I guess it had to come up eventually.  Do you think taxing junk food solve the obesity crisis? This controversial idea has never been given a real-world tryout, but the combination of a budget busting fiscal crisis and a citizenry that keeps getting fatter is causing legislators and executives around the world to give a so-called “obesity tax” serious consideration. New York Governor David Paterson is the most serious of all, proposing in his 2009 state budget that an 18% sales tax be levied on non-diet soda and sugary juice drinks. Such a tax, he says, would raise $404 million in the fiscal year starting in April, and $539 million in the year after that—all to be earmarked for obesity-fighting public health programs.

If Paterson succeeds—and he’s already run into vociferous opposition from the soft drink industry—it would likely be the first such broad tax in the world. But the concept of a so-called obesity tax is slowly gaining support, floated by such disparate public figures as British Conservative Party leader David Cameron, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, French tax authorities, and politicians in regions of Canada, Australia, and Ireland.

Paterson’s proposal wouldn’t, in fact, be completely precedent-shattering. A recent study by the Institute for Health Research Policy at the University of Illinois at Chicago found that at least 27 states impose taxes of 7% to 8% on junk food such as candy, soda, and baked good snacks, usually imposed when the products are sold through vending machines. Such levies are barely noticeable on food items that cost only a dollar or two.

15 Years of Debate

But with state budgets facing steep deficits in the wake of the recession, much larger taxes on soda and unhealthy foods could become more appealing, says Kelly D. Brownell, director of Yale University’s Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity. “I’ve been contacted by a number of state legislators recently,” he says. “I think it’s only a matter of time before it happens.”

Brownell isn’t the most objective observer, since he was one of the first to give prominence to the idea of an obesity tax, having floated the concept 15 years ago in a New York Times op-ed essay. His proposal has generated heavy debate in food policy circles ever since. Opponents say such a tax would disproportionately fall on the poor, punish thin people who merely happen to like soda and candy, and fail to address the many complex factors that contribute to obesity. The American Beverage Assn., which says it will aggressively fight Paterson’s proposal, calls the soda tax “a money grab that will raise taxes on middle class families and threaten thousands of jobs across New York State.”

Nevertheless, the thought of raising the price of unhealthy foods in order to discourage consumption has slowly gained currency on the strength of two developments: the documented success of a similar consumption tax on cigarettes and the alarming increase in obesity rates. In 1995 about 14% of U.S. adults were considered obese (defined as having a body-mass index—a calculation based on height and weight—of 30 or above). Today that number is over 30%.

Obesity Mortality Gaining On Tobacco

A full two-thirds of American adults are overweight or obese, as are 33% of children and adolescents. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that obesity costs the nation over $90 billion in direct medical costs. And in April 2008, the Conference Board estimated that obese employees cost U.S. businesses $45 billion a year in medical expenditures and work lost.

Cannabis is less harmful than alcohol or tobacco, according to a report by a research charity Thursday, which called for a “serious rethink” of drug policy.

The Beckley Foundation, a charity which numbers senior experts and other academics among its advisors, said banning cannabis has no impact on supply and turns users into criminals.

“Although cannabis can have a negative impact on health, including mental health, in terms of relative harms it is considerably less harmful than alcohol or tobacco,” says the report by the Foundation’s Global Cannabis Commission.

The government is pressing for cannabis to be re-classified in law as a Class B drug compared with its current, less serious, Class C classification.

Authorities are concerned notably by the growing prevalence of the potent “skunk” form of the drug. Around 80 percent of cannabis seizures are of this strain, said to be linked to mental health problems, official figures show.

The Beckley Foundation, a charitable trust, claimed only two deaths worldwide have been attributed to cannabis, while alcohol and tobacco use together kill an estimated 150,000 people in Britain alone.

“Many of the harms associated with cannabis use are the result of prohibition itself, particularly the social harms arising from arrest and imprisonment,” it said.
“It is only through a regulated market that we can better protect young people from the ever more potent forms of dope,” it added.

The decision to reclassify cannabis upwards into the more punitive Class B category — which includes amphetamines — is a U-turn for the Labour government.

Cannabis was downgraded from Class B when Tony Blair was prime minister, but Gordon Brown announced a review of its status soon after taking over in June last year.

An earlier review of the cannabis classification, at the time of the last 2005 general election, resulted in it remaining Class C.  I know I tended to get in more trouble when I was younger from drinking booze than smoking the odd joint.

Scientists have pinpointed genetic variations that make people more likely to get hooked on cigarettes and more prone to develop lung cancer — a finding that could someday lead to screening tests and customized treatments for smokers trying to kick the habit.

The discovery by three separate teams of scientists makes the strongest case so far for the biological underpinnings of nicotine addiction and sheds more light on how genetics and lifestyle habits join forces to cause cancer. A smoker who inherits these genetic variations from both parents has an 80 percent greater chance of lung cancer than a smoker without the variants, the researchers reported. And that same smoker on average lights up two extra cigarettes a day and has a much harder time quitting than smokers who don’t have these genetic differences.

The researchers disagreed on whether the variants directly increased the risk of lung cancer or did so indirectly, by causing more smoking. The three studies, funded by governments in the U.S. and Europe, are being published Thursday in the journals Nature and Nature Genetics.

The scientists studied the genes of more than 35,000 white people of European descent in Europe, Canada and the United States. Blacks and Asians will be studied soon and may yield different results, scientists said.They aren’t quite sure if what they found is a set of variations in one gene or in three closely connected genes.

The gene variations, which govern nicotine receptors on cells, could eventually help explain some of the mysteries of chain smoking, nicotine addiction and lung cancer. These oddities include why there are 90-year-old smokers who don’t get cancer and people who light up an occasional cigarette and don’t get hooked. The smoking rate among U.S. adults has dropped from 42 percent in 1965 to less than 21 percent now.

The new studies are surprising in that they point to areas of the genetic code that are not associated with pleasure and the rewards of addiction. That may help explain why some people can quit and others fail, said Dr. Nora Volkow, director of the National Institute of Drug Abuse in Bethesda, Md., which funded one of the studies.

One clue is in the location of the just-discovered variants, on the long arm of chromosome 15, Volkow said. It is in an area that, when damaged during tests on animals, makes them depressed and anxious. While some people smoke because it helps them focus or gives them a physiological reward, others do it to stave off depression.

That suggests that adding antidepressants to some smokers’ treatment could help them kick the habit.  Anti-depressants have been used for quite a while now but I guess they did not know exactly why they worked.

Nowadays our life is getting more and more tense. People live under constant stress of various problems, such as social, ecological, economic and etc. We constantly suffer from noise and dust in big cities, diseases and instability. To overcome all difficulties we should take care of our physical and mental health.To achieve this aim it’s better to keep to a balanced diet and take prescribed supplements from a vitamin store. To my mind there is no ideal diet for all people in general because our food needs differ according to age, sex and occupation. For instance, Women’s Health Magazine claims that the ideal diet contains different types of foods in such quantities and proportions that the need for calories, minerals, vitamins and other nutrients is adequately met in our bodies and provides them with energy for all life processes and for the growth, repair and maintenance of cells and tissues.

Fluid intake in the form of water based drinks is also essential for good health. Water is essential for the correct functioning of kidneys and bowels. The famous medical specialist Jacob Bogatin thinks that at least 6-8 glasses of plain water should be drunk each day, more in hot weather.

According to Women’s Diagnostic Center in Philadelphia: there are also various factors that need to be kept in mind while you are working out the ideal diet for yourself. They are: natural qualities of each food, places and climate where the food is grown prepared and consumed. You should not forget about the presence of artificial flavors, chemicals and preservatives.

In conclusion I’d like to say that following a well-balanced diet regularly and staying at your ideal weight are crucial factors in maintaining your emotional and physical well-being.

The arguement about the health benifits of milk have been raging for years.  One website even goes as far as to say “Milk is a deadly poison,”. If you visit the site, notmilk.com, you’ll find dozens of articles about the purported evils of this popular beverage. One claim, for example, is that milk from cows contains cancer-causing hormones and dairy industry dollars have kept that fact bottled up. All of which may leave you second-guessing your next sip.

However, as a nutritionist, I’ve found that most people thrive on milk, whether their goal is to lose fat or build muscle. So to be sure it’s safe, I’ve investigated all the anti-milk claims, sifting through the research while also turning a critical eye to pro-milk propaganda. After all, the only agenda I have is my clients’ health. The result: all your milk questions, answered.

Is milk really a fat-burning food? Maybe. In a 6-month study, University of Tennessee researchers found that overweight people who downed three servings a day of calcium-rich dairy lost more belly fat than those who followed a similar diet minus two or more of the dairy servings. In addition, the researchers discovered that calcium supplements didn’t work as well as milk. Why? They believe that while calcium may increase the rate at which your body burns fat, other active compounds in dairy (such as milk proteins) provide an additional fat-burning effect. Of course, the key to success is following a weight-loss diet to begin with. After all, downing your dairy with a box of doughnuts is no way to torch your gut.  Personally I would like to see some additional studies to confirm these findings.

I am getting ready to move out to Southern California in the new year, Orange County to be exact. It is really amazing planning for such a big change (I am currently in NYC). Besides planning for the million and one things you would normally think of I need to plan for one very important thing that not many people would think of, a new personal trainer. I have had a local personal trainer for the past 4 years and workout twice a week with him and twice a week on my own. Four years ago I had a huge beer belly and weighed in at 325 pounds. Today I am a lean 210 pounds and in the greatest shape of my life, so I want to make sure I have continuatiy with my personal training regiem for my move down South. I got hold of a local phone book and did a quick search for Orange County personal trainers, then I did the same on the web. I made up a short list of 5 local trainers and I will be going down next weekend to meet them. So the next chapter of my life will definately invovled Orange County fitness training because I want to stay slim and healthy!

A look at health news headlines from around the world:

-Research from the University of Texas found large waist measurements, relative to hip size, were linked to early signs of heart disease.  This confirms other research that waist size, rather than overall body weight, is a key indicator of heart disease. The study of 2,744 people suggests that a waist size of 32ins (81cm) for a woman and 37ins (94cm) for a man represents a “significant” raised risk.  Time for me to cut back on the beer.

-The Department of Health (DoH) advises people not to drink more than five single espressos - roughly seven instant coffees - a day, although individuals vary in their sensitivity and reactions.  The highest natural caffeine content is found in filter coffee, a mug of which contains about 120mg of caffeine. Instant coffee contains roughly 75mg and espresso 107mg.

-Carrying too much weight while pregnant increases the risk of complications for mother and baby, including birth defects, labor and delivery problems, fetal death and delivery of large babies, according to the March of Dimes. A revision is long overdue, said Dr. Raul Artal of the Saint Louis University School of Medicine. “The reality is for too long we are telling pregnant women to take it easy during pregnancy, be confined and to eat for two,” he said. “This has been one factor in causing the epidemic of overweight and obesity that we see in our country.”