Obesity: We have a problem: What should we do about it?

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

The problem:

Obesity and being overweight is becoming quite common, (see graph) in developed english speaking countries. Obesity has a number of health impacts for the individual, including increased risk of heart attack, type 2 diabetes, certain varieties of cancer and osteoarthritis. Obesity, also has a negative impact on the economy, due to increased business costs and disadvantages in employment. The health system is also spending lots of money trying to treat these patients, around $78.5 Billion in the USA. Overall, it's bad for society.

The graph:

Solutions:

Fat and Sugar Tax:

Basically, foods, before they're approved by the FDA (or other food approval body), go through a board of nutritionists, who figure out how unhealthy the food is. Then, they give it a rating, the more favourable the rating, the less the tax. This will hopefully do what the tobacco tax did to tobacco, and lower sales of unhealthy foods. Furthermore, healthy foods will become more competitive, and raise their sales. This should lower rates of obesity, and lessen the burden on the health care system.

The money received from that tax, could be used to raise awareness about obesity and fund the health care system. It seems to be a win-win situation.

Warning Labels:

Warning labels can be placed upon junk-food packaging and advertisements. This will increase awareness of the damage that junk-food can do, and it may discourage people from buying junk-food. This can be mandated by legislation, and will be implemented by the the government body that controls advertising. It shouldn't cost too much, after all, isn't that's what's going on with tobacco advertisements in the USA?

 

[Firus]

The only problem is that this solution is all-encompassing for a problem which is not black-and-white. If you gorge yourself on junk food and aren't active at all, yes, you're going to become obese. However, junk food won't kill you in moderation and most people do treat themselves from time to time. I personally eat junk food all the time and am underweight. It's not as if there's a direct correlation between eating junk food and becoming obese, depending on your metabolism and how much or how little you exercise.

If implemented, it would likely lower the sales of junk food; but it would not eliminate it entirely and people would continue buying it, and it could end up costing a lot -- which is the idea, but I think very few people will cut out junk food from their diet entirely, unless people never want to have a cookie again, thus potentially causing economic problems for some people. While it may be ideal for the threat of said economic problems to prevent people from continuing to purchase junk food, some people are stupid and stubborn and will continue to buy it.

While cigarettes may have a clear negative side-effect from prolonged daily use, junk food does not necessarily make you obese, so I don't think slapping a tax on food because it's unhealthy makes a whole lot of sense. It is a serious problem that so much of the population is obese, but I don't think a tax is the way to solve it.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

The only problem is that this solution is all-encompassing for a problem which is not black-and-white.

Yeah, but it's not really a total solution, it will never be. The point is, to make obesity a non-epidemic. I feel, that with this tax, and a number of other measures, it is possible to reduce rates of obesity back to a suitable level.

If you gorge yourself on junk food and aren't active at all, yes, you're going to become obese. However, junk food won't kill you in moderation and most people do treat themselves from time to time. I personally eat junk food all the time and am underweight. It's not as if there's a direct correlation between eating junk food and becoming obese, depending on your metabolism and how much or how little you exercise.

Actually, no. There is a correlation between energy consumption and obesity, once all the other variables are controlled. This study here seems to tell the story: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/82-003-x/2009004/article/10933-eng.htm Basically, too much energy consumption is a major factor in causing obesity. Sure, exercise and genetic factors are also influencing everything, but, the correlation is there.

This proposed tax will make healthier foods more competitive, and mean that it will be harder to continually treat yourself to junk-food. This means that there will be more of an incentive to eat junk-food in moderation, if at all.

If implemented, it would likely lower the sales of junk food; but it would not eliminate it entirely and people would continue buying it, and it could end up costing a lot -- which is the idea, but I think very few people will cut out junk food from their diet entirely, unless people never want to have a cookie again, thus potentially causing economic problems for some people. While it may be ideal for the threat of said economic problems to prevent people from continuing to purchase junk food, some people are stupid and stubborn and will continue to buy it.

Yeah, but it will lower sales of junk-food, decreasing the problem. It will be very hard to eliminate obesity entirely, heck people in the middle ages had it! However, it is an epidemic now, and we've got to bring it back to more acceptable levels.

While cigarettes may have a clear negative side-effect from prolonged daily use, junk food does not necessarily make you obese, so I don't think slapping a tax on food because it's unhealthy makes a whole lot of sense. It is a serious problem that so much of the population is obese, but I don't think a tax is the way to solve it.

Well, cigarettes don't necessarily give you lung cancer, but we still tax them. Why don't we do the same here?

 

[GoldShadow]

I personally eat junk food all the time and am underweight.

Sample size n=1 does not prove anything.

It's not as if there's a direct correlation between eating junk food and becoming obese

There most definitely is.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15639678
http://www.jacn.org/cgi/content/full/22/6/539
http://jpubhealth.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/fdp117
http://www.impacteen.org/generalarea_PDFs/Price&Obesity_FJC.pdf

If implemented, it would likely lower the sales of junk food; but it would not eliminate it entirely and people would continue buying it, and it could end up costing a lot -- which is the idea, but I think very few people will cut out junk food from their diet entirely, unless people never want to have a cookie again, thus potentially causing economic problems for some people. While it may be ideal for the threat of said economic problems to prevent people from continuing to purchase junk food, some people are stupid and stubborn and will continue to buy it.

The idea wouldn't be to eliminate it entirely. It would be to decrease and discourage consumption.

That said, you're right that simply levying a tax won't solve the problem. It's going to take more than that. People need to be made aware of the harmful effects of eating these foods in excess, they need to be made aware of healthier alternatives, and healthier alternatives should be better advertised.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

The idea wouldn't be to eliminate it entirely. It would be to decrease and discourage consumption.

That said, you're right that simply levying a tax won't solve the problem. It's going to take more than that. People need to be made aware of the harmful effects of eating these foods in excess, they need to be made aware of healthier alternatives, and healthier alternatives should be better advertised.

Okay, that's a good point, but at the moment, we are doing very little to deal with this problem. The tax would definitely be a step in the right direction. It will also create funds for the government, which then could be used to raise awareness of the issue. Thus, it'd kill (or at least maim) two birds with one stone!

Furthermore, I'm thinking that another possible solution would be to put health warnings on fast food and junk food advertisements like we do on tobacco advertisements (if they aren't banned). This would reduce the effectiveness of such advertisements, and would hopefully lower sales of the products as well.

 

[Firus]

Actually, no. There is a correlation between energy consumption and obesity, once all the other variables are controlled. This study here seems to tell the story: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/82-003-x/2009004/article/10933-eng.htm Basically, too much energy consumption is a major factor in causing obesity. Sure, exercise and genetic factors are also influencing everything, but, the correlation is there.

I worded that incorrectly; what I meant is that it is not the only factor in determining obesity, not that eating junk food has no effect on your weight.

Well, cigarettes don't necessarily give you lung cancer, but we still tax them. Why don't we do the same here?

Cigarettes pose a myriad of health problems in addition to lung cancer, for one. For another, smoking regularly cannot be quite as easily balanced out by healthy activities as eating junk food regularly can. Finally, while this is not the place to debate the tax on tobacco, just because the reality is that tobacco is taxed does not mean that it should definitively be taxed, nor does that automatically mean that junk food should fall into the same category.

However, the analogy of cigarettes is one worth exploring. Given the large excise tax imposed on cigarettes, in addition to the myriad of ad campaigns and warning labels that go towards encouraging quitting smoking, smoking has decreased; however, there were still 36.7 million people smoking daily in 2008. http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/mmwrs/byyear/2009/mm5844a2/highlights.htm

While such a tax may be intended to reduce obesity, I think the problem is that people are stubborn and if they want to continue loading up on Twinkies, they're going to keep eating them even if it costs twice as much. It would reduce it for some people -- I severely doubt I would keep my eating habits as they are since food isn't cheap even without a tax -- but the people who are already obese might not be willing to give up junk food.

Sample size n=1 does not prove anything.

I realize that, my point is merely that it is possible to eat junk food without becoming obese, that junk food is not the only cause of obesity.

There most definitely is.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15639678
http://www.jacn.org/cgi/content/full/22/6/539
http://jpubhealth.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/fdp117
http://www.impacteen.org/generalarea_PDFs/Price&Obesity_FJC.pdf

Again, I misworded my post. I meant that it isn't the only factor, not that there isn't a relation between junk food consumed and weight gained.

 

[blazedaces]

Cigarettes pose a myriad of health problems in addition to lung cancer, for one. For another, smoking regularly cannot be quite as easily balanced out by healthy activities as eating junk food regularly can. Finally, while this is not the place to debate the tax on tobacco, just because the reality is that tobacco is taxed does not mean that it should definitively be taxed, nor does that automatically mean that junk food should fall into the same category.

However, the analogy of cigarettes is one worth exploring. Given the large excise tax imposed on cigarettes, in addition to the myriad of ad campaigns and warning labels that go towards encouraging quitting smoking, smoking has decreased; however, there were still 36.7 million people smoking daily in 2008. http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/mmwrs/byyear/2009/mm5844a2/highlights.htm

While such a tax may be intended to reduce obesity, I think the problem is that people are stubborn and if they want to continue loading up on Twinkies, they're going to keep eating them even if it costs twice as much. It would reduce it for some people -- I severely doubt I would keep my eating habits as they are since food isn't cheap even without a tax -- but the people who are already obese might not be willing to give up junk food.

I'm not trying to be a smartass, but man, taxing something to reduce demand for it is simple econ 101. And it's not just a theory, it works roughly 100% of the time. Generally, people respond to a tax in a most linear fashion, and the relationship between price and demand looks pretty much like a straight line no matter how you slice it.

I realize that, my point is merely that it is possible to eat junk food without becoming obese, that junk food is not the only cause of obesity.

Again, I misworded my post. I meant that it isn't the only factor, not that there isn't a relation between junk food consumed and weight gained.

You've said this a number of times... and I just want to clear something up by asking you a question.

So you're not arguing against the solution to obesity of reducing the consumption of junkfood... just that you think we could add some other good ideas out there? ...

Would you mind suggesting some?

-blazed

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Cigarettes pose a myriad of health problems in addition to lung cancer, for one.

Remember obesity causes a huge number of problems for those who have it. You might even call it a myriad. But yes, it doesn't quite match the amount that smoking causes.

For another, smoking regularly cannot be quite as easily balanced out by healthy activities as eating junk food regularly can. Finally, while this is not the place to debate the tax on tobacco, just because the reality is that tobacco is taxed does not mean that it should definitively be taxed, nor does that automatically mean that junk food should fall into the same category.

Okay, but we aren't balancing out the junk food in our lives. In some cases it is very hard to do, it's a matter of lifestyle in many cases, and people can't really adjust that easily. Why not destroy the root of the problem, and let them keep their lifestyle, but eat healthier foods?

Yes, our sedentary life style has something to do with this, but so does junk-food. It's much easier to control the food bought that's in our stores, than a nation's lifestyle, a nation's genetics, or the other causes of obesity.

However, the analogy of cigarettes is one worth exploring. Given the large excise tax imposed on cigarettes, in addition to the myriad of ad campaigns and warning labels that go towards encouraging quitting smoking, smoking has decreased; however, there were still 36.7 million people smoking daily in 2008. http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/mmwrs/byyear/2009/mm5844a2/highlights.htm

While such a tax may be intended to reduce obesity, I think the problem is that people are stubborn and if they want to continue loading up on Twinkies, they're going to keep eating them even if it costs twice as much. It would reduce it for some people -- I severely doubt I would keep my eating habits as they are since food isn't cheap even without a tax -- but the people who are already obese might not be willing to give up junk food.

Rates of smoking have been declining dramatically, since we started trying to lower rates of smoking. Yes, there is a lot of people that still smoke, but it's a giant improvement on the past. Just because a plan designed to reduce rates of smoking didn't eradicate it entirely, doesn't mean that the plan didn't work. I believe that the same could be applied here.

Furthermore, cigarettes are extremely addictive, more so than junk-food I believe, and if the tax worked with cigarettes, why won't it work here?

I realize that, my point is merely that it is possible to eat junk food without becoming obese, that junk food is not the only cause of obesity.

Yeah, but it's pretty hard to become obese, without eating copious amounts junk-food. Additionally, junk food is the easiest target of all the causes of obesity, it's the one that the government can control to some extent. Basically, our diet is easier to control the our lifestyle, from a government perspective.

