. . . So people stay unhealthy because they can't afford to make a few costly purchases in the short term to avoid more expensive meals in the long turn. A better program might be to provide people living below the poverty line with kitchen equipment. And cookbooks, for that matter - I sure didn't know what I was doing when I moved off on my own.
I really can't picture people not having simple cooking tools, largely because that would make cooking anything impossible and no one would make the trade-off against them. I can go down the street and buy a collection of cheap pots and pans for very little - probably less than the cost of a week's worth of eating-out every meal.
A while ago (like back when I was in high school) our state, Maine, decided to put in place a "Snack Tax" where foods that were considered snacks were taxed, I think just 5 or 6%. It was a complete nightmare in actually applying it. Pre-popped popcorn was taxable, but a bag of popcorn wasn't, buying a cake was taxable, buying a cake mix wasn't. It became confusing for (admittedly stupid) consumers who just saw it as "OMG Taxing Food!" and arguing with us at the store level on things we had no control over. I assume as well that the various industries were also at hand trying to get their foods not listed as snacks.
It ended up being repealed, but I think it was in force from 1991 to 2001.
Lindsay Lohan on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
A while ago (like back when I was in high school) our state, Maine, decided to put in place a "Snack Tax" where foods that were considered snacks were taxed, I think just 5 or 6%. It was a complete nightmare in actually applying it. Pre-popped popcorn was taxable, but a bag of popcorn wasn't, buying a cake was taxable, buying a cake mix wasn't. It became confusing for (admittedly stupid) consumers who just saw it as "OMG Taxing Food!" and arguing with us at the store level on things we had no control over. I assume as well that the various industries were also at hand trying to get their foods not listed as snacks.
It ended up being repealed, but I think it was in force from 1991 to 2001.
I don't see as how it would be much more difficult to implement than tax exemptions for "staples" and such. Most states have those.
And yeah, even if some junk food slips through the net, it's not like that invalidates the purpose of the program or anything.
Here "snack" foods get taxed too (or, more accurately, existing sales taxes apply to them when they don't for most foods). Pretty much the obvious stuff - chocolate bars, chips, soft drinks. The other day at the grocery store we were taxed for chocolate milk and post-Christmas chocolate oranges that were on sale.
But we have the same weird discrepencies - here it has to do with number. An individual muffin or donut will be taxed, but buy a dozen and it is tax-free.
I really can't picture people not having simple cooking tools, largely because that would make cooking anything impossible and no one would make the trade-off against them. I can go down the street and buy a collection of cheap pots and pans for very little - probably less than the cost of a week's worth of eating-out every meal.
Ditto. Also, I went to Goodwill a few years back and got a pot for a buck-fifty that still works just fine. It might not last ten years, but it's not like I'll need to replace it every month.
Cookbooks however are a great idea.
Yes. But they should be special cookbooks, kinda like those five-minute-meal things they sell. Every recipe should be tailored to communicate the idea that cooking at home is easy and cheap. Some sort of "Cooking for Dummies" dealie.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
Yes. But they should be special cookbooks, kinda like those five-minute-meal things they sell. Every recipe should be tailored to communicate the idea that cooking at home is easy and cheap. Some sort of "Cooking for Dummies" dealie.
You know, I love to cook and do it pretty regularly, but the truth is that it generally costs me about as much to cook as eat out, sometimes much more, and if there's a savings it's generally marginal. Maybe I'm just cooking stuff that's either too ambitious or requires a lot of sunk cost in terms of specialized ingredients that are tough to reuse in subsequent meals.
Yes. But they should be special cookbooks, kinda like those five-minute-meal things they sell. Every recipe should be tailored to communicate the idea that cooking at home is easy and cheap. Some sort of "Cooking for Dummies" dealie.
Exactly, emphasising that cooking can be easy, quick, cheap and healthy.
On the other hand though I can't help but think that a lot of agencies/organisations/groups are already doing this, and it doesn't have much effect.
Andrew_Jay on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
Yes. But they should be special cookbooks, kinda like those five-minute-meal things they sell. Every recipe should be tailored to communicate the idea that cooking at home is easy and cheap. Some sort of "Cooking for Dummies" dealie.
Exactly, emphasising that cooking can be easy, quick, cheap and healthy.
On the other hand though I can't help but think that a lot of agencies/organisations/groups are already doing this, and it doesn't have much effect.
Honestly, awareness campaigns just don't seem very successful in general.
A lot of this is generational - most of our parents cooked most of their meals, and many tended to stay away from pre-made or frozen foods. Many people our age don't even think about cooking meals except as either a recreation or last resort. It's probably due the wide availability of cheap, filling fast foods that this change has occured.
Maybe it's not really possible to get people back into their kitchens on a large scale, but it does seem plausible to at least make the menu options at fast food joints to incent more healthy options for the providers and consumers.
A while ago (like back when I was in high school) our state, Maine, decided to put in place a "Snack Tax" where foods that were considered snacks were taxed, I think just 5 or 6%. It was a complete nightmare in actually applying it. Pre-popped popcorn was taxable, but a bag of popcorn wasn't, buying a cake was taxable, buying a cake mix wasn't. It became confusing for (admittedly stupid) consumers who just saw it as "OMG Taxing Food!" and arguing with us at the store level on things we had no control over. I assume as well that the various industries were also at hand trying to get their foods not listed as snacks.
It ended up being repealed, but I think it was in force from 1991 to 2001.
I don't see as how it would be much more difficult to implement than tax exemptions for "staples" and such. Most states have those.
And yeah, even if some junk food slips through the net, it's not like that invalidates the purpose of the program or anything.
IIRC correctly the thing that really invalidated it was the fact that they did studies and could not find any actual correlation between the Maine Snack Tax and Maine Obesity rates, so they decided that they might as well end the tax. My opinion is that they were taxing the wrong things...
Personally, I wouldn't be opposed to it, but for me the snack tax we had wasn't really the way to go, the fat tax might be though. Sweets and candy have been around forever, the bigger issue today is that kids don't get enough exercise and ESPECIALLY that parents feel them crap like Kid Cuisine, canned pasta and (worst) Lunchables for every meal. Now, I give Luke spaghettios every once and awhile, but it's like a once a week or every other week meal, not everyday like some do. I also think school provided lunches should be stricter in dietary requirements and that soda should be out right banned from schools - I saw way too many students with daily 8am Mountain Dew Big Gulps in my stint as a teacher.
I guarantee you'd see stuff like that slip through the cracks in most legislation. Perfect scenario, you say "if it has this ratio, it's subject to the tax" and force companies to make things better. Worst scenario, companies lower their price to keep people buying. I think the worst would be the most likely to happen
I'd much rather see tax incentives on people buying excercise equipment, sending their kids to summer camps, joining gyms or even visiting nutrionists. Encourage the good behavior rather than trying to punish the bad.
Lindsay Lohan on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
I'd much rather see tax incentives on people buying excercise equipment, sending their kids to summer camps, joining gyms or even visiting nutrionists. Encourage the good behavior rather than trying to punish the bad.
There might be good ways to do this - subsidizing the cost of exercise equipment or some such. The problem with tax write-offs and the like is that they tend to target very high income people and have little to no effect on everyone else.
I'd go with a combination of the two - revenue from taxing junk food could go to subsidizing healthy foods or exercise equipment or whatever.
It's hard to imagine kid cuisine or McDonalds finding a way to further cut material costs - I think they've pretty much maximized that curve as it is.
Canada has a new $500 tax credit against the cost of enrolling kids in sports and other activities . . . but the debate now is over what qualifies - bowling? Golf?
I'd much rather see tax incentives on people buying excercise equipment, sending their kids to summer camps, joining gyms or even visiting nutrionists. Encourage the good behavior rather than trying to punish the bad.
There might be good ways to do this - subsidizing the cost of exercise equipment or some such. The problem with tax write-offs and the like is that they tend to target very high income people and have little to no effect on everyone else.
I'd go with a combination of the two - revenue from taxing junk food could go to subsidizing healthy foods or exercise equipment or whatever.
It's hard to imagine kid cuisine or McDonalds finding a way to further cut material costs - I think they've pretty much maximized that curve as it is.
Yeah - the biggest problem with something like a tax credit is that the only people that tend to itemize expenses are the wealthier, so you'd really need to simplify for a tax credit to work. The daycare credit for example is right on the 1040a form and all you need to give is a tax id for the daycare. For gym memberships I would think a similar system could work. For equipment or other activities, maybe a receipt would be needed or something.
Yes. But they should be special cookbooks, kinda like those five-minute-meal things they sell. Every recipe should be tailored to communicate the idea that cooking at home is easy and cheap. Some sort of "Cooking for Dummies" dealie.
You know, I love to cook and do it pretty regularly, but the truth is that it generally costs me about as much to cook as eat out, sometimes much more, and if there's a savings it's generally marginal. Maybe I'm just cooking stuff that's either too ambitious or requires a lot of sunk cost in terms of specialized ingredients that are tough to reuse in subsequent meals.
Herbs tend to be fairly expensive, especially if you use a lot of them. I can go through a $6 jar of dried basil in a week if I lean towards certain dinners. In general, though, when we start eating fast food, it really hamstrings our finances. Like, it about doubles our food expenditures. And as I've mentioned before, I eat pretty well. I'm curious as to the reason for this discrepancy. It costs me about $5-6 to prepare dinner for the family, provided I don't do something elaborate. Fast food for the three of us generally runs north of $10, assuming we go for the cheaper menu items, and don't get Maddie a kid's meal.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Yes. But they should be special cookbooks, kinda like those five-minute-meal things they sell. Every recipe should be tailored to communicate the idea that cooking at home is easy and cheap. Some sort of "Cooking for Dummies" dealie.
Yes. But they should be special cookbooks, kinda like those five-minute-meal things they sell. Every recipe should be tailored to communicate the idea that cooking at home is easy and cheap. Some sort of "Cooking for Dummies" dealie.
There is already a Cooking for Dummies book.
We actually bought a college friend of ours a similar book called "Help! My Apartment has a Kitchen!" It's a really good cookbook for someone that doesn't have a clue what they're doing.
As a side note: When I was in college, I did a temp stint at a printing press. The project I was binding was a cookbook to be distributed to the West Virginia WIC program on preparing healthy meals. So at least some states do make an attempt to get the lower income residents eating well.
Lindsay Lohan on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
Herbs tend to be fairly expensive, especially if you use a lot of them. I can go through a $6 jar of dried basil in a week if I lean towards certain dinners. In general, though, when we start eating fast food, it really hamstrings our finances. Like, it about doubles our food expenditures. And as I've mentioned before, I eat pretty well. I'm curious as to the reason for this discrepancy. It costs me about $5-6 to prepare dinner for the family, provided I don't do something elaborate. Fast food for the three of us generally runs north of $10, assuming we go for the cheaper menu items, and don't get Maddie a kid's meal.
A lot of it is probably that I end up cooking for one person, since Frankie is pretty picky when it comes to food on top of her pseudo-vegetarian thing. So I end up making way too much food that sometimes ends up going to waste (my freezer is packed with various meals I've made in the past and after a certain threshold I forget what's in which container etc). Plus, the whole sunk cost thing for specialized ingredients is more of an expense when it comes to cooking for one.
I'm not counting time spent in the cost, since I generally look at it as recreation, but that's a substantial investment as well. I'm also a little fancy about using fresh ingredients and shy away from "bad" cuts of meat whenever possible. Fresh produce and decent meat can be fucking expensive these days.
I guess that's probably mostly it. I rarely eat fast food regardless, and whenever I go out to eat, the servings are generally big enough that they feed me for at least one more meal and sometimes several.
Fast food for the three of us generally runs north of $10, assuming we go for the cheaper menu items, and don't get Maddie a kid's meal.
Well, you're doing it wrong. Man, you can feast at the Wendy's $0.99 menu. (Curse you, modern keyboard, and you're lack of a ¢ key!)
Also, I doubt your calculations in your "family meal for $5 stuff." I live in what I believe to be a significantly lower-cost area than you and, all things considered, it is next to impossible to create a good meal for three at that price unless we're talking just beans and rice. Maybe vegetarian fajitas or something, but that's pushing $6. And again, when you go calories/cost and not just cost, there's almost no way you can beat fast food at home. There's a place near here where I can get a 1400-calorie hot dog for real cheap.
Yar on
0
Options
ZimmydoomAccept no substitutesRegistered Userregular
A while ago (like back when I was in high school) our state, Maine, decided to put in place a "Snack Tax" where foods that were considered snacks were taxed, I think just 5 or 6%. It was a complete nightmare in actually applying it. Pre-popped popcorn was taxable, but a bag of popcorn wasn't, buying a cake was taxable, buying a cake mix wasn't. It became confusing for (admittedly stupid) consumers who just saw it as "OMG Taxing Food!" and arguing with us at the store level on things we had no control over. I assume as well that the various industries were also at hand trying to get their foods not listed as snacks.
It ended up being repealed, but I think it was in force from 1991 to 2001.
I don't see as how it would be much more difficult to implement than tax exemptions for "staples" and such. Most states have those.
And yeah, even if some junk food slips through the net, it's not like that invalidates the purpose of the program or anything.
IIRC correctly the thing that really invalidated it was the fact that they did studies and could not find any actual correlation between the Maine Snack Tax and Maine Obesity rates, so they decided that they might as well end the tax. My opinion is that they were taxing the wrong things...
Personally, I wouldn't be opposed to it, but for me the snack tax we had wasn't really the way to go, the fat tax might be though. Sweets and candy have been around forever, the bigger issue today is that kids don't get enough exercise and ESPECIALLY that parents feel them crap like Kid Cuisine, canned pasta and (worst) Lunchables for every meal. Now, I give Luke spaghettios every once and awhile, but it's like a once a week or every other week meal, not everyday like some do. I also think school provided lunches should be stricter in dietary requirements and that soda should be out right banned from schools - I saw way too many students with daily 8am Mountain Dew Big Gulps in my stint as a teacher.
I guarantee you'd see stuff like that slip through the cracks in most legislation. Perfect scenario, you say "if it has this ratio, it's subject to the tax" and force companies to make things better. Worst scenario, companies lower their price to keep people buying. I think the worst would be the most likely to happen
I'd much rather see tax incentives on people buying excercise equipment, sending their kids to summer camps, joining gyms or even visiting nutrionists. Encourage the good behavior rather than trying to punish the bad.
I think the reason it didn't work is because we live in fucking Maine. I swear to Christ sometimes I think aliens just picked up a bunch of 19th century Kentucky rednecks, taught them bad French and dropped them off just south of the Canadian border.
I still think that the two biggest contributors to obesity are a combination of marketing to children and good old American laziness/gluttony.
No amount of healthy alternatives are going to convince a 450 lb. sin against creation to stop shoving hand-fulls of failure poofs down their Sarlaac maw resting on four chins.
Zimmydoom, Zimmydoom
Flew away in a balloon
Had sex with polar bears
While sitting in a reclining chair
Now there are Zim-Bear hybrids
Running around and clawing eyelids
Watch out, a Zim-Bear is about to have sex with yooooooou!
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
No amount of healthy alternatives are going to convince a 450 lb. sin against creation to stop shoving hand-fulls of failure poofs down their Sarlaac maw resting on four chins.
Also, I doubt your calculations in your "family meal for $5 stuff." I live in what I believe to be a significantly lower-cost area than you and, all things considered, it is next to impossible to create a good meal for three at that price unless we're talking just beans and rice. Maybe vegetarian fajitas or something, but that's pushing $6. And again, when you go calories/cost and not just cost, there's almost no way you can beat fast food at home. There's a place near here where I can get a 1400-calorie hot dog for real cheap.
I already gave my calculations, but:
1 lb chicken breast: $3
Half bag of egg noodles: $0.75
Half bag of frozen broccoli: $75
Assorted herbs and spices: Call it $1, but actually likely much lower.
That's $5.50, which falls into "$5-6", and I'm certain on those prices. That doesn't include the cost of energy, but given that my electric bill in the winter is about $35, and that includes all the lights plus the washer and electric dryer, I'm calling it negligible.
To be fair, Maddie is 2, and doesn't eat a whole lot, so I'm really not cooking much more than for Julie and I. So call it dinner for two, instead of dinner for three.
And yeah, I could probably eat on the Wendys value meal for $3 plus tax and get some chicken nuggets, a salad, and fries, and drink water. But I'd rather have the Spicy Crispy Chicken Sandwich, and I like me some Dr Pepper.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Also, I doubt your calculations in your "family meal for $5 stuff." I live in what I believe to be a significantly lower-cost area than you and, all things considered, it is next to impossible to create a good meal for three at that price unless we're talking just beans and rice. Maybe vegetarian fajitas or something, but that's pushing $6. And again, when you go calories/cost and not just cost, there's almost no way you can beat fast food at home. There's a place near here where I can get a 1400-calorie hot dog for real cheap.
I already gave my calculations, but:
1 lb chicken breast: $3
Half bag of egg noodles: $0.75
Half bag of frozen broccoli: $75
Assorted herbs and spices: Call it $1, but actually likely much lower.
That's $5.50, which falls into "$5-6", and I'm certain on those prices. That doesn't include the cost of energy, but given that my electric bill in the winter is about $35, and that includes all the lights plus the washer and electric dryer, I'm calling it negligible.
To be fair, Maddie is 2, and doesn't eat a whole lot, so I'm really not cooking much more than for Julie and I. So call it dinner for two, instead of dinner for three.
And yeah, I could probably eat on the Wendys value meal for $3 plus tax and get some chicken nuggets, a salad, and fries, and drink water. But I'd rather have the Spicy Crispy Chicken Sandwich, and I like me some Dr Pepper.
I find it weird that people calculate nutrition only in calories. You can be fat and malnourished at the same time if you don't get the right mix of vitamins and minerals in your diet, so calculating nutrition only in terms of raw calories is simplistic and mostly wrong.
I cooked for 3 people tonight and this is what I made (pasta fagioli is the soup):
2 cans of navy beans @$0.89 a can = $1.78
1/2 of a yellow onion = about $0.40
1/4 of a clove of garlic = about $0.50
1 lb of pasta = $1.39
A bit of olive oil to sautee the beans, onion, and garlic = $0.25 (to be generous)
Salt costs are negligible since salt is $0.79 for a decently large container and I used less than 1% of it.
That makes a shit ton of soup, more than enough to feed 3 people with some left over.
The grand total: $4.32. If you want it to be even more nutritious, simply add some spinach for like 2 bucks.
It takes about 25 minutes to make. Just salt and heat the water while the beans, onions, and garlic simmer (use a bit of water to give it more body). Then add the pasta when the water is boiling. About 4 minutes into cooking the pasta, add the bean, onion, and garlic to the pasta pot and cook until the pasta is done. Then eat it.
That's all there is to it. It takes one pot and one pan and less than $5 if you're really strapped for cash. I'm feeding 3 adults, btw. It's better for you than anything you would get at a fast food restaurant, especially if you add in spinach or another superfood, and will reduce your costs for medical bills and increase your energy level (comparable to eating fast food) which is even more externalities in your favor.
I can recommend lots of money saving dishes like this, with and without meat and always providing lots of food that is easy to make and tastes good
Anyone arguing that fast food is most cost effective than cooking simply hasn't tried certain tried and true recipes.
If anyone tries taxing my brie, I'll fucking cut them.
Look, I understand the draw, its fun to kick fat people, good for y'all, but it approaches the problem of poor nutrition all assbackwards.
First, subsidies on the production of staples with poor nutritive value should be removed, secondly, high-nutrient foodstuffs should be supported. New foods also deserve more attention - grains like amaranth are currently only eaten by hippies, but the stuff is incredibly nutritious, tastes good, is easy to cook with and grows like a weed.
Thirdly, lets stop building condos all over the good agricultural land just because its closer to the CBD (also, decentralise a little fer chrissakes, the traffic is awful in town these days :P).
Fourthly, lets make nutrition/cooking compulsory to grade 10 and actually, you know, teach it realistically (the course I did in Grade 8 directly encouraged poor eating habits through unrealistic food budgeting).
Fifthly, more support for jointly-maintained city gardens would be neato. They're good for the community in a whole bunch of ways, and don't necessarily have to take up a huge amount of land space. hell, you can supplement the food supply of a block of flats substantially just by setting up a hydro system on the roof. Same goes for local markets. Market gardeners are pretty much entirely overlooked by everyone, yet small family operations produce by far the majority of greens, veggies, and herbs.
Lastly, fuck modern farming practices, to a large degree. Forcing large/fast plant growth through fertiliser use produces vegetables that look ok but actually don't have much going on in the way of nutrients compared to stuff grown the old-fashioned way. And it doesn't taste as good, seriously.
Also, maybe this will be a small point in the face of a tide of people happily blaming the poor for being poor, but those folk often don't have the same food choices as the rest of us. You can drive for miles in some parts of England and never find a shop selling fresh fruit and veg. Ever seen that Jamie Oliver show on kids' school lunches there? Kids didn't know what freakin' tomatoes looked like. And don't get me started on how the fashionable marketing associated with 'organic' has inflated the price of decent produce. The 'organic certified' stall at my local markets charges roughly three times the price of the ordinary guys at the stall next door, just because they can. In addition, location influences what you can buy - rural people pay through the nose in particular.
I find it weird that people calculate nutrition only in calories. You can be fat and malnourished at the same time if you don't get the right mix of vitamins and minerals in your diet, so calculating nutrition only in terms of raw calories is simplistic and mostly wrong.
Yes, but it's much easier to eat the wrong crap and then pop a vitamin than it is to count calories.
--
Also, I'm going to say outright that Italian food is the worst thing for American waistlines since White Bread.
(Please don't tell the Spaghetti Monster I said that)
Incenjucar on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
If anyone tries taxing my brie, I'll fucking cut them.
Look, I understand the draw, its fun to kick fat people, good for y'all, but it approaches the problem of poor nutrition all assbackwards.
First, subsidies on the production of staples with poor nutritive value should be removed, secondly, high-nutrient foodstuffs should be supported. New foods also deserve more attention - grains like amaranth are currently only eaten by hippies, but the stuff is incredibly nutritious, tastes good, is easy to cook with and grows like a weed.
Thirdly, lets stop building condos all over the good agricultural land just because its closer to the CBD (also, decentralise a little fer chrissakes, the traffic is awful in town these days :P).
Fourthly, lets make nutrition/cooking compulsory to grade 10 and actually, you know, teach it realistically (the course I did in Grade 8 directly encouraged poor eating habits through unrealistic food budgeting).
Fifthly, more support for jointly-maintained city gardens would be neato. They're good for the community in a whole bunch of ways, and don't necessarily have to take up a huge amount of land space. hell, you can supplement the food supply of a block of flats substantially just by setting up a hydro system on the roof. Same goes for local markets. Market gardeners are pretty much entirely overlooked by everyone, yet small family operations produce by far the majority of greens, veggies, and herbs.
Lastly, fuck modern farming practices, to a large degree. Forcing large/fast plant growth through fertiliser use produces vegetables that look ok but actually don't have much going on in the way of nutrients compared to stuff grown the old-fashioned way. And it doesn't taste as good, seriously.
Also, maybe this will be a small point in the face of a tide of people happily blaming the poor for being poor, but those folk often don't have the same food choices as the rest of us. You can drive for miles in some parts of England and never find a shop selling fresh fruit and veg. Ever seen that Jamie Oliver show on kids' school lunches there? Kids didn't know what freakin' tomatoes looked like. And don't get me started on how the fashionable marketing associated with 'organic' has inflated the price of decent produce. The 'organic certified' stall at my local markets charges roughly three times the price of the ordinary guys at the stall next door, just because they can. In addition, location influences what you can buy - rural people pay through the nose in particular.
You make some good points, The Cat, and I agree that I'm probably guilty of kicking around fatties a little in this thread, but my question is how most of this could be interpreted into government policy that would have an effect on the eating habits of the poor. I mean, I agree that the subsidies to low-nutrition foodstuffs should stop, but the business practices of fast food franchises is exactly the reason for the factory farming you talk about with its flavorless-but-attractive produce. Furthermore, the problems of good food being unavailable to the poor both in terms of proximity and cost is pretty much what I'd be attempting to address in taxing non-nutritious fast food.
In terms of decentralization - while I can't speak for other countries, America's centralized regions - our city centers - are about the healthiest regions in the country in terms of eating habits and exercise. The decentralized suburbs, with their reliance on cars for all forms of transportation discourage exercise and encourage on-the-road fast food, are probably the worst.
edit: Yeah the realistic cooking classes taught to kids is a good idea. I'm not convinced, though, that the heart of the problem is an inability to cook.
You make some good points, The Cat, and I agree that I'm probably guilty of kicking around fatties a little in this thread, but my question is how most of this could be interpreted into government policy that would have an effect on the eating habits of the poor. I mean, I agree that the subsidies to low-nutrition foodstuffs should stop, but the business practices of fast food franchises is exactly the reason for the factory farming you talk about with its flavorless-but-attractive produce. Furthermore, the problems of good food being unavailable to the poor both in terms of proximity and cost is pretty much what I'd be attempting to address in taxing non-nutritious fast food.
we kind of did the reverse here by introducing a GST and only taxing processed foods (basics and fresh stuff were exempt basically), but I don't know how much benefit it brought. Chiefly, I really don't know that expense changes buying habits as much as people think. Paying an extra 10c for a cheeseburger isn't going to have much impact, you'd have to practically double the price to put people off. Doesn't strike me as workable, but I could be wrong.
In terms of decentralization - while I can't speak for other countries, America's centralized regions - our city centers - are about the healthiest regions in the country in terms of eating habits and exercise. The decentralized suburbs, with their reliance on cars for all forms of transportation discourage exercise and encourage on-the-road fast food, are probably the worst.
yeah, you've got different demographics to deal with, but the overall point of that stuff was that the degree of choice we have in food purchases doesn't extend to everyone. Good point about the suburbs though, my food options went way up when I moved in from the outskirts of town, as did a whole bunch of other choices, and it was all because I no longer needed a car to do anything.
Wait, there's something wrong with a single person eating a medium pizza? Shit.
What worries me is that a medium american pizza is probably the size of a large Australian one (ie the largest size pizza hut and dominos here sell), which means some of you guys are eating pizzas larger than that by yourselves. Holy shit, dudes.
Out of curiosity, what diameter would people here posit as the 'medium' American pizza size? I had a 9" here last night, and that was almost too big to finish.
Æthelred on
pokes: 1505 8032 8399
0
Options
ZimmydoomAccept no substitutesRegistered Userregular
Wait, there's something wrong with a single person eating a medium pizza? Shit.
What worries me is that a medium american pizza is probably the size of a large Australian one (ie the largest size pizza hut and dominos here sell), which means some of you guys are eating pizzas larger than that by yourselves. Holy shit, dudes.
Out of curiosity, what diameter would people here posit as the 'medium' American pizza size? I had a 9" here last night, and that was almost too big to finish.
Depends on the pizza joint. Most places, a medium is 10"-12" and a large is 14"-16". If the place is near a college campus or gets a lot of large "party" orders they will often have something like an 18"-20" extra large, or something equivalent. The only place I know of that serves the little 8"-10" "personal" size is Pizza Hut, and most places the medium is closer to 12" than 10".
Zimmydoom, Zimmydoom
Flew away in a balloon
Had sex with polar bears
While sitting in a reclining chair
Now there are Zim-Bear hybrids
Running around and clawing eyelids
Watch out, a Zim-Bear is about to have sex with yooooooou!
0
Options
JohnnyCacheStarting DefensePlace at the tableRegistered Userregular
edited January 2007
I'm saying if our health care system lays so much of the charges incurred by people off on other people that we need to interfere in their lives to stop them from incurring said charges with "the cost of public health" as the reason, we need to fix our health care system. In the case of the US, this means we need to fix our insurance system.
The idea of a tax on fatties or smokers or whatever being OK because "we all pay for them" may fly in a country with public health care - but here, healthcare is still a for-profit business, and that means triple bypasses and shit are by-and-large GOOD for the economy. We pay for shit in america, right down to the coffins and the grave diggers, so rather then an issue of economy, this is an issue of imposed quality of life, - Bob telling jimbo how he should eat - until I see something convincing to the contrary I can't blame on the shitty structure of insurance and the lititgation problem, the twin problems that are really fucking up healthcare.
I do support certain things - like ending the soda and fast food company's bullshit pimping in our highschools, for example.
As far as centralization and other factors in lifestyle - let's not neglect weather. I do not fucking jog when it is 7 goddamn degrees out.
Also, weeping jesus, who eats a whole goddamn large pizza?
I'm saying if our health care system lays so much of the charges incurred by people off on other people that we need to interfere in their lives to stop them from incurring said charges with "the cost of public health" as the reason, we need to fix our health care system. In the case of the US, this means we need to fix our insurance system.
The idea of a tax on fatties or smokers or whatever being OK because "we all pay for them" may fly in a country with public health care - but here, healthcare is still a for-profit business, and that means triple bypasses and shit are by-and-large GOOD for the economy. We pay for shit in america, right down to the coffins and the grave diggers, so rather then an issue of economy, this is an issue of imposed quality of life, - Bob telling jimbo how he should eat - until I see something convincing to the contrary I can't blame on the shitty structure of insurance and the lititgation problem, the twin problems that are really fucking up healthcare.
I do support certain things - like ending the soda and fast food company's bullshit pimping in our highschools, for example.
As far as centralization and other factors in lifestyle - let's not neglect weather. I do not fucking jog when it is 7 goddamn degrees out.
The problem is basically no system except anarchist capitalism is going to have an every man for themselves style healthcare, so it is in the publics' interest to intervene in certain cases. In the case of obesity, there's a strong correlation with poverty, meaning that those who most need to have their poor eating habits curbed are almost most likely those who won't be paying for the extensive medical bills their weight issues will create. That would be the case if we had universal health care or the system we currently do, where most services are for profit but there is a social safety net to provide necessary treatment to those unable to pay.
As to whether this should remain a purely economic issue, even if every single person who was obese could pay all their health care costs (which isn't the case) then you assume that the medical costs the person incurs would outweigh their lost revenue while they are out of work, which isn't the case. Each obese person represents an unnecessary drain on finite medical resources and a dead weight in terms of economic production while they are ill, as they will increasingly be.
Wait, there's something wrong with a single person eating a medium pizza? Shit.
What worries me is that a medium american pizza is probably the size of a large Australian one (ie the largest size pizza hut and dominos here sell), which means some of you guys are eating pizzas larger than that by yourselves. Holy shit, dudes.
Out of curiosity, what diameter would people here posit as the 'medium' American pizza size? I had a 9" here last night, and that was almost too big to finish.
Depends on the pizza joint. Most places, a medium is 10"-12" and a large is 14"-16". If the place is near a college campus or gets a lot of large "party" orders they will often have something like an 18"-20" extra large, or something equivalent. The only place I know of that serves the little 8"-10" "personal" size is Pizza Hut, and most places the medium is closer to 12" than 10".
Wait, are people here assuming that a medium pizza is designed to only feed one person?
Generally, the pizza sizes say how many they're designed to serve. A small feeds 1-2, a medium feeds 2-3, a large feeds 3-4, an extra large feeds 5-6. The diameters, if I remember my Round Table days correctly, are 6" for a personal, 9" for a small, 12" for medium, 16" for large, 20" for extra large.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
0
Options
ZimmydoomAccept no substitutesRegistered Userregular
Wait, there's something wrong with a single person eating a medium pizza? Shit.
What worries me is that a medium american pizza is probably the size of a large Australian one (ie the largest size pizza hut and dominos here sell), which means some of you guys are eating pizzas larger than that by yourselves. Holy shit, dudes.
Out of curiosity, what diameter would people here posit as the 'medium' American pizza size? I had a 9" here last night, and that was almost too big to finish.
Depends on the pizza joint. Most places, a medium is 10"-12" and a large is 14"-16". If the place is near a college campus or gets a lot of large "party" orders they will often have something like an 18"-20" extra large, or something equivalent. The only place I know of that serves the little 8"-10" "personal" size is Pizza Hut, and most places the medium is closer to 12" than 10".
Wait, are people here assuming that a medium pizza is designed to only feed one person?
Generally, the pizza sizes say how many they're designed to serve. A small feeds 1-2, a medium feeds 2-3, a large feeds 3-4, an extra large feeds 5-6. The diameters, if I remember my Round Table days correctly, are 6" for a personal, 9" for a small, 12" for medium, 16" for large, 20" for extra large.
There are 12 doritos in a serving size.
There are two cookies in a serving size.
There are eight ounces of Mountain Dew in a serving size.
