Should Thailand tax junk food to help fight obesity?

[Tolley]

I don't like the idea of more taxes. It always hits those who can least afford to pay.

I think regulation on food standards with more inspectors and inspections of food produce would be a better way to go.

Ban all hydrogenated fats and corn syrup for soft drinks.

Limit sugar in foods to a certain amount etc

[Jingthing]

Nobody likes taxes.

But the way I look at it sugar particularly sugary drinks is a disease promoting substance on par with ciggies.

In fact, it is arguable that obesity causes more global deaths than ciggies.

So if you're against tax on sugar and think subsidies are OK for sugar, by logic, wouldn't you also be for eliminating all taxes on ciggies?

That would be consistent yet oddly there really isn't much public opposition to tax on ciggies.

Edited January 14, 2014 by Jingthing

[Thai at Heart]

Nobody likes taxes.

But the way I look at it sugar particularly sugary drinks is a disease promoting substance on par with ciggies.

In fact, it is arguable that obesity causes more global deaths than ciggies.

So if you're against tax on sugar and think subsidies are OK for sugar, by logic, wouldn't you also be for eliminating all taxes on ciggies?

That would be consistent yet oddly there really isn't much public opposition to tax on ciggies.

Well.cigarettes are addictive and there have virtually always been a control.on the age at which you can smoke.

Imagine if it was banned to give coke to kids under 10. They would be out of business in a year. Cigarettes can probably withstand taxation far more robustly than sugar. Also its an ingredient not the primary product consumed.

Its similar but not quite the same.

[Jingthing]

That's right. It's an ingredient. Nobody is talking about banning it or age restricting the ingredient, so those are issues that are really irrelevant.

BTW, doesn't sugar have some addictive properties as well?

http://www.webmd.com/diet/ss/slideshow-sugar-addiction

No, not the same as tobacco. Not the same as heroin. Not the same as booze for alcoholics. Not the same as coffee which is actually arguably health promoting in moderation. One thing is not another. But there are parallels worth consideration.

From the slide show about sugar substitutes which is why action targeting only sugar probably isn't enough:

The Truth About Fake Sugar

Wait before you sprinkle that packet of artificial sweetener into your coffee. It may leave you cravingmore sugar. That can make it harder, not easier, to control your weight. The problem is that fake sugars don't help you break your taste for sweets.

Edited January 14, 2014 by Jingthing

[transam]

Nobody likes taxes.

But the way I look at it sugar particularly sugary drinks is a disease promoting substance on par with ciggies.

In fact, it is arguable that obesity causes more global deaths than ciggies.

So if you're against tax on sugar and think subsidies are OK for sugar, by logic, wouldn't you also be for eliminating all taxes on ciggies?

That would be consistent yet oddly there really isn't much public opposition to tax on ciggies.

Elephants don't like you....... ..............

[MrGaoMungGawn]

Davy the FAT boy.

RANDY NEWMAN

Beautiful.....

[Jingthing]

Elephants don't like you....... ..............

I'll take your word on that. I knew there was a reason that I give a wide berth when I see an elephant on the street.

[Thai at Heart]

That's right. It's an ingredient. Nobody is talking about banning it or age restricting the ingredient, so those are issues that are really irrelevant.

BTW, doesn't sugar have some addictive properties as well?

http://www.webmd.com/diet/ss/slideshow-sugar-addiction

No, not the same as tobacco. Not the same as heroin. Not the same as booze for alcoholics. Not the same as coffee which is actually arguably health promoting in moderation. One thing is not another. But there are parallels worth consideration.

I agree yes.

I consider that the labeling is not that clear on foodstuffs, and it is.in some ways made more confusing with the healthy option of the same brand next to it.

I really don't care how they do it, but if they put a red star on a coke and a green star on a low sugar drink it is much clearer than percentages and percentage of daily diet.

Maybe it's a bit too simplistic but when you stand at the shelf in a supermarket and want to buy any processed food it can take an age to check the labels.

[StreetCowboy]

Nobody likes taxes.

But the way I look at it sugar particularly sugary drinks is a disease promoting substance on par with ciggies.

In fact, it is arguable that obesity causes more global deaths than ciggies.

