanding that the biggest component in the cost of fizzy drinks is logistics. I do not believe that an increase in the price in whatever sweetener they use is going to significantly impact the retail price significantly. Now if the price doubled or tripled, you would start to see some increase.

Using terms like franken food gives genetic engineering a bad name. Dont forget, people 20,000 years ago were lucky if they lived to be 30.

While Im sure I could do with less, I consume almost no processed sugar. I drink coffee and water, and 90% of the meals I eat are prepared in my kitchen. As far as blaming HFCS for obesity, keep in mind, life expectancy in the US has increased since the widespread introduction of HFCS. I am not advocating the use of HFCS or claiming is healthy, I am just pointing out that posting up a couple statistics and pretending one is responsible for the other makes no sense.

Is it your position that companies should only be allowed to market things we need? Who decides what we need and dont need? Bathing with hot water is not healthy and dries out ones skin, we dont need it, and we waste energy and hurt the environment to heat the water. Should the government step in and outlaw hot water for bathing? Or how about just taxing it such that only the rich suffer the negative effects and we help the poor to have a more radiant complexion?

A final note, lets dont lose track of the fact that (as someone else previously pointed out) large scale use of HFCS was a direct result of US government intervention.

I think that I pointed that out. I am very sceptical about the behaviour of big business when they have a vested interest in the use of a product that is to their benefit. I used to work for tobacco.

HFCS is a strange product and we have little proven research about it's effects and yet it is being consumed in the USA is huge volume. I found a link that shows that in the EU and fortunately Thailand the consumption is extremely low.

So the USA is going through a huge dietary experiment for the last 40 years and obesity has boomed. One effect of hfcs is that it has allowed portion sizes of sweet foods to increase without increasing the cost.

I just think after reading that hfcs is a bastard food, but that also the refined sugar business is hardly one to be trusted either.

They won't get richer by selling less sugar at the end of the day. When I said do we need it? I was saying on a personal level. I think we would all benefit by actively reducing both sugar and HFCS intake.

What might be shocking is what the companies know about the effects of hfcs. If my experoence in tobacco was anything to go by, the companies new infinitely more than the government did due to their own research.

In my opinion, anyone not skeptical of any organization big or small that generates revenue is a fool.

Any if the government had kept their nose out of it, consumption would have been very low in the US as well.

Again, I do not believe the cost sweetener is enough to have a significant effect on portion sizes, particularly in drinks. Most of the cost is in transportation. Think about it, a bottle of water is not much cheaper than a bottle of cola.

So would it surprise you if you found out there was nothing wrong with HFCS, but that the refined sugar industry what funding a lot of studies to make HFCS look bad? Coke uses HFCS in the US and sugar in Mexico, and Mexicans are fatter. As far as I know, Coke could could well be using sugar in Thailand, why would they not?

Let's keep in mind, that as "they" get richer, a lot of people get "rich" with them.

I thought the government knew better than anyone, no?

I used to work for tobacco too, three packs a day...

As far as I can see the USA is the only country that uses hfcs in big volume. I will do a bit of search on the cost of sodas.

Could be interesting.

[nisakiman]

Another good article about this subject I just came across in an online magazine I often read:

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/poor_people_are_getting_plump_good/14477

And some erudite and informed comments, too.

[Jingthing]

Another good article about this subject I just came across in an online magazine I often read:

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/poor_people_are_getting_plump_good/14477

And some erudite and informed comments, too.

The logic of that article is daft. It suggests globesity is a triumph over famine. It's not a competition. You don't want EITHER.