obesity tax - wtf?
Jan. 2nd, 2009 11:22 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
merchimerchhttp://wnyt.com/article/stories/S724178.shtml?cat=300
This headline shocked me when I saw it. Thank heavens it's a misnomer. They aren't actually taxing people for having a certain percentage of fat on their bodies. In fact, I have no problem with taxing soda or any kind of junk food to try and encourage healthy eating and less sugar/fat/corn syrup/hydrogenated oil consumption.
However, calling such a proposal an "obesity tax" is just awful on so many levels. People are fat for SO many reasons, not just because they drink soda. Hell, I am technically "obese" by all the wonky BMI measurements, height weight charts, etc. and I cut soda out of my diet years ago. (Guess what, I'm much healthier for it, but still fat) Lets go over this again - health and fat levels may have some relation, but they are not isomorphic.
Further, taxing non-diet soda isn't an effective way to combat obeistiy or encourage better health, since studies have shown that diet soda drinkers often gain MORE weight than regular soda drinkers and that it can mess with the way that normal folks produce insulin because it fools them into thinking that they've consumed sugar when they haven't. Don't even get me started on the dubious chemical content.
Why aren't they just calling this a "soda tax" or a "junk food tax?" I'm really grumpy that they have to bring fat into this issue, though I'm sure that is to get support because people are so terrified of "TEH 3VIL FAT!!!!" that they will support anything from taxes to pyramid schemes to pills to starvation programs if it claims to eradicate it.
-sigh-
Happy New Year everyone, time for the weight loss industry to crank up into over drive.
This headline shocked me when I saw it. Thank heavens it's a misnomer. They aren't actually taxing people for having a certain percentage of fat on their bodies. In fact, I have no problem with taxing soda or any kind of junk food to try and encourage healthy eating and less sugar/fat/corn syrup/hydrogenated oil consumption.
However, calling such a proposal an "obesity tax" is just awful on so many levels. People are fat for SO many reasons, not just because they drink soda. Hell, I am technically "obese" by all the wonky BMI measurements, height weight charts, etc. and I cut soda out of my diet years ago. (Guess what, I'm much healthier for it, but still fat) Lets go over this again - health and fat levels may have some relation, but they are not isomorphic.
Further, taxing non-diet soda isn't an effective way to combat obeistiy or encourage better health, since studies have shown that diet soda drinkers often gain MORE weight than regular soda drinkers and that it can mess with the way that normal folks produce insulin because it fools them into thinking that they've consumed sugar when they haven't. Don't even get me started on the dubious chemical content.
Why aren't they just calling this a "soda tax" or a "junk food tax?" I'm really grumpy that they have to bring fat into this issue, though I'm sure that is to get support because people are so terrified of "TEH 3VIL FAT!!!!" that they will support anything from taxes to pyramid schemes to pills to starvation programs if it claims to eradicate it.
-sigh-
Happy New Year everyone, time for the weight loss industry to crank up into over drive.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-01-02 09:55 pm (UTC)BTW, I don't think isomorphic is the word that you want to use in this case. In the most general sense the word isomorphic means same structure. A more precise way to phrase what you are saying there would be: Overall health is correlated to fat levels, however, there are many other factors that affect health.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-02 10:01 pm (UTC)