Starbucks 'Trenta': How The New Size Compares To Your Stomach
Famous Death Row Last Meals
A nutrition study conducted by Barry Popkin, of the Department of Nutrition and Economics at the University of North Carolina, has determined that the number of overweight or obese people in the world outnumber the starving, with approximately 800 million starving/near starving and 1.3 billion overweight people. Popkin has also followed the lives of more than 15,000 people in China for the past 17 years, noting that none of them were obese when his study started, but nearly 25% are now. Using this as a baseline for other countries, Popkin points a finger at a "considerable" drop in the consumption of cereals (grains) and an increase in the consumption of fats, what he calls a "classic Westernization pattern".
On top of the dietary switch from grains to fats, Popkin says that consumption of high-calorie drinks are a problem, specifically in Australia and the US. Sugary drinks are being cited as a major cause of obesity more and more often because they replace calorie-free drinks like water, and the extra calories are not taken into account with the consumption of less food. In fact, we were recently reminded that a glass of juice will have as many calories as a glass of soda, if not more. Popkin suggests a 5¢ per gram of sugar tax on sweet drinks to combat the popularity of such drinks and, perhaps, curb the obesity rate, noting that high taxation was able to drive down the number of smokers somewhat. Such a plan could work on a small scale, but to combat the rising obesity level on a global level - not to mention to do something about the millions still starving - will take more work than a tax increase.
Jane Seymour's Modest And Modern Style
Broke Stars: 11 Celebrities Who Went Bankrupt
LOOK: Amazing Underwater Photos Of Dogs
Adele Five-Year Break? Singer Plans to Focus on Relationship, Write 'Happy Record'
Social Security Is Failing Even Faster Than We Thought
PHOTOS: How You Can Get The 'Miracle' Dress
Man Says Starbucks Discriminated Against Him Because He Has Half An Arm
Chris Brown, Grammys 2012: Embattled Singer Slams Critics
Janice Dickinson's Outrageous Style
Ford's clever Sports Illustrated Swimsuit ad features phantom model
3 Economic Misconceptions That Need to Die
Photos Of Dead Lacrosse Player's Injured Body Shown To Jury
Trace Adkins Reunites With College Crush, 30 Years Later
Van Gogh's Starry Night modded into beautiful interactive light and sound show (video)
PHOTOS: Model Falls At Dennis Basso Show
'Hooker Teacher' Forced To Resign, Now Can't Find Work
Lauren Scruggs Goes On Ski Vacation
WATCH AND LAUGH: Cops In 2-Hour Standoff With Empty Car
New Clues, Details Emerge In Powell Case
Woman's Dead Fiance Is Behind Her Disappearance: Cops
Stephen Wiltshire Draws Cities From Memory
PHOTOS: Remembering The People's Ballerina
We Meant There WERE Nukes In The Fire
8-15-2006 @1:20PM MJ said... Too much judging and getting into peoples bussiness now they want to increase their profits because....... Or they say that will keep people from buying sodas. Like cigarettes that did not work. They werent trying to get people to live healthier lives according to them Just take in more money! The bottom line!!
Reply
8-15-2006 @3:20PM Finished.Law.School said... It is quite funny that people are more concerned about the environment rather than obesity and starving people in light of the rampant obesity. It all seems like people have their priorities out of wack...feeding themselves until they can't fit into an airline seat rather than eating with moderation and spending the savings in a manner that would benefit those less fortunate...
Reply
8-15-2006 @3:39PM Jessica said... I think the anti-smoking campaign DID have some success... there are fewer smokers today than there were 10 years ago.
Like it or not, obesity IS a big problem. How can you seriously be upset about a study like this? Yes, we are a free country and we are free to eat whatever the hell me want, but that doesn't mean we should all run around shoving pork rinds and bon bons in our mouth all day.
Either way you look at it, SOMEONE make money off of it- but I'd rather have the healthier choices (organic foods, for example) profit over the crap (fast food, for example).
We need to stop playing the poor victims of "personal invasion" and take a look at the way we are living our lives!!