 

[KrazyGlue]

While such a tax may be intended to reduce obesity, I think the problem is that people are stubborn and if they want to continue loading up on Twinkies, they're going to keep eating them even if it costs twice as much. It would reduce it for some people -- I severely doubt I would keep my eating habits as they are since food isn't cheap even without a tax -- but the people who are already obese might not be willing to give up junk food.

Actually, unhealthy food is often consumed because it is cheap and convinient, which a tax would change.

On the other hand, I can't help but dislike the idea of this tax. I know we already tax tobacco, but I just don't like the idea of taxing anything that we deem as unhealthy for society. Tobacco is a special case. It's something that not only harms the user, but also those who are around them often. Tobacco ads are banned from TV and it's illegal for minors. I don't think fast food should be subject to the same treatment as tobacco.

(more later, have to go for now)

 

[blazedaces]

Some articles to certainly add fuel to the fire:

CDC: Obesity approaching tobacco as top preventable cause of death

Obesity overtaking smoking as America's number one killer
A quote from the second one since it has more specific numbers (the numbers were underlined and bolded by me, highlight is also me):

According to the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) smoking in 2000 was the biggest cause of death - 435,000 people died. 18.1% of everyone who died in that year died of a smoking related disease.

Obesity (bad diet and no exercise) was the cause of 400,000 deaths.

129.6 Americans are overweight or obese. That is a staggering 64% of the population.

If obesity continues to rise, by the year 2020, 20% of all health care spending will be on obesity related diseases and conditions. This is according to the Rand Corporation.

The American Health and Human Services Secretary, Tommy Thompson said 'Americans need to understand that overweight and obesity are literally killing us. To know that poor eating habits and inactivity are on the verge of surpassing tobacco use as the leading cause of preventable death in America should motivate all Americans to take action to protect their health. [highlight]We need to tackle America's weight issues as aggressively as we are addressing smoking and tobacco.[/highlight]'

I really don't think that if tobacco ONLY hurt ourselves we would be less likely to tax it or place warning labels, etc. I agree that this makes smoking distinct, but a clear problem is there, and something should be done. On that I think we should all agree.

-blazed

 

[Sucumbio]

I second the notion by Krazy, though I will expound upon it (hope I'm not misreading you)... by taxing sugar and fat in this way, you may run into a problem where poorer people may be singled out and at worst starved... the correlation between being poor and eating junk food is such that processed foods of all kinds would have to be made in ways that would make them prohibitively expensive (for the manufacturer) or be too shelf-expensive for the consumer.

OP: excellent idea but for the above reason as I see it... a -better- solution imho would be to increase physical activity in youth, and to reduce portions at public eateries. as we all know a "serving size" on most labels is a fairly small portion, when considering the amount one has to eat to reach normal satiation. the more obese you are, the higher this scale.. heh.. goes. the most filling foods in other words are oftentimes the one that when eaten to become full result in the consumption of multiple serving sizes. this trend in the home translates to public eating establishments especially in America.

take.. Five Guys Burgers and Fries. for ten bucks you can get a double-cheeseburger containing approx 1/3 pound of meat (grilled in fat, not very lean to begin with) loaded up with mushrooms (grilled in fat), onions (grilled in fat), relish (sugar and salt laden), mayo (PURE fat), lettuce (basically water), tomato (industry standard, hardly any color = hardly any nutrients), pickles (salty salty)... a 1/2 pound of skin-on french fried potatoes (starch, fried in fat) and a coke (high fructose corn syrup, the worst kind of sugar).

Calorie-wise this boils down to about 3 times your normal RDA (recommended daily allowance) for sugar, fat and salt.

This whole meal which you scarf down on your 30 minute lunch break lands in your stomach like a brick of fail, and then chug-a-lugs its way through your system, depositing itself in the most horrid ways imaginable. Even if you find time to work out shortly after, to try to burn it all off, you're still consuming way too much sugar, fat and salt to compensate.

Now multiply this times every day you live this way, times every American that lives this way every day. Yeah, well you wrote the thread you know the score, but the point is, a simple tax is fairly inefficient. What's REALLY needed is a serious change on all fronts, ... the menu, the portions, the actual eating method (what ever happened to chewing your food 30 times before swallowing?), the amount of daily exercise, ... it's all about balance. proper nutritional balance and exercise, and this solution has been presented since long before any of us were born, its ages old wisdom. the problem is in the American lifestyle which countermands this on almost all fronts.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

I second the notion by Krazy, though I will expound upon it (hope I'm not misreading you)... by taxing sugar and fat in this way, you may run into a problem where poorer people may be singled out and at worst starved... the correlation between being poor and eating junk food is such that processed foods of all kinds would have to be made in ways that would make them prohibitively expensive (for the manufacturer) or be too shelf-expensive for the consumer.

Well, I'd imagine if you increased the price of unhealthy foods, you'd make the healthy foods much more competitive, and if that's not enough, we could slap on a subsidy for healthy foods. This would make healthy foods more attractive to the consumer and would hopefully lower sales of junk food. Yes, the poor people are going to suffer, just like all the smokers who pay ridiculous amounts of money to keep up their habit, but it's for their own good. It's better to be slightly poorer, than in hospital undergoing a triple bypass operation on your heart. If you survive, you'll be even poorer, you have to pay for the hospital expenses and so forth, or those ridiculous premiums that you'd end up paying because you're obese and in need of health insurance.

OP: excellent idea but for the above reason as I see it... a -better- solution imho would be to increase physical activity in youth, and to reduce portions at public eateries. as we all know a "serving size" on most labels is a fairly small portion, when considering the amount one has to eat to reach normal satiation. the more obese you are, the higher this scale.. heh.. goes. the most filling foods in other words are oftentimes the one that when eaten to become full result in the consumption of multiple serving sizes. this trend in the home translates to public eating establishments especially in America.

Yeah, okay, these are all good solutions, but I'm unsure of how these are going to implemented. Though, I'd consider making sure that it is mandated that the serving size listed on food packages actually represents the amount that someone would eat. That way the nutritional information is much easier to interpret.

take.. Five Guys Burgers and Fries. for ten bucks you can get a double-cheeseburger containing approx 1/3 pound of meat (grilled in fat, not very lean to begin with) loaded up with mushrooms (grilled in fat), onions (grilled in fat), relish (sugar and salt laden), mayo (PURE fat), lettuce (basically water), tomato (industry standard, hardly any color = hardly any nutrients), pickles (salty salty)... a 1/2 pound of skin-on french fried potatoes (starch, fried in fat) and a coke (high fructose corn syrup, the worst kind of sugar).

Calorie-wise this boils down to about 3 times your normal RDA (recommended daily allowance) for sugar, fat and salt.

This whole meal which you scarf down on your 30 minute lunch break lands in your stomach like a brick of fail, and then chug-a-lugs its way through your system, depositing itself in the most horrid ways imaginable. Even if you find time to work out shortly after, to try to burn it all off, you're still consuming way too much sugar, fat and salt to compensate.

Now multiply this times every day you live this way, times every American that lives this way every day. Yeah, well you wrote the thread you know the score, but the point is, a simple tax is fairly inefficient. What's REALLY needed is a serious change on all fronts, ... the menu, the portions, the actual eating method (what ever happened to chewing your food 30 times before swallowing?), the amount of daily exercise, ... it's all about balance. proper nutritional balance and exercise, and this solution has been presented since long before any of us were born, its ages old wisdom. the problem is in the American lifestyle which countermands this on almost all fronts.

Yeah, we've got a major problem to solve. Though, I think the Fat and Sugar tax would definitely lower sales of junk-food, and this would result in a reduction of the problem. We've got to do what we did to tobacco, to junk food, they're both doing great damage to our societies.

 

[Sucumbio]

Yes, the poor people are going to suffer, just like all the smokers who pay ridiculous amounts of money to keep up their habit, but it's for their own good.

Ah, but see, smoking is a luxury. You HAVE to eat. If you force poorer people (and we're not talking dirt farm poor, bordering on homeless, we're talking millions of Americans who simply don't make enough monthly income to afford real groceries) to pay the same or more for what it'd cost for healthy foods, you're basically making it impossible for them to eat at all. Believe me, many of these people -would- buy fresh veggies and produce, and eliminate TV-dinners etc, if they only had 2 things. More time to cook, more money to afford it. Granted not all junk type food is cheap! A hungry man for example can cost 5 or even 6 bucks, and for that I could buy a good amount of veggies and have a low-calorie high vitamin stir-fry for example. But I could also buy 2 boxes of hamburger helper, and 2 packs of wal-mart meat-in-a-tube and a 2-liter of coke and eat TWICE for the price of 1.

The culprit is Fast Food. McDonald's killed us in this... kids gravitate to it, it's a fond place, it's comfort food. And it spawns the need for foods like it, high fat, high calorie, low nutrition.

Yeah, okay, these are all good solutions, but I'm unsure of how these are going to implemented. Though, I'd consider making sure that it is mandated that the serving size listed on food packages actually represents the amount that someone would eat. That way the nutritional information is much easier to interpret.

Technically the serving size on food is supposed to represent the suggested amount of ingestion. And for many foods it works... the problem with fatty foods (like potato chips) is that such foods don't make you feel full right away. The brain normally sends the message "you are full" but not if a specific chemical is released (which I have failed to find ATM, ><) but basically it's the pringle's add holds true "once you pop, you can't stop." You really can't if you have no self control, which many do not.

SO ... first way to attack this without a tax, is to work on people's methods of self control. That is basically in polar opposite to how food industries work, though, so it's not likely to happen without regulation... introduced in the classroom, perhaps. "How to eat right and exercise" programs.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Ah, but see, smoking is a luxury. You HAVE to eat. If you force poorer people (and we're not talking dirt farm poor, bordering on homeless, we're talking millions of Americans who simply don't make enough monthly income to afford real groceries) to pay the same or more for what it'd cost for healthy foods, you're basically making it impossible for them to eat at all. Believe me, many of these people -would- buy fresh veggies and produce, and eliminate TV-dinners etc, if they only had 2 things. More time to cook, more money to afford it. Granted not all junk type food is cheap! A hungry man for example can cost 5 or even 6 bucks, and for that I could buy a good amount of veggies and have a low-calorie high vitamin stir-fry for example. But I could also buy 2 boxes of hamburger helper, and 2 packs of wal-mart meat-in-a-tube and a 2-liter of coke and eat TWICE for the price of 1.

Ah, but the tax could free up money to pay for a subsidy of healthy foods, and thus make the poor people able to afford it. Or alternatively, we could use the money, to increase welfare benefits.

Technically the serving size on food is supposed to represent the suggested amount of ingestion. And for many foods it works... the problem with fatty foods (like potato chips) is that such foods don't make you feel full right away. The brain normally sends the message "you are full" but not if a specific chemical is released (which I have failed to find ATM, ><) but basically it's the pringle's add holds true "once you pop, you can't stop." You really can't if you have no self control, which many do not.

Unfortunately, just because the serving size on the food labels supposed to represent the suggested amount of ingestion, doesn't mean it does. Most "servings" of cereal, for example would be about 40% of what most people would actually eat.

SO ... first way to attack this without a tax, is to work on people's methods of self control. That is basically in polar opposite to how food industries work, though, so it's not likely to happen without regulation... introduced in the classroom, perhaps. "How to eat right and exercise" programs.

Yeah, that's good, but, we are running up against the massive advertising campaigns of the fast food companies, I'm not sure how effective that'd be. Maybe, we could restrict fast food advertisements, to remove this problem.

 

[blazedaces]

Yeah, that's good, but, we are running up against the massive advertising campaigns of the fast food companies, I'm not sure how effective that'd be. Maybe, we could restrict fast food advertisements, to remove this problem.

Speaking of which, has anyone else been utterly disgusted by sweetsurprise's new pro-"high fructose corn syrup" ad campaign?

Here's the link to the two ads, if you want to see them:

AD Number 1
AD Number 2

-blazed

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Speaking of which, has anyone else been utterly disgusted by sweetsurprise's new pro-"high fructose corn syrup" ad campaign?

Here's the link to the two ads, if you want to see them:

AD Number 1
AD Number 2

-blazed

Those ads were so biased, it wasn't even funny. I hope no-one buys their almost outright lies.