So if you're against tax on sugar and think subsidies are OK for sugar, by logic, wouldn't you also be for eliminating all taxes on ciggies?

That would be consistent yet oddly there really isn't much public opposition to tax on ciggies.

Well.cigarettes are addictive and there have virtually always been a control.on the age at which you can smoke.

Imagine if it was banned to give coke to kids under 10. They would be out of business in a year. Cigarettes can probably withstand taxation far more robustly than sugar. Also its an ingredient not the primary product consumed.

Its similar but not quite the same.

If you were to increase the price of sugar ten-fold, how much would the cost of a tin of wholemeal coke increase?

It would be a bit of a scunner for the jam-makers amongst us, but they're mostly died-in-the-wool recidivist neo-conservative grandmothers anyway.

SC

[transam]

That's right. It's an ingredient. Nobody is talking about banning it or age restricting the ingredient, so those are issues that are really irrelevant.

BTW, doesn't sugar have some addictive properties as well?

http://www.webmd.com/diet/ss/slideshow-sugar-addiction

No, not the same as tobacco. Not the same as heroin. Not the same as booze for alcoholics. Not the same as coffee which is actually arguably health promoting in moderation. One thing is not another. But there are parallels worth consideration.

I agree yes.

I consider that the labeling is not that clear on foodstuffs, and it is.in some ways made more confusing with the healthy option of the same brand next to it.

I really don't care how they do it, but if they put a red star on a coke and a green star on a low sugar drink it is much clearer than percentages and percentage of daily diet.

Maybe it's a bit too simplistic but when you stand at the shelf in a supermarket and want to buy any processed food it can take an age to check the labels.

BUT, who really looks at labels in LOS ? Price tag yes but.....................

[StreetCowboy]

That's right. It's an ingredient. Nobody is talking about banning it or age restricting the ingredient, so those are issues that are really irrelevant.

BTW, doesn't sugar have some addictive properties as well?

http://www.webmd.com/diet/ss/slideshow-sugar-addiction

No, not the same as tobacco. Not the same as heroin. Not the same as booze for alcoholics. Not the same as coffee which is actually arguably health promoting in moderation. One thing is not another. But there are parallels worth consideration.

From the slide show about sugar substitutes which is why action targeting only sugar probably isn't enough:

The Truth About Fake Sugar

Wait before you sprinkle that packet of artificial sweetener into your coffee. It may leave you cravingmore sugar. That can make it harder, not easier, to control your weight. The problem is that fake sugars don't help you break your taste for sweets.

I've never suffered from passive consumption of sugar in the pub, and I've never heard of anyone losing control of their vehicle after too much coca cola, though I am sure it does happen. To claim that sugar is comparable to alcohol or tobacco is - well, I'd rather not say for fear of being abusive and being hit with censure. I am sure you can all make up your own minds.

SC

[Jingthing]

Believe it or not, which I think I've already said in different ways many times, I am not married to the tax idea. I do strongly think now is the smart time for the Thai government to try to figure out some reasonable and aggressive action that has a good chance of being effective in reducing the rate in the growth of obesity. I think probably a combination of programs including education and regulating companies making the products with the crap in it and maybe taxes. I am not posing as a detail policy expert. But I don't believe the trend will change without strong top down action. If nothing is done, it will get worse, you can bank on that. It's easy to preach purist personal responsibility and perfect "free choice" but there is a huge societal cost to doing nothing.

Edited January 14, 2014 by Jingthing

[suwat69]

No, governments interfere with enough as it is!

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[Thai at Heart]

Nobody likes taxes.

But the way I look at it sugar particularly sugary drinks is a disease promoting substance on par with ciggies.

In fact, it is arguable that obesity causes more global deaths than ciggies.

So if you're against tax on sugar and think subsidies are OK for sugar, by logic, wouldn't you also be for eliminating all taxes on ciggies?

That would be consistent yet oddly there really isn't much public opposition to tax on ciggies.

Well.cigarettes are addictive and there have virtually always been a control.on the age at which you can smoke.

Imagine if it was banned to give coke to kids under 10. They would be out of business in a year. Cigarettes can probably withstand taxation far more robustly than sugar. Also its an ingredient not the primary product consumed.

Its similar but not quite the same.

