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?
Options
Replies
-
Carlos_421 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »
70% of the US population is overweight or obese, taxing the heathcare system (especially the 30% that are obese). I'm all for personal responsibility, but how's the take responsibility for your own actions thing working out for us?
Hard to know how something's working when it's not being used.
True that0 -
AbsurdParadigm wrote: »Only if we get to tax yachts more. See how these stupid politicians like it when something they like gets taxed unfairly.
So that more companies providing quality products can be driven out of the country and cause thousands of middle class locals who work in the industry to lose their jobs?
2 -
Yes. The more unhealthy, the more taxes should be levied.
But, taxes raised should subsidise the healthy foods.0 -
MishaWest79 wrote: »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?
Known carcinogen can be such a broad concept as to be meaningless, the dose makes the poison. Something could have legitimate (or worse bad, but we won't even bother with those) studies that show carcinogen effects, but the studies will show them at levels that involve raising risk 1% when a lab rat is practically bathed all day in the substance.
Meanwhile, we live and only continue to live at the 100% natural benevolence of one of the largest causes of skin cancer out there, the sun. Perfectly natural, truly carcinogenic, and nothing about it being natural changes that. Truly, we slather unnatural sunscreens to prevent it.
So sure, if you cherry pick hard enough, you might find a synthetic additive that is worse than a natural ingredient, but you can also find the ones that are the other way around. Using natural as a category isn't really helpful in terms of hazard and risk assessment. So practically, what's the point in taxing a neutral artificial preservative but leaving salt alone when it is natural but known to exacerbate existing hypertension?
Okay this is surely, the best response ever!1 -
Packerjohn wrote: »For those that don't think this stuff should be taxed, ho do you propose paying the medical costs ot the 30% of the population thst will have diabetes by 2050 or before?
Remember this stuff.is a prime contributor to the situation.
This is what is wrong with people's thinking. Lets punish everyone because some people can't be responsible. Why don't we outlaw alcohol because there are alcoholics? The way America s going it will soon be easier to pot that it will be to get a snickers. WTF3 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »AbsurdParadigm wrote: »Only if we get to tax yachts more. See how these stupid politicians like it when something they like gets taxed unfairly.
So that more companies providing quality products can be driven out of the country and cause thousands of middle class locals who work in the industry to lose their jobs?
We are doing this regularly and then complaining about the evil companies avoiding taxes and taking "our" jobs. And, it's not (as many probably suspect) just Democrats. We are also undermining our ability to export with the games that continue to be played with US Eximbank. Senator Shelby, by blocking appointments to Exim's board, is single handily responsible for the transfer of many very high end jobs to overseas. The problem is most people don't even know what Eximbank is, let alone understand export credit guarantees and the aircraft and engine markets.1 -
AmbitiousButRubbish wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »For those that don't think this stuff should be taxed, ho do you propose paying the medical costs ot the 30% of the population thst will have diabetes by 2050 or before?
Remember this stuff.is a prime contributor to the situation.
This is what is wrong with people's thinking. Lets punish everyone because some people can't be responsible. Why don't we outlaw alcohol because there are alcoholics? The way America s going it will soon be easier to pot that it will be to get a snickers. WTF
Nobody said anything about outlawing junk foods, just some sort of tax. Similar to the excise tax that has been on alcohol for years.0 -
Tax or no Tax - I think better idea is that Unhealthy food and Healthy food prices should match (or be close enough). Healthy foods are much more expensive comparatively.
1 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »AbsurdParadigm wrote: »Only if we get to tax yachts more. See how these stupid politicians like it when something they like gets taxed unfairly.
So that more companies providing quality products can be driven out of the country and cause thousands of middle class locals who work in the industry to lose their jobs?
It wasn't meant to be a great plan. It was sarcasm. Although, I am in favor of taxing those who have the money, instead of taxing the poor and middle class more. Trickle down economics doesn't trickle.1 -
ajaygrover626 wrote: »Tax or no Tax - I think better idea is that Unhealthy food and Healthy food prices should match (or be close enough). Healthy foods are much more expensive comparatively.
That is because unhealthy food (HFCS, specifically) is heavily subsidized. Many of us have pointed out variations of the suggestion that a tax on HFCS to recover subsidies or just eliminating or reducing corn subsidies in the first place.1 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »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.
The BL was quite extreme but it does happen to most dieters.
The study below is a less extreme example but the MA drop in calories burned through resting metabolism would compute to about 10-15lbs of fat annually. That's just using the first 6 months of MA and I'm 99.9% sure that the rate of RMR drop is gradually increasing every week and month while dieting. The point is, food is still not the cause of obesity.
Intervention Participants were randomized to 1 of 4 groups for 6 months: control (weight maintenance diet); calorie restriction (25% calorie restriction of baseline energy requirements); calorie restriction with exercise (12.5% calorie restriction plus 12.5% increase in energy expenditure by structured exercise); very low-calorie diet (890 kcal/d until 15% weight reduction, followed by a weight maintenance diet).
Main Outcome Measures Body composition; dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate (DHEAS), glucose, and insulin levels; protein carbonyls; DNA damage; 24-hour energy expenditure; and core body temperature.
Results Mean (SEM) weight change at 6 months in the 4 groups was as follows: controls, −1.0% (1.1%); calorie restriction, −10.4% (0.9%); calorie restriction with exercise, −10.0% (0.8%); and very low-calorie diet, −13.9% (0.7%). At 6 months, fasting insulin levels were significantly reduced from baseline in the intervention groups (all P<.01), whereas DHEAS and glucose levels were unchanged. Core body temperature was reduced in the calorie restriction and calorie restriction with exercise groups (both P<.05). After adjustment for changes in body composition, sedentary 24-hour energy expenditure was unchanged in controls, but decreased in the calorie restriction (−135 kcal/d [42 kcal/d]), calorie restriction with exercise (−117 kcal/d [52 kcal/d]), and very low-calorie diet (−125 kcal/d [35 kcal/d]) groups (all P<.008). These “metabolic adaptations” (~ 6% more than expected based on loss of metabolic mass) were statistically different from controls (P<.05). Protein carbonyl concentrations were not changed from baseline to month 6 in any group, whereas DNA damage was also reduced from baseline in all intervention groups (P <.005).
Conclusions Our findings suggest that 2 biomarkers of longevity (fasting insulin level and body temperature) are decreased by prolonged calorie restriction in humans and support the theory that metabolic rate is reduced beyond the level expected from reduced metabolic body mass. Studies of longer duration are required to determine if calorie restriction attenuates the aging process in humans.
Effect of 6-Month Calorie Restriction on Biomarkers of Longevity, Metabolic Adaptation, and Oxidative Stress in Overweight Individuals
A Randomized Controlled Trial FREE
Leonie K. Heilbronn, PhD; Lilian de Jonge, PhD; Madlyn I. Frisard, PhD; James P. DeLany, PhD; D. Enette Larson-Meyer, PhD; Jennifer Rood, PhD; Tuong Nguyen, BSE; Corby K. Martin, PhD; Julia Volaufova, PhD; Marlene M. Most, PhD; Frank L. Greenway, PhD; Steven R. Smith, MD; Walter A. Deutsch, PhD; Donald A. Williamson, PhD; Eric Ravussin, PhD; for the Pennington CALERIE Team
[+] Author Affiliations
JAMA. 2006;295(13):1539-1548. doi:10.1001/jama.295.13.1539.0 -
LilyBentley2013 wrote: »I think rather than taxing junk food healthy snacks should be subsidized. I live in a fairly poor neighborhood and lots of my neighbors are on SNAP/food stamps. Parents desparate to feed their kids something and super poor think that cheetos and fruit snacks are the way to go. The fact that I can buy a pack of cheetos for 50c and an apple at the same store is damn near three dollars is absurd and sets poor life skills for the children.
I used to work for a dude who swore that they couldn't be poor because they were fat. I use fatness as a fair indicator that they may, in fact, be poor.
Healthy foods ARE subsidized ("healthy" here means that it contributes a good amount of protein or micros, as of course a food isn't individually the issue, the overall diet is). First, through things like SNAP, which can be used for "healthy" foods, and, second, through the same system that subsidizes junk foods -- one reason meat is so cheap in the US are those same subsidies, and farm subsidies have a broader effect in general than just on junk foods. Also, in many states, including mine, foods are NOT subject to the same standard sales tax that other items are or are taxed at a lower rate (often with exceptions for prepared food, soda, or candy, which get the higher rate).
Also, I've never seen apples for anywhere near $3. That's nuts and not normal US pricing, anyway.3 -
No. Such taxes are an abuse of taxation. Taxes are properly levied in as simple and uniform manner as is practicable, for the sole intent of defraying the legitimate expenses of government. Period. It is just not right to use taxation as a means of punishing someone from engaging in a legal behavior someone else disagrees with. If cigarettes are such a horrible evil, then government should ban them; certainly, government should not collect more money from their consumption than anyone else. Such tax policies are about money, and nothing else. But since that expresses a level of greed that's crass even for political bureaucrats, they tell us it's actually for our own good. Every time we accept another so-called "sin" tax, we confirm to those bureaucrats that we are indeed dull-witted fools....................
