posted
I don't think fast food should be made more expensive.
I mean, seriously. Without the Big Bell Value Menu, how are college students supposed to eat at 4am?! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!
In all honesty though, I think just making the calorie content available on the package/menu is enough. I think that's about where the responsibility ends. No need to beat people over the head about it. They can go home and eat a gallon of butter if they want; that's their right.
posted
m_p_h, come to Minnesota at the end of August/beginning of September! We have deep fried twinkies on a stick at the state fair!
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: So, with all the complaining and threats of lawsuits against McDonalds and other fastfood places, BK has decided tweak their menu with an all new item
To what degree do you all think that fast food companies should be liable for this? Should surgeon generals warnings about trans fats be posted? Should publishing nutritional info fulfil their liability (something McDonald's and Burger King are very good at, but others like Quizno's won't do)?
Everytime I think about fast food companies, the comparison to cigarette companies a few decades ago comes to mind. Do you think this is a fair comparison?
Edit: Sorry, I forgot to include my opinion. I think fast food companies should not be liable if they make nutrition information available onsite at the time of ordering. I think there should be a fast food 'sin' tax. I think all restaraunts should be required to provide nutritional information, much the same way it is required to be on foods sold in the market.
I don't think they should be liable to be sued at all. People KNOW that fast food is bad for them, which is why Supersize Me is so odd. Who would eat THAT much fastfood and not expect consequences?
But even so, most of the places have nutritional information right on the packaging, especially Mcdonalds, who has individualized wrappers with info on them for every item. It's no longer their responsibility afterwards.
However. I've long been in favor of a sin tax on fast food. Cigarettes have incredible taxes on them in many (most?) states. It deters some, but not all. Part of the problem with fast food is just that, it's fast, but it's also cheap mostly. I lived off the 99 cent menu at McDonalds for a year before I finally told myself that it was just too unhealthy (well I didn't LIVE off it, but I ate way, way too much). It's cheap and it hits the spot. Make it more expensive, and maybe people will consider healthier alternatives. I do think it is great that some of the fast food places are trying to offer healthy alternatives like salads and such.
I think all the money collected from the tax should go directly into healthcare of some sort. I think in the same way that health insurance companies ask if you smoke when they check you out, they should also ask about your eating habits. Someone who doesn't smoke, drink, or eat fast food should not have to pay the same as someone who does all three. The smoker, drinker, FF eater's life is inherently LESS healthy and will CERTAINLY cost more of the insurance company in the long run, they should have to pay for that lifestyle choice.
I don't think government intervention beyond taxing is required at all. You can rename the food items to their caloric content, "Yeah, I'll have a double 900, and a 1,200 please. And give me the 600 cal Coke," and people still won't stop eating there.
I think if you want to force people to make better health decisions, and force them to own up to their decisions, you have to hit them where you always try to hit Americans for such things, in their wallets. If someone is going to be willfully ignorant about the damage they are doing to their own health, just wait and see how long it takes them to be just as ignorant when they have to start pinching pennies.
I would fight a "sin" tax on fast food to the death, although I agree it would make sense for insurance companies to ask that sort of information. It might be mildly redundant, though, since that sort of thing is generally apparent after an extensive physical.
Posts: 246 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I put my money where my mouth was and rode my bike to Burger King for lunch to order the double BK stacker and a water. I eat 6 times a day, at about 600 calories a meal. The double stacker has 610 calories, which was just right-however fat content is way above what I would normally eat and complex carbs way down. With the exception of subway, I've hardly had any fast food in the last several months, so I was interested to see how I would react.
Honestly after eating it, I wasn't full. I could have easily eaten another, or eaten the quad instead. That's funny, because usually it's really hard for me to eat all my food in the meals I prepare. Probably the most interesting thing is that now, a full 45 minutes after eating it, I'm finally getting a full feeling from my stomach. Yet I still want to eat more food, especially something sugary....crazy.
As I was savoring the sauce, I happened to glance at the wrapper. It had 'double,' 'triple,' and 'quad' in brackets with the rather pointed question, "How do you stack up?" Needless to say, I felt somewhat ashamed at the size of my burger and diminished manhood. Whoever was saying that it was kind of the thrust of BK's advertising strategy may have hit the nail on the head.
Lyr-I wasn't advocating excessive government regulation. I think once cigarette companies started posting surgeon generals warnings on their packs, the company responsibility ended and personal responsibility began.
mph-I don't necessarily advocate the tax for reasons of deterance. My main motivation is I would want it to be used to offset the associated health care costs.
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Deep-friend Oreos at the Texas State fair are the heavenly road treats in the handbasket to hell.
Calories eaten at fairs don't count.
