Perhaps it’s just because Christmas overeating is still heavy on my mind (and other body parts) but I’ve noticed there seems to have been a lot of discussion about causes of and suggested solutions to obesity over the last few days.
Waikato University scientist, Dr Pawel Olszewski suggests sugar and fat may produce changes in the brain which resemble the effects of addictive drugs. This may have a profound impact on the way governments, health practitioners and communities plan to combat the impact of the growing incidence of obesity.
We must be careful, though, not to directly equate sugar and fat, which our bodies need, to nicotine, alcohol, THC, amphetamines etc which we can quite happily do without:
Tony Falkenstein, chief executive of Just Water International, made the connection and took it to a seemingly logical conclusion by suggesting a sugar tax. (Which, of course, would benefit his company). This drew a thoughtful rebuttal from Dr Jim McVeagh at MacDoctor:Dr Olszewski says that while the brain responds to tasty foods in ways that have a lot in common with its reaction to drugs, he stresses there is a clear distinction between the complex mix of substances found in foods and a single compound such as morphine or nicotine. For this reason he describes over-eating patterns as “addictive-like”.
“We don’t want to send the message that if you’re eating a sandwich, that you’re consuming a drug. However palatable, high-sugar foods very often increase activity of the same brain circuits that are involved in the creation of the addictive state.
“So we believe this addictive-like behaviour stems from the effect that nutrients, in particular sugar and to some extent fat, have on the same set of brain areas that drive addiction.”
I’m inclined to agree that taxing sugar is pointless and taxing fat just becomes ridiculously complex as you attempt to define ‘good’ and ‘bad’ fats. As Jim McVeah says,Immediately one can see the absolute pointlessness of a sugar tax. Potatoes, white bread, rice and pasta become sugar in the body as fast as pure cane sugar and nearly as fast as glucose powder. Taxing sugar is like sticking your finger in the dyke when the tsunami alarm has just gone off. And taxing carbohydrates in general is just adding a tax to nearly all food.
So if an excise-type tax were to be used in an attempt to curb obesity, the only logical approach I can think of is for it to be based on calorie density. Extremely calorie dense foods tend to be those that we ought only to eat occasionally although I expect there will be exceptions. A similar effect could be achieved by taking GST off low-calorie density foods. Both approaches have flow-on consequences that would have to be thought through before suggesting that either is worth implementing.all that causes obesity is taking in more calories than you burn up.
Add to the mix research released from Ohio State University this week that shows the attachment between mothers and toddlers is linked with incidence of obesity and you quickly get the picture that obesity is not straight forward and solutions will be neither singular nor simple.
Obesity is a significant driver of the increasing cost of healthcare and therefore cannot be ignored. Developing prevention and treatment strategies is the responsibility of governments as much as it is the responsibility of parents, communities and individuals.
What about Labour’s stance on the hideous New Zealand Government Food Bill 160-2
balance deleted. Stay on topic. Trevor
Have to disagree with you there Iain. A sugar and/or fat tax is a start towards managing an obesity and diabetes crisis that is here now and is rapidly getting worse. I can’t see why a sugar tax would be all that hard to implement, at least no harder than alcohol Many opponents say it is purely personal responsiblility but go and have a wander around the city.What are the the products most commonly discounted down at the supermarkets to near cost? soft drinks especially Coke. Large discounts for buying 10 bottles. With coupons and other deals eating out at Burget King, McDonalds and other fast food outlets is actually a lot cheaper than making a nourishing home meal because of the horrible price of fresh, nourishing food. Eliminating GST off fruit and veges would also have been a good start but it won’t happen now for obvious reasons. Yes there is a large degree of individual responsiblity involved but the marketers of sugar-saturated drinks and fatty fast food know very well that addiction is a key element to their sales, how to make people come back for more.
Iain, good to see some more rational approaches to this issue. The biggest problem with the food and tax debate is that it often gets framed far too quickly. People look for silver bullets like ‘fats’ or ‘sugars’. Labour’s original GST plan would have seen sugary fruits be made exempt, while things like white and lean red meat would have been taxed. Sure, it make send a message saying ‘We want you to eat more of this’. But a healthy eating policy needs to make people understand that lean proteins and vegetables are essential, and you can’t just pick one of those two to give preferential status to.
I welcome the more considered and broader approach to nutrition. Otherwise we’ll end up with fruit taxed under the sugar tax regime and good fats you mention taxed under the fat regime. Merely loading taxes onto food products because of an arbitrary opposition to one particular ingredient in one food group is just more money for tax accountants.
I can only assume that Mike, Dan and Iain are all on the public payroll, enjoying the tax paid high life, as you’d rather finesse ingredient legislation than tackle big issues like the Food Bill 160-2
see my comment above. Once more and you will go into moderation. Trevor
“With coupons and other deals eating out at Burget King, McDonalds and other fast food outlets is actually a lot cheaper than making a nourishing home meal because of the horrible price of fresh, nourishing food. ” Rubbish, when was the last time you had any of the bad three?, they are bloody expensive.
CHeap meals are things like 2 minute noodles, sausages, and frozen mixed veges. And thats not healthy. Making certain types of food will not help the Diabetes or obesity epidemic.
The simple way is to make healthy food cheaper, promote healthy foods, teach healthy foods in schools, encouarage gardening and promote, promote, promote healthy cheap foods.
Give parents ideas for cheap quick meals, snaks etc. Putting prices up only hurts those who cant afford things already.
Agreed waterboy!
Dan has noted this and I agree with him. Fruit is full of sugars so is energy dense. For instance, a cupcake and a banana are about the same calories. Government intervention is doomed to fail because food pricing to promote good nutrition won’t fit into easy categories. The solution is in government incentives for being healthy – a modest tax credit for those who don’t drain the public health system?
What about making people responsible for the consequences of their own poor diet? My idea is Good Health tax credits, for people who take care of their bodies. It would get people in the doctor for a check-up more often (that’s how you’d prove you were in good enough health to recieve the credit), and the ones who stay fit, keep their weight and blood-pressure down, who don’t drink or smoke excessively get some of their tax money back as a reward for not being an unneccesary burden on the health system.
Isn’t the main problem not “bad” foods per se, but eating too much of anything. Fruits contain sugar but I doubt many people have become obese through over-indulging in fruit! Whereas it is all too easy to eat too much bread, cake, chocolate…
But surely it would be possible to ban (or make prohibitively expensive) foods containing trans fats?
“What about making people responsible for the consequences of their own poor diet?” They are, its called death and illness.
As someone who has been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, doesnt have a family history of it, was never inactive, over weight or had any reason to think i was on track to get diabetes that type of targeting doesnt work, some people just get handed the s%$t plate.
You are never going to solve this one while people disagree with the nanny state and whilst otheres think the problem is to put prices up. Give people easy affordable solutions they can do themselves and promote it. When was the last time the 5+ a day add was on TV???. How about making the companys who advertise bad foods sponsor 1 healthy ad for every 10 they put on tv. How about making fast food outlets offer low suger, low carb alternatives at reasonably prices (how in gods earth can a salad the size of a bread plate retail for 8 bucks with 3 strips of chicken????)
KISS – Keep is simple stoopid
@Waterboy – the trouble is that death and illness in this day and age costs the taxpayer thousands. There is medication to be bought, and doctors’ and nurses’ salaries and wages to be paid et cetera. If they were left to die, I’d agree. But we don’t do that.
I’m glad we take care of people in this country, but it doesn’t make it fair that those who take care of themselves have to pay for those who don’t. That’s why I propose giving money back to people who stay fit, don’t smoke and don’t drink excessively.
Weight loss and gain is a very complex matter relating to the state of an individual’s hormones, stress and general health (among other factors) at any particular time. Government involvement at best is probably unhelpful except in regulating food safety.
For those with an inquiring mind and non-prescriptive approach, here is “a video on some of the basics of the simplistic “eat less/exercise more” approach to weight loss – and why this approach is an ineffective long-term strategy with negative physical and psychological side effects…” (http://180degreehealth.com/2011/12/the-calorie-myth-part-3-the-basics). The author also covers aspects of the macronutrients in his books and blogs.
Does Labour ever think of solutions other than taxation?
Obesity is a complex issue and is to do with genetic makeup, metabolism, sensitivity to food cues such as smells, taste and texture, the fact that poor quality, energy-dense processed foods are cheaper and more readily available than more nutritious options, body image, and more. What we know is that diets do not work for the majority of people and that bodies fight dieting by putting on more weight long term in over 90% of situations. Because of all these factors obesity can almost be considered a disability.
What is desperately needed is more public access to bariatric surgery which at $17,000 to $30,000 is out of the reach of those who need it. It is not a miracle cure, but is by far the most effective long term intervention. What I find so ironic is that so many MPs have had their own bariatric surgery paid by the taxpayer through their MP salaries, but have not supported the extension of this often-life saving operation to the rest of the population.
@Hilary – Bariatric surgery is not an easy answer to weight loss and can cause as many problems as it seems to solve.
People need genuine support and practical solutions to the factors in their lives (as you and I both noted) that affect their health and weight, rather than expensive surgery that really equates to putting someone on a starvation diet.It has been suggested that the diet enforced by surgery is the effective component, and that that diet alone without surgery would be sufficient. Unfortunately all diet solutions bring with them compliance and long term problems as you noted.
The overall health of a person should be the paramount consideration, not some measure on a scale. Once the confounding factors are resolved, weight will take care of itself (for examples, you can check out comments over the last year on the blog I referenced above).
Bruce Collings – Ah, of course. Because I haven’t indulged your off-topic derail, I must be a shill of some sort. This is the kind of trolling bullshit that Red Alert should ban. Someone doesn’t want to discuss exactly what I say, it’s a conspiracy, someone call the whaaaambulance.
see my comment and warning to Bruce. Trevor
Diets do work for ‘the majority’ of people who actually diet correctly. Many others misjudge portion sizes, eat far more than they actually think they do, exercise far less than they think they do or adhere to pap science like bullshit out diets not working or ‘it’s mah genetics’. Energy in should equal less than energy out. If your body somehow breaks the laws of thermodynamics, then step away from the keyboard and call the good folks at CERN because you shouldn’t exist under current physics models.
The simple truth is that the vast majority of people will lose excess fat (not weight) if they exercise in a meaningful way, lift weights and eat more leaner proteins, healthy fats and more vegetables and in correct portions. That’s it. It’s that simple. In extremely rare cases you might have a body that doesn’t respond the same way because of a medical condition, but for 99% of people, claiming it’s your genetics or that you’re big boned or whatever is just laziness masquerading as bullshit.
@Dan, as i have said its all about promotion and education and price.
Taxing wont work, diets dont work long term, people have to make permanet change, if they dont know how or what to, or if its to complex or to expensive they wont do it.
My hardest factor is exercise, trying to fit in a 25minute run everyday, the gym is too expensive and takes too long, where i live there arent many other options and with a young family time is a hard thing to find (but i do).
@ dan – your last comment about being big boned ect is not BS, its not body mass index that i s important the important factor is not weight its how fit your body is, i wont say healthy as im fit, eat correctly,havnt and dont smoke, do all the right things but am not healthy due to medical conditions.
@Dan – Dieting – if you mean calorie restriction – is not the simple answer to weight loss and health you think it is. Just ask any woman attempting to starve herself to slimness. Neither would there be any need for the multiple diet plans on offer. Calorie restriction can lead to lowering of the metabolism (laziness) and rebound weight gain as well as other health problems. Furthermore, calorie restriction affects the body composition of men and women differently and at different rates(perhaps due to hormones and stress responses).
As has already been pointed out, obesity is a complex and individual condition, not easily solved by simplistic slogans (e.g. eat less, exercise more).