Sorry but we are long past the time when tax laws are solely for collection of revenue to fund government. They are used for social engineering. Examples, home mortgage credit, child tax credit, child care credit, tax credits for energy efficiency, various education credits/deductions, and the list goes on and on.
Not going to be judgemental on any of these but the various tax laws, right or wrong, are far from just collection of revenue.0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »No. Such taxes are an abuse of taxation. Taxes are properly levied in as simple and uniform manner as is practicable, for the sole intent of defraying the legitimate expenses of government. Period. It is just not right to use taxation as a means of punishing someone from engaging in a legal behavior someone else disagrees with. If cigarettes are such a horrible evil, then government should ban them; certainly, government should not collect more money from their consumption than anyone else. Such tax policies are about money, and nothing else. But since that expresses a level of greed that's crass even for political bureaucrats, they tell us it's actually for our own good. Every time we accept another so-called "sin" tax, we confirm to those bureaucrats that we are indeed dull-witted fools....................
Sorry but we are long past the time when tax laws are solely for collection of revenue to fund government. They are used for social engineering. Examples, home mortgage credit, child tax credit, child care credit, tax credits for energy efficiency, various education credits/deductions, and the list goes on and on.
Not going to be judgemental on any of these but the various tax laws, right or wrong, are far from just collection of revenue.
Which further stresses the importance of scrapping our current sinking situation and moving toward a flat tax.1 -
Packerjohn wrote: »No. Such taxes are an abuse of taxation. Taxes are properly levied in as simple and uniform manner as is practicable, for the sole intent of defraying the legitimate expenses of government. Period. It is just not right to use taxation as a means of punishing someone from engaging in a legal behavior someone else disagrees with. If cigarettes are such a horrible evil, then government should ban them; certainly, government should not collect more money from their consumption than anyone else. Such tax policies are about money, and nothing else. But since that expresses a level of greed that's crass even for political bureaucrats, they tell us it's actually for our own good. Every time we accept another so-called "sin" tax, we confirm to those bureaucrats that we are indeed dull-witted fools....................
Sorry but we are long past the time when tax laws are solely for collection of revenue to fund government. They are used for social engineering. Examples, home mortgage credit, child tax credit, child care credit, tax credits for energy efficiency, various education credits/deductions, and the list goes on and on.
Not going to be judgemental on any of these but the various tax laws, right or wrong, are far from just collection of revenue.
The 'ole we bent you over the proverbial desk for one thing so why not bend over for another thing argument?2 -
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?
Under my plan no one will ever be penalized for positive activities. I approve this message.1 -
Well, I replied in the first half of this thread, but since it seems everything is being rehashed, I'll have another go at it.
- Junk food doesn't make people obese, too much of any food makes people obese. There are plenty of folks in this country at least who got fat on food they cooked or their family members cooked. So a junk food tax would not help the obesity crisis.
- Taxing junk food might make it a little more expensive, and would not make most people stop buying it. At best, it would stop the very poorest from buying it. Obesity is a crisis because it affects all segments of the population. So a junk food tax would not help the obesity crisis.
- Food manufacturers make a very healthy profit, and most don't JUST sell junk food. If people started buying less junk food due to the price, the manufacturers would just spread the cost of the tax over ALL their offerings including the "healthy" ones to get sales back up, or just readjust their cost model some other way. Or they would just find a new creative way to tweak the products so they wouldn't fall under the tax. So a junk food tax would not help the obesity crisis.
- Governments in general are notorious for saying they will do one thing but doing something else. The Social Security fund has been raided for all sorts of things. State Lottery funds were supposed to go to the school system, but that rarely actually happens. Whatever they SAY they would spend this tax money on, it would go to the same crap all the rest of our money already goes to. So a junk food tax would not help the obesity crisis.
- Considering the US Congress still hasn't quite figured out how the Internet works, and some of them have made statements that make it clear they are clueless about human biology, I imagine it would take YEARS for them to figure out what is considered a "junk food" and how that is defined would be determined largely by which lobbyists had which politicians in their pockets. The list would end up being arbitrary and absurd. So a junk food tax would not help the obesity crisis.
I really don't feel like you even need to get into philosophical theories or nationalistic arguments on the appropriateness of taxes and health care policies. IMHO, there is basically 0% chance that a junk food tax in the real world we currently live in would have any affect on the levels of obesity in this country. Zero. Zilch. Nada. No dice. Waste O'Time.7
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 937 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions