Speaker by Various Artists

Read Post

Speaker: Are there opportunities within the Government’s childhood obesity plan?

243 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 3 4 5 6 7 10 Newer→ Last

  • Danielle, in reply to Katharine Moody,

    yes I’m all for all those ideas, but they relate to wider, big picture issues.

    Yes, they do. Because we're arguing that narrowly focussing on "shame and tax the fat kids and their parents" is an unhelpful, simplistic strategy.

    Charo World. Cuchi-cuchi!… • Since Nov 2006 • 3828 posts Report Reply

  • Katharine Moody, in reply to Emma Hart,

    and a horrible thing to do to people who are struggling.

    What? It would be horrible to put stuff that is slowly but surely poisoning them out of their reach financially? Do you think the same of the tax on tobacco?

    I’m against it because it would increase the functional poverty of families

    I have no idea what is meant by "functional poverty" - but how can drinking free water, as opposed to not-free fizzy drink increase poverty?

    and we all know that poverty is really bad for children.

    Just as we know that obesity and tooth decay are bad for children.

    I’m against it because it’s wrong both morally and practically.

    So was what we have done with respect to tobacco also morally and practically wrong?

    Wellington • Since Sep 2014 • 798 posts Report Reply

  • Danielle, in reply to Katharine Moody,

    You don't need nicotine to live. You need food to live.

    Charo World. Cuchi-cuchi!… • Since Nov 2006 • 3828 posts Report Reply

  • Emma Hart, in reply to Katharine Moody,

    So was what we have done with respect to tobacco also morally and practically wrong?

    Yes. Food and tobacco are exactly the same.

    I have no idea what is meant by “functional poverty” – but how can drinking free water, as opposed to not-free fizzy drink increase poverty?

    But you're not just talking about sugary drinks, right? You're also talking about taxing "bad" food. So the cost of some foods goes up, and the costs of no foods go down, so people have to spend more money on food. Except the poorest people can't do that, so they have to go without something. Functional poverty. We already have kids going to school with no breakfast and no lunch. Is no food better than "bad" food?

    Christchurch • Since Nov 2006 • 4650 posts Report Reply

  • Danielle, in reply to Emma Hart,

    Subsisting entirely on air is really low-carb. Possibly even paleo.

    Charo World. Cuchi-cuchi!… • Since Nov 2006 • 3828 posts Report Reply

  • Katharine Moody, in reply to Danielle,

    You don’t need nicotine to live. You need food to live.

    Fizzy drink is not food!!!!!!!!!!!

    Wellington • Since Sep 2014 • 798 posts Report Reply

  • Katharine Moody, in reply to Emma Hart,

    But you’re not just talking about sugary drinks, right? You’re also talking about taxing “bad” food. So the cost of some foods goes up, and the costs of no foods go down, so people have to spend more money on food.

    No. In fact look back - my first suggestion was to tax the shit out of fizzy drink and use that tax collected to subsidise the producers of milk and fruit to bring down the price of those healthier options.

    Wellington • Since Sep 2014 • 798 posts Report Reply

  • Danielle, in reply to Katharine Moody,

    A punitive tax on "bad food", as Emma says, is not merely a tax on fizzy drinks.

    Charo World. Cuchi-cuchi!… • Since Nov 2006 • 3828 posts Report Reply

  • Katharine Moody, in reply to Emma Hart,

    Is no food better than “bad” food?

    "Bad" food is not free either. Something was paid for it. Take your example of hot chips. How much did they cost and how many people were you feeding them to? I'll then provide you with a healthier alternative for the same cost.

    Wellington • Since Sep 2014 • 798 posts Report Reply

  • Lilith __,

    I wish there were a tax on talking complete nonsense.

    Dunedin • Since Jul 2010 • 3887 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson, in reply to Katharine Moody,

    a punitive tax seems to be the only thing we haven’t tried thus far

    Floggings? We haven't tried those yet.

    It's a complex issue. Oversimplifying it isn't really that helpful. We could simplify things even further to make this plain by pointing out that for the most part gaining weight involves a calorific surplus, and losing it involves a deficit (with maintaining happening at the balance point, and basic minimums of a bunch of key macros being met - enough protein, fat, vitamins, water, etc). The only sticking point is between the saying and the doing. And there's the rub. This straightforward fact about any physical system that exerts work, the way a human body does, has been known for a long time. But that in itself is not enough to understand why this equation gets out of balance, or how that is best changed.

    Few people really dispute that you can lose weight by eating the right amount of food and doing enough exercise*. The dispute is all about how we get people to do that, and about whether we have the right to compel people to do it who don't want to.