Fat people ate the guy who came up with serving sizes.
Zimmydoom, Zimmydoom
Flew away in a balloon
Had sex with polar bears
While sitting in a reclining chair
Now there are Zim-Bear hybrids
Running around and clawing eyelids
Watch out, a Zim-Bear is about to have sex with yooooooou!
0
Options
ZimmydoomAccept no substitutesRegistered Userregular
edited January 2007
Part of me feels like a disclaimer is necessary here, because there are probably quite a few people on these boards who shop in the husky section who might feel alienated by the tone in this thread. Simply being overweight does not make you fat. Being so overweight that it begins to impact your stamina and range of motion to the point where you can't participate in enjoyable everyday activities (golfing, doing it doggy-style, running from the holice) makes you fat. If you can and do enjoy all of these activities, your are not really a part of the problem. Being heavy isn't really the issue. Being heavy and sedentary is.
Case in point: Vince Wilfork is a 6'2", 350lb. nose tackle for the New England Patriots. Vince Wilfork is a highly paid, world-class athlete. Vince Wilfork can break your sternum in seven places before you can say "Popeye's Chicken". Vince Wilfork is not fat.
Don't be fat. Be like Vince Wilfork. Break sternums.
Zimmydoom, Zimmydoom
Flew away in a balloon
Had sex with polar bears
While sitting in a reclining chair
Now there are Zim-Bear hybrids
Running around and clawing eyelids
Watch out, a Zim-Bear is about to have sex with yooooooou!
Wait, there's something wrong with a single person eating a medium pizza? Shit.
What worries me is that a medium american pizza is probably the size of a large Australian one (ie the largest size pizza hut and dominos here sell), which means some of you guys are eating pizzas larger than that by yourselves. Holy shit, dudes.
Out of curiosity, what diameter would people here posit as the 'medium' American pizza size? I had a 9" here last night, and that was almost too big to finish.
Depends on the pizza joint. Most places, a medium is 10"-12" and a large is 14"-16". If the place is near a college campus or gets a lot of large "party" orders they will often have something like an 18"-20" extra large, or something equivalent. The only place I know of that serves the little 8"-10" "personal" size is Pizza Hut, and most places the medium is closer to 12" than 10".
Wait, are people here assuming that a medium pizza is designed to only feed one person?
Generally, the pizza sizes say how many they're designed to serve. A small feeds 1-2, a medium feeds 2-3, a large feeds 3-4, an extra large feeds 5-6. The diameters, if I remember my Round Table days correctly, are 6" for a personal, 9" for a small, 12" for medium, 16" for large, 20" for extra large.
There are 12 doritos in a serving size.
There are two cookies in a serving size.
There are eight ounces of Mountain Dew in a serving size.
Fat people ate the guy who came up with serving sizes.
12 chips, two cookies, and 8 ounces of Mountain Dew are all completely reasonable serving sizes. Also, a medium pizza can feed 2-3 non-seacow people.
And Vince Wilfork is a lard-ass, world-class athlete or not. So are sumo wrestlers.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
12 chips, two cookies, and 8 ounces of Mountain Dew are all completely reasonable serving sizes.
8 ounces of soda? How is that reasonable? There are no 8 oz containers for carbonated drinks, and it's pointless to 'save some for later' because it becomes flat and disgusting. Basically, the serving sizes are intended for people smart enough to look at the label but too stupid to multiply. Just tell me how many calories are in the whole can/bottle, and I'll divide.
Spaten Optimator on
0
Options
Zen VulgarityWhat a lovely day for teaSecret British ThreadRegistered Userregular
12 chips, two cookies, and 8 ounces of Mountain Dew are all completely reasonable serving sizes.
8 ounces of soda? How is that reasonable? There are no 8 oz containers for carbonated drinks, and it's pointless to 'save some for later' because it becomes flat and disgusting. Basically, the serving sizes are intended for people smart enough to look at the label but too stupid to multiply. Just tell me how many calories are in the whole can/bottle, and I'll divide.
Well, bottles don't go flat so easily and usually have multiple servings.
12 chips, two cookies, and 8 ounces of Mountain Dew are all completely reasonable serving sizes.
8 ounces of soda? How is that reasonable? There are no 8 oz containers for carbonated drinks, and it's pointless to 'save some for later' because it becomes flat and disgusting. Basically, the serving sizes are intended for people smart enough to look at the label but too stupid to multiply. Just tell me how many calories are in the whole can/bottle, and I'll divide.
The serving size on a can is generally 12oz. The serving size on a 2-liter is 8 oz, and I'm assuming you don't down the whole bottle at once. The serving size on a 20oz bottle might be 8oz, but then 20oz is a huge fucking serving of soda.
For reference, when I pour myself a glass of soda from a 2L, it's probably 8-10 oz, because a 12oz can fills it right up to the top, and I don't fill it that much.
So yeah, I think 8oz is reasonable.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Posts
I really can't picture people not having simple cooking tools, largely because that would make cooking anything impossible and no one would make the trade-off against them. I can go down the street and buy a collection of cheap pots and pans for very little - probably less than the cost of a week's worth of eating-out every meal.
Cookbooks however are a great idea.
It ended up being repealed, but I think it was in force from 1991 to 2001.
And yeah, even if some junk food slips through the net, it's not like that invalidates the purpose of the program or anything.
But we have the same weird discrepencies - here it has to do with number. An individual muffin or donut will be taxed, but buy a dozen and it is tax-free.
Ditto. Also, I went to Goodwill a few years back and got a pot for a buck-fifty that still works just fine. It might not last ten years, but it's not like I'll need to replace it every month.
Yes. But they should be special cookbooks, kinda like those five-minute-meal things they sell. Every recipe should be tailored to communicate the idea that cooking at home is easy and cheap. Some sort of "Cooking for Dummies" dealie.
On the other hand though I can't help but think that a lot of agencies/organisations/groups are already doing this, and it doesn't have much effect.
A lot of this is generational - most of our parents cooked most of their meals, and many tended to stay away from pre-made or frozen foods. Many people our age don't even think about cooking meals except as either a recreation or last resort. It's probably due the wide availability of cheap, filling fast foods that this change has occured.
Maybe it's not really possible to get people back into their kitchens on a large scale, but it does seem plausible to at least make the menu options at fast food joints to incent more healthy options for the providers and consumers.
IIRC correctly the thing that really invalidated it was the fact that they did studies and could not find any actual correlation between the Maine Snack Tax and Maine Obesity rates, so they decided that they might as well end the tax. My opinion is that they were taxing the wrong things...
Personally, I wouldn't be opposed to it, but for me the snack tax we had wasn't really the way to go, the fat tax might be though. Sweets and candy have been around forever, the bigger issue today is that kids don't get enough exercise and ESPECIALLY that parents feel them crap like Kid Cuisine, canned pasta and (worst) Lunchables for every meal. Now, I give Luke spaghettios every once and awhile, but it's like a once a week or every other week meal, not everyday like some do. I also think school provided lunches should be stricter in dietary requirements and that soda should be out right banned from schools - I saw way too many students with daily 8am Mountain Dew Big Gulps in my stint as a teacher.
I guarantee you'd see stuff like that slip through the cracks in most legislation. Perfect scenario, you say "if it has this ratio, it's subject to the tax" and force companies to make things better. Worst scenario, companies lower their price to keep people buying. I think the worst would be the most likely to happen
I'd much rather see tax incentives on people buying excercise equipment, sending their kids to summer camps, joining gyms or even visiting nutrionists. Encourage the good behavior rather than trying to punish the bad.
I'd go with a combination of the two - revenue from taxing junk food could go to subsidizing healthy foods or exercise equipment or whatever.
It's hard to imagine kid cuisine or McDonalds finding a way to further cut material costs - I think they've pretty much maximized that curve as it is.
Yeah - the biggest problem with something like a tax credit is that the only people that tend to itemize expenses are the wealthier, so you'd really need to simplify for a tax credit to work. The daycare credit for example is right on the 1040a form and all you need to give is a tax id for the daycare. For gym memberships I would think a similar system could work. For equipment or other activities, maybe a receipt would be needed or something.
Herbs tend to be fairly expensive, especially if you use a lot of them. I can go through a $6 jar of dried basil in a week if I lean towards certain dinners. In general, though, when we start eating fast food, it really hamstrings our finances. Like, it about doubles our food expenditures. And as I've mentioned before, I eat pretty well. I'm curious as to the reason for this discrepancy. It costs me about $5-6 to prepare dinner for the family, provided I don't do something elaborate. Fast food for the three of us generally runs north of $10, assuming we go for the cheaper menu items, and don't get Maddie a kid's meal.
As a side note: When I was in college, I did a temp stint at a printing press. The project I was binding was a cookbook to be distributed to the West Virginia WIC program on preparing healthy meals. So at least some states do make an attempt to get the lower income residents eating well.
I'm not counting time spent in the cost, since I generally look at it as recreation, but that's a substantial investment as well. I'm also a little fancy about using fresh ingredients and shy away from "bad" cuts of meat whenever possible. Fresh produce and decent meat can be fucking expensive these days.
I guess that's probably mostly it. I rarely eat fast food regardless, and whenever I go out to eat, the servings are generally big enough that they feed me for at least one more meal and sometimes several.
Also, I doubt your calculations in your "family meal for $5 stuff." I live in what I believe to be a significantly lower-cost area than you and, all things considered, it is next to impossible to create a good meal for three at that price unless we're talking just beans and rice. Maybe vegetarian fajitas or something, but that's pushing $6. And again, when you go calories/cost and not just cost, there's almost no way you can beat fast food at home. There's a place near here where I can get a 1400-calorie hot dog for real cheap.
I think the reason it didn't work is because we live in fucking Maine. I swear to Christ sometimes I think aliens just picked up a bunch of 19th century Kentucky rednecks, taught them bad French and dropped them off just south of the Canadian border.
I still think that the two biggest contributors to obesity are a combination of marketing to children and good old American laziness/gluttony.
No amount of healthy alternatives are going to convince a 450 lb. sin against creation to stop shoving hand-fulls of failure poofs down their Sarlaac maw resting on four chins.
I already gave my calculations, but:
1 lb chicken breast: $3
Half bag of egg noodles: $0.75
Half bag of frozen broccoli: $75
Assorted herbs and spices: Call it $1, but actually likely much lower.
That's $5.50, which falls into "$5-6", and I'm certain on those prices. That doesn't include the cost of energy, but given that my electric bill in the winter is about $35, and that includes all the lights plus the washer and electric dryer, I'm calling it negligible.
To be fair, Maddie is 2, and doesn't eat a whole lot, so I'm really not cooking much more than for Julie and I. So call it dinner for two, instead of dinner for three.
And yeah, I could probably eat on the Wendys value meal for $3 plus tax and get some chicken nuggets, a salad, and fries, and drink water. But I'd rather have the Spicy Crispy Chicken Sandwich, and I like me some Dr Pepper.
I find it weird that people calculate nutrition only in calories. You can be fat and malnourished at the same time if you don't get the right mix of vitamins and minerals in your diet, so calculating nutrition only in terms of raw calories is simplistic and mostly wrong.
I cooked for 3 people tonight and this is what I made (pasta fagioli is the soup):
2 cans of navy beans @$0.89 a can = $1.78
1/2 of a yellow onion = about $0.40
1/4 of a clove of garlic = about $0.50
1 lb of pasta = $1.39
A bit of olive oil to sautee the beans, onion, and garlic = $0.25 (to be generous)
Salt costs are negligible since salt is $0.79 for a decently large container and I used less than 1% of it.
That makes a shit ton of soup, more than enough to feed 3 people with some left over.
The grand total: $4.32. If you want it to be even more nutritious, simply add some spinach for like 2 bucks.
It takes about 25 minutes to make. Just salt and heat the water while the beans, onions, and garlic simmer (use a bit of water to give it more body). Then add the pasta when the water is boiling. About 4 minutes into cooking the pasta, add the bean, onion, and garlic to the pasta pot and cook until the pasta is done. Then eat it.
That's all there is to it. It takes one pot and one pan and less than $5 if you're really strapped for cash. I'm feeding 3 adults, btw. It's better for you than anything you would get at a fast food restaurant, especially if you add in spinach or another superfood, and will reduce your costs for medical bills and increase your energy level (comparable to eating fast food) which is even more externalities in your favor.
I can recommend lots of money saving dishes like this, with and without meat and always providing lots of food that is easy to make and tastes good
Anyone arguing that fast food is most cost effective than cooking simply hasn't tried certain tried and true recipes.
Look, I understand the draw, its fun to kick fat people, good for y'all, but it approaches the problem of poor nutrition all assbackwards.
First, subsidies on the production of staples with poor nutritive value should be removed, secondly, high-nutrient foodstuffs should be supported. New foods also deserve more attention - grains like amaranth are currently only eaten by hippies, but the stuff is incredibly nutritious, tastes good, is easy to cook with and grows like a weed.
Thirdly, lets stop building condos all over the good agricultural land just because its closer to the CBD (also, decentralise a little fer chrissakes, the traffic is awful in town these days :P).
Fourthly, lets make nutrition/cooking compulsory to grade 10 and actually, you know, teach it realistically (the course I did in Grade 8 directly encouraged poor eating habits through unrealistic food budgeting).
Fifthly, more support for jointly-maintained city gardens would be neato. They're good for the community in a whole bunch of ways, and don't necessarily have to take up a huge amount of land space. hell, you can supplement the food supply of a block of flats substantially just by setting up a hydro system on the roof. Same goes for local markets. Market gardeners are pretty much entirely overlooked by everyone, yet small family operations produce by far the majority of greens, veggies, and herbs.
Lastly, fuck modern farming practices, to a large degree. Forcing large/fast plant growth through fertiliser use produces vegetables that look ok but actually don't have much going on in the way of nutrients compared to stuff grown the old-fashioned way. And it doesn't taste as good, seriously.
Also, maybe this will be a small point in the face of a tide of people happily blaming the poor for being poor, but those folk often don't have the same food choices as the rest of us. You can drive for miles in some parts of England and never find a shop selling fresh fruit and veg. Ever seen that Jamie Oliver show on kids' school lunches there? Kids didn't know what freakin' tomatoes looked like. And don't get me started on how the fashionable marketing associated with 'organic' has inflated the price of decent produce. The 'organic certified' stall at my local markets charges roughly three times the price of the ordinary guys at the stall next door, just because they can. In addition, location influences what you can buy - rural people pay through the nose in particular.
Its the high-fructose corn-syrup thats really bad for you.
Yes, but it's much easier to eat the wrong crap and then pop a vitamin than it is to count calories.
--
Also, I'm going to say outright that Italian food is the worst thing for American waistlines since White Bread.
(Please don't tell the Spaghetti Monster I said that)
In terms of decentralization - while I can't speak for other countries, America's centralized regions - our city centers - are about the healthiest regions in the country in terms of eating habits and exercise. The decentralized suburbs, with their reliance on cars for all forms of transportation discourage exercise and encourage on-the-road fast food, are probably the worst.
edit: Yeah the realistic cooking classes taught to kids is a good idea. I'm not convinced, though, that the heart of the problem is an inability to cook.
we kind of did the reverse here by introducing a GST and only taxing processed foods (basics and fresh stuff were exempt basically), but I don't know how much benefit it brought. Chiefly, I really don't know that expense changes buying habits as much as people think. Paying an extra 10c for a cheeseburger isn't going to have much impact, you'd have to practically double the price to put people off. Doesn't strike me as workable, but I could be wrong.
yeah, you've got different demographics to deal with, but the overall point of that stuff was that the degree of choice we have in food purchases doesn't extend to everyone. Good point about the suburbs though, my food options went way up when I moved in from the outskirts of town, as did a whole bunch of other choices, and it was all because I no longer needed a car to do anything.
Depends on the pizza joint. Most places, a medium is 10"-12" and a large is 14"-16". If the place is near a college campus or gets a lot of large "party" orders they will often have something like an 18"-20" extra large, or something equivalent. The only place I know of that serves the little 8"-10" "personal" size is Pizza Hut, and most places the medium is closer to 12" than 10".
The idea of a tax on fatties or smokers or whatever being OK because "we all pay for them" may fly in a country with public health care - but here, healthcare is still a for-profit business, and that means triple bypasses and shit are by-and-large GOOD for the economy. We pay for shit in america, right down to the coffins and the grave diggers, so rather then an issue of economy, this is an issue of imposed quality of life, - Bob telling jimbo how he should eat - until I see something convincing to the contrary I can't blame on the shitty structure of insurance and the lititgation problem, the twin problems that are really fucking up healthcare.
I do support certain things - like ending the soda and fast food company's bullshit pimping in our highschools, for example.
As far as centralization and other factors in lifestyle - let's not neglect weather. I do not fucking jog when it is 7 goddamn degrees out.
Also, weeping jesus, who eats a whole goddamn large pizza?
I host a podcast about movies.
The problem is basically no system except anarchist capitalism is going to have an every man for themselves style healthcare, so it is in the publics' interest to intervene in certain cases. In the case of obesity, there's a strong correlation with poverty, meaning that those who most need to have their poor eating habits curbed are almost most likely those who won't be paying for the extensive medical bills their weight issues will create. That would be the case if we had universal health care or the system we currently do, where most services are for profit but there is a social safety net to provide necessary treatment to those unable to pay.
As to whether this should remain a purely economic issue, even if every single person who was obese could pay all their health care costs (which isn't the case) then you assume that the medical costs the person incurs would outweigh their lost revenue while they are out of work, which isn't the case. Each obese person represents an unnecessary drain on finite medical resources and a dead weight in terms of economic production while they are ill, as they will increasingly be.
Wait, are people here assuming that a medium pizza is designed to only feed one person?
Generally, the pizza sizes say how many they're designed to serve. A small feeds 1-2, a medium feeds 2-3, a large feeds 3-4, an extra large feeds 5-6. The diameters, if I remember my Round Table days correctly, are 6" for a personal, 9" for a small, 12" for medium, 16" for large, 20" for extra large.
There are 12 doritos in a serving size.
There are two cookies in a serving size.
There are eight ounces of Mountain Dew in a serving size.
Fat people ate the guy who came up with serving sizes.
Case in point: Vince Wilfork is a 6'2", 350lb. nose tackle for the New England Patriots. Vince Wilfork is a highly paid, world-class athlete. Vince Wilfork can break your sternum in seven places before you can say "Popeye's Chicken". Vince Wilfork is not fat.
Don't be fat. Be like Vince Wilfork. Break sternums.
It's more there is Fat, and then there is Sea Cow.
12 chips, two cookies, and 8 ounces of Mountain Dew are all completely reasonable serving sizes. Also, a medium pizza can feed 2-3 non-seacow people.
And Vince Wilfork is a lard-ass, world-class athlete or not. So are sumo wrestlers.
8 ounces of soda? How is that reasonable? There are no 8 oz containers for carbonated drinks, and it's pointless to 'save some for later' because it becomes flat and disgusting. Basically, the serving sizes are intended for people smart enough to look at the label but too stupid to multiply. Just tell me how many calories are in the whole can/bottle, and I'll divide.
Well, bottles don't go flat so easily and usually have multiple servings.
I happen to not drink all of a bottle, either.
The serving size on a can is generally 12oz. The serving size on a 2-liter is 8 oz, and I'm assuming you don't down the whole bottle at once. The serving size on a 20oz bottle might be 8oz, but then 20oz is a huge fucking serving of soda.
For reference, when I pour myself a glass of soda from a 2L, it's probably 8-10 oz, because a 12oz can fills it right up to the top, and I don't fill it that much.
So yeah, I think 8oz is reasonable.