I'm speechless... I don't know how this managed to slip past me, but having seen it now I wonder what kind of country it is they're aiming for. All right, it is a worthy goal to phase out unhealthy pursuits and Scotland has a terrible health record, the worst in Europe for some ailments and possibly even the world. It is known as the sick man of Europe in some quarters. But there has to be some balance. Can't wait to see what the US posters make of this...
Disgraceful..next thing you know they will be banning Heroin in Scotland then what will the natives do with their nights?
Well I stayed in Scotland for a few years and yeah I noticed that certain areas had very bad reputations for alcohol, though I personally would be against this if it happened where I live and think it's not a good solution since you are only going to increase a black market and if you've seen how they make cheap alcohol it's not healthy and does cause a lot of deaths with some ingredients and a market that there is a demand people will sell it but other nations have different laws and different approaches. Actually I have some sources to show what I mean. http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_commons/newsid_9708000/9708995.stm http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-17741542 http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/16182770 Figured while I'm here in the UK for a while I'll use your national news.
You know if that money is actually going to pay for the HC of people who use cigarettes and alcohol, then that is known as price integrity. You know, when things cost what they are supposed to! We could use some of that in the US on gas and oil.
"Goodbye Cigarettes...Alcohol...What's Next..." Outdoor sex...erm...backdoor sex...erm...chocolate tipped langue de chat???
Obesity next. Scots are to be trusted to decide whether to leave the UK [and rightly so] but not trusted to decide something as basic as what to eat. The UK govt will be watching to see how successful the Scottish govt is. It would just love to implement this sort of stuff in the rest of the UK. Enjoy those gorgeous deep fried Mars bars and pizzas while you can!
Well there is nothing new about countries trying to stop their people becoming addicted to unhealthy lifestyles which will make their life less enjoyable in the long term and obviously add to the strain on Health Services. I think it is Denmark which already has a 'fat tax' on foods high in this. The UK in general has been putting up the duty on cigarettes for so long that you would need to be a millionaire or spend all your money on them in order to smoke them. What is better - to put in policies which encourage people to live a healthier life despite current addictions brought on by those wishing to make a great deal of money from causing such addictions or to allow those who make money from these people addictions to carry on to the detriment of people's health. With regard to simply being fat. This is actually a relatively new phenomena in the UK. As people will remember Americans were 'fat', Brit's had 'bad teeth', that was until the 70's-80's when much of the US fat making productions propaganda (advertising) hit the UK alongside the US moving to corn syrup and other changes which had masses of hidden calories and an addictive effect on many people. I am not desperately unhappy at policies aimed at helping people enjoy better health despite their current orientation.
I prefer the small state, libertarian approach to what I put in my body. And Denmark is scrapping its 'fat tax'. Apparently Danes are just going to Germany to stock up on fatty food. I suppose that means we'll have a European Commission diktat to cut that out. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20280863
6 locations? i have 16 mega marts inside of 20 miles from me. (i'd blame the weather iffn i was you.)
and you really believe you and everyone else has that choice? Like I said addiction. They will find some other way to to deal with it like the UK - limited health services to fat people. Why on earth do you suppose people voluntarily choose to eat food which will destroy them? Spoken to a midwife recently? Any idea of the difficulties and dangers and expense the NHS is experiencing with people not allowed but rather tricked into becoming addicted to things which make them obese. You are being far too simplistic imagining this is people's choices.
People have freedom of choice. Most of us can manage our cravings in a perfectly reasonable way. Why should everyone pay more? Why other people chose to destroy themselves is not for me to say, but maybe its because they don't have any other pleasures? Eating food they enjoy is their pleasure, same with smoking and drinking and the government would take even those small pleasures away from them. Addictions they certainly can be but I don't believe the government has any place in trying to regulate them. (I don't even believe hard drugs should be outlawed for adults.) I can't see why you'd think that "they" will ever limit health services to fat people. There hasn't been the slightest, tiniest hint of anything like that, quite the contrary. It's the difference in approach between authoritarians and libertarians I suppose. I work in the health industry and I am well aware of the difficulties, and the money, both in preventative measures and in dealing with the problems that have already occurred, in treating obese people. I don't believe nanny state policies have a place in a world where everyone has an education and knows that if we eat an unhealthy diet we're going to get fat and has freedom of choice. I know the theories about why people were 'tricked' and I think they are patronising in the extreme. If limiting health services means not making exceptions for their excessive weight then I'm all for it. Unfortunately our politicians don't fee the same way. You are far too simplistic to think this won't mean runs to neighbouring areas or even countries where this tax doesn't apply as happened with Denmark. When all's said and done, this will effectively be yet another tax on the poor (and it's usually the poor that affected by obesity).
For a start, all the business of eating what you want depends on your bank balance. That is not equal. We will all be effected if obesity increases at the rate it is reckoned it will in the next generation. However I believe you are wrong to blame people who are obese. There were several programs on diet and the change in British diet from the introduction of US foods and advertising propaganda this year. You possibly missed them. These programs showed how people were psychologically conditioned to eat larger meals and the effect of corn syrup replacing most others for sweetening. They also educated people how advertising in the UK brought in the unheard of notion before of giving children sugary treats all the time. Further research illustrated how these changes in behaviour were highly addictive to a large number of people and the problems involved in the 'PURE, WHITE AND DEADLY'. Were suppressed by those interested – big business and governments supporting such. Research even shows that children born to women who eat fatty foods, sweets and so on will tend to be addicted to them from the moment they are born and favour fattening foods. We simply cannot say this is people's choice. My friend who is a midwife cannot believe the number of 'morbidly obese' women who are coming in pregnant. They are much more expensive to look after and both their lives and that of their children are at more risk. They are advised on diet and she is amazed that even though they are told the effect this may have on their children they do not immediately slim down. I believe deeper work is needed and the very fact that they cannot do it for their children is proof of how out of control they are. Societies always have worked on ways to try and improve the health of the people in the society. Morbidly obese people is a new one for the UK but is seen as one that is spreading fast and most likely to become very widespread in the near future – it really is insane not to try and change this. You have not been keeping up. There has been several programs illustrating how fat people and people who smoke have been and are being refused NHS treatment - not emergency, no one is going to leave someone just to die but there have been several programs highlighting how people are currently refused operations because of their weight or because they smoke - the point put forward being that either their weight or their smoking would make the operation dangerous. Indeed their was one authority found where the entire, I think it was English Rugby team, would be refused operations for being too fat. All you are suggesting here is simplistic in fashion jargon. Nothing to do with what I am talking about. Your just imagine everyone is just like you and they are not. Everyone has a different life experiences. I imagine for instance that you were not born of a morbidly obese mother and so were not born with an ingrained preference for junk food and sweets. I have had to pay taxes for war all my life. Why should I have had to do that when I don't believe in them. Taking your thinking to it's final line would result in anarchy. Now when you can show me that every life begins equally and is treated through their childhood years on an equal level - re education, nutrition, safety, nurturing relationships and opportunities for creative and leisure activities, I would begin to agree with you. As we do not, your premise is wrong. Oh that is poor. Using the word simplistic just because I did towards you and not only that pretending I said something I did not. There are lots of ways in which things can be changed, not least making the poor always pay for things and you are right it is the poor who more often suffer from morbid obesity. They were the people targeted by the fast food industry.
I am not blaming people who are obese and fruit and vegetables and some cuts of meat and fish are cheaper than cakes, biscuits and convenience foods so obesity is not dependent on your bank balance. It just takes more effort to eat a healthy diet on a tight budget. And you might be effected by obesity but I certainly wont be. We are affected by it however. It only takes a basic education to know that eating an unhealthy diet is much more likely to make us fat, and Scots tell us that your education system is superior to the English one, yet obesity is higher north of the border. How does that fit with your theory? I know exactly the programmes you mean. Like I said, the arguments put forward in them were patronising in the extreme. Did the research you cite come before or after the political motivation? Even if fattening food is as addictive as has been suggested, do you really think a slightly higher price is going to change this? Addicts dont care about the cost. I have been keeping up. Not sharing your views does not mean I don't understand the problem. I didnt realise we were talking about doctors taking clinical decisions. (I havent met many doctors with much sympathy with the morbidly obese though.) Your point about rugby players is irrelevant because obesity is measured on a BMI scale and muscle weighs more than fat as Im sure you knew! Im saying you are supporting those who take the authoritarian approach. Im saying we should leave them alone. Treat them like the adults they are and make it clear they must accept the consequences of their actions, and you avoided my question. How will Scotland avoid what the Danes experienced, ie people travelling across the border to avoid the tax? My premise is not wrong. I never suggested everyone was born equal. It is patently obvious that we are not and we all have different life experiences, but unlike you I don't believe it's a government's place to try to make everyone equal. I never said or even implied that this should be taken to its final line. Of course it shouldnt be, and we need taxes to pay for all sorts of public services, but we have to pay the taxes our governments impose, in whatever form they choose, but we don't have to meekly accept those taxes and abstain from debate about them. And what about your final line? Where would it be? Would you have everyone turn vegan to ensure we are all as healthy as its possible to be? Today fast food, tomorrow ... meat? The fast food industry targets everyone. The Scottish government wants to increase the tax for everyone, but it will as you say hit the poor hardest. A picture is worth a thousand words: Click to enlarge. If it really wanted to make people living in Scotland healthier it might start by cutting the hypocrisy. Remember 9 year old Martha Payne from Argyll, her food blog and the local council which tried to stop her publicising how poor her school meals were (example shown above)? Maybe they could set all us plebs an example? And NOWHERE did I pretend you'd said something you hadn't. Maybe you could stop imagining you know what I think.
Anyway... I was thinking there is some merit to the scheme in the OP. The supermarkets know how much damage these products do to public health. They know how much that costs the public purse. The government hasn't outlawed the products. They are pushing minimum pricing (can't remember if that went through) and perhaps this initiative is another prong in that attack. The shops take the profits from sales. This is just asking them to help pay for the damage their products cause. Accountability. What's wrong with that?
Just because a food has a higher fat content does not mean it is unhealthy. Whole milk, olive oil, and avacadoes for example. Soybeans have a content of 15-20% fat, but I don't think anyone would claim they are unhealthy. They are sold in healthfood stores (sometimes using their japanese name "edamame"). I find it rather ridiculous that anyone would want to tax whole milk, yet that is exactly what some politicians want to do. It seems like just more misguided communist-style central planning to me. I will leave you with a quote from Ludwig Von Mises, which could apply as equally to public health as it does to economics or environmental issues: "That Socialism would be immediately practicable if an omnipotent and omniscient Deity were personally to descend to take in hand the government of human affairs is incontestable."
