Cheap Healthy Good recently had an article about the junk food tax. It got me thinking.
While many suggestions have been made, I’m not aware of any actual legislation passed. (Someone please let me know if I’m wrong.) I do know that the most common suggestion in this topic is a tax on soda. Of course, I think those in favor of the bill are hoping for something that reaches a little farther than that. But it’s sort of a bare-minimum scenario.
The whole topic is complex, and it’s not made any better by the fact that this is all theory. We can’t point to specific parts of a bill and take issue with them. This is probably part of the reason that I’m divided on the issue, but there’s more to it than that.
First, as one comment pointed out, we need to know how “junk food” is determined. Who will be drawing up the definition? Will kids cereals be included with candy bars and soda? What about the abundance of frozen pizzas in the grocery store? They’re certainly packed with calories.
Tied in with this point: lobbyists. You didn’t think that candy companies would take this lying down, did you? Alcohol and tobacco are infamous for their lobbying efforts. It’s how they got away with so much for so long. (Depending on who you ask, they still do.)
We’re not just talking about a group of angry Keebler elves pouring into the capitol, folks. We could start to see political campaigns with large donations from candy and soda companies — especially with the new laws about corporate donations to those running for office. Heck, Stephen Colbert’s “presidential campaign” was financed by Doritos!
Many also argue that this is just another tax levied on the poor. They tend to eat less healthily, and they will be hurt the most by raised prices. Would this make them eat better or simply make their lives harder? After all, depending on the tax, junk food may still be the cheapest option.
Personally, I hate the idea of paying still more for junk food. I would love to say that a tax would get me to finally cut down, but I honestly don’t know if that’s true.
That said, I was fully in favor of other “sin taxes” such as alcohol and cigarettes. These are unnecessary items that are bad for our health. Quite often, the public ends up footing the bill for the resulting medical conditions. So I would feel like a hypocrite for decrying tobacco and liquor but not candy bars and sugary snacks.
And, of course, there’s a question of alternatives.
The article cited by CHG claims that negative reinforcement works better than positive, at least when it comes to making people give up bad habits. (It also has some fascinating/terrifying reminders about the neurological effects of junk food consumption.) So is a tax going to show better results than, say, subsidizing fruits and veggies to make them more affordable? Or helping pay for gym memberships?
Should we just wait until 2014, when people have health care and try to encourage people to go to dietitians and nutritionists?
I need some answers, people!
Meg says
How about we just stop subsidizing it? About half of U.S. farm subsidies go to farmers producing soy, wheat, rice & wheat. Much of those grains go into animal feed which fuels the over-consumption of animal products that are responsible for a lot of America's worst health problems. In other countries where meat isn't so subsidized it's more of a luxury food and people are generally healthier, whereas here fresh fruits and veggies are a luxury food and people are generally sicker. And much of the rest gets made into processed foods which, even when they don't look like junk food, usually aren't very healthy. Then both processed foods and animal products (often processed animal products) are fed to those with the least choices in our society to get rid of the surplus. Just look at a typical school lunch!
If we are going to have subsidies, I'd much prefer that we subsidize fresh whole foods so they can compete with super-cheap processed stuff. Then help educate people, especially parents, and trust that they'll do the right thing.
I think just taxing junk food is a bad idea because it makes it harder on those with less money and fewer choices.
Abigail says
I think you make some excellent points, Meg. And let's not forget that encouraging a high meat consumption is also encouraging a lot of environmental damage.
If people ever want to stop eating red meat, they just need to read "The Year of My Meats" which is fictional but has some terrifying/disgusting facts about all the weird things done to the animals we eat. (There are, of course, plenty of documentaries that are fairly horrifying too.)
Meg says
Yes, it is very bad environmentally! And unfortunately, that's a price we all end up paying.
Random Thoughts says
I don't eat much junk food BUT I believe people should have the right to choose what they want to eat without being discriminated against. If I go into a McDonald, I know that I'm not eating healthy but it still is my choice isn't it? I'm not hurting you by eating fatty foods. This is supposed to be a free country where we should be able to do what we want to do as long as it does not affect another in a negative way.
Abigail says
I'm for personal freedoms, but I think the argument a lot of people are making about obesity is that it *does* affect the rest of us. At least while so many people are un- or under-insured, taxpayers end up covering the costs when people cannot pay their medical bills. There are a lot of physical ailments that can crop up as a result of obesity, not the least of which is diabetes, of course.
Meg says
Yeah, that is the downside to taxpayers paying for others' medical care. For the most part I'm for personal liberties, but I think it's particularly sad when I see little kids being fed truly awful diets — not just by parents but by the school systems, even! They don't have a choice. Sadly, it seems the USDA has more influence on what we eat (via school lunch programs & their food pyramid) than the Department of Health and Human Services. And that's a bad thing since the USDA is on the side of farmers first and foremost, and more so the big companies that specialize in stuff that ends up in fast food.
daddy paul says
I will say this go to a Wal mat super center and look at the people who are in their 40 age group and look at their cart. Those loaded with chips, beer and pop look awful. Those loaded with fruits, veggies and fresh meats look pretty good.
Abigail says
Interesting point. I think, by and large (no pun intended), you're right. I think we're also just overly dependent on junk food in this country. I consume FAR too much of it, that's for sure!
I think Meg may be on to something where we should teach people healthy alternatives to meat. Not that you have to be a vegetarian, but it's good to remember that there are other sources of protein — and not all of them include tofu, thank goodness!
Meg says
I'll echo that thank goodness! I have found some tofu I like, but I've never been able to do much with it myself and prefer other vegan protein sources. I can't help but roll my eyes when people say stuff like how vegans all eats lots of tofu (or other soy products). I've even heard some people say that they couldn't possibly go vegan because soy makes them sick or they're even just worried about too much soy in their diet or the environmental impacts of soy, etc. etc. etc.
laura says
I think the point of this tax is about the money, and opening the door for further taxation on food. It really has nothing to do with the type of food. People that eat junk will continue to do so. Poor families will struggle even more. This is not about improving our health. It is about improving the flow of money into governmental coffers.
Abigail says
Well, I think some politicians are actually interested in helping. But I'm sure extra cash in the bank is of interest to all government workers right about now, that's for sure!
Elizabeth says
Illinois instituted a tax on candy and soda in September 2009. Instead of the state food tax rate of 1%, these items are taxes at the state tax rate of 6.25%. Of course, counties and cities then have their own taxes…like in Chicago the food tax total is 2.25% and non-food is 10.25%…but Chicago already had an extra soda tax, making the soda tax in Chicago 14% (unsure if that has increased even more). I think the Chicago soda tax was just to raise $, whereas the professed purposed of the recent state tax increase was to deter purchases of "junk food" – candy and soda.
It doesn't deter me; it just annoys me. Diet coke is one of my few vices in my otherwise generally healthy diet (which includes never eating meat, due to a medical reason). I do make an effort any time it's convenient to stop at a grocery store outside the city limits to stock up on soda.
Chicago also has a tax surcharge on bottled water, supposedly to pay for the garbage/environmental cost of the bottles. But if we cared about people's health, wouldn't we try to incentivize people to purchase water bottles instead of soda bottles?
Abigail says
Interesting point about taxes on bottled water and soda… You know how in some cities you can get a free CFL lightbulb if you send away? Maybe they should do that with a water thermos or something…
And you're right: This tax punishes people who indulge in moderation, although I suppose it's a relatively rare tax if you do eat junk sparingly. Still, it goes back to the question of how efficiently this tax would address the real problem.
Emily says
Just next time, please put a disclaimer on your post. You made coffee come out my nose with the "angry Keebler elves" bit, and it really hurt! LOL!
Abigail says
Ouch, my apologies to your nose!