6 ms·

> The question is whether some foods are inherently addictive, at least for some people who are more predisposed to food addiction. In some sense, yes, because

> The question is whether some foods are inherently addictive, at least for some people who are more predisposed to food addiction. In some sense, yes, because to get to extremely high weights, you need to consume extremely high amounts of food. Your stomach will grow, but I would imagine a person would struggle to eat enough carrots to weigh 500 pounds. Quick napkin math says some obese people eat 6700 calories a day. 50 calories is ~12 baby carrots. That's ~1608 baby carrots per day. If my math is right, that's about 67 one pound bags of baby carrots per day. Carrots are probably an extreme example, but I think the point stands that to get that overweight on healthy food, both the volume of the food and the time required to eat it become astonishing. I don't even know if we can metabolize carrots fast enough to eat that many in a day without rupturing some part of your stomach. > "Normal" cooked meals that were the staple of nutrition before the advent of fast food are almost absent from their diets. I think this is a big part of it. Calorie dense food has always been around. The problem was that it was often difficult and/or expensive to make. How long would it take you to replicate a Big Mac combo meal, and how much would it cost? It takes a while, especially given grocery shopping, and it's probably not much cheaper. Likewise, I can go to the grocery store and buy a whole cheesecake for like $10. Honestly, I think the best way to tackle it is not to outright ban the foods, but just add an excise tax. If we added a 10% tax to soft drinks, fries and pizza, it probably wouldn't make a huge difference to the average citizen's spending. It would be a 10% increase in your food budget if that's all you eat though. If you want to go crazy, add a program that lets you earn that back by doing healthy things, like riding a bike. We should probably do that anyways. If we want to reduce the amount of driving people do, paying them walk/bike places instead of driving isn't a bad system either.

whatshisface 6y ago
>Honestly, I think the best way to tackle it is not to outright ban the foods, but just add an excise tax. If we added a 10% tax to soft drinks, fries and pizza, it probably wouldn't make a huge difference to the average citizen's spending. It would be a 10% increase in your food budget if that's all you eat though. If you want to go crazy, add a program that lets you earn that back by doing healthy things, like riding a bike. We should probably do that anyways. If we want to reduce the amount of driving people do, paying them walk/bike places instead of driving isn't a bad system either. The behavioral epidemic is defined by being irrational and not in the self-interest of the sufferers. How would a slight change in food prices lead to any change in behavior?
- chithanh 6y ago
  The price of products does have an impact for shoppers. Also especially with poor people, raising prices limits the amount they can afford. "It was concluded that there is reasonable and increasing evidence that appropriately designed taxes on sugar sweetened beverages would result in proportional reductions in consumption, especially if aimed at raising the retail price by 20% or more. There is similar strong evidence that subsidies for fresh fruits and vegetables that reduce prices by 10–30% are effective in increasing fruit and vegetable consumption." https://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/publications/fiscal-policies-diet-prevention/en/ https://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/publications/fiscal...
- edmundsauto 6y ago
  It has worked to some degree with cigarettes.
bumby 6y ago
>If we added a 10% tax to soft drinks, fries and pizza The argument against this is that it becomes a regressive tax scheme. Many in the lower income strata disproportionately eat these foods because they are convenient and relatively cheap. A 10% increase in the food budget of someone at or near poverty isn’t trivial. Talk to chefs at high-end restaurants and you’ll see how much fat is inherent in (or gets added to) “luxury” food as well. But I almost never hear about them in the discussion about fat/sugar taxes. I’m not necessarily against the idea, just not in favor of the classist way it’s usually discussed.
- chithanh 6y ago
  The WHO found that the consumption of sugary soda declines when it is taxed[1]. > A 10% increase in the food budget of someone at or near poverty isn’t trivial. The goal is to decrease the consumption. [1] https://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/publications/fiscal-policies-diet-prevention/en/ https://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/publications/fiscal...
  - bumby 6y ago
    That’s a given. Increase the cost of anything and you’ll decrease the consumption (in general, exceptions exist). My point is that the discussion is centered around only taxing the sugar/fat disproportionately consumed by those in the lower economic strata, meaning it becomes a de facto regressive tax. Like I said above, I’m not against the idea. I’m against the way the implementation is typically discussed. Tax it, but tax it across the board. Tax caviar and truffles as well as hamburgers and sodas, that’s all.
    - ThrowawayR2 6y ago
      High-end restaurants are such a microscopic part of the problem that this isn't really a point worth fighting over.
      - bumby 6y ago
        I can understand the utility part of the argument. But human beings have an innate drive for fairness in society. People will actually work against their self interest if they feel they are being treated unfairly. The counterpoint is that the “small part of the problem” logic works both ways. If it’s such a small part, it shouldn’t matter if it gets taxed. Taxing would have little impact on the consumption dynamics while having a much larger impact on the perception of fairness
Aerroon 6y ago
But what makes carrots "healthy food"? Is it that it has some vitamins and few calories? Does that mean that a multivitamin pill combined with a piece of plastic is the ultimate healthy food? It has vitamins and basically zero calories, because you can't actually eat the plastic. On another note, 6700 kcal is a once in a while type event. Calorie calculators put the calories needed at 6700 kcal at excess of 450 kg (1000 lbs). That's more than the record weight of a person. 6700 kcal is still 2.5 kg of Big Macs. Also, carrots just aren't great as food. They're more like flavorings. You would definitely have a brought deficiency on a carrot diet, whereas it's less so on a Big Mac diet. The thing is that our bodies need a wide range of materials to function well. We can function even when our diets aren't great, but there will usually be some small problems. I don't understand why food that's actually poor as a food is considered healthy.

whatshisface 6y ago

>Honestly, I think the best way to tackle it is not to outright ban the foods, but just add an excise tax. If we added a 10% tax to soft drinks, fries and pizza, it probably wouldn't make a huge difference to the average citizen's spending. It would be a 10% increase in your food budget if that's all you eat though. If you want to go crazy, add a program that lets you earn that back by doing healthy things, like riding a bike. We should probably do that anyways. If we want to reduce the amount of driving people do, paying them walk/bike places instead of driving isn't a bad system either. The behavioral epidemic is defined by being irrational and not in the self-interest of the sufferers. How would a slight change in food prices lead to any change in behavior?

chithanh 6y ago
The price of products does have an impact for shoppers. Also especially with poor people, raising prices limits the amount they can afford. "It was concluded that there is reasonable and increasing evidence that appropriately designed taxes on sugar sweetened beverages would result in proportional reductions in consumption, especially if aimed at raising the retail price by 20% or more. There is similar strong evidence that subsidies for fresh fruits and vegetables that reduce prices by 10–30% are effective in increasing fruit and vegetable consumption." https://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/publications/fiscal-policies-diet-prevention/en/ https://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/publications/fiscal...
edmundsauto 6y ago
It has worked to some degree with cigarettes.

bumby 6y ago

>If we added a 10% tax to soft drinks, fries and pizza The argument against this is that it becomes a regressive tax scheme. Many in the lower income strata disproportionately eat these foods because they are convenient and relatively cheap. A 10% increase in the food budget of someone at or near poverty isn’t trivial. Talk to chefs at high-end restaurants and you’ll see how much fat is inherent in (or gets added to) “luxury” food as well. But I almost never hear about them in the discussion about fat/sugar taxes. I’m not necessarily against the idea, just not in favor of the classist way it’s usually discussed.

chithanh 6y ago
The WHO found that the consumption of sugary soda declines when it is taxed[1]. > A 10% increase in the food budget of someone at or near poverty isn’t trivial. The goal is to decrease the consumption. [1] https://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/publications/fiscal-policies-diet-prevention/en/ https://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/publications/fiscal...
- bumby 6y ago
  That’s a given. Increase the cost of anything and you’ll decrease the consumption (in general, exceptions exist). My point is that the discussion is centered around only taxing the sugar/fat disproportionately consumed by those in the lower economic strata, meaning it becomes a de facto regressive tax. Like I said above, I’m not against the idea. I’m against the way the implementation is typically discussed. Tax it, but tax it across the board. Tax caviar and truffles as well as hamburgers and sodas, that’s all.
  - ThrowawayR2 6y ago
    High-end restaurants are such a microscopic part of the problem that this isn't really a point worth fighting over.
    - bumby 6y ago
      I can understand the utility part of the argument. But human beings have an innate drive for fairness in society. People will actually work against their self interest if they feel they are being treated unfairly. The counterpoint is that the “small part of the problem” logic works both ways. If it’s such a small part, it shouldn’t matter if it gets taxed. Taxing would have little impact on the consumption dynamics while having a much larger impact on the perception of fairness

Aerroon 6y ago

But what makes carrots "healthy food"? Is it that it has some vitamins and few calories? Does that mean that a multivitamin pill combined with a piece of plastic is the ultimate healthy food? It has vitamins and basically zero calories, because you can't actually eat the plastic. On another note, 6700 kcal is a once in a while type event. Calorie calculators put the calories needed at 6700 kcal at excess of 450 kg (1000 lbs). That's more than the record weight of a person. 6700 kcal is still 2.5 kg of Big Macs. Also, carrots just aren't great as food. They're more like flavorings. You would definitely have a brought deficiency on a carrot diet, whereas it's less so on a Big Mac diet. The thing is that our bodies need a wide range of materials to function well. We can function even when our diets aren't great, but there will usually be some small problems. I don't understand why food that's actually poor as a food is considered healthy.