    Both of those issues are extremely complicated. On the first issue, if we happen to have struck a winning formula for ourselves and our families, the best we can do with that is say it worked for us. It won't work for others, they just won't do it. Something else might work, though. On the second issue, I honestly feel that we really don't have the right to compulsion in this. It's as simple as that. I have a moral problem with it. It's not the only thing I feel that way about - for consistency I also feel the same way about tobacco. In fact, I feel that way about tobacco because I feel this way about food. It seems like tobacco was at least holding a line of defence of the right to personal stupidity that is now sitting wide open to the next personal liberty. The next liberty happens to be one I personally partake of, even though I'm (currently) not overweight - I still like to eat "bad" foods quite a lot. It's one of the best things in my life, the delicious tasty treats that I'm still allowed to eat, and the right to have them unmolested by the state is comparatively important to me. Even if it kills me, which it probably will one day. At least, in the meantime, I'll have lived as I chose to.

    *When people do dispute it, it's usually because they have narrowed the range of discussion about the limits of possible intake and exercise and BMR output, either making the caloric deficit impossible, or so ridiculously OTT that it's not sensible to discuss.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10630 posts Report Reply

  • Emma Hart, in reply to Katharine Moody,

    “Bad” food is not free either. Something was paid for it. Take your example of hot chips. How much did they cost and how many people were you feeding them to? I’ll then provide you with a healthier alternative for the same cost.

    Dude. 4 people. $4.

    Also, I fed a family of 2 adults and 2 preschoolers on $40/week grocery money in the mid-90s. I was on a Sickness Benefit because I have Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, and I still cooked six nights a week, and made my own fucking muesli bars. I was raised in a house where my mum fed a family of six on a part-time minimum-wage job. You'll forgive me if I sincerely doubt you have anything to teach me.

    Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to feed my children some fucking hot chips.

    Christchurch • Since Nov 2006 • 4650 posts Report Reply

  • chris,

    Will removing GST on fresh fruit and vegetables achieve its stated aim? (2010) Concl.

    Eating habits are a complex mix of learned behaviour, education, food preparation and cooking skills, cultural and personal expectations, food availability and affordability, income, and personal preferences. Playing around the margins of one small aspect of this mix – price – is unlikely to move those habits. Policies need to address the harder issues of income and socioeconomic inequality to begin to make a difference.

    Mawkland • Since Jan 2010 • 1302 posts Report Reply

  • JacksonP, in reply to Lilith __,

    I wish there were a tax on talking complete nonsense.

    It’s pretty taxing, that’s for sure.

    I’m going to feed my children some fucking hot chips.

    Bravo. May I suggest lashings of ketchup.

    ETA: Oh awesome, we are having a bought pie for dinner. I couldn't have scripted this better. Bon apetite!

    Auckland • Since Mar 2011 • 2448 posts Report Reply

  • steven crawford,

    Our Mayer, the Mayer of Porirua also uses the libertarian argument that everyone has the right to choose to eat addictive formulations of sugar, salt and fat – the stuff thats heavily marketed with the help of child psychologists and presented with toys – and advertised wall to wall everyware.

    He’s had his stomach stapled.

    Atlantis • Since Nov 2006 • 4306 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson, in reply to steven crawford,

    the libertarian argument that everyone has the right to choose to eat addictive formulations of sugar, salt and fat

    It used to be called a liberal argument.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10630 posts Report Reply

  • Joe Wylie, in reply to BenWilson,

    It used to be called a liberal argument.

    Back before Donna Awatere Huata had her stomach stapled.

    flat earth • Since Jan 2007 • 4591 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson, in reply to Joe Wylie,

    Back before the libertarians got a monopoly on the word liberal and fucked it, so that progressive people are somehow forced into authoritarian social viewpoints just because ACT.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10630 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson,

    It's probably the biggest win ever made by neoliberalism that it's turned left wing people into social conservatives.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10630 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to Katharine Moody,

    I'll then provide you with a healthier alternative for the same cost.

    Why? I do not see anyone asking for advice.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19680 posts Report Reply

  • steven crawford,

    Our family, all have food nicknames. Ginger, Olive and Spud.

    Atlantis • Since Nov 2006 • 4306 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to Emma Hart,

    You'll forgive me if I sincerely doubt you have anything to teach me.

    Reckon.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19680 posts Report Reply

  • Katharine Moody, in reply to Emma Hart,

    Here's the nutritional value of your hot chips:

    http://www.weightlossresources.co.uk/calories-in-food/veg/chip-shop-chips.htm

    Versus the nutritional value of sardines;

    http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=foodspice&dbid=147

    $1.20 a tin (x3) plus a loaf of multi-grain bread = $4.60

    Wellington • Since Sep 2014 • 798 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to JacksonP,

    a bought pie

    ILovePies?
    (they rock)

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19680 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to Katharine Moody,

    Not the same thing at all. Families eat stuff for reasons other than nutritional value. Perhaps tone down the sanctimony. It's not welcome.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19680 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 3 4 5 6 7 10 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

This topic is closed.