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
-
This content has been removed.
-
I guess the question is would we agree to tax it if there is impact on obesity / weight? The link isn't particularly strong, despite people's opinions.
From pure correlation, if we want people to lose weight, we should be subsidizing soda, sweat snacks, and salty snacks. Sweat snacks in particular.
Wouldn't a sweat snack be a salty snack? I try to avoid sweat snacks in general though.5 -
singingflutelady wrote: »I guess the question is would we agree to tax it if there is impact on obesity / weight? The link isn't particularly strong, despite people's opinions.
From pure correlation, if we want people to lose weight, we should be subsidizing soda, sweat snacks, and salty snacks. Sweat snacks in particular.
foodpsychology.cornell.edu/discoveries/junk-food-blame
Though it does say for 95% of Americans there is no relationship between eating those foods and BMI
Yes, but the thing they're most linked to - if anything - is underweight, rather than overweight. So move away from being overweight to being normal weight by eating more sweat and salty snacks, but stop before you hit underweight. Makes sense, doesn't it?
I found that odd too0 -
Oh they also never clarified if that is soda in general or just regular soda as I know lots of underweight people who drink tons of diet pop0
-
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
peaceout_aly wrote: »What are your thoughts?
As a total fitness and health buff, my answer is YES. Although, "junk" could be defined in all different ways. Let's start with McDonald's, Little Debbie cakes and that sort of stuff. It would significantly decrease the level of obesity in our country. Go to Croatia, Denmark, Stockholm...no one is obese and it seems like it has a little something to do with their non-fast-food and junk food based diets.
Which method has better results - negative or positive reinforcement?
Instead of taxing junk food, provide incentives for positive behavior. Setup an achievement system which rewards through tax deductions.
Can I claim both the six pack credit and the 5k deduction or do I have to choose one or the other?1 -
singingflutelady wrote: »I can also name many non obese people who eat "junk food". Junk food isn't the problem
Just like you can name many people that drink alcohol (which has an excise tax in the US) but are not alcoholics
0 -
Russellb97 wrote: »peaceout_aly wrote: »What are your thoughts?
As a total fitness and health buff, my answer is YES. Although, "junk" could be defined in all different ways. Let's start with McDonald's, Little Debbie cakes and that sort of stuff. It would significantly decrease the level of obesity in our country. Go to Croatia, Denmark, Stockholm...no one is obese and it seems like it has a little something to do with their non-fast-food and junk food based diets.
Which method has better results - negative or positive reinforcement?
Instead of taxing junk food, provide incentives for positive behavior. Setup an achievement system which rewards through tax deductions.
I agree! And quit subsidizing large corn manufacturers and instead subsidize produce sold at local farmer markets.
This will naturally make the cost of processed food go up and local produce go down without labeling "good" and "bad"
While local farmers markets are great the is now way they can provide enough food for a city.0 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »A tax on junk food would end up being a tax on the poor and I can't support that.
So the poor need soda to survive?1 -
cmriverside wrote: »I guess that doesn't answer.
heh. Sure, tax 'em! I"m not buying them anyway. Grrr.
Ok, so what makes it junk food? Let's say they tax because of sugar content. Well, where does it stop? Do you want them taxing your juice? Or your fruit? Because, well, sugar.
Ok, tax because of fat content? So that can then lead to peanut butter being taxed. Almond butter. Avocado. Nuts in general. Who makes the decisions?6 -
The problem is the government gives money (subsidies) to the people who grow the ingredients for junk food - corn and corn syrup being one of the worst. Stop farm subsidies!4
-
This content has been removed.
-
Like someone else already said, Define Junk. Considering people on here, which have similar ideas based on being health conscious, cannot agree, do we think a bunch of attorneys are? Some people might say Milk is junk due to the amount of sugar some forms contain, others are probably scratching their head at that, thinking I am crazy throwing that out there.
Not to mention some counties, cities and districts already do.1 -
And isn't NY City currently trying to pass a tax on Soda. I think it was something like 5 cents per ounce. (Despite the fact that 5 cents would more than double (Triple in some cases) the cost.
0 -
cmriverside wrote: »I guess that doesn't answer.
heh. Sure, tax 'em! I"m not buying them anyway. Grrr.
Ok, so what makes it junk food? Let's say they tax because of sugar content. Well, where does it stop? Do you want them taxing your juice? Or your fruit? Because, well, sugar.
Ok, tax because of fat content? So that can then lead to peanut butter being taxed. Almond butter. Avocado. Nuts in general. Who makes the decisions?
High five!!
https://youtu.be/y8OgkjcW0g4 1 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »peaceout_aly wrote: »What are your thoughts?
As a total fitness and health buff, my answer is YES. Although, "junk" could be defined in all different ways. Let's start with McDonald's, Little Debbie cakes and that sort of stuff. It would significantly decrease the level of obesity in our country. Go to Croatia, Denmark, Stockholm...no one is obese and it seems like it has a little something to do with their non-fast-food and junk food based diets.
Which method has better results - negative or positive reinforcement?
Instead of taxing junk food, provide incentives for positive behavior. Setup an achievement system which rewards through tax deductions.
Can I claim both the six pack credit and the 5k deduction or do I have to choose one or the other?
If you want to claim the six pack you have to send pictures!0 -
Soccermavrick wrote: »And isn't NY City currently trying to pass a tax on Soda. I think it was something like 5 cents per ounce. (Despite the fact that 5 cents would more than double (Triple in some cases) the cost.
Philadelphia passed one, 1.5 cents per ounce, but on distributors, so not all will necessarily be passed on. Applies to sugar-sweetened and diet beverages, not sure of the exact definition.0 -
singingflutelady wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »I guess the question is would we agree to tax it if there is impact on obesity / weight? The link isn't particularly strong, despite people's opinions.
From pure correlation, if we want people to lose weight, we should be subsidizing soda, sweat snacks, and salty snacks. Sweat snacks in particular.
foodpsychology.cornell.edu/discoveries/junk-food-blame
Though it does say for 95% of Americans there is no relationship between eating those foods and BMI
Yes, but the thing they're most linked to - if anything - is underweight, rather than overweight. So move away from being overweight to being normal weight by eating more sweat and salty snacks, but stop before you hit underweight. Makes sense, doesn't it?
I found that odd too
A couple of thoughts;
1. Underweight people don't have a messed up RMR from years of dieting like us and so can eat more.
2. In the past when I'd restrict the foods I craved, I would often eat several "healthy" things trying satisfy my craving and ate more calories than if I just had the darn donut to begin with.
2 -
Russellb97 wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »I guess the question is would we agree to tax it if there is impact on obesity / weight? The link isn't particularly strong, despite people's opinions.
From pure correlation, if we want people to lose weight, we should be subsidizing soda, sweat snacks, and salty snacks. Sweat snacks in particular.
foodpsychology.cornell.edu/discoveries/junk-food-blame
Though it does say for 95% of Americans there is no relationship between eating those foods and BMI
Yes, but the thing they're most linked to - if anything - is underweight, rather than overweight. So move away from being overweight to being normal weight by eating more sweat and salty snacks, but stop before you hit underweight. Makes sense, doesn't it?
I found that odd too
A couple of thoughts;
1. Underweight people don't have a messed up RMR from years of dieting like us and so can eat more.
2. In the past when I'd restrict the foods I craved, I would often eat several "healthy" things trying satisfy my craving and ate more calories than if I just had the darn donut to begin with.
Most under weight people have lower RMR than overweight people. It's quite difficult to maintain underweight status. I'm normal weight (bmi20) and my bmr is 1300 which isn't super high and i have to eat less calories to maintain than someone who weighs more than me. Bmr lowers as your weight lowers. I don't know why you think underweight eat more than overweight?
1 -
You can have my cupcakes when you pry them from my cold, dead hands. Give me tax free Cheetos, or give me death!!! Ok. We're done here.1
-
singingflutelady wrote: »Russellb97 wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »I guess the question is would we agree to tax it if there is impact on obesity / weight? The link isn't particularly strong, despite people's opinions.
From pure correlation, if we want people to lose weight, we should be subsidizing soda, sweat snacks, and salty snacks. Sweat snacks in particular.
foodpsychology.cornell.edu/discoveries/junk-food-blame
Though it does say for 95% of Americans there is no relationship between eating those foods and BMI
Yes, but the thing they're most linked to - if anything - is underweight, rather than overweight. So move away from being overweight to being normal weight by eating more sweat and salty snacks, but stop before you hit underweight. Makes sense, doesn't it?
I found that odd too
A couple of thoughts;
1. Underweight people don't have a messed up RMR from years of dieting like us and so can eat more.
2. In the past when I'd restrict the foods I craved, I would often eat several "healthy" things trying satisfy my craving and ate more calories than if I just had the darn donut to begin with.
Most under weight people have lower RMR than overweight people. It's quite difficult to maintain underweight status. I'm normal weight (bmi20) and my bmr is 1300 which isn't super high and i have to eat less calories to maintain than someone who weighs more than me. Bmr lowers as your weight lowers. I don't know why you think underweight eat more than overweight?
Well on paper they should but total weight isn't as important as LBM for RMR and also many studies have shown that dieting can drop RMR far beyond was predicted with weight loss and can stay damaged even after the weight has come back.