Reply
8-15-2006 @9:22PM Camille Bauman said... We are all responsible for our own actions, whether we're eating unhealthy fattening food or sucking smoke into our lungs. If you play, you're gonna pay.
I'd sure like to know how the 5 cent per gram of sugar tax could be monitored. Crazy nut.
Reply
8-15-2006 @10:03PM mel said... I think educating people would be a better choice than taxing unhealthy items. People will do what they want to do regardless of the cost, unless they are educated and adapt a more intelligent lifestyle. Alot of it has to do with advertising, so many people are naive and will follow advertisers suggestions like it is the word of god. tell them to buy soft drinks and they will. After cigarette advertising was dropped, the number of smokers began to decrease.People need to learn to think for themselves without all these money hungry companies doing it for them!
Reply
8-15-2006 @10:47PM calamari said... More education? When I was in school (20+ years ago), "nutrition" was rammed down our throats every year. People know that soda pop, candy, and potato chips aren't health food. It's not a secret.
Poor people eat processed food because it's cheaper than fresh fruit or whatever. This tax won't change that -- it'll just make the processed stuff more expensive without making the healthful stuff affordable.
People who can afford healthful food eat the processed stuff because it's convenient and it tastes good. It's a quick fix. Having a Snickers is a good deal simpler than trying to solve complex life problems.
Reply
8-16-2006 @3:16AM NICK NICHOLSON said... the goverment is into everything else in our lives, why not fast food also???
Reply
8-16-2006 @1:44PM Bruce Anderson said... "Popkin suggests a 5ยข per gram of sugar tax on sweet drinks to combat the popularity of such drinks..."
Ah, he's a typical socialist then. Never content to let other people simply live their lives and make their own decisions (right or wrong) he's decided that he's going to make sure you don't have a choice AT ALL. Hey, Popkin, don't you have anything better to do than worry about other peoples' problems?
Reply
8-16-2006 @10:36PM LittleSis said... What do you mean "make sure you don't have a choice at all"? I'm not saying I agree with the proposal, but putting a tax on foods doesn't remove your choice - you can still buy the food, it's not banned. It would just cost you more to exercise that choice. Many countries tax cigarettes, thus people can still choose to smoke, they just have to pay more. Excessive consumption of cheap high fat, salt, sugar foods lead to significant problems years later; putting a tax on foods brings forward the cost realisation to remove the financial reinforcement attached to less healthy choices. Measures like this aim to make healthier choices easier to make, as the environment is currently not structured that way.
Reply
8-23-2006 @6:41AM sandy said... If the suggested sugar tax is set aside to off-set the inevitable health care costs for one who choses to eat foods that are not optimum for their system...it could be a workable system. If one choses to eat for convenience, fat and sugar filled foods, why shouldn't they be asked to help pay for the cost of their ill-health when it all catches up with them? It's like asking one to be responsible for their choice. If you don't want to pay the tax, no one would be forcing you to buy the "convenience" foods. And if you don't eat the "convenience" foods, you won't be required to pay for the health care costs of those who have elected to do so.
It's not only obviously more healthy, but seems more convenient to drink a glass of water or crunch on an apple, than it is to purchase a sugar or fat-filled drink or snack.
Education is the bottom line....
Reply
8-23-2006 @6:53AM Allan Goldstein said... Twenty years ago there was no bottled water and smokers were legion. Today everyone hauls around a bottle of Arrowhead and smokers are villified and rare.
Twenty years ago fatties were uncommon, now they clog the sidewalks and the malls like they do their arteries.
The sugar argument makes no sense. Less Coke per capita than before, more blub per capita now.
What's changed? I''m not sure. But, you know, they say smokers eat less. Maybe we've traded lung cancer for heart attacks?
And the sugar tax is ridiculous. I'm six four, 175, and I live on the stuff. A Coke a day, more in my coffee. If you try to tax it, I, and millions like me, will buy the stuff on the street, like crack. My sucrose intake is none of Mr. Popkin's gol-durned business. Neither is yours, neither is anybody's.
Reply
8-23-2006 @7:06AM LJ said... Consumerism is currently the most effective way to curtail "bad" behaviors. Consumerism is a growing way to fund healthcare plans. Certain healthcare plans have substantially higher healthcare premiums for employees who are either obese and/or smoke. That way, individuals who choose a health lifestyle aren't forced to subsidize those who choose an unhealthy lifestyle.
Reply
8-23-2006 @7:11AM sick of this crap said... So they are so concerned about obesity they wanna TAX sugary drinks. What will they do with the money?? I cant take this crap no more. THEY DONT CARE ABOUT US!! They are just looking for a reason to raise taxes. I Hate these people.
Reply
8-23-2006 @7:12AM Katherine said... We make people use helmets on motorcycles because it costs society so much to fix the damage not wearing a helmet causes. Why not use taxation to repay society for the cost of treating the multitude of problems that obesity causes? For example, one could levy a 10% tax on any prepared food that contains over 20% sugar or 30%fat. This would include most candy bars, but no fruits or vegetables, no matter how they were processed as long as huge amounts of sugar and fat were not added. I suspect that candymakers would soon find ways to make tasty products, like fruit leathers, that would appeal to the public, but not add substantialy to their weight.
Reply
8-23-2006 @7:16AM kathleen Fancher said... Okay so the government will tax those people who consume too much fat and sugar. some of the people who choose these are receiving food stamps. So logically the government will have to increase the food stamps to cover the cost of food. The better choices aren't as tasty, easy to find, or convenient. I tried a nutritionist once. I don't do black bean soup, peppers, onions, curry, garlic or eggs. She couldn't come up with a diet. I'm not overweight just trying to improve my health. I'm on my own and even better equipped than most it's difficult.
Reply
8-23-2006 @7:17AM lacrossestar said... i agree with bruce. popkin cant just let people live thier lives.eventually when all the heatlth issues come up and thier in the hospital for a heart attack (if they survive)they will realized they made bad choices and try to fix them.also if u kno most people in the united states most of them would eat healthier foods than pay extra money.they dont have a choice.well they do butknoing most americans they wouldnt pay extra. knoing that, he can have a loophole.itll just be a reapeat of the boston tea party sorta .every few months or weeks theyll come up with a new tax.
Reply
8-23-2006 @7:23AM lacrossestar said... so fruit leathers nice idea if the candy people werent being forced to make fruit leathers.also the government dosent care about their just looking for an idea to take money from us.also they make the money why in hell would they need more give me a break
Reply
8-23-2006 @7:25AM Lyne said... Taxes will not stop an obese person from over-eating until that person is treated for the underlying physical or psycological reason behind the eating disorder. There are many studies to confirm the fact that overeating is almost always a disorder and not a choice. What Popkin needs to spend the government money on is scientific studies and research to help these people. Or he could give it to the people who are starving.
Reply
8-23-2006 @7:29AM Karen Monti said... I tend to think all of this obesity obsession would end if people chose to be good to other people. This society encourages evil. People seldom tell each other the truth. I know people who still hold the same lies about themselves since high school. Deception is rewarded by our society. Working out in the gym for some people is like a worship service. We should all eat right and do some exercise just to take care of ourselves. But, let's stop making gods out of the plastic surgery junkies and the exercise fanatics. Are any of these helping the poor? the oppressed?
Reply
8-23-2006 @7:41AM April said... I think this is a great idea. People obviously are having a hard time chosing the right foods when everytime they look around advertising for snack foods and soda is being crammed down their throat. I think that this should even be taken a step further. We should limit the amount of advertising these companies can do (just like ciggarettes and alcohol). Let's face it people. These unhealthy foods and drinks are almost as bad or worse than tobacco or alcohol. Why?
Well, an alcoholic can quit drinking, a smoker can quit smoking, but a person cannot stop eating. It is much harder to make the choice to eat the right foods than to quit altogether. Let's not forget also the hormones that are being added to anything animal based now. I think they are a culprit in this to. When we are adding un-natural hormones to food source products that cause excessive growth in the animals we eat don't you think some of that may be passed on to us? If you are drinking milk laced with bovine growth hormone (non-organic milk) than there is a likelihood that it will also make you grow at a faster rate.
Reply