Some of our products include batter kits and deep fryers for cookies & candy bars. We actually sell a machine specifically designed to fry 16 snickers bars in batter simultaneously.
A year ago, I might have found that appealing if I saw it at the fair. Now, I'm just really grossed out by anything deep fried, to the point of needing to pretend things like french fries are made through some other magical process.
Posts: 246 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wonder if SpongeBob Squarepants has had a negative or positive effect on the fast food industry. I mean millions of kids watch it and Spongebob is a fry cook...
quote:Originally posted by Demonstrocity: I would fight a "sin" tax on fast food to the death, although I agree it would make sense for insurance companies to ask that sort of information. It might be mildly redundant, though, since that sort of thing is generally apparent after an extensive physical.
It's not just private health care that takes a hit though:
quote:According to a study of national costs attributed to both overweight (BMI 25–29.9) and obesity (BMI greater than 30), medical expenses accounted for 9.1 percent of total U.S. medical expenditures in 1998 and may have reached as high as $78.5 billion ($92.6 billion in 2002 dollars) (Finkelstein, Fiebelkorn, and Wang, 2003). Approximately half of these costs were paid by Medicaid and Medicare.
Also remember, that data is 8 years old. With the skyrocketing costs of healthcare and further increase in the obesity epidemic since then, the real numbers are probably staggeringly high.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Demonstrocity: I would fight a "sin" tax on fast food to the death, although I agree it would make sense for insurance companies to ask that sort of information. It might be mildly redundant, though, since that sort of thing is generally apparent after an extensive physical.
It's not just private health care that takes a hit though:
quote:According to a study of national costs attributed to both overweight (BMI 25–29.9) and obesity (BMI greater than 30), medical expenses accounted for 9.1 percent of total U.S. medical expenditures in 1998 and may have reached as high as $78.5 billion ($92.6 billion in 2002 dollars) (Finkelstein, Fiebelkorn, and Wang, 2003). Approximately half of these costs were paid by Medicaid and Medicare.
Also remember, that data is 8 years old. With the skyrocketing costs of healthcare and further increase in the obesity epidemic since then, the real numbers are probably staggeringly high.
I was trying to avoid pointing this out, since inevitably it will start a massive firefight between me and, well, everyone else, but I am also vehemently opposed to gov't-funded free public health care.
quote:I would fight a "sin" tax on fast food to the death, although I agree it would make sense for insurance companies to ask that sort of information. It might be mildly redundant, though, since that sort of thing is generally apparent after an extensive physical.
Are their health risks from eating that sort of stuff that wouldn't show up on a physical? Also, many health insurance places don't even make you take a physical, they just send you a form to fill out and bang, you're covered. I don't know as much about the health care industry as I feel I should, but I think they should be a bit more strict on their information gathering and billing.
But I still support the sin tax. You might think it counts as government interference, but I think it'd be the act of a responsible government looking out for its citizens. People smoke, knowing it causes cancer, they drink excessively, knowing it ruins their liver, and they eat horrible food to excess, knowing it does a half dozen bad things to their body. Double the price of a cheeseburger and make health alternatives more realistically purchaseable, and I wouldn't call it unnecessary government intervention, I'd call it responsible government.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I want to know exactly how you would define what is "fast food", requiring the sin tax, and what is not.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I would fight a "sin" tax on fast food to the death
Please tell me you don't really mean this. Are you really willing to die for this cause?
No, I am not really willing to die for that cause, except insofar as I would be willing to die if it meant the United States (and, heck, the world) adopting my political agenda as its own.
Even that's a pretty safe statement, since there's just about zero chance of that ever happening!
Posts: 246 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I like Xavier's idea. My diet plan is just calorie counting (works remarkable well since some days I NEED a cookie and counting I can do that and still be ok). Eating out is a total pain cause I have no clue what I am eating. Some places are very good about calories and some are impossible to find and with special sauces and such, guessing is difficult. I would like to believe that if people actually understood what they were eating, they would stop. How many people really go into DQ and order desert knowing it represents a large meals worth of calories? I might have too much faith in my fellow man. I do still eat at DQ very occassionally- before I was pregnant, only when I saved up calories to justify it or worked out many, many hours. Being pregnant, I give myself a bit more leeway.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
That's a good question, one that did bug me at the time of posting my suggestion. Any system, to be fair, would probably have to be a question of ratios of fats and sugars to total caloric content.
That way salads wouldn't be taxed, but many of the dressings would be. So rather than restaraunts being singled out by classification, menu items would determine sin tax status.
While it's a simple idea in theory, I'll be the first to acknowledge that there would be a lot of implementation and practical issues to work through.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What might happen is that the restuarants could simply order less dressing while selling the same amount of dressing to the customers. The dressing would just be all watery.
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SoaPiNuReYe: What might happen is that the restuarants could simply order less dressing while selling the same amount of dressing to the customers. The dressing would just be all watery.
posted
say a resturant orders 5 gallons of dressing a month. in order to decrease the amount of money they would have to pay cuz of taxes, they just order 4 gallons, and use water to make up for the dressing. That way they would actually be paying less taxes, since taxes are based on calories.
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, they have to serve less dressing then- which would be advantageous, would it not?
If a salad used to have 5 tbs of dressing on it, they go to 4 tbs and make up the 1 tbs with water. Water has 0 calories. So the customer is actually getting less fatty, sugary, dressing, although volume would appear to be the same.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you only get taxed more for the dressing but not the salad, maybe they'll start selling raw french fries, which are healthy, and then fry them as a free service to customers.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: Well, they have to serve less dressing then- which would be advantageous, would it not?
If a salad used to have 5 tbs of dressing on it, they go to 4 tbs and make up the 1 tbs with water. Water has 0 calories. So the customer is actually getting less fatty, sugary, dressing, although volume would appear to be the same.
thats the point. They're paying less taxes while serving basically the same amount of dressing. Its just that they took out some dressing and added water intead.
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:thats the point. They're paying less taxes while serving basically the same amount of dressing. Its just that they took out some dressing and added water intead.
Then it's not the same amount of dressing. Less dressing is better for the health, and the law would be working.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
And also people stop eating the dressing because it tastes watered down...so either way, the pro-health people win.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Watered down doesn't mean less, it'll just effect the taste.
I mean, if something tasted bad and there wasn't enough of it, would you order MORE to make up for it?
Quite frankly, I think everyone here would stop eating ranch dressing if they had to make a batch of it. ::shudders:: I didn't eat ranch for a month after I had to make it at work once.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Most restaurants don't charge extra for extra dressing. The restaurants could just provide, by default, a teeny amount of dressing, and get charged a teeny amount of sin tax. Then they can give the customer more dressing when they ask for it.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Most restaurants don't charge extra for extra dressing. The restaurants could just provide, by default, a teeny amount of dressing, and get charged a teeny amount of sin tax. Then they can give the customer more dressing when they ask for it.
I think that was sorta what I was trying to say but I got confused.
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
This all reminds me of how whenever I order sweet and sour sauce for my fries at Mcdonalds about 90% of the time I get it for free about 10% of the time I get told it will cost me 15 cents. Are all Mcdonalds aware of this policy and some simply find it too obnoxious to deal with customers who complain about the inconcistancy? (like me <grin>) Or is it done on a franchise by franchise basis?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think they're sposed to charge, but it's rather silly and embarassing to say things like that so most people don't. That's just my impression, though.
Posts: 3636 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: If you only get taxed more for the dressing but not the salad, maybe they'll start selling raw french fries, which are healthy, and then fry them as a free service to customers.
I have confidence in government lawyers to address this and similar issues when drafting a law, and local public health departments for enforcing it.
I see your point about the dressing scenario, but that would be fundamentally dishonest to do- kind of like only including 1 fry in an order of fries, but giving them up to a scoop if asked.
It's possible to cheat about any law out there.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I have confidence in government lawyers to address this and similar issues when drafting a law, and local public health departments for enforcing it.
posted
So what's your main objection to this mph? Is it the idea of an additional tax on unhealthy fast food, or is a practical objection to the ideas I've thrown around on how to implement it?
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have more faith in the local health department enforcing it than I do in the government to legislate it. The Health Department here is like the Gourmand Gestapo.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:So what's your main objection to this mph? Is it the idea of an additional tax on unhealthy fast food, or is a practical objection to the ideas I've thrown around on how to implement it?
I havne't said that I have any objections to it.
I have concerns that any such law would add a lot of beurecracy and red tape without really accomplishing its goals.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I see, thanks. One of the big things to be careful with would be to administer it in such a way that the overhead is minimized and most of the revenue goes straight to health care & where it's supposed to.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't really think it'd be that much of an added burden. We alreay have the system in place to deal with this issue, between health inspectors and the health care industry in general.
I think the simpler the better for this kind of venture. More complicated and it's likely to fall apart entirely.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: I see, thanks. One of the big things to be careful with would be to administer it in such a way that the overhead is minimized and most of the revenue goes straight to health care & where it's supposed to.
Wait -- which do you want to do with this law: raise money for health care costs or dissuade people from eating unhealthy foods? Those two are mutually exclusive goals.
If you want to raise money, you'll add low enough taxes so that it won't stop too many people from eating unhealthy food, because if they stop eating it, they'll stop paying the taxes.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