I eat more calories in an average week now at 200lbs and maintaining then 13 years ago when I was 300lbs and gaining.
In fact I never adjusted down my calorie goals which I originally based on my RMR at 300lbs.0 -
Russellb97 wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »Russellb97 wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »I guess the question is would we agree to tax it if there is impact on obesity / weight? The link isn't particularly strong, despite people's opinions.
From pure correlation, if we want people to lose weight, we should be subsidizing soda, sweat snacks, and salty snacks. Sweat snacks in particular.
foodpsychology.cornell.edu/discoveries/junk-food-blame
Though it does say for 95% of Americans there is no relationship between eating those foods and BMI
Yes, but the thing they're most linked to - if anything - is underweight, rather than overweight. So move away from being overweight to being normal weight by eating more sweat and salty snacks, but stop before you hit underweight. Makes sense, doesn't it?
I found that odd too
A couple of thoughts;
1. Underweight people don't have a messed up RMR from years of dieting like us and so can eat more.
2. In the past when I'd restrict the foods I craved, I would often eat several "healthy" things trying satisfy my craving and ate more calories than if I just had the darn donut to begin with.
Most under weight people have lower RMR than overweight people. It's quite difficult to maintain underweight status. I'm normal weight (bmi20) and my bmr is 1300 which isn't super high and i have to eat less calories to maintain than someone who weighs more than me. Bmr lowers as your weight lowers. I don't know why you think underweight eat more than overweight?
Well on paper they should but total weight isn't as important as LBM for RMR and also many studies have shown that dieting can drop RMR far beyond was predicted with weight loss and can stay damaged even after the weight has come back.
I eat more calories in an average week now at 200lbs and maintaining then 13 years ago when I was 300lbs and gaining.
In fact I never adjusted down my calorie goals which I originally based on my RMR at 300lbs.
Metabolic damage like that isn't typical and has really only been demonstrated in cases of extreme (and rapid) weight loss the likes of what is seen on Biggest Loser.0 -
Soccermavrick wrote: »Like someone else already said, Define Junk. Considering people on here, which have similar ideas based on being health conscious, cannot agree, do we think a bunch of attorneys are? Some people might say Milk is junk due to the amount of sugar some forms contain, others are probably scratching their head at that, thinking I am crazy throwing that out there.
Not to mention some counties, cities and districts already do.
Whether you want to tax it or not, I'd say most dietitians and the general public if they were being honest could agree most of the items in the soda, chips, cookies and frozen dessert area of a typical grocery store would be considered high calorie, low nutrient (i.e., junk) food.0 -
But they are also very usual for some things. One of the best ways to stop diarrhea without drugs are chips and marshmallows so used in that context they are not junk, they are very good.0
-
Taxation is theft.6
-
This content has been removed.
-
No. No consumable should be taxed. Ever.1
-
Short answer: NO!
Penn and Teller explain it well: https://tune.pk/video/1347111/penn-amp-teller-*kitten*-series-8-episode-2-fast-food3 -
I would personally love to see a shift in the way foods are marketed at Children, the brainwashing psychology that sees many kids pleading with parents to purchase foods loaded with salt, sugar and saturated fats just because they have seen a well loved character selling the product manipulatively.
Adults can make informed decisions, sure some of us emotionally eat because our parents pacified us with foods and yes it could be argued that parents could simply say no, but even the most healthiest looking treat can be loaded with hidden nastiness and some guardians lacking nutritional insight or willpower purchase the foodstuffs anyway as it is convenient for them. Children like my nephew will binge on foods outlawed at home whenever out of the care of parents, friends are always willing enablers and don’t get me started about some Grandparents. (MUM!!!)
If food labeling was more transparent and advertising less aggressive I feel that future generations might be spared some serious ills. In Australia few schools implement a traffic light systemthat helps parents understand nutrition by encouraging a healthy variety of food groups to be consumed: heas.health.vic.gov.au/healthy-choices/guidelines/traffic-light-system
IMO Governments would do best overhauling allowable levels of "junk" ingredients which includes food additives, they in my opinion are the evilest form of non-nutritive junk! Food additives, some known carcinogens are surely worse than natural ingredients consumed in excess?
Taxes are not always the solution, here we pay goods and services tax and if the "junk" were to be taxed further the consumer would pay. So I pose if there was a tax that the manufacturer bears the brunt from profits of foods containing said ingredients.
As others have said before me, the cash would have to be in trust and only spent to promote healthful living however that is defined as it is a matter of perspectives. Covering the cost of the medical needs of those impacted would be difficult to measure and I am left wondering...Would it be exploited?0
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