@Waterboy – perhaps this comment from the blog I referenced might reassure you –
Matt Stone December 30, 2011
Most people’s problem is being in too much of a rush to lose fat. You don’t lose fat all that quickly doing 3 short workouts per week, but that’s all you need. Working out more than that can burn more calories and cause more initial fat loss, but as you press forward it wears you out, you have a harder time losing fat, and often encounter more rebound and burnout. I like to see people start losing fat doing very little, only adding to the load if they want to for fun. 3x per week is plenty. All one really would need would be maybe 1 hard full body weightlifting interval training session per week. But I personally like doing more because I really actually like exercise. And I like routines. What I do every day or close to it is easy for my body to get used to.
The argument against a sugar tax in this article seems fallacious to me. Surely everyone understands the difference between naturally occurring sugars and the added highly processed stuff? I am amused by Jimmy’s comment re Labour and taxes, yet this sort of tax is, I guess, a way of making corporations who produce food think a bit before they keep adding sugar.
As I understand it there is a link between how much sugar is added to a food and its popularity with consumers: More sugar=more profit. I believe this has something to do with our bodies having an inbuilt urge for high sugar content (and fat) due to these types of food being the best for survival when food is scarce. Food is no longer scarce for us in NZ or other developed countries now, yet our bodies haven’t adjusted, therefore food producers adding sugar to food are taking advantage of a very inbuilt instinct.
Tax them and encourage people to eat less processed food.
There will be no action, from governments of either stripe, because the food industry, especially the supermarket barons, have political parties in their hot little grasp. (If they had not, we would have seen some reforms which New Zealanders have called for, such as country of origin labelling, passed into law long since. But the food producers and retailers are desparate to avoid it, so we don’t get it.)
Much easier to force the public to pay for something that is not their fault in the first place. Yeah, that’ll work. After all, taxes solve everything, as we have all noticed.
In his book ‘In Defence of Food’ Micheal Pollard gives what I consider the best nutritional advice I have ever heard.
“Eat food, not too much, mostly plants.”
Being fat isn’t a disability. A disability is the result of an accident/disease. Being fat is the result of eating too many chips.
Maori/Pasifika peoples are the demographics that are over-represented in obesity statistics. A tax on sugar will only make poor people poorer. It would also be a logistical nightmare to implement.
I have seen ‘Fruit in Schools’ do wonders for the health and well being of children. More policy along the lines of this would be better than some sort of tax on ‘bad’ foods.
On the one hand you quote approvingly of Macdoctor who sensibly and truthfully states that the simple cause of obesity is ating too much and not exercising enough. Then soon after you say causes of obesity are complex! They’re not complex. People are complex. Causes of obesity are simple: Eat too much and don’t burn it off.
I agree, Nick, that the physics of weight control is easy. However what’s behind it is more complex.
Mental health is important. Depression can lead to both over-eating and under-eating. We recognise specific illnesses that lead to under-eating yet we seem to write off people who eat too much as having no self-control. I think the addiction concept here needs to be taken into consideration.
Availability of healthy and unhealthy food is another component.
And, of course, there are people who make bad choices. If those choices affect children, then the harm is magnified by unnecessarily creating health problems in youngsters before they have the opportunity to make good decisions for themselves.
I find it interesting that, on the whole, we deem weight loss to be the domain of Jenny Craig and Weight Watchers rather than the health system.
I don’t. I find that in line with the philosophy I believe in – personal responsibility. People takeing responsibility for their own lives, as much as possible. If we leave it to the health “system” it would end up like knee and hip operations – an overloaded bureaucracy that cannot cope.
“The argument against a sugar tax in this article seems fallacious to me. Surely everyone understands the difference between naturally occurring sugars and the added highly processed stuff?”
As far as I know, the sugar that Chelsea Sugar makes is naturally occurring. Random wikipedia fact – sugarcane is one of the most efficient photosynthesisers in the plant kingdom.
As for taxing sugars or calorific food – it could be noted that not everyone is obese. Being underweight is an issue with the elderly, people who are ill and children in poverty. Calorie-dense food is important for these groups. If there were a fat tax, the government would be exacerbating their health issues.
I guess it could be resolved by targeting the fat tax at fat people.