From today’s New York Times:
J. Michael McGinnis, a senior scholar at the Institute of Medicine, has estimated that only 10 percent of early deaths are the result of substandard medical care. About 20 percent stem from social and physical environments, and 30 percent from genetics. The biggest contributor, at 40 percent, is behavior.
And the most prevalent today of all dangerous behaviors: over-eating.
17 responses so far
1 sinz54 // Aug 15, 2009 at 11:13 am
The problem with this idea, is that scientists are now discovering that obesity has a genetic component too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FTO_gene
Some humans are genetically much better at storing body fat than others.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obesity
So by demanding that obese humans slim down, you’re essentially forcing them to work harder than other humans who don’t have those genes–or else face job discrimination. That could be considered genetic discrimination, and I’ll bet you the Supreme Court would strike it down.
2 ottovbvs // Aug 15, 2009 at 11:19 am
………..David……get real there aren’t going to be any “fat taxes.”……..on a related topic I see Whole Foods is in full damage control after that oped by Mackey in the WSJ…….they’ve woken up to the fact that most of there customers are middle of the road democrats and liberals(Sinz’s dirty hippies) and are in favor of the president’s plans on healthcare reform……the PR department will be working OT this weekend
3 joedee1969 // Aug 15, 2009 at 1:41 pm
David, the freedom of behavior sometimes costs us all. It only means freedom is not cheap. Read this when you get a chance. After; tell me, would you rather save money with tyranny or spend more money on behavior and freedom?
http://americaspeaksink.com/?s=food+police
4 joedee1969 // Aug 15, 2009 at 1:50 pm
I knew if I went back to the search engine at America Speaks Ink I could find another peice to back up what a lie this all is. That writer C. Rich is like the bible of truth for me. You’ll need to check this cat out. Anyway, what would David think of this?
http://americaspeaksink.com/2009/08/revealed-organic-food-a-scam/
5 joedee1969 // Aug 15, 2009 at 2:03 pm
Now that I think of it. Isn’t the cost of good health a waste of time unless we address this issue?
http://americaspeaksink.com/2009/06/fda-complicit-now-in-smoking-deaths/
6 ottovbvs // Aug 15, 2009 at 2:14 pm
ireign // Aug 15, 2009 at 12:50 pm
“if you don’t shop at a place because the CEO’s position on healthcare,”
…….Hardly…..I, or perhaps I should say my better half ,shops there and will no doubt continue to do so……interesting that as ever you can’t differentiate between a bit of mildly humorous reporting and personal preferences……an overly rigid mind must be a considerable handicap
” Basically David is arguing for a regressive tax that disproportionately hurts poor minorities. ”
…….As far as I could see David wasn’t “arguing” for anything, instead just like myself reporting……You really must learn the difference between these terms…….arguing and reporting are as different as fundamentalist and fanatic the other ones you were having trouble with
7 ottovbvs // Aug 15, 2009 at 2:17 pm
joedee1969 // Aug 15, 2009 at 2:03 pm
…….Does Mr Rich have a wire attached to your brain?
8 joedee1969 // Aug 15, 2009 at 3:24 pm
ottovbvs, lol I just like getting a hold of something different besides the lies on the networks. I love the web because that is where the truth is anymore. They seem to all been bought now a days:
http://www.khnl.com/Global/story.asp?S=10836701
9 oldgal // Aug 15, 2009 at 8:27 pm
As noted in your quote, these are estimates, not statistics, and as such are quite simplistic. Without understanding how these estimates were derived I find it impossible to attach meaning to them. I do know that my doctors inform me that I am at much greater risk due to genetics than any of the other factors mentioned here. When we go about thinking we are creating incentives by applying the tax code we generally have unintended consequences (generally, but not always bad ). Often the negative impacts are on the lowest in the food chain, and given the relative prices of “bad” foods vs. “good” foods my guess is this would be one more instance of penalizing the folks at the bottom.
10 dragonlady // Aug 16, 2009 at 12:45 am
According to a study funded by the National Institute of Aging:
“Waite and co-author Mary Elizabeth Hughes, of Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, found that divorced or widowed people have 20 percent more chronic health conditions such as heart disease, diabetes or cancer than married people. They also have 23 percent more mobility limitations, such as trouble climbing stairs or walking a block.”
http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/07/28/divorce.marriage.health/index.html
That’s not all. Many studies show:
“Religion appears to soothe the body as well as the soul, as people who are highly religious tend to live longer than others, a review of more than 40 scientific studies has found.”
http://www.webmd.com/news/20000809/religious-people-live-longer-than-nonbelievers
So are we going to tax single people and atheists since married and religious people have healthier lifestyles?
Of course not–to do so would be ridiculously intrusive and arbitrary–just like a so-called fat tax. What do we do–weigh people or take their BMI before they file their 1040 or pay their medical bill? Shaming an entire class of people about their weight since obesity is often associated with lower socio-economic class is about as elitist as you can get.
11 anniemargret // Aug 16, 2009 at 12:04 pm
dragonlady: I agree with you.
Education is the key to improving America’s health, not a tax on on obese people. If one uses that rule of thumb, then why not tax all those people who still smoke? Where would it end? The other fact not discussed is that fresh fruit and vegetables have gone up 40% in price. Has anyone checked out how much fresh fish costs these days?
As a child growing up in NYC in my blue-collar working family my parents bought lots of fresh fruit and vegetables and inexpensive fish – having a ribeye was a luxury . But it was because it was inexpensive.
Overprocessed (Michael Pollan’s two books on the subject are real-eyeopeners about the food industry), foods have also caused obesity rates to rise. There are hidden sugars in almost everything we eat these days. I went to join my local YMCA to swim, and found it too costly to do so. So I walk like a lot of Americans to get some exercise. But the issue is a lot more complex than it appears.
Add in our fast-paced culture….many Americans are working two jobs to make ends meet, raising families, and the guilt heaped on them to get their kids involved in after-school activities, not to mention the absurdity of some parents to enroll their kids as young as 2 y/o in organized ’sports’ is making this country a huge case of too fast too soon too much. Overeating is also a symptom of exhaustion – for many it calms the nerves. Not right of course, but I see how it could happen.
To posit that it is just a case of self-discipline is simplistic.
12 dragonlady // Aug 16, 2009 at 3:12 pm
Anniemargret, who would have thought we’d agree? See, this is why I’d rather have Frum put out policy ideas than just beat up on conservatives–all it does it get people at opposite ends of the political spectrum to dig in and rant at each other. At least with policy, even if the rhetoric gets heated, we can debate the merits of it and see if our views overlap to find some sort of common ground.
I’m fine with education on nutrition, taking soda machines out of schools, etc. Local schools are trying to fight the problem with better school lunches and here’s a thought–perhaps PE shouldn’t be an elective but mandatory for all ages unless you have some sort of medical condition that prevents you from participating. I’ve also read Pollan’s in defense of food and I try to ensure my family eats healthy. So if you read his books, you also know that what’s defined as ‘nutritious’ is often manipulated by the food industry, just like margarine was thought to be healthier than butter until we recently found out that guess what–transfats are worse than animal fats for you.
I’m sure obese people have tried to lose weight many times which is quite a difficult thing; it’s an entire lifestyle change and not just merely diet and exercise. As you say, it’s much more complicated than just self-discipline. We shouldn’t be making obese people feel worse about themselves, which ergo, will probably cause them to eat more. Perhaps doing simple things like having individual and business tax deductions for gym membership /having a gym on site would help more than just taxing fat people. I think Frum also had a post on eliminating farm subsidies (esp to corn and sugar which makes those items much cheaper leading to high fructose corn syrup) which I’d probably agree to. It’s nibbling around the edges at the problem and I don’t know if there would be much benefit, but the bottom line is we shouldn’t use the tax code to discriminate against people based on their weight. Esp when genetics comes into play, is quite difficult for them to control.
13 sinz54 // Aug 16, 2009 at 3:39 pm
dragonlady sez: “I’m sure obese people have tried to lose weight many times which is quite a difficult thing; it’s an entire lifestyle change and not just merely diet and exercise.”
As I said, scientists are gradually discovering that there is a genetic component to obesity as well. I could just see the litigation now, in which grossly obese people will bring scientists to testify that they have certain genes that are known to contribute to obesity.
The whole notion of taxing obesity or penalizing obesity is ridiculous.
14 SFTor1 // Aug 16, 2009 at 3:59 pm
Norway used to have a sugar tax back in the day, and is considering to reintroduce it.
Products with very high levels of sugars (sucrose, fructose, glucose) get taxed heavily. Soda pop, chocolate, ice cream, etc. are the obvious examples. Same as a tobacco tax. Nothing undemocratic about it.
Would it help? Presumably yes. Proceeds would help fund health care initiatives and social medicine (public education,) and the tax itself would encourage moderation. Could be an idea.
15 dragonlady // Aug 16, 2009 at 5:12 pm
sftor1, the hesitation I have against taxing “bad” foods is the science behind it is much more complicated and controversial than say, with smoking. Pollan makes the point in his books that nutrition science is often manipulated or in bed with the food industry and special interests in order to market “nutritious” labeling, etc., on their products. I’m not disputing that eating lot of sugar is probably not healthy but like most other things, sugar probably doesn’t hurt people in moderation and it all depends what else you eat. There are also unintended consequences to this. Do we allow diet sodas that don’t have sugar to go tax-free? I don’t think they are any healthier with aspartame, a substance that in high levels, is found to produce cancer in animal studies. Also, some people with special conditions, like epilepsy, have to go on a medically administered high fat diet to control their seizures. Do we end up penalizing them by making their foods they arguably need more than the avg person more expensive? As Pollan points out, it’s not just one thing you eat but the combination of things you eat, and how those foods are broken down in your body. Plus add in the genetic component to all this and who knows where you end up. I’m not completely set against to the idea of a soda or sugar tax, but perhaps education is a better way to go about it. I’d also like to eliminate farm subsidies to pay for that education but the special interests probably won’t allow that to happen. I think the word is getting out, though. Sales of organic and local farm food has really gone through the roof recently. I think people are trying to turn towards healthier eating habits, even if it’s debatable whether organic is better for you.
16 anniemargret // Aug 16, 2009 at 6:20 pm
Dragonlady: Yes! We can agree. And agree to disagree. I really dislike the ‘one size fits all’ political box so many people like to use – it pigeonholes people too much.
The reasons for obesity in this country are complex. Some nations such as Italy and France have a rich diet and yet many of their citizens eat them and stay slim. Their lifestyles though as less frantic and less harried than Americans. Coming from an Italian background I will say eating ‘fat-free cheese’ would a national crime. Yet very few of our family are obese.
I am not saying that every obese person isn’t responsible for their intake, but American people have one of the highest stress levels in the world. And almost every food in the grocery is over-processed. If you remember from Pollan’s book on the food industry, the percentage of corn syrup in food was astoundingly high…it takes a concerted effort at the grocery store to pick up foods that are not processed either with fructose, corn syrup or extra added salt. And as Pollan says, if it has more than 4 ingredients, leave it! ;0)
Even the low-fat thrust from the 80s is now being shown to be wrong. Take out the fat and they put in the crap….load of chemicals which are creating havoc with the human body. When Americans were eating whole foods back in Grandma’s time, there was less obesity and a more satiated appetite. When you are satiated, you eat less. They also moved more than we do now. People almost are living in cars – everywhere rushing to get to work and back, or working two jobs to make ends meet.
I just read drinking coffee is helpful to your brain. But there is people still buying the decaf version which uses a chemical process to strip the caffeine. Unless you are person drinking coffee all day, 2-3 cups of coffee per day would actually be good for you.
So yes…you are correct. I wouldn’t mind seeing a higher tax on tobacco but at the same time I don’t want government to intrude into what we eat and drink or use. And boy, do I ever agree with you about PE in the schools. But the overemphasis for children on structured sports vs unstructured play is harming them. The children should play. When we were in school, we were given a full 40 minutes after lunch to go out and play. We were not allowed to sit and chat. We had to play with ball, run, jump rope, or walk around the schoolyard. It was unstructured but the exercise was enforced. There wasn’t any competition, just play…good for the mind and body. Our children are becoming mini-automatons.
17 SFTor1 // Aug 16, 2009 at 7:49 pm
dragonlady says: “I’m not disputing that eating lots of sugar is probably not healthy but like most other things, sugar probably doesn’t hurt people in moderation and it all depends what else you eat.”
I agree that eating sugar in moderation doesn’t hurt you. The point with a sugar tax would be to tax excess intake of high-sugar foods and drinks, plain and simple. And you wouldn’t tax plain sugar sold to consumers of course, just processed snacks, drinks, and foods containing high levels of sugars, and especially HFCS. Sugar consumption is off the charts, especially from a historic perspective.
It would have no impact on diabetics on high-fat diets, as fat would not be taxed. (I eat lots of fat myself. I certainly wouldn’t want that.)
I also agree that aspartame is not good for you. I don’t know what you do with that one though.
You must log in to post a comment.