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
-
At least halo top isn't junk food, since it's like 109-127C/100g. Clearly more wholesome than junk food like pumpkin seeds and almonds. No doubt this will solve the obesity problem
3 -
What is the/your intended goal of taxing "junk food"? The intended goal helps the discussion.
But what is "junk food"? A cliff Bar is a lot of calories in a small package (probably meets the "junk food" definition of many). And I would not encourage anyone from making this a part of their meal plan or even as a part of their long-term daily food intake. But as a hiker/backpacker, I NEED calorie dense food in my pack to carry enough calories to keep me hiking in the backcountry. So why should I be made to pay more? I am not obese...heck I am just in normal BMI.
If the intent is controlling the obesity problem, then a lot of change and education is necessary. The healthcare system needs to be active and not reactive. A visit to the "family doctor" should include discussions about nutrition, weight, proper diet and exercise...not just an offer for meds to "solve" the problem of the day.
We should be encouraged to see our MD frequently before the little issues become much more significant, not discouraged by high deductibles. Changes in portion size (liters of soda and sports drinks have no place in schools). The need for snacks (energy bats, sports drinks, or even fruit), at halftime at a youth (grade school) soccer game (only 40 minute game) is just not needed and setups up a pattern of over-eating. Schools need to include health as fulltime coursework, not just some afterthought.
More/higher taxes...not a good idea1 -
bduanemyfitness wrote: »What is the/your intended goal of taxing "junk food"? The intended goal helps the discussion.
But what is "junk food"? A cliff Bar is a lot of calories in a small package (probably meets the "junk food" definition of many). And I would not encourage anyone from making this a part of their meal plan or even as a part of their long-term daily food intake. But as a hiker/backpacker, I NEED calorie dense food in my pack to carry enough calories to keep me hiking in the backcountry. So why should I be made to pay more? I am not obese...heck I am just in normal BMI.
If the intent is controlling the obesity problem, then a lot of change and education is necessary. The healthcare system needs to be active and not reactive. A visit to the "family doctor" should include discussions about nutrition, weight, proper diet and exercise...not just an offer for meds to "solve" the problem of the day.
We should be encouraged to see our MD frequently before the little issues become much more significant, not discouraged by high deductibles. Changes in portion size (liters of soda and sports drinks have no place in schools). The need for snacks (energy bats, sports drinks, or even fruit), at halftime at a youth (grade school) soccer game (only 40 minute game) is just not needed and setups up a pattern of over-eating. Schools need to include health as fulltime coursework, not just some afterthought.
More/higher taxes...not a good idea
I frequently eat Clif bars as part of my lunch. I find they're delicious and I have plenty of room for them in my calorie/macro goals. Why would you recommend against that?0 -
mutantspicy wrote: »Isn't it already taxed??? Everything is taxed 6% in my state. Luxury items like cigarettes, beer, and liquor are taxed at higher rates. And when they legalize pot, and they will, it will be taxed higher. I accept that because my state needs money. These things need definitions the IRS can understand and the problem with that is the very definition. With the prior mentioned those things have definable active ingredients, Nicotine, Alcohol, THC. Once you define what is junk, whatever is in a twinkie or has hfcs in it, etc. Companies will just rebrand their junk to gluten free, fat free, sugar free, contains all natural ingredients, blah, blah, blah. I literally saw a box of Peeps today, that said Always gluten free, and fat free - Marshmallow Chicks. I laughed, Because who likes Marshmallow Chicks. Anyhoo. Good luck defining junk. As a liberal type person, I want more funding for infrastructure. We need better roads, we need fiber optics, we need to upgrade the electrical grid, we need to protect and fix our schools. These things cost money. But making up a definition for junk food is a lost cause. Lets say you decide to tax HFCS, people will start using Agave Syrup and call it healthy instead. You'd be chasing your tail forever.
