Minister for Health Leo Varadkar
Further to the sickly, sugar tax-free Budget 2016.
A Food Critic fumes:
Thank you for bringing the issue of childhood obesity to the attention of your readers yesterday. As predicted, a sugar tax was not announced in the budget, despite the alleged determination of Leo Varadkar to see such a tax introduced. (Leo is, of course, your Minister for Health, the same chap who thinks the best thing about Ireland is “red lemonade and Tayto crisps.”)
Unfortunately, many of the people who commented on the article just repeated industry’s line on obesity: it’s all the fault of kids and their lazy parents. For 30 years we have heard this drivel from Big Food and its lapdogs in government and the media. Are your readers thick? Or do they read too many newspapers.
Very simply, childhood obesity is a major public health issue. A quarter of our three year-olds are now obese or overweight. We can respond in one of three ways:
1. Encourage kids and their parents to exercise personal responsibility. For example: eat less junk, start jogging, have your five a day.
2. Ask government to intervene with evidence-based strategies. For example: introduce a sugar tax, ban the marketing of junk food to children, don’t let fast food outlets open near schools.
3. Both of the above.
Option 3 is, of course, the logical approach. It is obvious that we each have a role to play, just as it’s obvious that government has a part to play. What’s depressing about many of your readers’ comments is that they parroted the industry line: exercise personal responsibility, as if that alone is the solution to this problem.
On its own, a sugar tax would not have saved a generation of Irish kids from obesity. However, as part of a suite of measures, including things like getting more exercise and restricting the marketing of junk food, such a tax would at least have demonstrated a sincere determination to tackle childhood obesity.
One day the cost of treating the diseases of obesity will become clear to us all. At that point, politicians will be forced to act. In the meantime, kids all over the country will continue to pay the price for our government’s refusal to play its part in addressing the biggest public health crisis in the history of the state.
That is shameful.
Food FIGHT!
Yesterday: One Lump Or Two
childcare allowance should be withheld if your child is obese.
That’s the spirit, starve them thin! Worked for the Biafrans right?
I don’t agree with his solution, but I think there’s a point there.
Is neglecting your child’s nutrition to the point where they are (in the absence of any explanatory illnesses etc.) clinically obese not a form of child abuse? Should we not treat it that way?
I don’t disagree with the OP, but I’d love to hear his plans on Point 1 as well as what he’s said on Point 2.
I think there are very few cases of actual neglect that do not have other circumstances affecting food choices.
forced sterilisation should be the default sanction for child abuse which is what this is
honestly if a man underfed or otherwise neglected the health of his dog or cow in this way, he would be rightly jailed and prevented from being a stockherder
thanks for your input on this issue yesterday ahjaysiz btw
who gets childcare allowance? oh right you mean those more well off parents using the governments childrens allowance to pay the netflix babysitter.
obesity doesnt discriminate. it loves you just as much, whether you’re a pivileged porker being driven around dundrum or not.
Children’s allowance wouldn’t cover a babysitter for the full month.
Wanna try that again…. otherwise I’m with ya!
There should be a tax on every time you comment something stupid on BS, the recession would have ended years ago!
Hear, hear! Yeah… whatever.
Why don’t you try that again, for no other reason than the fact I asked.
Ah c’mon out of it Clampers, you can stretch 6.99 from it for the Netflix telenanny each month. If not you need to think about cutting back on those winter sun breaks.
True, me was thinking price of a babysitter for real. My bad.
It’s going up to 10 in the new year, which explains the increase in the allowance I guess.
LOL that’s another lump of USC paid, sweetiekins xx
the state should initiate scottser’s ‘fat-to-electrcity’ programme – ‘fatteries’. hook up a load of treadmills to capacitors that charge up batteries and feed the national grid. spurred on by motivational specialists such as sheryl cole with a cattle prod.
vote scottser – 1,2,3.
that sounds strangely erotic
while i won’t venture to speculate, it must be said there is very little difference between sheryl cole and a cattle prod at first sight.
That could signal room to diversify the project in future years. Hold that thought!
my niggah
Eat a little less, move a little more: no need for Draconian measures. Much more effective than yet another bloody tax!
What’s draconian about banning junk food advertising aimed at children?
maybe meant draconian sugar tax….
I sincerely doubt that a sugar tax would have had any effect on the obesity problem. I really hate using tax as a way of regulating human behaviour but especially in this instance. The people with the worst diets tend to be from working class areas. It occurs in these places because of either a lack of education or depression; people either don’t know any better or they’re comfort eating. A sugar tax will only take more money out of the pockets of the people at the bottom and that’s just not right.
It depends on how far you are willing to go really. I would say the increase in tax on cigarettes has had a significant impact on the amount of people who gave up smoking and an argument could be made that obesity (and thus sugar) is a major contribution to a person’s ill health, in the same way that smoking contributes to ill health.
However, if you were going to tax sugar like alcohol then all it will do is raise money for the government and slightly annoy people but have very little impact on their eating habits and consequently their health.
Taxing it and using it to subsidies healthier alternaitves might be an idea. Incentivise the healthier products by making them cheaper. Encourage kids to take a healthier alternative to schools and give the parents lessons on what can be done on a budget by MABS.
Well, the effect of taxation on smoking habits is pretty debatable, firstly. Secondly, I don’t think there’s any data available on the economic background of smokers. I would speculate though that if taxation has had any effect on consumption, it’s been in relatively affluent areas. I remember seeing a mother tell her kid that he couldn’t have his milkshake unless he finished his cheeseburger. The problem is education. I would wonder as well if the increase in obesity isn’t tenuously linked to the growing wealth gap as well. It’s a symptom of a problem in society. It’s not a temporary fad.
“I remember seeing a mother tell her kid that he couldn’t have his milkshake unless he finished his cheeseburger.”…..in a Clondalkin McDonalds.
Haha… I can relate to that! :-) No dessert till you’ve eaten up is the rule. Just cos it’s McD’s doesn’t change that.
Really?
Which bit are you reallying there?
The debatable effect of taxation on smoking
Well, it *is* debated so by definition….but that’s me being a smartarse. You could reasonably argue that societal attitudes towards smoking have changed over the years and consumption was going to decrease anyway, regardless of taxation. Also, whilst one might be able to point to a drop off in sales of tobacco products, we don’t have an accurate estimate of people who are turning to black market fags.
Good point re blackmarket smokes.
Right. Hiking the price of fags or sugar is probably not going to stop people *wanting* fags and sugar. So the way to deal with the problem is change what people want rather than financially punishing them for wanting it.
Progressive taxation on smokes does exactly that though, it’s a financial incentive to change behaviours be nudging people to making a certain choice. It’s not banning anything, but if you want it, you will have to pay for it. You can live without smokes and you can live without Coke, calling it a punishment is just ridiculous really.
And I’m still not convinced there is debate about the role of taxation in public health as opposed to an understanding that it needs to occur or works best in conjunction with other measures that encourage quitting.
“Progressive taxation on smokes does exactly that though”
Maybe for casual smokers. Most smokers are addicted. though. They will give up because it’s good for their health, not because it’s too expensive and if it gets too expensive, they’ll start heading down to Moore Street.
“And I’m still not convinced there is debate about the role of taxation in public health”
There literally is a debate. Just because you take one side of it doesn’t mean the other side does not exist.
“You can live without smokes and you can live without Coke, calling it a punishment is just ridiculous really.”
Grand, except people with smoking or dietary *problems* are going to keep on consuming fags and coke. Haven’t you ever seen a morbidly obese person drink a *diet* coke? They stupidly think they’re making a health conscious decision. You’re assuming we’re all rationale robots who make nothing but logical decisions. That is not reality. We need to legislate based on what people *do*, not what they *should* do.
1. That’s why you tax along side other programmes that support quitting, its a long game.
2. I’m not picking a side thanks. I do not see a debate but am happy to read anything that shows there is.
3. “They stupidly think they’re making a health conscious decision”. People aren’t idiots, they know things are bad for them but still make bad decisions. Making healthy options easier and bad options harder to get is how you implement taxation in health, as has been suggested and started in a couple of places and around a couple of different issues.
4. “We need to legislate based on what people *do*, not what they *should* do.” That is almost the opposite of how legislation works.
“That’s why you tax along side other programmes that support quitting, its a long game.”
If the result of the tax is to simply take away more disposable income from the people at the bottom and there’s no non specious proof that the effect on consumption is anything beyond negligible, it’s not worth bringing the tax in, imo.
“I do not see a debate but am happy to read anything that shows there is.”
You’re a tab click away from Google and you’ve already conceded the point about black market fags.
“People aren’t idiots, they know things are bad for them but still make bad decisions.”
People really are idiots in lots and lots of situations. If they weren’t, Donald Trump would not be leading the polls in the US, for instance.
“Making healthy options easier and bad options harder to get is how you implement taxation in health”
Again, people with *problems* are going to get their hands on them anyway, this time to the detriment of other aspects of their life. Do you think a price hike would change the level of heroin consumption for instance.
“That is almost the opposite of how legislation works.”
Evidently you’re not understanding my point. Obviously, we use legislation to regulate behaviour but it should be targeted at the actual motivations of people. Tax hikes don’t address *why* people do what they do. If you target *that* you might actually get results.
Ah come on Moyest. I’m genuinely trying to discuss this with you and its all I claim a debate but its “no, you google it” and “you’re conceding points”. It’s actually pointless.
You lost me there with your problem to my use of the word concede. If that offends you, there really is no point.
You don’t even know what conceding a point means.
I currently live in a country where 20 B&H is less than $3. There are very very few smokers, it is practically illegal to smoke outside, I don’t think you can smoke within 10 feet of a building so forget smoking in town. And locals really hate it too. So do tell me more about how taxing smokes/fatty foods helps?
God are people now expecting the government to adopt a nanny state to parent their own kids. FFS encourage exercise, try feeding them fresh food, educate..
Comment isn’t directed at anyone in particular
thats rubbish about people with worst diets coming from working class areas. Convenience culture is not beyond those more well off who can afford to drive themselves and their increasingly overweight kids around in cars everywhere instead of walking/cycling. They may think more money buys a better grade of take home food from upmarket retailers but there is still as much sugar and salt in those prepackaged product as the cheapest supermarket packaged deals.
its all relative and its growing across the social spectrum. people work longer, have kids minded more, and as such have less time to cook and keep tabs on their own and their childrens diet. Convenience food appeals to all grades of budget and you’ll notice right across the board it makes itself out to be something that ‘gives you more time’, ‘takes the hassle out’, ‘lets you spend more time with’. It used to be a treat once in a while, now you’d be lucky if you have it less than once a week.
“thats rubbish about people with worst diets coming from working class areas.”
No it isn’t.
http://www.eufic.org/page/en/show/latest-science-news/fftid/Lower_socio-economic_status_and_an_unhealthy_diet/
@MoyesWithExcitement, not to detract from the basis of your point but thats a Finnish study done taking a small cross section of Finnish society that is by no means conclusive. The Finns are one of the best investors in education, health and have one of the lowest levels of income inequality.
Its probably better if we look to the UK
– similar lack of investment in education and health
– similar levels of lobbying, advertising, products
– comparable income inequality within society.
this study shows similar increase of obesity across all social groups for men with woman being more greatly affected by socioeconomic factors;
http://www.noo.org.uk/uploads/doc/vid_16966_AdultSocioeconSep2012.pdf
and this Irish child obesity study flips it on its head with boys affected more.Stand out factors for me are numbers ferried around in cars, and the obesity levels of parents;
http://lenus.ie/hse/bitstream/10147/233612/1/Article6313.pdf
I didnt disagree with your point about it affecting poorer people in society but you cant say the increasing problems of obesity are mutally exclusive to that.
eating sugar causes depression, so reducing its intake will help.
In the long run, maybe, but people who aren’t thinking beyond their next payday don’t consider these things. All you want in that position is just a bit of relief from the drudgery of life. That’s why even the most run down areas will still have a bookies, for instance.
I think a sugar tax, like the cig tax and drink tax, are great ideas, though not because of any health benefits, which would be welcome but not guaranteed. The revenue, however, would be most welcome.
Withdrawing child benefit if child is deemed to be obese is the measure I thought a little de trop.
Whatever about the merits of a tax, surely banning the advertising would be uncontroversal?
At no point in my posts on this thread have I advocated a position – pro or con – on banning advertising of ‘snack’ food to kids. The idea of withholding of child benefit is the bit I’m not wild about and that isn’t even contained in the OP: I was responding to John at the top of the thread. Alles klar?
Ah I was replying to the thread in general not specifically you.
Oh, sorry, my bad as they say!
A large percentage of people are stupid, lazy and lack will power. Its the same in every country. Some countries limit the choices available to the masses with regulations in regard to junk food, sugars, alcohol and drugs. You can’t force people to exercise though. Regulations and sugar taxes will have to be brought in to stop people making pigs of themselves and their children.
To see what happens when these things are not regulated look at America, Texas in particular, the fattest state there I think. Its pretty shocking.
True, there’s no point in saying “hey fat person stop being fat”, it’s, the government needs to understand why people do emotional eating, how to stimulate motivation (scare tactics, free classes, find training partners etc), and address the supermarkets who sugarcoat the special offers and childrens aisles.
Motivation is key, win the mental battle and the physical one will be easy in comparison.
I do think it should be illegal to sell energy drinks to people under 18.
I think aspartame should be banned.
It only got passed in the USA because when they repeatedly got refused to pass it Donald Rumsfeld changed the judging panel and put two cronies in there and hey presto! Aspartame is no longer illegal or of any concern to ones health. Good ol’ Donald, not just a war monger you know, he also sells sweet chemicals… mmmmmm.
Plus that shiz kills dogs! OK, it’s sorbitol rather than aspartame that puts puppies down, but these chemicals are nowt but the leakage from Lucifer’s ringpiece.
What a croc!, it is absolutely the parents who have the responsibility to feed their children properly and to get them to exercise.
I no longer live in Ireland, but it is not a governments issue to tax sugar (as I doubt it would have much impact unless it was a significant tax) In any case I as far as I can see on the revenue site, biscuits, crisps, confectionary is taxed at standard rates and such as bread, butter, cheese, cereals, condiments, flour, fruit, herbs, meat, milk, pasta, pastes, sauces, soup, spices, sugar, and vegetables (fresh or frozen) have a zero VAT charge.
It is the parents who choose to bring their kids to McDonalds on a weeknight and allow them to “supersize” the meal, or to buy Coke and other sugar full drinks instead of milk/water and to feed their kids with a proper kids size portion instead of an adult portion size (as I have seen many do)
If you have seen that UK show some years ago about obese 7 year olds where the Dr went to their home and told them what they should be eating portion size was the biggest issue. (same to be said for the parents themselves)
The government should perhaps do some advertising campaign noting recommended portion sizes it would be more useful than a sugar tax.
and btw healthy food, ie. fresh fruit/veg and to make majority of dinners (without jars of sauces) can be made in 30mins or less.
http://allrecipes.com/recipes/455/everyday-cooking/more-meal-ideas/30-minute-meals/
http://www.bbcgoodfood.com/recipes/collection/under-20-minutes
for example so you cannot really say “i dont have the time to cook for my kids either”
Unfortunately, it’s not just what children are eating but how much. It’s all well and good making some healthy for children, but if they are given an adult size portion they are going to gain weight regardless. That does come down to education and is the parents responsibility though.
I don’t completely agree about it not being the governments responsibility to tax sugary foods. The government are going to have to deal with the consequences of obese people and the impact they have on society and the health services. They then need to fund the health (and other) services to deal with the extra burden, so it would make sense, in a way, to tax root cause of the problem i.e. the food that is most damaging and causing people to gain the most weight.
The only Irish government campaign I have ever seen on this issue was billboards about portion size for children, maybe 2 years ago.
That’s obviously the easiest one to do too, because it doesn’t p*ss the food industry off.
Chicken, whether you agree with the particular tool of the sugar tax, this argument that “it’s not the state’s responsibility; parents just need to cop on” is just utter bullsh*t. I am sick to the back teeth of reading it. The fact that this problem wouldn’t exist if all parents behaved in a particular way does not mean that the State can wash its hands of responsibility for solving the problem.
Firstly it is the State’s responsibility because a small kid has no understanding of long-term health risks and cannot be expected to tell their mum that they’d rather have a salad than a happy meal and a milkshake. It is the State’s role to try to protect children from their parents making really seriously bad choices that will impact their child’s life forever. (e.g. parents have to send their children to school; children aren’t allowed to drive or drink or smoke, even if their parents think it would be okay). A child who becomes obese through no fault of their own is much more likely to become an obese adult with all the associated health risks. If the State can help to save someone from that future, it should.
And secondly it is the State’s responsibility because we live in a civilised place where we try not to leave people to die of treatable illnesses. When people become obese and develop the associated health problems (heart disease, diabetes, osteoarthritis, etc.) they are treated in our public hospitals, which costs the State an absolute fupping fortune. Are you suggesting that we withhold all live-saving medical treatment from fat people? Because, if not (and I doubt there are many people who would support such a suggestion), then it makes a lot of sense for the State to reduce the monetary and human cost of obesity by doing whatever it can to prevent people from becoming obese in the first place.
Also, there is already a public health campaign to encourage a reduction in portion sizes. Perhaps you have not seen the ads; they are really excellent. Imagine, the proceeds of a sugar tax could fund a more extensive campaign. It’s almost like we can do two things at once!
Liposuction clinics and Fat camps are going to to a roaring trade here I tells ya!
Food Critic lost me when he wrote “Are your readers thick”
Wanting to start a debate is great. Insulting the people you are trying to reach is idiotic. Take it to the Daily Mail next time.
Spot on with that.
I would expect that GP’s are informing parents that their children are obese , explaining the potential downsides of that ….
In my mind I thought a useful way of addressing this would be in schools, education in primary and practical in secondary ( teaching them how to make salads and such like) , compulsory HomeEd classes for all and huge investment in sports equipment , maybe setup inter-school leagues for all sports , encouraging positive competition …
The main point is that yet another blogger has his/her personal opinion. Hey, here is a radical idea, how about referencing your statements with further information to allow people access to your underlying stats/research? Why not include something about how countries that imposed such a tax have had declines in childhood obesity levels? Is this your own little moral crusade to make yourself feel better, or are you actually involved in research in the field? Why not come onto the comments and debate with these parrots of industry, seeing as you clearly read them? Any studies showing that the parental control aspect is wrong?
Contrary to the film ‘Fed Up’ sugar isn’t the cause of obesity, excess calories from any food type is.
Can Food Critic provide an evidence based argument rather than dogmatic argument that a sugar tax might reduce obesity rates?
Sorry, just to meet this post on the insulting level it was intended:
“Are your readers thick?”
The way to engage with an audience isn’t to start insulting them unless of course you are a desperate guy in a nightclub and your method of approach is “negging”.
As fair a point as you think you’re making after this point you’ve sought to either attack people or make them ingratiate themselves to you, both of which are pure ego-stroking moves.
As for the person’s introduction, a Food Critic who refuses to sign his name? So “just some opinionated guy”, with no specialty.
Also, it’s considered relatively ‘thick’ to say “We can respond in one of three ways” when one of those 3 ways is “the other 2 ways combined”.
Well your last point is just wrong. Combining several methods is regarded as a unique method in its own way. Have you not seen Ghostbusters?
do they have such taxes in Germany, France or Italy?
No extra tax in Germany, but France seems to have one on Cola/sugary drinks & they limit ketchup/sugar in school canteens.
Denmark does appear to have it but it seems to but seems to be a failure
http://health.spectator.co.uk/a-tax-on-sugar-wont-work-as-the-shipwreck-of-the-danish-fat-tax-shows/
Sorry “had”one
“Are your readers thick? Or do they read too many newspapers.”
1. To be clear, you’re asking if people are not suitably informed, or they are somehow overly informed?
2. I’m not so thick that I know you should have ended that second sentence with a question mark.
Parents stuff junk food in to kids and the great solution is up the price to punish people who eat drink sugary things in moderation. Face the facts here in NO WAY is sugar bad for you. To much sugar is bad. I suppose though upping the tobacco and cigarettes is really for ‘health” reasons and not to gouge people addicted.
Thanks Food Critic.
I actually feel less informed than I did yesterday.
Welcome aboard!
Weight is very simple to control. Consume more calories than you burn off and you will gain weight. It’s a concept that any normal adult can understand. Someone who is overweight has simply chosen to ignore it.
Children are perfectly able to understand this concept but are unable to resist excess if it put in front of them. My kids’ school has such an education programme in place throughout the year. School lunches are monitored for excess fat and sugary drinks are not allowed at any time. Regular emails are sent out to parents regarding diet and portion control. There are very few children in the school who are overweight. Those that are overweight have – usually both – overweight parents.
My lot get to go to McDonalds every 2 weeks or so and are allowed the old fizzy drink. They also play football, hurling, etc etc. It’s all about balance and definitely about portion control. Clearly not all parents are interested or care to do the same. Unlike what the “food critic” says it is very much down to the attitudes of parents. Putting a tax on sugar won’t change this attitude. It would, however, put up the prices in supermarkets, cafes and restaurants. Prices in these places will inevitably be rising on the back of the increase in minimum wage. I think it was a choice between the sugar tax and the minimum wage increase.