Tax on Obesity? December 19, 2008
Posted by melmont in current events.Tags: David Paterson, obesity tax, soda
add a comment
That’s what the governor of New York is proposing. See his argument here.
My first inclination was to be appalled and offended. After reading through his argument, however, I see that he makes some good points. I don’t know about the feasibility of taxing sugary soft drinks, although their inclusion in one’s diet can make weight gain almost inevitable. I do support the idea of putting extra money generated by the tax toward public health programs. There is a desperate need for educational programs to teach people how to take care of themselves. We can ban, tax and regulate everything under the sun, but until we inform people, we’ll never solve the problem. We’ll only treat the symptoms.
What do you think?
Forget the marketing. Where are the parents? November 21, 2008
Posted by melmont in current events.Tags: advertising, Burger King, McDonalds, National Institutes of Health, obesity, Wendy's
2 comments
The National Institutes of Health says that fast food advertising should be banned when directed at children. This would cut obesity rates by 18%.
Why is the advertising world responsible for what children eat? Yes, fast food advertisements make the food look fresh, juicy and delicious (although I’ve never actually had a burger and fries that ever looked as good as the commercials), and kids’ meals come with toys and games. But do the advertisers drive the kids to the restaurant? Do they pay for the food that kids consume? Do they feed them this meal instead of fruits, veggies, and lean meat?
The answer to all of these questions is no. Parents are the gatekeepers of family eating habits and consumption. Parents are there to instill good eating practices and active lifestyles. The media has been accused of increasing sexual activity among teens, of glamorizing cigarette smoking, and now this.
It’s not like it’s a huge secret that fast food isn’t good for you. McDonalds puts their nutrition information on food wrappers; Burger King offers nutrition information on their website; and so does Wendy’s.
I could go on and on, but I have a headache, and I have to wrestle the remote out of my boyfriend’s hand before I have to watch another sports show. My point is, we know that fast food is not good for us, even if the nutrition information isn’t so readily available. Advertising does not trump parenting; it doesn’t give you an excuse to feign ignorance and pretend like something fried in grease and doused with salt isn’t bad for you or your kids. The fight against obesity starts with good education, good eating habits, and good exercise options–all of which are available regardless of whether fast food companies advertise to your children.
Penalty for obesity? November 15, 2008
Posted by melmont in current events.Tags: Alabama, BMI, high blood pressure, insurance penalty, obesity
2 comments
I’m a little late jumping on this train, but I wanted to highlight this story because it raises some interesting questions.
It seems that Alabama will be charging state employees more for health insurance if they don’t lose weight. Here’s the quick rundown–starting in 2009, those employed with the state will have to undergo a health screening, which, among other things will measure BMI. Those who are considered obese will have a year to lose weight or face a $25 increase in monthly insurance costs.
Deborah Unger, RN, clinical director for the Alabama State Employees Insurance Board, claims that this penalty is in place to help people become more aware of the effects of obesity and to make people do something to live a healthier life. Supporters say that since obesity leads to higher health care costs, then those costs should be passed on to those who use need the extra care. People who oppose the extra costs point out several reasons against the penalty:
*Negative punishment should not be employed as a motivation for people to lose weight;
*Some people have a pre-disposition to weight gain through genetics;
*Obesity is viewed as preventable, therefore leading to an unsympathetic public in those who do not suffer from it.
Whatever your views, here are the facts:
*Alabama has the second highest obesity rate in the country;
*Obesity causes high blood pressure, high cholesterol, sleep apnea, diabetes, and a host of other health issues, which do lead to higher health care costs
*According to a recent survey taken by the National Opinion Research Center, 80% of employees, regardless of weight or health conditions, believe that health and wellness programs should be supported by employers.
Now, I will not share a solid opinion of whether or not this extra fee belongs in place, but I will say this–I’ve worked with children who have weight issues. Sometimes, it’s not just the weight that is the problem, which is why a monetary penalty that is seemingly a form of negative reinforcement, is troubling. Sometimes there is so much more behind the weight–low self-esteem, depression, anxiety, fear of losing weight–that contributes to an unhealthy lifestyle. I personally love working out and watching what it does for my body, but there are others out there who are comfortable hiding behind weight issues to avoid dealing with a troubling childhood episode, or because they would rather be unattractive than be checked out by an adoring public. While forcing the extra health care costs on those who will use it may solve a logistical problem, it may cover up the causes of obesity. This is just something that should be kept in mind by those who make these decisions.