If you were to increase the price of sugar ten-fold, how much would the cost of a tin of wholemeal coke increase?

It would be a bit of a scunner for the jam-makers amongst us, but they're mostly died-in-the-wool recidivist neo-conservative grandmothers anyway.

SC

Precisely. Coke costs cents to.produce because of scale.

Don't know how far the price would have to go to reduce consumption. Uk, a coke is a quid but I don't know how.much if any the consumption per head is up or down here.

I do think it would be simpler to say that there should be an effective maximum.on added sugar percentage on drinks and food. I am sure there are plenty of foods that could have sugar reduced 20% and there would be little change in sales.

Beyond that, I believe there are plenty of foods which are palatable only because they are chock full of added sugar. There are loads of programs on TV in the uk at the momwnt attempting to explain how much sugar is crammed into food.

Fruit juices with more sugar than coke. Pizza sauces with as much as some sodas. Processed is not ideal for any diet but people eat it and not everyone cooks well.

So. I go for a reduction in the permissible percentage in a processed food. Sadly, things like cereal and children's yoghueta are the worst.

[StreetCowboy]

Believe it or not, which I think I've already said in different ways many times, I am not married to the tax idea. I do strongly think now is the smart time for the Thai government to try to figure out some reasonable and aggressive action that has a good chance of being effective in reducing the rate in the growth of obesity. I think probably a combination of programs including education and regulating companies making the products with the crap in it and maybe taxes. I am not posing as a detail policy expert. But I don't believe the trend will change without strong top down action. If nothing is done, it will get worse, you can bank on that. It's easy to preach purist personal responsibility and perfect "free choice" but there is a huge societal cost to doing nothing.

We manage to put up with cars. We can put up with a few fat people.

If we banned cars from the roads, there would be less polution, less congestion, less traffic accidents and everyone would be fitter.

Why don't you approach the problem with a practical perspective, rather than trying to add complexity, bureaucracy and burden for the man in the street?

SC

[Jingthing]

Yogurt is a good example.
When I go into 7-11 or Family Mart, ALL of the yogurt on offer is highly sugared.

NO CHOICE is offered without sugar!

Many products are like that.

Yes, I can and do go out of my way to find the few stores that sell non-sugar yogurt.

I'm in Pattaya, so I can find it. In a typical Thai town, can you even find it ANYWHERE!?!

YES, I am saying this stinks and if these big companies are not even going to offer the CHOICE of choosing healthier options to the masses, CONVENIENTLY, and with no special high markup as if no-sugar is an elite option, the government SHOULD force them to. So there. I hope clear enough.

First I think should ASK such companies to comply voluntarily, give them time, and then if not, create an enforcement system.

Edited January 14, 2014 by Jingthing

[cashpower]

a faithful servant once asked me "master, is it right for the government to tax the few luxuries i can afford on my meagre wage?"

i replied "no, it is my job to pay you enough for you to survive but not enough to indulge in too many luxuries. if the government taxes your luxuries they will be double dipping"

i think there's something in that for all of us

[Thai at Heart]

Yogurt is a good example.

When I go into 7-11 or Family Mart, ALL of the yogurt on offer is highly sugared.

NO CHOICE is offered without sugar!

Many products are like that.

Yes, I can and do go out of my way to find the few stores that sell non-sugar yogurt.

I'm in Pattaya, so I can find it. In a typical Thai town, can you even find it ANYWHERE!?!

YES, I am saying this stinks and if these big companies are not even going to offer the CHOICE of choosing healthier options to the masses, CONVENIENTLY, and with no special high markup as if no-sugar is an elite option, the government SHOULD force them to. So there. I hope clear enough.

First I think should ASK such companies to comply voluntarily, give them time, and then if not, create an enforcement system.

The thai processed food industry is going to milk the market for all it can. Sweet things sell. Its known.

[transam]

a faithful servant once asked me "master, is it right for the government to tax the few luxuries i can afford on my meagre wage?"

i replied "no, it is my job to pay you enough for you to survive but not enough to indulge in too many luxuries. if the government taxes your luxuries they will be double dipping"

i think there's something in that for all of us

Mr.Cash................you don't live here, servants.....................don't think so............

[mogandave]

...

I think we can also agree that taxation will not work, as it has been clearly proven earlier in the thread, and everyone has agreed to, or at least no one has made an argument discrediting the previously stated facts that just as with cigarettes and alcohol, taxing rice, sugar, fast/junk food would have little or no effect on controlling consumption.

...

Foul. We don't all agree.

Well, I am sorry, but I provided all the pertinent information and you never refuted the information or answered any of my questions.

So, do you have anything to support the claims you have been making that taxing rice, sugar and or fast/junk would significantly reduce consumption among Thais?

If not, I move we close on the issue and move on to actually finding a solution.

You are confusing a thread on a forum with some kind of high school debate. Again, total fail. You've shared your opinion only. Nobody is obligated to respond to any of your posts the way you demand. Lack of response to your shrill demands doesn't mean you "win" anything except in your OWN mind. Sometimes people put posters on IGNORE as well because of a personality conflict. So with your odd logic in a case like that the person being ignored can assert the earth is flat, can you counter that, and then if the silly assertion is ignored, it is PROVEN the earth is flat. Good luck with that.

Okay, so I can put you down for a no, that you have nothing to support that claims you have been making that taxing rice, sugar and or fast/junk food would significantly reduce consumption among Thais, correct?

I do agree that this is defiantly not like high school debate. In High School, the people debating had to formulate arguments and present evidence to support their position. Here, you say whatever you want, do not provide any evidence, and attack anyone that disagrees. Way different.

Please, I am trying to put your petty personality conflicts aside, and work with you (and everyone) towards finding a solution. Childish attacks will benefit no one. Again, let's more beyond all that, and start fresh, for a better tomorrow. Together we CAN!!!!!!!!!!

[Jingthing]

Yogurt is a good example.

When I go into 7-11 or Family Mart, ALL of the yogurt on offer is highly sugared.

NO CHOICE is offered without sugar!

Many products are like that.

Yes, I can and do go out of my way to find the few stores that sell non-sugar yogurt.

I'm in Pattaya, so I can find it. In a typical Thai town, can you even find it ANYWHERE!?!

YES, I am saying this stinks and if these big companies are not even going to offer the CHOICE of choosing healthier options to the masses, CONVENIENTLY, and with no special high markup as if no-sugar is an elite option, the government SHOULD force them to. So there. I hope clear enough.

First I think should ASK such companies to comply voluntarily, give them time, and then if not, create an enforcement system.

The thai processed food industry is going to milk the market for all it can. Sweet things sell. Its known.

They'll do all they can get away with, yes. That's why government regulation is sadly a NECESSITY if there is any hope of checking them in the interest of the public health.

[cashpower]

sugar dissolves in water. you cannot see it, but you can taste it. taste is the key.

[Jingthing]

Okay, so I can put you down for a no, that you have nothing to support that claims you have been making that taxing rice, sugar and or fast/junk food would significantly reduce consumption among Thais, correct?

...

No, you can put me down as rejecting aggressive serial baiting as something not worthy of any comment at all. The tone of some of your posts here have been so shockingly obnoxious that I just don't choose to play in your weird game. Got it now?

Edited January 14, 2014 by Jingthing

[supashot]

Stop giving authorization to open all American junk food chains it's a real pollution for Thailand! Promote healthier things that crappy macdonalds, pizza company or even Starbucks.

[Jingthing]

Stop giving authorization to open all American junk food chains it's a real pollution for Thailand! Promote healthier things that crappy macdonalds, pizza company or even Starbucks.

I wouldn't go that far but I would suggest enforcing that they be required to offer healthier options, label them so, and priced without bias towards the crap. I think in the USA these chains are doing that because they feel the pressure and fear laws to come. Here they've got NO pressure. Big companies like that usually need an incentive, negative or positive. No, I'm not naive, I know most people go there for the crap, but banning companies entirely seems unfair when it isn't the company or the nationality of the company, but the actual foods that are the problem.

Edited January 14, 2014 by Jingthing

[Thai at Heart]

Stop giving authorization to open all American junk food chains it's a real pollution for Thailand! Promote healthier things that crappy macdonalds, pizza company or even Starbucks.

Haha. Do you work.for 7-11,thailand? You must be CEO of CP.

[MrGaoMungGawn]

Nobody likes taxes.

But the way I look at it sugar particularly sugary drinks is a disease promoting substance on par with ciggies.

In fact, it is arguable that obesity causes more global deaths than ciggies.

So if you're against tax on sugar and think subsidies are OK for sugar, by logic, wouldn't you also be for eliminating all taxes on ciggies?

That would be consistent yet oddly there really isn't much public opposition to tax on ciggies.

Well.cigarettes are addictive and there have virtually always been a control.on the age at which you can smoke.

Imagine if it was banned to give coke to kids under 10. They would be out of business in a year. Cigarettes can probably withstand taxation far more robustly than sugar. Also its an ingredient not the primary product consumed.

Its similar but not quite the same.

If you were to increase the price of sugar ten-fold, how much would the cost of a tin of wholemeal coke increase?

It would be a bit of a scunner for the jam-makers amongst us, but they're mostly died-in-the-wool recidivist neo-conservative grandmothers anyway.

SC

Precisely. Coke costs cents to.produce because of scale.

Don't know how far the price would have to go to reduce consumption. Uk, a coke is a quid but I don't know how.much if any the consumption per head is up or down here.

I do think it would be simpler to say that there should be an effective maximum.on added sugar percentage on drinks and food. I am sure there are plenty of foods that could have sugar reduced 20% and there would be little change in sales.

Beyond that, I believe there are plenty of foods which are palatable only because they are chock full of added sugar. There are loads of programs on TV in the uk at the momwnt attempting to explain how much sugar is crammed into food.

Fruit juices with more sugar than coke. Pizza sauces with as much as some sodas. Processed is not ideal for any diet but people eat it and not everyone cooks well.

So. I go for a reduction in the permissible percentage in a processed food. Sadly, things like cereal and children's yoghueta are the worst.

Speaking of coke cost, I think it is mostly the packaging and distribution and advertising you are paying for.

But it is way overpriced.

The real problem Coke always must solve near its factories is where to get the clean water.

They have been buying up good water holes around town,

And kicking out the natives.

Maybe not in Thailand, I do not know,

But in other SA countries, for sure.

Still I drink it without sugar instead of water, because,

It gives me GAS

Which I put in my comments here.

Edited January 14, 2014 by MrGaoMungGawn

[MrGaoMungGawn]

Stop giving authorization to open all American junk food chains it's a real pollution for Thailand! Promote healthier things that crappy macdonalds, pizza company or even Starbucks.

I wouldn't go that far but I would suggest enforcing that they be required to offer healthier options, label them so, and priced without bias towards the glop. I think in the USA these chains are doing that because they feel the pressure and fear laws to come. Here they've got NO pressure. Big companies like that usually need an incentive, negative or positive. No, I'm not naive, I know most people go there for the crap, but banning companies entirely seems unfair when it isn't the company or the nationality of the company, but the actual foods that are the problem.

Sorry,

I could not resist.

Won't happen again.

[StreetCowboy]

Yogurt is a good example.

When I go into 7-11 or Family Mart, ALL of the yogurt on offer is highly sugared.

NO CHOICE is offered without sugar!

Many products are like that.

Yes, I can and do go out of my way to find the few stores that sell non-sugar yogurt.

I'm in Pattaya, so I can find it. In a typical Thai town, can you even find it ANYWHERE!?!

YES, I am saying this stinks and if these big companies are not even going to offer the CHOICE of choosing healthier options to the masses, CONVENIENTLY, and with no special high markup as if no-sugar is an elite option, the government SHOULD force them to. So there. I hope clear enough.

First I think should ASK such companies to comply voluntarily, give them time, and then if not, create an enforcement system.

I don't think yoghurt is a good example becuase it's not something that Thais would normally eat, as far as I know.

Sugar might be more relevant example. In 7-11, you can buy sugar in yoghurt, which makes one look slightly more sophisticated than munching on a raw piece of cane.

Anyway, true to my word, I went out and cycled 30 km this morning. I was glad no cheeky interfering bureaucrat tried to stick a shilling on my pork sausage sarnie that I had with my two pints at lunchtime, but it would have scarcely discouraged me if he had.

SC.

[Jingthing]

It was about sugar. In yogurt.

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app