Should Thailand tax junk food to help fight obesity?

[mogandave]

Again, do people expect to feed themselves and their families shopping at 7-11?

I thought it was where you stopped to buy a pack of butts and beer, or a bottle of pop, or an ice cream bar. I had no idea there were people attempting to buy wholesome meals at convenience stores.

What about Lotus Express? Are they okay or are they tricking people as well?

If we got rid of all the 7-11s, would we see a significant reduction in obesity?

[Showbags]

four 7/11's on the way home from my kids school to home, not one has any fresh fruit and veg.

1 tops and tesco mini, both have.

I think some protests and shutdowns outside all 7/11's is on the cards...who's with me ?

Edited January 16, 2014 by Showbags

[Jingthing]

Many urban Thais do eat out of the 7s.

[mogandave]

SO again, If we got rid of all the 7-11s, would we see a significant reduction in obesity?

[Jingthing]

SO again, If we got rid of all the 7-11s, would we see a significant reduction in obesity?

No. They would all be taken over by Family Marts!

Anyway, again with the solutions must solve the problem totally, or don't do anything.

(So -- of course not!)

[mogandave]

I live in an industrial area, not a rural area. we had three little, crappy, mom and pop minimarts close buy and they all sold low quality, often out of date stuff. A great big 7-11 opened up, and the other stores were closed within two years.

Our two "farmers markets" were both crap, and the closest decent market 60 km away. A new Lotus opened up close by two years ago, and both of the farmer's markets have improved exponentially.

[Showbags]

SO again, If we got rid of all the 7-11s, would we see a significant reduction in obesity?

No, but get healthier food in there, get rid of the plastic bags so they can carry less and make the doors narrower.

[mogandave]

I am trying to figure out what would help, but I don't see anything working.

1. I don't think they problem is a lack of knowledge, so I don't think education would help

2. I think imposing taxes that are high enough to have any effect would too brutally punish the poor, and have little effect on the rich, beyond making them richer.

3. I don't know what "nudging" companies means, but mandating minimum labeling standards is a good idea. One problem with labeling is that the more highly processed a food is, the more easily and accurately it can be labeled. What is the specific nutritional value of an apple, and what is the specific nutritional value of a bottle of pop?

4, Banning advertising I think provides the biggest bang for the buck, but that is almost impossible to limit.

So what does that leave?

[mogandave]

SO again, If we got rid of all the 7-11s, would we see a significant reduction in obesity?

No, but get healthier food in there, get rid of the plastic bags so they can carry less and make the doors narrower.

Yes. Extra product must be inventoried, which means extra cost.

Slow moving product costs more to inventory than fast moving product, which means extra cost.

Slow moving product takes shelf space from fast moving product, which means more frequent re-stocking, which means extra cost.

Slow moving product is more likely to expire, which means it has to be disposed of, which means extra cost.

Okay, the franchise owner has all the extra cost of adding all the slow moving product. Does he:

A: Eat the cost, and accept this new lower standard of living knowing he is doing his part to make Thailand thinner, or:

B: Pass the cost on the the poor urban Thais that live out of the 7-11 and the rich foreigners that are too lazy to walk their fat-a@@ down to buy something decent to eat, and whose whining got into this mess to star with.

[David48]

you made a lot of good points. thanks.

You are Welcome.

Can I help with anything else?

.

[mogandave]

You got $20 I could hold until my brother gets straightened out? (he's a hump-back)

[StreetCowboy]

I am trying to figure out what would help, but I don't see anything working.

1. I don't think they problem is a lack of knowledge, so I don't think education would help

2. I think imposing taxes that are high enough to have any effect would too brutally punish the poor, and have little effect on the rich, beyond making them richer.

3. I don't know what "nudging" companies means, but mandating minimum labeling standards is a good idea. One problem with labeling is that the more highly processed a food is, the more easily and accurately it can be labeled. What is the specific nutritional value of an apple, and what is the specific nutritional value of a bottle of pop?

4, Banning advertising I think provides the biggest bang for the buck, but that is almost impossible to limit.

So what does that leave?

The iron boot of the arbiter

[Jingthing]

As I mentioned before, I really meant more than nudging big food companies. I would suggest a phase in time period with strong persuasion followed by fines for non-compliance. It's folly to think just asking would work. Real world again.

OK, it's a given that the corruption factor in Thailand would need to reduced for programs like this be done well. So getting real real world. Thailand might be like GORDO Mexico before that happens!

Edited January 16, 2014 by Jingthing

[Thai at Heart]

I would be surprised if fructose was a problem, since surely it is one of the principal sugars we evolved to eat. But you are right, I remember reading someone wanging off about how it was much worse than sucrose (or perhaps it was vice versa).

I remember when fat was bad and oil was good, I remember when potatoes were OK but chips were not, but throughout it all, tax has always been seen as something undesirable, and to be minimised as best we can.

Obviously, bureaucrats and reveners may take a different view, corrupt ones probably more so than honest ones.

SC

Fructose is about volume.

Snack on an orange, and you get the given volume of sucrose with the fibre of the orange.. Have a glass of orange juice and receive the volume of fructose from several oranges.

Have hfcs get an abnormal dose of sucrose versus sucrose in comparison with sugar which is reportedly not chemically bound in the same manner as table sugar and thus overload your liver.

Either way refined sugar in huge volume is no good, but we aren't fruitarians eitther. We aren't meant to eat the fructose equivalent of dozens of pieces of fruit every day.

[transam]

Isn't it strange that when this lad walked the streets there were no ''take-aways'', hmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Is the OP saying that there were no or very few fat folk before the big multinational food chains came along. ?

If the answer is no, then how did fat folk of yester year get fat ?

[StreetCowboy]

Isn't it strange that when this lad walked the streets there were no ''take-aways'', hmmmmmmmmmmmm.

big lad.jpeg

Is the OP saying that there were no or very few fat folk before the big multinational food chains came along. ?

If the answer is no, then how did fat folk of yester year get fat ?

Honest endeavour and commitment to the cause

[mogandave]

I would be surprised if fructose was a problem, since surely it is one of the principal sugars we evolved to eat. But you are right, I remember reading someone wanging off about how it was much worse than sucrose (or perhaps it was vice versa).

I remember when fat was bad and oil was good, I remember when potatoes were OK but chips were not, but throughout it all, tax has always been seen as something undesirable, and to be minimised as best we can.

Obviously, bureaucrats and reveners may take a different view, corrupt ones probably more so than honest ones.

SC

Fructose is about volume.

Snack on an orange, and you get the given volume of sucrose with the fibre of the orange.. Have a glass of orange juice and receive the volume of fructose from several oranges.

Have hfcs get an abnormal dose of sucrose versus sucrose in comparison with sugar which is reportedly not chemically bound in the same manner as table sugar and thus overload your liver.

Either way refined sugar in huge volume is no good, but we aren't fruitarians eitther. We aren't meant to eat the fructose equivalent of dozens of pieces of fruit every day.

What if the dozens of pieces of fruit were raisins? (just kidding)

I know too much sugar is bad, and HFCS is worse, but this is the first I’ve heard of it having a negative effect on the liver. I would like to see something that supports this.

Keep in mind, we were never meant to eat cooked meat, bread, boysenberries, decent corn, pasta, nice big oranges and apples, and thousands of other great tasting, healthy, wholesome foods.

One could argue we were meant to drink wine, but beer and spirits? No.

Oh, we weren’t meant live past thirty either. So while people are generally getting fatter, they are also living longer.

[Jingthing]

Living longer is largely due to running water and improved hygiene.

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[mogandave]

Be that as it may...

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Thai at Heart]

I would be surprised if fructose was a problem, since surely it is one of the principal sugars we evolved to eat. But you are right, I remember reading someone wanging off about how it was much worse than sucrose (or perhaps it was vice versa).

I remember when fat was bad and oil was good, I remember when potatoes were OK but chips were not, but throughout it all, tax has always been seen as something undesirable, and to be minimised as best we can.

Obviously, bureaucrats and reveners may take a different view, corrupt ones probably more so than honest ones.

SC

Fructose is about volume.

Snack on an orange, and you get the given volume of sucrose with the fibre of the orange.. Have a glass of orange juice and receive the volume of fructose from several oranges.

Have hfcs get an abnormal dose of sucrose versus sucrose in comparison with sugar which is reportedly not chemically bound in the same manner as table sugar and thus overload your liver.

Either way refined sugar in huge volume is no good, but we aren't fruitarians eitther. We aren't meant to eat the fructose equivalent of dozens of pieces of fruit every day.

What if the dozens of pieces of fruit were raisins? (just kidding)

I know too much sugar is bad, and HFCS is worse, but this is the first Ive heard of it having a negative effect on the liver. I would like to see something that supports this.

Keep in mind, we were never meant to eat cooked meat, bread, boysenberries, decent corn, pasta, nice big oranges and apples, and thousands of other great tasting, healthy, wholesome foods.

One could argue we were meant to drink wine, but beer and spirits? No.

Oh, we werent meant live past thirty either. So while people are generally getting fatter, they are also living longer.

I will dig out the links. This is what it is apparently causing leading to a fatty liver.

I was shocked to see it too.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/23390127/

Abstract

Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is the most common chronic liver disease in adults and children. A number of genetic and environmental factors are known to predispose individuals to NAFLD. Certain dietary sugars, particularly fructose, are suspected to contribute to the development of NAFLD and its progression.

The way that fructose goes through your digestion is different from sucrose so big volumes of fructose can have weird effects on your liver.

Its just that particularly hfcs is product so new to the human diet that it's possible it is highly responsible for obesity. Best avoided I think.

Edited January 17, 2014 by Thai at Heart

[mogandave]

I would be surprised if fructose was a problem, since surely it is one of the principal sugars we evolved to eat. But you are right, I remember reading someone wanging off about how it was much worse than sucrose (or perhaps it was vice versa).

I remember when fat was bad and oil was good, I remember when potatoes were OK but chips were not, but throughout it all, tax has always been seen as something undesirable, and to be minimised as best we can.

Obviously, bureaucrats and reveners may take a different view, corrupt ones probably more so than honest ones.

SC

Fructose is about volume.

Snack on an orange, and you get the given volume of sucrose with the fibre of the orange.. Have a glass of orange juice and receive the volume of fructose from several oranges.

Have hfcs get an abnormal dose of sucrose versus sucrose in comparison with sugar which is reportedly not chemically bound in the same manner as table sugar and thus overload your liver.

Either way refined sugar in huge volume is no good, but we aren't fruitarians eitther. We aren't meant to eat the fructose equivalent of dozens of pieces of fruit every day.

What if the dozens of pieces of fruit were raisins? (just kidding)

I know too much sugar is bad, and HFCS is worse, but this is the first Ive heard of it having a negative effect on the liver. I would like to see something that supports this.

Keep in mind, we were never meant to eat cooked meat, bread, boysenberries, decent corn, pasta, nice big oranges and apples, and thousands of other great tasting, healthy, wholesome foods.

One could argue we were meant to drink wine, but beer and spirits? No.

Oh, we werent meant live past thirty either. So while people are generally getting fatter, they are also living longer.

I will dig out the links. This is what it is apparently causing leading to a fatty liver.

I was shocked to see it too.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/23390127/

Abstract

Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is the most common chronic liver disease in adults and children. A number of genetic and environmental factors are known to predispose individuals to NAFLD. Certain dietary sugars, particularly fructose, are suspected to contribute to the development of NAFLD and its progression.

The way that fructose goes through your digestion is different from sucrose so big volumes of fructose can have weird effects on your liver.

Its just that particularly hfcs is product so new to the human diet that it's possible it is highly responsible for obesity. Best avoided I think.

"...suspected to contribute to..."

I always want to know how a study was done, and who funded it.

[Morakot]

Diabetes in Thailand Statistics Indicate Disease Out of Control

Diabetes Mellitus (Type 2) now Thailand’s third largest cause of death

Statistics from the World Health Organisation for causes of death in 2010 indicate diabetes now to be the third largest cause of deaths in Thailand after strokes and coronary heart disease. Deaths from this cause totalled nearly 7% of all deaths recorded in 2010, a figure which is more than double the global average and has prompted the WHO to describe Thailand’s performance in this area as very poor – falling within the bottom 10% of all countries globally.

http://inversionpoint.com/diabetes-in-thailand-statistics/

Edited January 18, 2014 by Morakot

[mogandave]

Diabetes in Thailand Statistics Indicate Disease Out of Control

Diabetes Mellitus (Type 2) now Thailand’s third largest cause of death

Statistics from the World Health Organisation for causes of death in 2010 indicate diabetes now to be the third largest cause of deaths in Thailand after strokes and coronary heart disease. Deaths from this cause totalled nearly 7% of all deaths recorded in 2010, a figure which is more than double the global average and has prompted the WHO to describe Thailand’s performance in this area as very poor – falling within the bottom 10% of all countries globally.

http://inversionpoint.com/diabetes-in-thailand-statistics/

Smoking is 20%, and is not in the top three, yet diabetes comes in third at 7%?

[StreetCowboy]

Diabetes in Thailand Statistics Indicate Disease Out of Control

Diabetes Mellitus (Type 2) now Thailand’s third largest cause of death

Statistics from the World Health Organisation for causes of death in 2010 indicate diabetes now to be the third largest cause of deaths in Thailand after strokes and coronary heart disease. Deaths from this cause totalled nearly 7% of all deaths recorded in 2010, a figure which is more than double the global average and has prompted the WHO to describe Thailand’s performance in this area as very poor – falling within the bottom 10% of all countries globally.

http://inversionpoint.com/diabetes-in-thailand-statistics/

Smoking is 20%, and is not in the top three, yet diabetes comes in third at 7%?

I don't think smoking ever killed anyone, except insofar as it was a contributor to strokes, coronary heart disease, diabetes, or even cancer, occasionally.

SC

[David48]

Living longer is largely due to running water and improved hygiene.

... and all these years, I thought that 'Living Longer' was attributable to not 'Dying Early'.

Heck ... the things you learn on a distinguished heath/medical thread ...

[mogandave]

Living longer is largely due to running water and improved hygiene.

... and all these years, I thought that 'Living Longer' was attributable to not 'Dying Early'.

Heck ... the things you learn on a distinguished heath/medical thread ...

In the last 50 years life expectancy in the US has increased ten years (from about 70 to about 80)

Running water has been commonplace for well over 100 years, and there have been no significant changes in hygiene in at least the last fifty years.

[Showbags]

Living longer is largely due to running water and improved hygiene.

... and all these years, I thought that 'Living Longer' was attributable to not 'Dying Early'.

Heck ... the things you learn on a distinguished heath/medical thread ...

In the last 50 years life expectancy in the US has increased ten years (from about 70 to about 80)

Running water has been commonplace for well over 100 years, and there have been no significant changes in hygiene in at least the last fifty years.

I tend to disagree...those hot air hand dryers in the loos have come a long way in helping hygiene standards.

[Jingthing]

Here you go. You can find thousands of sources for this widely known information.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_has_life_expectancy_increased_in_developed_countries#slide=3

The #1 reason that people live longer in developer (sic) countries is something very simple:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_has_life_expectancy_increased_in_developed_countries#slide=4

reliable, clean drinking water.

The #2 reason is also very simple: very high levels of public hygeine ...

Edited January 20, 2014 by Jingthing

[Morakot]

Living longer is largely due to running water and improved hygiene.

... and all these years, I thought that 'Living Longer' was attributable to not 'Dying Early'.

Heck ... the things you learn on a distinguished heath/medical thread ...

Logic tells us that those who died earlier are longer dead.

Sorry I get my coat!

[Showbags]

Living longer is largely due to running water and improved hygiene.

... and all these years, I thought that 'Living Longer' was attributable to not 'Dying Early'.

Heck ... the things you learn on a distinguished heath/medical thread ...

Logic tells us that those who died earlier are longer dead.

Sorry I get my coat!

I thought you stop growing after that ?