Allow me an EVIL LAUGH!!!!!
Mar. 11th, 2010 09:27 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
polimicksBwaa haa haa haaaaaa haaa haaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6275T720100308
The title of this masterpiece is: "Tax soda, pizza to cut obesity, researchers say"
You'll forgive me a few more giggles and snorts.
Why, you may ask?
Because I can count on ONE HAND the number of slices of pizza AND sodas I've had in the last six months. If we go to a year, I won't even need all of the fingers of both hands.
Yet... still fat. Yup. Me, and loads of other fat people.
Now, I do agree with one point in the article, buried WAAAAYYYY down at the end, "...that agricultural subsidies should be used to make healthful foods such as locally grown vegetables, fruits and whole grains less expensive."
Totally agree, also that we should quit subsidizing corn and HFCS, but the rest of it? Pretty much bullshit. I'm sure raising the prices on things like soda and pizza made the consumption of those two particular things go down. The thing is, there's no proof that it made the consumption of healthy things go up, they say that in the comment part of the study. They don't even mention that it made the subjects of that study lose weight, not even in the study article, just that they quit eating those two things near as much. And that they THINK that the resulting decline in caloric intake per year, MIGHT result in losing 5 lbs a year. Not that it did, in the course of this 20 year study. But that it MIGHT.
The article does not link to the study, but I have some bitchin' access so... http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/170/5/420
The study itself stresses that this strategy MAY be effective, BUT that the increase in cost of unhealthy foods MUST be matched by a decrease in cost of healthy foods, and an increase in availablity of healthy foods. Meaning that if we just raise the price of soda and pizza, people are going to find other low cost calorie dense foods to buy, unless the government quits supporting the corn lobby and start subsidizing the agriculture of healthier fruits and vegetables and works to make those foods more available EVERYWHERE.
But the fact of the matter is that fat people don't eat that differently from thin people in the same economic class and location. http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/reprint/25/4/390.pdf
The study cites the success of heavy taxation on getting people to quit smoking, and I know that it does work because my husband is working on quitting for that very reason, it's fucking expensive. There is one flaw with this reasoning though: You can't just quit eating. No one NEEDS to start smoking.* We all NEED to eat.
As I, and the researchers, said above. If we're going to make the calorie-dense/nutrient-poor foods like pizza and soda more expensive, there has GOT TO BE a corresponding decrease in the cost of healthy, nutrient-dense foods, or it will not work. This sentiment is NOT a footnote to be included at the very bottom of an article on this study. It's the most important part of the study, not that fat people might get skinny, but that if we quit subsidizing foods like corn (which has a fairly low nutrient yield for the amount of calories, and most of which ends up becoming HFCS), and start subsidizing a variety of healthy foods more people will be able to eat healthy and BE healthier. Fuck thin. Thin doesn't mean a thing. Healthy is what we should be aiming for.
And if you tax "bad" foods without providing access to affordable "good" foods, all you'll be doing is penalizing poor people for being poor, by starving them. And while I realize a whole lot of people in this country are all about penalizing the poor for being poor, people with souls are not.
*Continuing to smoke, however, is another matter. It took me three tries to quit smoking (I'd started smoking to lose weight as a teen, see how that works?), and what did it was my doctor telling me, "Your asthma has increased in severity to the point that if you don't quit smoking, you will die. Not at some nebulous point in the far future. NOW."
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6275T720100308
The title of this masterpiece is: "Tax soda, pizza to cut obesity, researchers say"
You'll forgive me a few more giggles and snorts.
Why, you may ask?
Because I can count on ONE HAND the number of slices of pizza AND sodas I've had in the last six months. If we go to a year, I won't even need all of the fingers of both hands.
Yet... still fat. Yup. Me, and loads of other fat people.
Now, I do agree with one point in the article, buried WAAAAYYYY down at the end, "...that agricultural subsidies should be used to make healthful foods such as locally grown vegetables, fruits and whole grains less expensive."
Totally agree, also that we should quit subsidizing corn and HFCS, but the rest of it? Pretty much bullshit. I'm sure raising the prices on things like soda and pizza made the consumption of those two particular things go down. The thing is, there's no proof that it made the consumption of healthy things go up, they say that in the comment part of the study. They don't even mention that it made the subjects of that study lose weight, not even in the study article, just that they quit eating those two things near as much. And that they THINK that the resulting decline in caloric intake per year, MIGHT result in losing 5 lbs a year. Not that it did, in the course of this 20 year study. But that it MIGHT.
The article does not link to the study, but I have some bitchin' access so... http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/170/5/420
The study itself stresses that this strategy MAY be effective, BUT that the increase in cost of unhealthy foods MUST be matched by a decrease in cost of healthy foods, and an increase in availablity of healthy foods. Meaning that if we just raise the price of soda and pizza, people are going to find other low cost calorie dense foods to buy, unless the government quits supporting the corn lobby and start subsidizing the agriculture of healthier fruits and vegetables and works to make those foods more available EVERYWHERE.
But the fact of the matter is that fat people don't eat that differently from thin people in the same economic class and location. http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/reprint/25/4/390.pdf
The study cites the success of heavy taxation on getting people to quit smoking, and I know that it does work because my husband is working on quitting for that very reason, it's fucking expensive. There is one flaw with this reasoning though: You can't just quit eating. No one NEEDS to start smoking.* We all NEED to eat.
As I, and the researchers, said above. If we're going to make the calorie-dense/nutrient-poor foods like pizza and soda more expensive, there has GOT TO BE a corresponding decrease in the cost of healthy, nutrient-dense foods, or it will not work. This sentiment is NOT a footnote to be included at the very bottom of an article on this study. It's the most important part of the study, not that fat people might get skinny, but that if we quit subsidizing foods like corn (which has a fairly low nutrient yield for the amount of calories, and most of which ends up becoming HFCS), and start subsidizing a variety of healthy foods more people will be able to eat healthy and BE healthier. Fuck thin. Thin doesn't mean a thing. Healthy is what we should be aiming for.
And if you tax "bad" foods without providing access to affordable "good" foods, all you'll be doing is penalizing poor people for being poor, by starving them. And while I realize a whole lot of people in this country are all about penalizing the poor for being poor, people with souls are not.
*Continuing to smoke, however, is another matter. It took me three tries to quit smoking (I'd started smoking to lose weight as a teen, see how that works?), and what did it was my doctor telling me, "Your asthma has increased in severity to the point that if you don't quit smoking, you will die. Not at some nebulous point in the far future. NOW."
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-03-11 10:59 pm (UTC)If Coke Zero didn't have aspartame, I might be able to drink it (low sodium/no sodium), but with the aspartame allergy, it's off limits.