[post edited by MFP moderator]
It varies by state. My state does not have a tax on food, except for prepared things (deli case mostly).0 -
mariekenji26 wrote: »no, healthy food should be more accessible and more cost effective. fresh fruit is expensive, but you can get a bag of chips for like $2.00
Food costs vary greatly based on location, what stores you shop at, time of year etc. Fruit/veggies are usually very reasonable where I live (I paid .99lb for strawberries this week, for example). Also, frozen fruit/veggies are a great option that's usually inexpensive. And frozen may actually contain more nutrients than fresh, because it's frozen soon after it's picked vs fresh being shipped across the country/other countries. Another option that may also be available is U-Pick farms. I pick strawberries, cherries and blueberries every summer and flash freeze them for winter months. Very inexpensive this way, and it's a fun outing with the kids
And then buy what's in season/shipped to your stores locally, buy what's on sale/store's loss leaders, and finally-be strategic in what you buy (Americans waste over a billion dollars in food each year).0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Define junk food:
Would Jolly Ranchers be taxed equally for people with Type 1 diabetes, who generally need a massive sugar rush every once in a while so it would fall under medically necessary.
How about meats:. Ask most vegans and a lot of vegatarians and meat is considered junk
Would beef be taxed? What if it's the same beef but in a pre-shaped hamburger patty?
Sports drinks? Extra tax because of the sugar content, or not because they do serve a purpose in cases of dehydration and low salts.
Most places food is not taxed, and things that fall under candy, soda or other pre-made treats are taxed.
Mexico figured it out: https://www.eater.com/2016/7/6/12107050/mexico-junk-food-tax-success
"In 2014, Mexico instituted an 8 percent tax on processed foods that had more than 275 calories per 100 grams, in an attempt to reduce junk food purchases"
Not saying this is right, wrong or indifferent, but yes, you can come up with a definition.
So they're taxing an extra 8% on foods like nut butters and coconut oil? I don't consider that to be a very elegant solution, to be honest.
no kidding...sounds not like a good solution at all
3 -
It's easy for those who don't measure to over-eat nut butters or add excessive pure oil to one's cooking - more so than the foods that many consider "junk food". I really don't see why those high-fat items should get special privilege and be excluded from an extra tax if a 'junk food' tax were to be enacted to prevent obesity.0
-
It's easy for those who don't measure to over-eat nut butters or add excessive pure oil to one's cooking - more so than the foods that many consider "junk food". I really don't see why those high-fat items should get special privilege and be excluded from an extra tax if a 'junk food' tax were to be enacted to prevent obesity.
Because it's not a junk food tax, it's a "calorie-dense foods that have undergone some processing" tax. It results in everyone paying more for some common ingredients and there is no indication that we'd be better off as a result.
The common justification for a "junk food" tax is that nobody needs them and it may encourage people to buy less of these foods. But if entire categories of commonly eaten food ingredients are included and we wind up discouraging people from buying olive oil, is that really a social good?2 -
It's easy for those who don't measure to over-eat nut butters or add excessive pure oil to one's cooking - more so than the foods that many consider "junk food". I really don't see why those high-fat items should get special privilege and be excluded from an extra tax if a 'junk food' tax were to be enacted to prevent obesity.
Doesn't it go back to depending upon the definition of "junk"??? Nut butters and pure oil are high in fat and therefore very calorie dense, but they aren't necessarily "processed" which is what I think of when I think of "junk"
Using a simple example, peanut butter... only peanuts are needed, maybe a little salt. I buy natural peanut butter, which I pay a premium for and I have to blend the oil back in which kind of irritates me. However, on balance, my favorite "processed" brand, Skippy, includes things like added sugar and other stabilizers so that I don't have to mix the oil back in. That brand costs me less, but it means adding sugar to my family's diet that isn't necessary or beneficial.
I realize that I am lucky enough to be able to afford to pay the $2 or $3 extra per jar of peanut butter. I don't think a tax is the answer, but surely there must be some policy that would encourage manufacturers to steer away from over-processing...0 -
jsminer827 wrote: »It's easy for those who don't measure to over-eat nut butters or add excessive pure oil to one's cooking - more so than the foods that many consider "junk food". I really don't see why those high-fat items should get special privilege and be excluded from an extra tax if a 'junk food' tax were to be enacted to prevent obesity.
Doesn't it go back to depending upon the definition of "junk"??? Nut butters and pure oil are high in fat and therefore very calorie dense, but they aren't necessarily "processed" which is what I think of when I think of "junk"
Using a simple example, peanut butter... only peanuts are needed, maybe a little salt. I buy natural peanut butter, which I pay a premium for and I have to blend the oil back in which kind of irritates me. However, on balance, my favorite "processed" brand, Skippy, includes things like added sugar and other stabilizers so that I don't have to mix the oil back in. That brand costs me less, but it means adding sugar to my family's diet that isn't necessary or beneficial.
I realize that I am lucky enough to be able to afford to pay the $2 or $3 extra per jar of peanut butter. I don't think a tax is the answer, but surely there must be some policy that would encourage manufacturers to steer away from over-processing...
I consider nut butters (of all kinds) and oils to be processed. I don't know what definition Mexico is using for processed, but it seems like an hard sell to argue that those foods haven't undergone processing.
Processing isn't a statement about the number of ingredients used. You're conflating two different issues. You can process one ingredient or you can process fifty. Saying "it's only peanuts and salt" or "it's only coconut" doesn't eliminate the processing involved (unless Mexico has made a specific provision for that in their law).0 -
As far as I can tell, plain nuts would be subject to the tax as well, so it wouldn't necessarily have to be processed (assuming it's really just a calories per 100g threshold).0
-
fuzzylop72 wrote: »As far as I can tell, plain nuts would be subject to the tax as well, so it wouldn't necessarily have to be processed (assuming it's really just a calories per 100g threshold).
The law cited above specifically cited processed foods. However, if we're using one of the justifications for the law that was given above (they're easy to overeat), it might has well include all calorie-dense foods, including nuts and fruits like avocado and coconut.
0 -
jsminer827 wrote: »It's easy for those who don't measure to over-eat nut butters or add excessive pure oil to one's cooking - more so than the foods that many consider "junk food". I really don't see why those high-fat items should get special privilege and be excluded from an extra tax if a 'junk food' tax were to be enacted to prevent obesity.
Doesn't it go back to depending upon the definition of "junk"??? Nut butters and pure oil are high in fat and therefore very calorie dense, but they aren't necessarily "processed" which is what I think of when I think of "junk"
Using a simple example, peanut butter... only peanuts are needed, maybe a little salt. I buy natural peanut butter, which I pay a premium for and I have to blend the oil back in which kind of irritates me. However, on balance, my favorite "processed" brand, Skippy, includes things like added sugar and other stabilizers so that I don't have to mix the oil back in. That brand costs me less, but it means adding sugar to my family's diet that isn't necessary or beneficial.
I realize that I am lucky enough to be able to afford to pay the $2 or $3 extra per jar of peanut butter. I don't think a tax is the answer, but surely there must be some policy that would encourage manufacturers to steer away from over-processing...
..but over-eating either by the same amount is going to make you fat. That's my point. People are fat because they are eating too many calories - doesn't matter if you are personally scared of the 'chemicals' in one versus the other. Food doesn't need to be processed past some magical point to be easily over-eaten and make you fat.2 -
I'm all for a junk food tax, a fat tax, and a soda tax ( I guess that would be under junk food). Tax the living hell out of cigarettes while you're at it.3
-
ThePoeToaster wrote: »I'm all for a junk food tax, a fat tax, and a soda tax ( I guess that would be under junk food). Tax the living hell out of cigarettes while you're at it.
Why stop there? tax every "kitten" thing. Your tax dollars will be put to good use! LMAO0 -
L1zardQueen wrote: »ThePoeToaster wrote: »I'm all for a junk food tax, a fat tax, and a soda tax ( I guess that would be under junk food). Tax the living hell out of cigarettes while you're at it.
Why stop there? tax every "kitten" thing. Your tax dollars will be put to good use! LMAO
Yes. Yes, they would. Glad we agree. A fat tax can pay for Universal Healthcare, so tax the hell out of Mcdonald's food and fatties. Fine by me!
3 -
ThePoeToaster wrote: »L1zardQueen wrote: »ThePoeToaster wrote: »I'm all for a junk food tax, a fat tax, and a soda tax ( I guess that would be under junk food). Tax the living hell out of cigarettes while you're at it.
Why stop there? tax every "kitten" thing. Your tax dollars will be put to good use! LMAO
Yes. Yes, they would. Glad we agree. A fat tax can pay for Universal Healthcare, so tax the hell out of Mcdonald's food and fatties. Fine by me!
Don't stop there on the food side of the equation, it's CICO after all. Tax anything that causes people to sit on their butt more:- Screens: TVs, laptops, tablets,
- People who make their primary income generating passive entertainment (writers, actors, theater owners)
- Employers that are primarily desk job organizations (lawyers, financial services, tech support, programming)
- Labor saving device manufacturers (robots, IoT, kitchen appliances)
5 -
ThePoeToaster wrote: »L1zardQueen wrote: »ThePoeToaster wrote: »I'm all for a junk food tax, a fat tax, and a soda tax ( I guess that would be under junk food). Tax the living hell out of cigarettes while you're at it.
Why stop there? tax every "kitten" thing. Your tax dollars will be put to good use! LMAO
Yes. Yes, they would. Glad we agree. A fat tax can pay for Universal Healthcare, so tax the hell out of Mcdonald's food and fatties. Fine by me!
Don't stop there on the food side of the equation, it's CICO after all. Tax anything that causes people to sit on their butt more:- Screens: TVs, laptops, tablets,
- People who make their primary income generating passive entertainment (writers, actors, theater owners)
- Employers that are primarily desk job organizations (lawyers, financial services, tech support, programming)
- Labor saving device manufacturers (robots, IoT, kitchen appliances)
https://youtu.be/MbQiVQuiu04 2 -
L1zardQueen wrote: »ThePoeToaster wrote: »L1zardQueen wrote: »ThePoeToaster wrote: »I'm all for a junk food tax, a fat tax, and a soda tax ( I guess that would be under junk food). Tax the living hell out of cigarettes while you're at it.
Why stop there? tax every "kitten" thing. Your tax dollars will be put to good use! LMAO
Yes. Yes, they would. Glad we agree. A fat tax can pay for Universal Healthcare, so tax the hell out of Mcdonald's food and fatties. Fine by me!
Don't stop there on the food side of the equation, it's CICO after all. Tax anything that causes people to sit on their butt more:- Screens: TVs, laptops, tablets,
- People who make their primary income generating passive entertainment (writers, actors, theater owners)
- Employers that are primarily desk job organizations (lawyers, financial services, tech support, programming)
- Labor saving device manufacturers (robots, IoT, kitchen appliances)
https://youtu.be/MbQiVQuiu04
You made me sit for 2:40, that'll be $2.40 for Uncle Sam.2 -
L1zardQueen wrote: »ThePoeToaster wrote: »L1zardQueen wrote: »ThePoeToaster wrote: »I'm all for a junk food tax, a fat tax, and a soda tax ( I guess that would be under junk food). Tax the living hell out of cigarettes while you're at it.
Why stop there? tax every "kitten" thing. Your tax dollars will be put to good use! LMAO
Yes. Yes, they would. Glad we agree. A fat tax can pay for Universal Healthcare, so tax the hell out of Mcdonald's food and fatties. Fine by me!
Don't stop there on the food side of the equation, it's CICO after all. Tax anything that causes people to sit on their butt more:- Screens: TVs, laptops, tablets,
- People who make their primary income generating passive entertainment (writers, actors, theater owners)
- Employers that are primarily desk job organizations (lawyers, financial services, tech support, programming)
- Labor saving device manufacturers (robots, IoT, kitchen appliances)
https://youtu.be/MbQiVQuiu04
You made me sit for 2:40, that'll be $2.40 for Uncle Sam.
It will be wasted.0 -
L1zardQueen wrote: »L1zardQueen wrote: »ThePoeToaster wrote: »L1zardQueen wrote: »ThePoeToaster wrote: »I'm all for a junk food tax, a fat tax, and a soda tax ( I guess that would be under junk food). Tax the living hell out of cigarettes while you're at it.
Why stop there? tax every "kitten" thing. Your tax dollars will be put to good use! LMAO
Yes. Yes, they would. Glad we agree. A fat tax can pay for Universal Healthcare, so tax the hell out of Mcdonald's food and fatties. Fine by me!
Don't stop there on the food side of the equation, it's CICO after all. Tax anything that causes people to sit on their butt more:- Screens: TVs, laptops, tablets,
- People who make their primary income generating passive entertainment (writers, actors, theater owners)
- Employers that are primarily desk job organizations (lawyers, financial services, tech support, programming)
- Labor saving device manufacturers (robots, IoT, kitchen appliances)
https://youtu.be/MbQiVQuiu04
You made me sit for 2:40, that'll be $2.40 for Uncle Sam.
It will be wasted.
Maybe so, but it'll surely keep you from wasting it yourself on a filthy greasy tasty fast food burger, because we all know you won't spend it on anything clean. We know you durrrty!
1 -
I think even if the tax went up on these foods then people would still eat just as much from them. What they should do is reduce the cost of fruit and vegetables and those “super foods” like nuts and seeds etc so people on lower incomes can afford to make them a staple in their diets. I think there should be more NHS funded personal training and diet guidances or something similar outside of the UK1
-
Mandylou19912014 wrote: »I think even if the tax went up on these foods then people would still eat just as much from them. What they should do is reduce the cost of fruit and vegetables and those “super foods” like nuts and seeds etc so people on lower incomes can afford to make them a staple in their diets. I think there should be more NHS funded personal training and diet guidances or something similar outside of the UK
If you're using "staple food" in the sense of a food eaten in such quantities that it forms a dominant portion of the diet, I don't know if making nuts/seeds a staple food for people will result in the population weighing less overall.5 -
Mandylou19912014 wrote: »I think even if the tax went up on these foods then people would still eat just as much from them. What they should do is reduce the cost of fruit and vegetables and those “super foods” like nuts and seeds etc so people on lower incomes can afford to make them a staple in their diets. I think there should be more NHS funded personal training and diet guidances or something similar outside of the UK
More people would be on board if they knew such taxes would be used for the betterment of society. That the funds would be used wisely and a net positive outcome would be possible.
We have a good deal of evidence to the contrary, hence the rationale for opposing most new tax proposals.2 -
No! In cook county they raised alcohol tax and added a tax to any sort of sugary drink and it’s annoying but it doesn’t prevent me from buying anything.0
-
No. We pay enough in taxes already.1
-
If they taxed the companies that produce it instead of the consumer, sure.5
-
VegHeadGettingFit wrote: »If they taxed the companies that produce it instead of the consumer, sure.
which would trickle down to the consumer2 -
VegHeadGettingFit wrote: »If they taxed the companies that produce it instead of the consumer, sure.
Economics much?4 -
VegHeadGettingFit wrote: »If they taxed the companies that produce it instead of the consumer, sure.
And the taxes paid by companies comes from the prices they charge for goods and services. Therefore, everyone who suggests companies should be taxed are really asking to personally pay more taxes as those taxes charged to "the other guy" will merely be passed along to the consumer.1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions