Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Should junk food be taxed?
Replies
-
@lemurcat12 too long to quote you on my phone...
I don't know if the answer is a junk food tax. It's a discussion on the forum. It's an idea. I missed your follow up questions and do not feel obligated to go back.
Everyone does not have an obesity problem. That doesn't mean society as a whole can't help the ones that do. If the statistics are correct about obesity related illnesses in the future it seems that society would be better off doing something to help the situation.
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »Relevant: http://gazettereview.com/2016/07/study-mexicos-junk-food-tax-reveals-small-drop-purchases/
Mexico is defining junk food as food with more than 275 calories per 100g. The 8% tax has stopped poor households from buying the equivalent of a Snickers bar a day (quote from different article) and hasn't deterred wealthier households at all.
Butter, oil, pasta, rice, bread, etc. are junk foods now?
Possibly. It's based on "processed foods" - which butter and oil are definitely processed, but not as processed as Oreos. I wonder if they've defined "processed" anywhere. Trying to find the actual legislation.
"Foods made mainly with cereal" is on Mexico's tax list: http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/01/world/americas/junk-food-tax-mexico/
This would never fly in the US. It's too broad, and we love our loopholes.
ETA: I found this: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673612620893 It defines "ultra-processed foods" as "made from processed substances extracted or refined from whole foods—eg, oils, hydrogenated oils and fats, flours and starches, variants of sugar, and cheap parts or remnants of animal foods—with little or no whole foods." I still haven't found the actual Mexican legislation, but these seem to be the products they're taxing - high calorie foods that are made through secondary and tertiary processing.0 -
There we have it. A sugar tax is good, but it's not enough. If we want healthy people, we need a national system to help them. If we leave people alone to choose their own diets they won't choose wisely. They need help planning better.mskessler89 wrote: »Relevant: http://gazettereview.com/2016/07/study-mexicos-junk-food-tax-reveals-small-drop-purchases/
Mexico is defining junk food as food with more than 275 calories per 100g. The 8% tax has stopped poor households from buying the equivalent of a Snickers bar a day (quote from different article) and hasn't deterred wealthier households at all.
If I may ask, how old are you?
As science continues to evolve, popular opinion of what we see as healthy today might not be considered so in the future. With that in mind, I would like to present a situation:
I'm ASSUMING you are not currently eating a LCHF diet. This is a diet often high in saturated fats with as much as 90% of caloric intake coming from fat. While it is still a bit of a counter culture in the diet world, it has gained in popularity in the past few decades. Let's say a lot of the LCHF proponents make their way into government and get control of your card. Now your card stops working when you go to the store to buy grapes and directs you to buy bacon instead. Will you just blindly change your diet at that point in order to comply with your card?
This concept could be applied to whatever undesired diet may affect you.1 -
mskessler89 wrote: »
Of course you can buy in bulk. That was already covered. The troll thing is getting old, especially when combined with questions that were already answered and serve only to demonstrate the meed for something to help people who cannot understand things.Packerjohn wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »Human history shows sooner or later the masses find a way to cut their lives short one way or another. The trend will continue I expect for the masses. Living a long and fully functioning life is not taught early on when after a T-ball game McDonald's is the reward for success.
No I disagree. It's the reward for showing up.
While that is a problem for some areas, it's not really relevant to this topic. Unless of course, you are somehow tying it together via "I'm alive, therefore take care of me, no matter how terrible my choices are". In which case yeah, I could see your point.
I was just replying to a comment on how kids are being "trained". They get high calorie, low nutrition foods as a reward for showing up for an event. This perpetuates the cycle of more and more high calorie/low nutrition (i.e. junk) foods in the diet.
Maybe a tax on junk food would encourage parents to give kids apples and water after a game instead of a sugar laden "juice box" and cookies. Wouldn't that be a good way to encourage healthy habits?
It would, but a card would be better. Then nobody is buying giant amounts of junk food to give children. They'll have to find some healthy options to serve the kids or just eliminate group snacking as an activity which would be even better.
The card solves the problem and people won't complain about being taxed.
A tax is just a small step in the right direction. What we need is for people to take control of themselves and the card would teach them how to do that.
Again....so we can't buy in bulk....it's cheaper? How do you know all of this "junk food" is going to kids? What's a junk food and what isn't.....on your card? A specified list would be great.
When no one understands you, it means you're not explaining your concept clearly, not that we're stupid.
You're going on ignore for me today. Yesterday was a mildly entertaining diversion, but there's a real conversation to be had here and you're not contributing to it.
Yep. It's too bad, this was actually a frustrating but fun debate until one troll decided to take over and derail it.0 -
Of course you can buy in bulk. That was already covered. The troll thing is getting old, especially when combined with questions that were already answered and serve only to demonstrate the meed for something to help people who cannot understand things.Packerjohn wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »Human history shows sooner or later the masses find a way to cut their lives short one way or another. The trend will continue I expect for the masses. Living a long and fully functioning life is not taught early on when after a T-ball game McDonald's is the reward for success.
No I disagree. It's the reward for showing up.
While that is a problem for some areas, it's not really relevant to this topic. Unless of course, you are somehow tying it together via "I'm alive, therefore take care of me, no matter how terrible my choices are". In which case yeah, I could see your point.
I was just replying to a comment on how kids are being "trained". They get high calorie, low nutrition foods as a reward for showing up for an event. This perpetuates the cycle of more and more high calorie/low nutrition (i.e. junk) foods in the diet.
Maybe a tax on junk food would encourage parents to give kids apples and water after a game instead of a sugar laden "juice box" and cookies. Wouldn't that be a good way to encourage healthy habits?
It would, but a card would be better. Then nobody is buying giant amounts of junk food to give children. They'll have to find some healthy options to serve the kids or just eliminate group snacking as an activity which would be even better.
The card solves the problem and people won't complain about being taxed.
A tax is just a small step in the right direction. What we need is for people to take control of themselves and the card would teach them how to do that.
Again....so we can't buy in bulk....it's cheaper? How do you know all of this "junk food" is going to kids? What's a junk food and what isn't.....on your card? A specified list would be great.
How can we buy in bulk, but yet not by giant amounts...you're constant contradiction (to the point it sounds labored) is what's setting off everyone's troll detector. It's not that we can't understand it...you just make zero sense and are a walking contradiction that doesn't have a plan and is just making it up as you go along. Oh wait.....now I do get it.1 -
There we have it. A sugar tax is good, but it's not enough. If we want healthy people, we need a national system to help them. If we leave people alone to choose their own diets they won't choose wisely. They need help planning better.mskessler89 wrote: »Relevant: http://gazettereview.com/2016/07/study-mexicos-junk-food-tax-reveals-small-drop-purchases/
Mexico is defining junk food as food with more than 275 calories per 100g. The 8% tax has stopped poor households from buying the equivalent of a Snickers bar a day (quote from different article) and hasn't deterred wealthier households at all.
If I may ask, how old are you?
As science continues to evolve, popular opinion of what we see as healthy today might not be considered so in the future. With that in mind, I would like to present a situation:
I'm ASSUMING you are not currently eating a LCHF diet. This is a diet often high in saturated fats with as much as 90% of caloric intake coming from fat. While it is still a bit of a counter culture in the diet world, it has gained in popularity in the past few decades. Let's say a lot of the LCHF proponents make their way into government and get control of your card. Now your card stops working when you go to the store to buy grapes and directs you to buy bacon instead. Will you just blindly change your diet at that point in order to comply with your card?
This concept could be applied to whatever undesired diet may affect you.
@moe0303 I am glad you asked this. I am curious too! Her idea is naive.0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »This whole thread just makes me weep for America.
Me too.
Why? (Carlos just gave his answer, but I seem to recall you had a different viewpoint.) Is this still because people suggested that you would actually have to have a good definition of what would be taxed if you were proposing to add a tax?
Now that this card silliness has died down, I'd really love an answer to this question. 100df?
I wasn't ignoring you, I missed your post.
I am confident that most people know what junk food is. It's only some MFP members who fight about it. In real life everyone knows what junk food is. So when MFP members say it's impossible to define, I know that's ridiculous.
I think you were missing the point. Since I am one of the people who asked how junk food would be defined, I am 100% sure about that, in fact.
We are discussing a proposed law. In order to talk about the proposed law, one has to understand what the tax would cover, how it would work. If you really think it's possible to just tax "junk food" and say "well, everyone knows what junk food is" to retailers, I think you have a very different understanding of how law works than I do.
My point in asking how junk food would be defined is NOT to claim it can't be defined (anything can be defined, you just need a definition -- person can be defined as including corporations, for example, and I have zero issue with that, makes total sense in context). It is to understand what is being proposed here. For example, packerjohn has now said it's not really a tax on junk food, but one on added sugar. I had follow up questions (which I'd like answered), but that's a different type of tax than one on low nutrient products with high cals (which would be quite hard to define) or one on added fat (which I personally don't see as any less or more defensible than the sugar one). So we are taxing flavored yogurt in some way, but not potato chips. You may think it's obvious how we use definitions, but I think that result would fly in the face of how many think of junk food.My comment wasn't specifically about the tax. I am sad that some people think we don't have a problem with food and eating in this country.
Not everyone does. I'm not even sure if it's a "problem with food and eating." IMO, we have a problem with obesity that is more pronounced in some subcultures and areas than others, and which relates to the prevalence and easy access to cheap, high cal, convenience foods, as well as a culture that no longer seems to regulate how we eat in any significant way (outside of a few subcultures). I am always interested in talking about that, but I don't perceive someone having a different idea about it than me to be "sad." That seems patronizing.
No, we are not discussing a proposed law; we are discussing a proposed policy that might someday become a proposed platform resolution. There is an enormous difference between these. Those who don't understand the difference here seem to want to discuss formation of a proposed bill, which is still not the same as discussing a proposed law or even a proposed bill. Those of us who understand that we are discussing a policy idea that could eventually become a proposed platform resolution and then maybe get formed into a proposed bill, then an actual bill, and ultimately a law are aware that there is no need to discuss finer details. Yes, there is a benefit to discussing for the sake of gaining understanding of others positions on those details. This is exactly the place to seek that benefit, but don't misunderstand that we are discussing a proposed law... it is far from that.
That's where I am coming from.
Are there policymakers creeping the MFP forums for their next platform?0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »This whole thread just makes me weep for America.
Me too.
Why? (Carlos just gave his answer, but I seem to recall you had a different viewpoint.) Is this still because people suggested that you would actually have to have a good definition of what would be taxed if you were proposing to add a tax?
Now that this card silliness has died down, I'd really love an answer to this question. 100df?
I wasn't ignoring you, I missed your post.
I am confident that most people know what junk food is. It's only some MFP members who fight about it. In real life everyone knows what junk food is. So when MFP members say it's impossible to define, I know that's ridiculous.
I think you were missing the point. Since I am one of the people who asked how junk food would be defined, I am 100% sure about that, in fact.
We are discussing a proposed law. In order to talk about the proposed law, one has to understand what the tax would cover, how it would work. If you really think it's possible to just tax "junk food" and say "well, everyone knows what junk food is" to retailers, I think you have a very different understanding of how law works than I do.
My point in asking how junk food would be defined is NOT to claim it can't be defined (anything can be defined, you just need a definition -- person can be defined as including corporations, for example, and I have zero issue with that, makes total sense in context). It is to understand what is being proposed here. For example, packerjohn has now said it's not really a tax on junk food, but one on added sugar. I had follow up questions (which I'd like answered), but that's a different type of tax than one on low nutrient products with high cals (which would be quite hard to define) or one on added fat (which I personally don't see as any less or more defensible than the sugar one). So we are taxing flavored yogurt in some way, but not potato chips. You may think it's obvious how we use definitions, but I think that result would fly in the face of how many think of junk food.My comment wasn't specifically about the tax. I am sad that some people think we don't have a problem with food and eating in this country.
Not everyone does. I'm not even sure if it's a "problem with food and eating." IMO, we have a problem with obesity that is more pronounced in some subcultures and areas than others, and which relates to the prevalence and easy access to cheap, high cal, convenience foods, as well as a culture that no longer seems to regulate how we eat in any significant way (outside of a few subcultures). I am always interested in talking about that, but I don't perceive someone having a different idea about it than me to be "sad." That seems patronizing.
No, we are not discussing a proposed law; we are discussing a proposed policy that might someday become a proposed platform resolution. There is an enormous difference between these. Those who don't understand the difference here seem to want to discuss formation of a proposed bill, which is still not the same as discussing a proposed law or even a proposed bill. Those of us who understand that we are discussing a policy idea that could eventually become a proposed platform resolution and then maybe get formed into a proposed bill, then an actual bill, and ultimately a law are aware that there is no need to discuss finer details. Yes, there is a benefit to discussing for the sake of gaining understanding of others positions on those details. This is exactly the place to seek that benefit, but don't misunderstand that we are discussing a proposed law... it is far from that.midwesterner85 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »This whole thread just makes me weep for America.
Me too.
Why? (Carlos just gave his answer, but I seem to recall you had a different viewpoint.) Is this still because people suggested that you would actually have to have a good definition of what would be taxed if you were proposing to add a tax?
Now that this card silliness has died down, I'd really love an answer to this question. 100df?
I wasn't ignoring you, I missed your post.
I am confident that most people know what junk food is. It's only some MFP members who fight about it. In real life everyone knows what junk food is. So when MFP members say it's impossible to define, I know that's ridiculous.
I think you were missing the point. Since I am one of the people who asked how junk food would be defined, I am 100% sure about that, in fact.
We are discussing a proposed law. In order to talk about the proposed law, one has to understand what the tax would cover, how it would work. If you really think it's possible to just tax "junk food" and say "well, everyone knows what junk food is" to retailers, I think you have a very different understanding of how law works than I do.
My point in asking how junk food would be defined is NOT to claim it can't be defined (anything can be defined, you just need a definition -- person can be defined as including corporations, for example, and I have zero issue with that, makes total sense in context). It is to understand what is being proposed here. For example, packerjohn has now said it's not really a tax on junk food, but one on added sugar. I had follow up questions (which I'd like answered), but that's a different type of tax than one on low nutrient products with high cals (which would be quite hard to define) or one on added fat (which I personally don't see as any less or more defensible than the sugar one). So we are taxing flavored yogurt in some way, but not potato chips. You may think it's obvious how we use definitions, but I think that result would fly in the face of how many think of junk food.My comment wasn't specifically about the tax. I am sad that some people think we don't have a problem with food and eating in this country.
Not everyone does. I'm not even sure if it's a "problem with food and eating." IMO, we have a problem with obesity that is more pronounced in some subcultures and areas than others, and which relates to the prevalence and easy access to cheap, high cal, convenience foods, as well as a culture that no longer seems to regulate how we eat in any significant way (outside of a few subcultures). I am always interested in talking about that, but I don't perceive someone having a different idea about it than me to be "sad." That seems patronizing.
No, we are not discussing a proposed law; we are discussing a proposed policy that might someday become a proposed platform resolution. There is an enormous difference between these. Those who don't understand the difference here seem to want to discuss formation of a proposed bill, which is still not the same as discussing a proposed law or even a proposed bill. Those of us who understand that we are discussing a policy idea that could eventually become a proposed platform resolution and then maybe get formed into a proposed bill, then an actual bill, and ultimately a law are aware that there is no need to discuss finer details. Yes, there is a benefit to discussing for the sake of gaining understanding of others positions on those details. This is exactly the place to seek that benefit, but don't misunderstand that we are discussing a proposed law... it is far from that.
That's where I am coming from.
Are there policymakers creeping the MFP forums for their next platform?
I would guess that there are at least some on the forums, though not sure they would use this for that purpose. I do know that we are not discussing a proposed law, but an idea. The person I replied to said otherwise.
ETA: I'm involved with writing platforms and have been for years, but am not using this debate for that purpose.0 -
possibly should be banned... but no, not taxed. We have enough to worry about financially and people do have the right to eat badly if they choose to.0
-
reducinglisa wrote: »possibly should be banned... but no, not taxed. We have enough to worry about financially and people do have the right to eat badly if they choose to.
lol1 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »No, we are not discussing a proposed law; we are discussing a proposed policy that might someday become a proposed platform resolution.
To discuss policy, as well as to discuss law, you have to identify and define the proposed policy solution. You see that here: someone is saying "oh, it's OBVIOUS what junk food is" whereas the actual proposal packerjohn is making is about added sugar, so would leave out some things normally considered junk food, while including others that normally are not. There are also a variety of different policies worldwhile. So it is essentially that anyone trying to convince others that a policy is a good idea DEFINE what that policy is.
It's not "oh, it's obvious, anyone who claims otherwise obviously does not care about health" as--IMO--has been asserted, falsely.Those who don't understand the difference here seem to want to discuss formation of a proposed bill, which is still not the same as discussing a proposed law or even a proposed bill.
I understand the difference perfectly well. I am a lawyer. It is still necessary to demonstrate how the policy would work -- questions such as how would the tax apply? Above a particular amount, per gram, per percentage, per serving, what? As someone considering such a proposal in my own state (hypothetically) all of these would make a difference.4 -
reducinglisa wrote: »possibly should be banned... but no, not taxed. We have enough to worry about financially and people do have the right to eat badly if they choose to.
Banning? You know prohibition was a complete failure2 -
@lemurcat12 too long to quote you on my phone...
I don't know if the answer is a junk food tax. It's a discussion on the forum. It's an idea. I missed your follow up questions and do not feel obligated to go back.
Everyone does not have an obesity problem. That doesn't mean society as a whole can't help the ones that do. If the statistics are correct about obesity related illnesses in the future it seems that society would be better off doing something to help the situation.
I find it odd that you perceive the tax as helping those with an obesity problem. Seems terribly patronizing.
I think it perhaps helps the societal problem, but someone with an obesity problem who eats these foods (not all do -- it wouldn't have affected me much at all) would actually be negatively affected for the most part. It's a tax on eating high cal foods. If one doesn't want to eat them, seems weird to say you need a tax to stop. Just stop.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »No, we are not discussing a proposed law; we are discussing a proposed policy that might someday become a proposed platform resolution.
To discuss policy, as well as to discuss law, you have to identify and define the proposed policy solution. You see that here: someone is saying "oh, it's OBVIOUS what junk food is" whereas the actual proposal packerjohn is making is about added sugar, so would leave out some things normally considered junk food, while including others that normally are not. There are also a variety of different policies worldwhile. So it is essentially that anyone trying to convince others that a policy is a good idea DEFINE what that policy is.
It's not "oh, it's obvious, anyone who claims otherwise obviously does not care about health" as--IMO--has been asserted, falsely.Those who don't understand the difference here seem to want to discuss formation of a proposed bill, which is still not the same as discussing a proposed law or even a proposed bill.
I understand the difference perfectly well. I am a lawyer. It is still necessary to demonstrate how the policy would work -- questions such as how would the tax apply? Above a particular amount, per gram, per percentage, per serving, what? As someone considering such a proposal in my own state (hypothetically) all of these would make a difference.
The level of detail being requested by some is not necessary at this stage. It is definitely important when it gets to a proposed bill; but looking for a list of specific food items, for example, is well beyond the detail ever necessary or valuable at the "idea" level.
ETA: I do believe that some of the details are relevant for a policy discussion, but this is not discussing a proposed law, as you claimed. As a lawyer, you really should have known we are not discussing an actual bill, so the question of what is contained in that bill is ridiculous.0 -
Here's the actual study on the Mexican junk food tax:
http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1002057To prevent continued increases in obesity and diabetes, in January 2014, the Mexican government implemented a 1 peso-per-liter tax on SSBs (equivalent to approximately 10% tax) and an 8% tax on nonessential foods with energy density ≥275 kcal/100 g. In Mexico, total prices including the tax price are included on the shelf label, so the price consumers see includes the tax. The law defined nonessential foods in the following categories: chips and snacks, candies and sweets, chocolate, puddings, peanut and hazelnut butters, ice cream and ice pops, and cereal-based products with substantial added sugar.For the first full year after Mexico’s taxes on SSBs and nonessential energy-dense food taxes, we find significant changes in the observed per capita volume of household purchases of taxed foods compared to the counterfactual (i.e., what was expected based on pre-tax trends). Overall, we find that taxed foods declined by 25 g/capita/month (-5.1%), whereas untaxed food purchases did not change (-0.3%). Moreover, we find much larger declines for lower SES households (-10.2%), whereas medium SES households changed by 5.8% and high SES households did not change.A great complexity of implementing a food tax is to define the characteristics of the foods subject to it. If only selected unhealthy foods are taxed, individuals can substitute with other unhealthy untaxed foods; on the other hand, if the tax categorization is too broad, many relatively healthy products will also be affected, increasing the cost of food without the public health benefit [24,25]. Overall, this tax successfully targeted unhealthy foods, as it focused on processed foods and did not disincentive traditional cooking ingredients such as sugar and fats (a criticism the Danish fat tax has received) [26]. However, the use of a single energy-dense cut-point in the Mexican tax without other nutritional attributes left out foods that are otherwise considered unhealthy (e.g., most ice creams were untaxed), whereas foods like peanuts and nuts were taxed. Moreover, sorting products out into “essential” versus “nonessential” is an iterative process, and throughout 2014 there were clarifications on the initial law ambiguities, representing about 2.3% of all products (see S2 Table). In contrast, new Chilean controls on food marketing that will go into effect July 1, 2016, uses as a cutoff not only energy but also sodium, saturated fat, and total sugar for foods and beverages separately [27]. An additional complexity of analyzing the Mexican tax is that each producer interprets the law and determines the total amount they have to pay (without reporting for which products they are paying). Thus, we cannot be certain which exact products were actually taxed.0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »No, we are not discussing a proposed law; we are discussing a proposed policy that might someday become a proposed platform resolution.
To discuss policy, as well as to discuss law, you have to identify and define the proposed policy solution. You see that here: someone is saying "oh, it's OBVIOUS what junk food is" whereas the actual proposal packerjohn is making is about added sugar, so would leave out some things normally considered junk food, while including others that normally are not. There are also a variety of different policies worldwhile. So it is essentially that anyone trying to convince others that a policy is a good idea DEFINE what that policy is.
It's not "oh, it's obvious, anyone who claims otherwise obviously does not care about health" as--IMO--has been asserted, falsely.Those who don't understand the difference here seem to want to discuss formation of a proposed bill, which is still not the same as discussing a proposed law or even a proposed bill.
I understand the difference perfectly well. I am a lawyer. It is still necessary to demonstrate how the policy would work -- questions such as how would the tax apply? Above a particular amount, per gram, per percentage, per serving, what? As someone considering such a proposal in my own state (hypothetically) all of these would make a difference.
The level of detail being requested by some is not necessary at this stage. It is definitely important when it gets to a proposed bill; but looking for a list of specific food items, for example, is well beyond the detail ever necessary or valuable at the "idea" level.
People are asking for that level of detail to make the point that the idea itself is unrealistic and problematic. They are saying it is impossible to truly define specific foods or ingredients that across the board make people obese, because quantity is the one important factor, not the specific foods. It's a debate strategy, and this is a debate.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »@lemurcat12 too long to quote you on my phone...
I don't know if the answer is a junk food tax. It's a discussion on the forum. It's an idea. I missed your follow up questions and do not feel obligated to go back.
Everyone does not have an obesity problem. That doesn't mean society as a whole can't help the ones that do. If the statistics are correct about obesity related illnesses in the future it seems that society would be better off doing something to help the situation.
I find it odd that you perceive the tax as helping those with an obesity problem. Seems terribly patronizing.
I think it perhaps helps the societal problem, but someone with an obesity problem who eats these foods (not all do -- it wouldn't have affected me much at all) would actually be negatively affected for the most part. It's a tax on eating high cal foods. If one doesn't want to eat them, seems weird to say you need a tax to stop. Just stop.
Education about nutrition and CICO would help the situation. That will cost money. A tax on junk food could cover that. I am not 100% sure that a tax is the answer. I am not picketing the White House or putting a petition up on change.org for a junk food tax. I am discussing the idea on a forum.
I have not said anything patronizing or condescending.0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »No, we are not discussing a proposed law; we are discussing a proposed policy that might someday become a proposed platform resolution.
To discuss policy, as well as to discuss law, you have to identify and define the proposed policy solution. You see that here: someone is saying "oh, it's OBVIOUS what junk food is" whereas the actual proposal packerjohn is making is about added sugar, so would leave out some things normally considered junk food, while including others that normally are not. There are also a variety of different policies worldwhile. So it is essentially that anyone trying to convince others that a policy is a good idea DEFINE what that policy is.
It's not "oh, it's obvious, anyone who claims otherwise obviously does not care about health" as--IMO--has been asserted, falsely.Those who don't understand the difference here seem to want to discuss formation of a proposed bill, which is still not the same as discussing a proposed law or even a proposed bill.
I understand the difference perfectly well. I am a lawyer. It is still necessary to demonstrate how the policy would work -- questions such as how would the tax apply? Above a particular amount, per gram, per percentage, per serving, what? As someone considering such a proposal in my own state (hypothetically) all of these would make a difference.
The level of detail being requested by some is not necessary at this stage. It is definitely important when it gets to a proposed bill; but looking for a list of specific food items, for example, is well beyond the detail ever necessary or valuable at the "idea" level.
People are asking for that level of detail to make the point that the idea itself is unrealistic and problematic. They are saying it is impossible to truly define specific foods or ingredients that across the board make people obese, because quantity is the one important factor, not the specific foods. It's a debate strategy, and this is a debate.
It is possible to define what would be included in such a tax, but some won't like that definition. The question at this point, though, is more broad than how to define what foods need to be included in order to make the policy into law. The debate is whether the policy is acceptable at all. The debate strategy to distract from the idea to jump ahead into the details is, well... a distraction.0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »
None, yes, doesn't apply, doesn't apply.stephanieluvspb wrote: »So @Zipp237, how much of my money will be put on this card? Does everyone get the same amount? If I use all the money on my card before it gets refilled, do I just starve? Will the goverment take the rest of my paycheck and tell me what to do with it?
Wait, so the healthy food allowance isn't even our own money? And everyone has the same amount, regardless of income? Where does the money come from?stephanieluvspb wrote: »
None, yes, doesn't apply, doesn't apply.stephanieluvspb wrote: »So @Zipp237, how much of my money will be put on this card? Does everyone get the same amount? If I use all the money on my card before it gets refilled, do I just starve? Will the goverment take the rest of my paycheck and tell me what to do with it?
So where is the money coming from?
Who said anything about money? No offense, but these kind of questions illustrate the need for something like a Healthy USA Food Program. People just don't understand what is explained to them and need help. A card would do that. Nobody would have to understand what was explained, the card would just work. If you've used up your junk food allotment, no more junk food. No thinking required. The receipts could even make suggestions, like "How about some grapes?" It could be intuitive based on things you've purchased before, suggesting items that you like instead of more Oreos.
Now this has gotten absolutely ridiculous. There is no way that you have such a fundamental lack of understanding of how basic economics works. Everyone gets the same amount on their cars, but no payment is rendered to the food providers? No one needs to understand how it works it just works? Even my 5 year old understands that food costs money, and when told he can't have something, he wants to understand why and asks limitless questions.
I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt yesterday and probe to better understand the concept you were proposing as well as see if you even understand it... Today, I'm convinced like others that you are trolling. Especially since every time someone suggests that is what is going on you insist that our questions support the need for such a ludicrously flawed system...2 -
reducinglisa wrote: »possibly should be banned... but no, not taxed. We have enough to worry about financially and people do have the right to eat badly if they choose to.
People have the right to eat it, but it should probably be banned?1 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »No, we are not discussing a proposed law; we are discussing a proposed policy that might someday become a proposed platform resolution.
To discuss policy, as well as to discuss law, you have to identify and define the proposed policy solution. You see that here: someone is saying "oh, it's OBVIOUS what junk food is" whereas the actual proposal packerjohn is making is about added sugar, so would leave out some things normally considered junk food, while including others that normally are not. There are also a variety of different policies worldwhile. So it is essentially that anyone trying to convince others that a policy is a good idea DEFINE what that policy is.
It's not "oh, it's obvious, anyone who claims otherwise obviously does not care about health" as--IMO--has been asserted, falsely.Those who don't understand the difference here seem to want to discuss formation of a proposed bill, which is still not the same as discussing a proposed law or even a proposed bill.
I understand the difference perfectly well. I am a lawyer. It is still necessary to demonstrate how the policy would work -- questions such as how would the tax apply? Above a particular amount, per gram, per percentage, per serving, what? As someone considering such a proposal in my own state (hypothetically) all of these would make a difference.
The level of detail being requested by some is not necessary at this stage. It is definitely important when it gets to a proposed bill; but looking for a list of specific food items, for example, is well beyond the detail ever necessary or valuable at the "idea" level.
People are asking for that level of detail to make the point that the idea itself is unrealistic and problematic. They are saying it is impossible to truly define specific foods or ingredients that across the board make people obese, because quantity is the one important factor, not the specific foods. It's a debate strategy, and this is a debate.
It is possible to define what would be included in such a tax, but some won't like that definition. The question at this point, though, is more broad than how to define what foods need to be included in order to make the policy into law. The debate is whether the policy is acceptable at all. The debate strategy to distract from the idea to jump ahead into the details is, well... a distraction.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree, I think the ability to define the foods is imperative to the debate on whether or not the policy is acceptable!
I kind of feel like we have all beat this debate to death anyway :drinker:3 -
-
janejellyroll wrote: »reducinglisa wrote: »possibly should be banned... but no, not taxed. We have enough to worry about financially and people do have the right to eat badly if they choose to.
People have the right to eat it, but it should probably be banned?
No. I just meant it in jest.
2 -
this thread has gone into loony tune land....2
-
queenliz99 wrote: »reducinglisa wrote: »possibly should be banned... but no, not taxed. We have enough to worry about financially and people do have the right to eat badly if they choose to.
Banning? You know prohibition was a complete failure
I just meant it in jest.
I'll stay out of it....1 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »No, we are not discussing a proposed law; we are discussing a proposed policy that might someday become a proposed platform resolution.
To discuss policy, as well as to discuss law, you have to identify and define the proposed policy solution. You see that here: someone is saying "oh, it's OBVIOUS what junk food is" whereas the actual proposal packerjohn is making is about added sugar, so would leave out some things normally considered junk food, while including others that normally are not. There are also a variety of different policies worldwhile. So it is essentially that anyone trying to convince others that a policy is a good idea DEFINE what that policy is.
It's not "oh, it's obvious, anyone who claims otherwise obviously does not care about health" as--IMO--has been asserted, falsely.Those who don't understand the difference here seem to want to discuss formation of a proposed bill, which is still not the same as discussing a proposed law or even a proposed bill.
I understand the difference perfectly well. I am a lawyer. It is still necessary to demonstrate how the policy would work -- questions such as how would the tax apply? Above a particular amount, per gram, per percentage, per serving, what? As someone considering such a proposal in my own state (hypothetically) all of these would make a difference.
The level of detail being requested by some is not necessary at this stage. It is definitely important when it gets to a proposed bill; but looking for a list of specific food items, for example, is well beyond the detail ever necessary or valuable at the "idea" level.
People are asking for that level of detail to make the point that the idea itself is unrealistic and problematic. They are saying it is impossible to truly define specific foods or ingredients that across the board make people obese, because quantity is the one important factor, not the specific foods. It's a debate strategy, and this is a debate.
It is possible to define what would be included in such a tax, but some won't like that definition. The question at this point, though, is more broad than how to define what foods need to be included in order to make the policy into law. The debate is whether the policy is acceptable at all. The debate strategy to distract from the idea to jump ahead into the details is, well... a distraction.
Defining what junk food is and how it would be taxed is critical to my opinion on whether it's a good policy or not. I'm not inherently opposed to taxes, but I'm strongly opposed to stupid ones. If we define junk food as primarily HFCS-based, we could accomplish a price hike by reducing corn subsidies. If we define junk food as Mexico has, nuts are taxed, and nuts are already very expensive. If we define it as ultra-processed foods, I have fewer objections, but I have concerns about how you prevent manufacturers from redistributing costs. And overall, can we show stats of obese groups eating foods within our junk food definition that would be impacted enough by the tax to stop eating them? If poor people can no longer afford pizza, what do they replace it with? These are things I want to know before I'm strongly for or against a tax.1 -
-
reducinglisa wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »reducinglisa wrote: »possibly should be banned... but no, not taxed. We have enough to worry about financially and people do have the right to eat badly if they choose to.
Banning? You know prohibition was a complete failure
I just meant it in jest.
I'll stay out of it....
This thread has blurred the lines of jest and just insane.0 -
Nobody has said that the food had to be provided. *Sigh.* Another example of people not understanding, demonstrating the need for a food system. People still but their food and make their choices. The card is just a guide to stop them from making bad choices.Packerjohn wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »
None, yes, doesn't apply, doesn't apply.stephanieluvspb wrote: »So @Zipp237, how much of my money will be put on this card? Does everyone get the same amount? If I use all the money on my card before it gets refilled, do I just starve? Will the goverment take the rest of my paycheck and tell me what to do with it?
Wait, so the healthy food allowance isn't even our own money? And everyone has the same amount, regardless of income? Where does the money come from?stephanieluvspb wrote: »
None, yes, doesn't apply, doesn't apply.stephanieluvspb wrote: »So @Zipp237, how much of my money will be put on this card? Does everyone get the same amount? If I use all the money on my card before it gets refilled, do I just starve? Will the goverment take the rest of my paycheck and tell me what to do with it?
So where is the money coming from?
Who said anything about money? No offense, but these kind of questions illustrate the need for something like a Healthy USA Food Program. People just don't understand what is explained to them and need help. A card would do that. Nobody would have to understand what was explained, the card would just work. If you've used up your junk food allotment, no more junk food. No thinking required. The receipts could even make suggestions, like "How about some grapes?" It could be intuitive based on things you've purchased before, suggesting items that you like instead of more Oreos.
Sorry, money is the first thing that needs to be addressed. How would this be funded? Nobody would provide the food, the administrative costs, etc of something like this for free.
Any small cost associated with writing programs to load on the cards and mailing them out would be offset by a junk food tax. It would create jobs for those working on the system.
Your inability to explain things =/= people not being able to grasp what you think is an easy concept. The questions are for clarification because your lack of details is impeding the message.3 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »No, we are not discussing a proposed law; we are discussing a proposed policy that might someday become a proposed platform resolution.
To discuss policy, as well as to discuss law, you have to identify and define the proposed policy solution. You see that here: someone is saying "oh, it's OBVIOUS what junk food is" whereas the actual proposal packerjohn is making is about added sugar, so would leave out some things normally considered junk food, while including others that normally are not. There are also a variety of different policies worldwhile. So it is essentially that anyone trying to convince others that a policy is a good idea DEFINE what that policy is.
It's not "oh, it's obvious, anyone who claims otherwise obviously does not care about health" as--IMO--has been asserted, falsely.Those who don't understand the difference here seem to want to discuss formation of a proposed bill, which is still not the same as discussing a proposed law or even a proposed bill.
I understand the difference perfectly well. I am a lawyer. It is still necessary to demonstrate how the policy would work -- questions such as how would the tax apply? Above a particular amount, per gram, per percentage, per serving, what? As someone considering such a proposal in my own state (hypothetically) all of these would make a difference.
The level of detail being requested by some is not necessary at this stage. It is definitely important when it gets to a proposed bill; but looking for a list of specific food items, for example, is well beyond the detail ever necessary or valuable at the "idea" level.
ETA: I do believe that some of the details are relevant for a policy discussion, but this is not discussing a proposed law, as you claimed. As a lawyer, you really should have known we are not discussing an actual bill, so the question of what is contained in that bill is ridiculous.
Since you seem not to have followed this particular exchange, let me refresh you:
(1) I (and some others) said that in order to consider the proposal we'd have to understand what is going to be taxed. Not as in the specific foods, but as in what is the general idea, how will it apply? Calories, nutrients, processing, fat, sugar, what? When you say tax junk food, what are you taxing, it could be a number of things.
(2) 100df: "everyone knows what junk food is, that's a dumb question and you are just pretending not to understand the proposal because you hate health." (Yeah, I'm paraphrasing for effect, but I felt that she was being intentionally insulting.)
(3) Me: I cannot tell you whether I would consider or agree with a particular policy without knowing what it involves. I don't know enough from "let's tax junk food." How much? How are we going to define junk food. And it's insulting and ridiculous to claim that everyone knows what junk food is: any law is going to require a definition, obviously.
(4) Packerjohn: I want to tax added sugar.
(5) Me: great! That's a wonderful start at answering the question--a few other things I'd want to know to understand how it would work is how the tax is applied. Over a certain amount of added sugar only? By percentage? By gram? If by gram, on the whole package or serving? Do we care that this might put the tax on ketchup or flavored yogurt and not chips?
That's the point -- I do not think my questions are unnecessary to address now. I think they go to the heart of the policy. (And so does the Atlantic piece I quoted.) Saying "let's tax junk food"! and responding to questions about what criteria would be used to define how to apply the tax is like saying "let's seal the borders" and refusing to explain the policies you'd use. But again, what I took offense to was that these are not important or sincere questions and that asking them shows the terrible state of the world, since apparently anyone who would ask is an idiot who doesn't understand nutrition. IMO, objecting to questions like these is what is anti-discussion and demogogic. Look, all that matters is that we be against obesity! I am for a tax against obesity, and if you don't agree and ask questions, you must be pro obesity! Time to make America thin again!
Edit: for the record, of course I was not asking what would be in the bill as a whole. You know as well as I that that would be EXTREMELY complicated. I was asking about basic provisions. The point of bringing up the bill is that the idea that asking for how something would be defined when we are supposedly talking about something that would become a law eventually (or such was my understanding) is that of course you have to be able to define it. Saying "everyone knows what junk food is" is not a good answer and was, again, an intentional, rude insult by the person who said it, when I think asking what the proposal would cover (something that would have to be decides) is an important and rather basic question.2
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions