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
-
-
queenliz99 wrote: »
Blasphemy.2 -
No, but I think more of our tax money should be spent on educating kids, and people in general on nutrition. I don't think many people are taught extensively how food/nutrition works. If the parents don't understand, how can they teach their children?3
-
3dogsrunning wrote: »Rob_Drewry wrote: »Excessive sugar consumption causes a boat load of health issues. I'd be in favor of taxing "junk food" if a), it could be positively identified/quantified, b) the tax could be placed in a trust that could only be used to help mitigate the health cost of obesity, and c) could not be used by the government for any other purpose.
Since c is impossible, I'm against it. How about we bring back physical education in our schools?
Do you not have physical education in the schools where you are? There are more options for phys ed now then when I was in high school.
Also, the problem extends beyond children.
I am still in the don't tax it camp though.
We have health classes and phys ed in America, but it isn't seen as an important class. It's one of those 'bird' courses that don't delve very deep into importance. You go to health class, get out, go to the cafeteria and they're serving pizza and fries for lunch. America is a bit F**ked in this department.2 -
That would be a regressive tax. Poorer people would be impacted. People with more money would just go ahead and eat what they wanted anyway.
If the government (actually busybodies who want to control the behavior of others so lobby for their views to be legislated) is that concerned, they should subsidize more nutritious food to make it cheaper rather than making "junk" food more expensive. Positive reinforcement for behavior change rather than negative reinforcement. However, subsidies don't fill government coffers.
Shoot, they could go the whole nine yards and have government cafeterias everywhere with free (or nearly free) nutritious meals available 24/7. That would give everyone the opportunity to choose a healthy meal that better meets the government's idea of how people should eat.
Can I "awesome" this post twice?1 -
Packerjohn wrote: »I do agree that raising taxes on junk food might lead to less obesity... quite a possibility.
However, there are better alternatives for aiding in fighting the obesity epidemic. For example, why not further people's resources to gain knowledge of the "obesity epidemic", so that they then have the right knowledge to decide for themselves how much junk food they will eat.
More important it should start in school cafeterias to mandate them to only offer healthy foods, this will make a new generation in the near future, they will already be 'programmed' to eat healthy.
Wouldn't a tax on junk food be a good way to fund education programs as well as healthier meals in schools as well as healthcare for obesity related issues.
My guess would be that even if intentions were good, none or very little of that tax revenue would actually go to those things.
Beyond that, they could paint "junk" with a very broad brush. They would use pretty arbitrary guidelines I would guess...like would an avocado be considered junk?...it's extremely high in fat. Would things like deli meats and hot dogs be considered "junk" because sodium?
It would just be opening Pandora's box and like I said...very little of that revenue would actually go to the things you would think they could/would go to.5 -
Thinking though.
Perhaps a "taxed unless the manufacturer can prove it meets specific health standards" could make sense. It might make it so that manufacturers strive to make their products a bit more "healthy". They would have incentives in that more people might buy the product.
That being said... I can see that system failing in other aspects already. Like low fat items - chalk full of fillers (or so I hear), but marketed as healthier than full fat alternatives. Or organic.. still full of pesticides, just not the ones on the "no-no" list... (or so I've heard).2 -
Thinking though.
Perhaps a "taxed unless the manufacturer can prove it meets specific health standards" could make sense. It might make it so that manufacturers strive to make their products a bit more "healthy". They would have incentives in that more people might buy the product.
That being said... I can see that system failing in other aspects already. Like low fat items - chalk full of fillers (or so I hear), but marketed as healthier than full fat alternatives. Or organic.. still full of pesticides, just not the ones on the "no-no" list... (or so I've heard).
Therein lies the problem. Nutrition as a whole, unlike things such as tobacco and alcohol is pretty damned subjective. Jesus, just take three hours and read these boards, and you'd be amazed at what is "junk food" and "health food", and don't even get me started on Whole Foods.4 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »I knew this would be a hot topic when I saw the title. We're straying dangerously close to a political discussion in this thread.
I will never advocate for additional taxes. As a single, childless person who makes above average income, I already feel like I'm overtaxed, and the US government doesn't have a very good track record of wisely spending the money they take from my paychecks. That said, I'd be all for additional education about healthy food choices, calories, reading nutrition labels, etc., as I believe that would be much more effective at reducing our obesity problem. There's enough glut in the US government to fund that already - no need for more taxes.
As a single, childfree (i.e. childless plus) person who makes above average income, I am ok with some higher taxes and advocate for many tax changes that are beyond the scope of this thread. Nothing government does will be approved by everyone.
Which is why a debate like this will never really go anywhere. There's no way to prove one way or the other whether increasing taxes on certain food items will assist either with the obesity crisis or with healthcare costs. Education seems like it would be best choice, since the highest rates of obesity in the US are in groups with the lowest levels of education (and the lowest income levels as well).
It can be proven or dis-proven by trying it. Until it is attempted, you are right that there is no way to prove the effectiveness of the policy.
And in the meantime, millions of taxpayers shell out even more money that may or may not do what it's supposed to do, if the taxes are even applied where they were supposed to be. No thanks.
It doesn't need to be millions. Experimentally, it could be done in a smaller area as long as the possibility of going across the street and buying outside that area isn't a reasonable possibility that would skew the results. We already have different tax laws from city to city, county to county, and state to state. Put this in a single area and keep track of the results in a central location within that area.
There are already a couple cities that impose special taxes on soda and even more have plans to implement them if passed by voters. Since sugar-laden drinks have long been touted as one of the contributing factors to the rise of obesity, we should maybe first assess what those taxes have done before we try the same thing over again with the next demonized food group.
I'm not sure a single city would be large enough geographically. It would be too easy to leave a city and go to the next city.0 -
Thinking though.
Perhaps a "taxed unless the manufacturer can prove it meets specific health standards" could make sense. It might make it so that manufacturers strive to make their products a bit more "healthy". They would have incentives in that more people might buy the product.
That being said... I can see that system failing in other aspects already. Like low fat items - chalk full of fillers (or so I hear), but marketed as healthier than full fat alternatives. Or organic.. still full of pesticides, just not the ones on the "no-no" list... (or so I've heard).
I don't know how you establish guidelines that aren't murky. Do you tax all chips, or would oven-baked ones get an exemption for trying to be healthier? Is reducing fat a good way to tell if something is healthier? Wait, no, we did that already and it was a terrible idea. Do you have to reduce fat while not adding more than 5% sugar? Or do we just go on calorie ratios - reduce calories by 30% or more and it's tax-exempt? But then do you end up with people consuming more because they're "healthy," defeating the whole purpose?4 -
bennettinfinity wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Crazyartgrrl wrote: »Taxes were not designed to manipulate behavior. Their purpose is to create revenue for government functions (roads, defense, etc) Creating an additional tax for "junk" food seems illegal or at least, contrary to the original "spirit" of taxes.
That is one of the purposes of taxes, yes. However, tax policy, fiscal policy, and monetary policy are all utilized to encourage state and local governments, NGO's, businesses, and even individuals to make decisions supported by the federal government. For example, the federal government does not have the authority to regulate intra-state commerce. By providing highway funds to states that adopt minimum regulations for CMV's, the federal government encourages coerces states to make a certain decision.
FIFY - You know this exceeds the boundaries of the federalist model, no?
we blew out the federalist model when Lincoln went to war with the south over state's rights..just saying...
Yeah... I know... ::kicks rock::1 -
I see both sides of the issue. I'm no fan of more government regulation, but it needs to start with the ones who choose to consume it.0
-
Carlos_421 wrote: »Hasn't the government taken away enough of our money and Liberty already???
Liberty? "Give me tax-free cheesy poofs, or give me death!"
4 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »kristen6350 wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »kristen6350 wrote: »Well, since junk food doesn't make people fat, too much food does, I don't see why it would help.
Trust me, too much of anything will make one gain weight.
Nailed it!!
I mean, I can go to Chipolte and down a 1,200 calorie burrito stuffed with "healthy food" for lunch, plus a 500 calorie breakfast of eggs and veggies, then a 500 calorie dinner of grilled chicken and veggies EVERY DAY of my life. That's 2,200 calories a day. 300 calories over what my body needs. All of that extra food made me fat, but all of it is considered healthy. There wasn't one chip, cookie, candy, etc in that whole day. But guess what? I'm 40lbs overweight because I ate too much food and didn't burn off the extra 300 calories a day. I didn't eat junk, but I'm fat and I'm at risk of diabetes. Not because I was binging on carbs, because I ate too many calories.
A Chipotle burrito is anything but low carb. Unless you get a salad instead of a burrito, skip the rice, skip the beans... then it can be considered low carb.
Did she say it was low carb, or that she was low carb? I'm trying to understand why you are qualifying her statement, which was meant to support her stance (which I agree with, btw) that it isn't junk food that makes people fat, it is too many calories in general, regardless of their source.3 -
NorthCascades wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Hasn't the government taken away enough of our money and Liberty already???
Liberty? "Give me tax-free cheesy poofs, or give me death!"
Hah, I prefer the NH motto version - live free or die! Incidentally, you can also buy tax-free cheesy poofs there.
It also happens to be on the lower end of obesity rates at a state level despite the rampant availability of tax-free "junk food."
ETA - not that I believe their taxes have anything at all to do with their obesity rates one way or the other.1 -
WinoGelato wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »kristen6350 wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »kristen6350 wrote: »Well, since junk food doesn't make people fat, too much food does, I don't see why it would help.
Trust me, too much of anything will make one gain weight.
Nailed it!!
I mean, I can go to Chipolte and down a 1,200 calorie burrito stuffed with "healthy food" for lunch, plus a 500 calorie breakfast of eggs and veggies, then a 500 calorie dinner of grilled chicken and veggies EVERY DAY of my life. That's 2,200 calories a day. 300 calories over what my body needs. All of that extra food made me fat, but all of it is considered healthy. There wasn't one chip, cookie, candy, etc in that whole day. But guess what? I'm 40lbs overweight because I ate too much food and didn't burn off the extra 300 calories a day. I didn't eat junk, but I'm fat and I'm at risk of diabetes. Not because I was binging on carbs, because I ate too many calories.
A Chipotle burrito is anything but low carb. Unless you get a salad instead of a burrito, skip the rice, skip the beans... then it can be considered low carb.
Did she say it was low carb, or that she was low carb? I'm trying to understand why you are qualifying her statement, which was meant to support her stance (which I agree with, btw) that it isn't junk food that makes people fat, it is too many calories in general, regardless of their source.
"not because I was binging on carbs" after describing a meal that was a carb binge. I know she got rice and/or beans in her burrito for this, as the tortilla itself isn't quite a binge level of carbs and 1,200 calories shows that it had to have included at least beans (all other available ingredients even with the highest calorie meat still don't add up to 1,200 unless adding at least beans).0 -
Something just put up, that I feel does a pretty good job of explaining the problem. Paul's always been a *kitten* wealth of good information, and (imo) solid opinions.
http://www.lift-run-bang.com/2016/06/why-we-wont-or-cant-fix-problem-of.html0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »kristen6350 wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »kristen6350 wrote: »Well, since junk food doesn't make people fat, too much food does, I don't see why it would help.
Trust me, too much of anything will make one gain weight.
Nailed it!!
I mean, I can go to Chipolte and down a 1,200 calorie burrito stuffed with "healthy food" for lunch, plus a 500 calorie breakfast of eggs and veggies, then a 500 calorie dinner of grilled chicken and veggies EVERY DAY of my life. That's 2,200 calories a day. 300 calories over what my body needs. All of that extra food made me fat, but all of it is considered healthy. There wasn't one chip, cookie, candy, etc in that whole day. But guess what? I'm 40lbs overweight because I ate too much food and didn't burn off the extra 300 calories a day. I didn't eat junk, but I'm fat and I'm at risk of diabetes. Not because I was binging on carbs, because I ate too many calories.
A Chipotle burrito is anything but low carb. Unless you get a salad instead of a burrito, skip the rice, skip the beans... then it can be considered low carb.
Did she say it was low carb, or that she was low carb? I'm trying to understand why you are qualifying her statement, which was meant to support her stance (which I agree with, btw) that it isn't junk food that makes people fat, it is too many calories in general, regardless of their source.
"not because I was binging on carbs" after describing a meal that was a carb binge. I know she got rice and/or beans in her burrito for this, as the tortilla itself isn't quite a binge level of carbs and 1,200 calories shows that it had to have included at least beans (all other available ingredients even with the highest calorie meat still don't add up to 1,200 unless adding at least beans).
How is a single meal, even at 70-80% carbs, a "binge", especially in context of the other hypothetical meals described?0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »kristen6350 wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »kristen6350 wrote: »Well, since junk food doesn't make people fat, too much food does, I don't see why it would help.
Trust me, too much of anything will make one gain weight.
Nailed it!!
I mean, I can go to Chipolte and down a 1,200 calorie burrito stuffed with "healthy food" for lunch, plus a 500 calorie breakfast of eggs and veggies, then a 500 calorie dinner of grilled chicken and veggies EVERY DAY of my life. That's 2,200 calories a day. 300 calories over what my body needs. All of that extra food made me fat, but all of it is considered healthy. There wasn't one chip, cookie, candy, etc in that whole day. But guess what? I'm 40lbs overweight because I ate too much food and didn't burn off the extra 300 calories a day. I didn't eat junk, but I'm fat and I'm at risk of diabetes. Not because I was binging on carbs, because I ate too many calories.
A Chipotle burrito is anything but low carb. Unless you get a salad instead of a burrito, skip the rice, skip the beans... then it can be considered low carb.
Did she say it was low carb, or that she was low carb? I'm trying to understand why you are qualifying her statement, which was meant to support her stance (which I agree with, btw) that it isn't junk food that makes people fat, it is too many calories in general, regardless of their source.
"not because I was binging on carbs" after describing a meal that was a carb binge. I know she got rice and/or beans in her burrito for this, as the tortilla itself isn't quite a binge level of carbs and 1,200 calories shows that it had to have included at least beans (all other available ingredients even with the highest calorie meat still don't add up to 1,200 unless adding at least beans).
How is a single meal, even at 70-80% carbs, a "binge", especially in context of the other hypothetical meals described?
Erm, a 1200 calorie meal, made up of 70-80% of any single macro could easily be called a binge.1 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »kristen6350 wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »kristen6350 wrote: »Well, since junk food doesn't make people fat, too much food does, I don't see why it would help.
Trust me, too much of anything will make one gain weight.
Nailed it!!
I mean, I can go to Chipolte and down a 1,200 calorie burrito stuffed with "healthy food" for lunch, plus a 500 calorie breakfast of eggs and veggies, then a 500 calorie dinner of grilled chicken and veggies EVERY DAY of my life. That's 2,200 calories a day. 300 calories over what my body needs. All of that extra food made me fat, but all of it is considered healthy. There wasn't one chip, cookie, candy, etc in that whole day. But guess what? I'm 40lbs overweight because I ate too much food and didn't burn off the extra 300 calories a day. I didn't eat junk, but I'm fat and I'm at risk of diabetes. Not because I was binging on carbs, because I ate too many calories.
A Chipotle burrito is anything but low carb. Unless you get a salad instead of a burrito, skip the rice, skip the beans... then it can be considered low carb.
Did she say it was low carb, or that she was low carb? I'm trying to understand why you are qualifying her statement, which was meant to support her stance (which I agree with, btw) that it isn't junk food that makes people fat, it is too many calories in general, regardless of their source.
"not because I was binging on carbs" after describing a meal that was a carb binge. I know she got rice and/or beans in her burrito for this, as the tortilla itself isn't quite a binge level of carbs and 1,200 calories shows that it had to have included at least beans (all other available ingredients even with the highest calorie meat still don't add up to 1,200 unless adding at least beans).
@kristen6350 would have to confirm but I took her comment to mean that it didn't matter the individual components of what she was eating, nor the individual macros. That everything in her meal would slip by the "junk food" tax but she could easily end up overweight from over consuming calories. Junk food, carbs, etc wouldn't make a difference, it is too many calories that cause weight gain, and obesity is a risk factor for diabetes, not consumption of one food or a particular macro.2 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »kristen6350 wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »kristen6350 wrote: »Well, since junk food doesn't make people fat, too much food does, I don't see why it would help.
Trust me, too much of anything will make one gain weight.
Nailed it!!
I mean, I can go to Chipolte and down a 1,200 calorie burrito stuffed with "healthy food" for lunch, plus a 500 calorie breakfast of eggs and veggies, then a 500 calorie dinner of grilled chicken and veggies EVERY DAY of my life. That's 2,200 calories a day. 300 calories over what my body needs. All of that extra food made me fat, but all of it is considered healthy. There wasn't one chip, cookie, candy, etc in that whole day. But guess what? I'm 40lbs overweight because I ate too much food and didn't burn off the extra 300 calories a day. I didn't eat junk, but I'm fat and I'm at risk of diabetes. Not because I was binging on carbs, because I ate too many calories.
A Chipotle burrito is anything but low carb. Unless you get a salad instead of a burrito, skip the rice, skip the beans... then it can be considered low carb.
Did she say it was low carb, or that she was low carb? I'm trying to understand why you are qualifying her statement, which was meant to support her stance (which I agree with, btw) that it isn't junk food that makes people fat, it is too many calories in general, regardless of their source.
"not because I was binging on carbs" after describing a meal that was a carb binge. I know she got rice and/or beans in her burrito for this, as the tortilla itself isn't quite a binge level of carbs and 1,200 calories shows that it had to have included at least beans (all other available ingredients even with the highest calorie meat still don't add up to 1,200 unless adding at least beans).
How is a single meal, even at 70-80% carbs, a "binge", especially in context of the other hypothetical meals described?
Erm, a 1200 calorie meal, made up of 70-80% of any single macro could easily be called a binge.
Why?1 -
WinoGelato wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »kristen6350 wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »kristen6350 wrote: »Well, since junk food doesn't make people fat, too much food does, I don't see why it would help.
Trust me, too much of anything will make one gain weight.
Nailed it!!
I mean, I can go to Chipolte and down a 1,200 calorie burrito stuffed with "healthy food" for lunch, plus a 500 calorie breakfast of eggs and veggies, then a 500 calorie dinner of grilled chicken and veggies EVERY DAY of my life. That's 2,200 calories a day. 300 calories over what my body needs. All of that extra food made me fat, but all of it is considered healthy. There wasn't one chip, cookie, candy, etc in that whole day. But guess what? I'm 40lbs overweight because I ate too much food and didn't burn off the extra 300 calories a day. I didn't eat junk, but I'm fat and I'm at risk of diabetes. Not because I was binging on carbs, because I ate too many calories.
A Chipotle burrito is anything but low carb. Unless you get a salad instead of a burrito, skip the rice, skip the beans... then it can be considered low carb.
Did she say it was low carb, or that she was low carb? I'm trying to understand why you are qualifying her statement, which was meant to support her stance (which I agree with, btw) that it isn't junk food that makes people fat, it is too many calories in general, regardless of their source.
"not because I was binging on carbs" after describing a meal that was a carb binge. I know she got rice and/or beans in her burrito for this, as the tortilla itself isn't quite a binge level of carbs and 1,200 calories shows that it had to have included at least beans (all other available ingredients even with the highest calorie meat still don't add up to 1,200 unless adding at least beans).
@kristen6350 would have to confirm but I took her comment to mean that it didn't matter the individual components of what she was eating, nor the individual macros. That everything in her meal would slip by the "junk food" tax but she could easily end up overweight from over consuming calories. Junk food, carbs, etc wouldn't make a difference, it is too many calories that cause weight gain, and obesity is a risk factor for diabetes, not consumption of one food or a particular macro.
That's another strange little rub. Do we count the individual items? Do we count the whole? What defines the junk aspect? Too many kcal to not enough micros? *kitten*, in that case, every starch is a junk food. Too much fat to not enough micros? In that case, every cooking oil is a junk food.1 -
WinoGelato wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »kristen6350 wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »kristen6350 wrote: »Well, since junk food doesn't make people fat, too much food does, I don't see why it would help.
Trust me, too much of anything will make one gain weight.
Nailed it!!
I mean, I can go to Chipolte and down a 1,200 calorie burrito stuffed with "healthy food" for lunch, plus a 500 calorie breakfast of eggs and veggies, then a 500 calorie dinner of grilled chicken and veggies EVERY DAY of my life. That's 2,200 calories a day. 300 calories over what my body needs. All of that extra food made me fat, but all of it is considered healthy. There wasn't one chip, cookie, candy, etc in that whole day. But guess what? I'm 40lbs overweight because I ate too much food and didn't burn off the extra 300 calories a day. I didn't eat junk, but I'm fat and I'm at risk of diabetes. Not because I was binging on carbs, because I ate too many calories.
A Chipotle burrito is anything but low carb. Unless you get a salad instead of a burrito, skip the rice, skip the beans... then it can be considered low carb.
Did she say it was low carb, or that she was low carb? I'm trying to understand why you are qualifying her statement, which was meant to support her stance (which I agree with, btw) that it isn't junk food that makes people fat, it is too many calories in general, regardless of their source.
"not because I was binging on carbs" after describing a meal that was a carb binge. I know she got rice and/or beans in her burrito for this, as the tortilla itself isn't quite a binge level of carbs and 1,200 calories shows that it had to have included at least beans (all other available ingredients even with the highest calorie meat still don't add up to 1,200 unless adding at least beans).
@kristen6350 would have to confirm but I took her comment to mean that it didn't matter the individual components of what she was eating, nor the individual macros. That everything in her meal would slip by the "junk food" tax but she could easily end up overweight from over consuming calories. Junk food, carbs, etc wouldn't make a difference, it is too many calories that cause weight gain, and obesity is a risk factor for diabetes, not consumption of one food or a particular macro.
This is how I understood what she had said. Chipotle is a calorie bomb if not careful. She said nothing about carbs.0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »kristen6350 wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »kristen6350 wrote: »Well, since junk food doesn't make people fat, too much food does, I don't see why it would help.
Trust me, too much of anything will make one gain weight.
Nailed it!!
I mean, I can go to Chipolte and down a 1,200 calorie burrito stuffed with "healthy food" for lunch, plus a 500 calorie breakfast of eggs and veggies, then a 500 calorie dinner of grilled chicken and veggies EVERY DAY of my life. That's 2,200 calories a day. 300 calories over what my body needs. All of that extra food made me fat, but all of it is considered healthy. There wasn't one chip, cookie, candy, etc in that whole day. But guess what? I'm 40lbs overweight because I ate too much food and didn't burn off the extra 300 calories a day. I didn't eat junk, but I'm fat and I'm at risk of diabetes. Not because I was binging on carbs, because I ate too many calories.
A Chipotle burrito is anything but low carb. Unless you get a salad instead of a burrito, skip the rice, skip the beans... then it can be considered low carb.
Did she say it was low carb, or that she was low carb? I'm trying to understand why you are qualifying her statement, which was meant to support her stance (which I agree with, btw) that it isn't junk food that makes people fat, it is too many calories in general, regardless of their source.
"not because I was binging on carbs" after describing a meal that was a carb binge. I know she got rice and/or beans in her burrito for this, as the tortilla itself isn't quite a binge level of carbs and 1,200 calories shows that it had to have included at least beans (all other available ingredients even with the highest calorie meat still don't add up to 1,200 unless adding at least beans).
@kristen6350 would have to confirm but I took her comment to mean that it didn't matter the individual components of what she was eating, nor the individual macros. That everything in her meal would slip by the "junk food" tax but she could easily end up overweight from over consuming calories. Junk food, carbs, etc wouldn't make a difference, it is too many calories that cause weight gain, and obesity is a risk factor for diabetes, not consumption of one food or a particular macro.
That's another strange little rub. Do we count the individual items? Do we count the whole? What defines the junk aspect? Too many kcal to not enough micros? *kitten*, in that case, every starch is a junk food. Too much fat to not enough micros? In that case, every cooking oil is a junk food.
Right. That's the point I think many are making, how would you begin to define junk food to know what to tax?1 -
WinoGelato wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »kristen6350 wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »kristen6350 wrote: »Well, since junk food doesn't make people fat, too much food does, I don't see why it would help.
Trust me, too much of anything will make one gain weight.
Nailed it!!
I mean, I can go to Chipolte and down a 1,200 calorie burrito stuffed with "healthy food" for lunch, plus a 500 calorie breakfast of eggs and veggies, then a 500 calorie dinner of grilled chicken and veggies EVERY DAY of my life. That's 2,200 calories a day. 300 calories over what my body needs. All of that extra food made me fat, but all of it is considered healthy. There wasn't one chip, cookie, candy, etc in that whole day. But guess what? I'm 40lbs overweight because I ate too much food and didn't burn off the extra 300 calories a day. I didn't eat junk, but I'm fat and I'm at risk of diabetes. Not because I was binging on carbs, because I ate too many calories.
A Chipotle burrito is anything but low carb. Unless you get a salad instead of a burrito, skip the rice, skip the beans... then it can be considered low carb.
Did she say it was low carb, or that she was low carb? I'm trying to understand why you are qualifying her statement, which was meant to support her stance (which I agree with, btw) that it isn't junk food that makes people fat, it is too many calories in general, regardless of their source.
"not because I was binging on carbs" after describing a meal that was a carb binge. I know she got rice and/or beans in her burrito for this, as the tortilla itself isn't quite a binge level of carbs and 1,200 calories shows that it had to have included at least beans (all other available ingredients even with the highest calorie meat still don't add up to 1,200 unless adding at least beans).
@kristen6350 would have to confirm but I took her comment to mean that it didn't matter the individual components of what she was eating, nor the individual macros. That everything in her meal would slip by the "junk food" tax but she could easily end up overweight from over consuming calories. Junk food, carbs, etc wouldn't make a difference, it is too many calories that cause weight gain, and obesity is a risk factor for diabetes, not consumption of one food or a particular macro.
That's another strange little rub. Do we count the individual items? Do we count the whole? What defines the junk aspect? Too many kcal to not enough micros? *kitten*, in that case, every starch is a junk food. Too much fat to not enough micros? In that case, every cooking oil is a junk food.
Right. That's the point I think many are making, how would you begin to define junk food to know what to tax?
Especially considering that context is king for anything (or meal) someone eats.
1 -
-
First, there is as much of a commonly-understood definition of what is "junk food" as there is of the term "assault weapon" (in other words, there is no commonly-understood definition). Second, taxation just means more money going into government coffers, and we all know how sensibly they spend it. Third, "junk food" doesn't cause obesity or diabetes, sugar doesn't cause obesity or diabetes. Diabetes (specifically Type II diabetes) is a metabolic syndrome with multiple risk factors, chief among them being obesity. And, obesity is caused by nothing other than chronically excessive caloric intake.
Given all of that, let's just say we can all agree on what a definition of "junk food" actually is. Obviously it would include some calorically-dense, nutritionally-sparse food items, but probably not others. So, the substitution effect would set it. Yes, making something cost more does result in that something being consumed less.
But people will eat, and people will want to eat things that taste good - and so as certain (likely prepackaged, mass-produced foods) might get slapped with taxes (because they're "junk food"), people will just substitute other things. Sales of donut makers and home deep-friers would soar. People would learn how to bake cookies, cake, etc. more (I already am pretty handy with baking stuff like this - it's actually pretty easy).
I also think the idea that taxation has decreased the rates of smoking in the US is quite overblown. I think more than anything, social approbrium, the increasing popularity of bans on indoor smoking, etc., and also education about the dangers of smoking - these have had a much greater effect than taxation.
Finally, taxation, when taken to a high enough level, can incentivize black markets. It's already happening for tobacco (New York has a bustling business in illegal and smuggled cigarettes due to their punishingly high tax rates). You want to see it happen for "junk food"? Try taxing donuts five bucks a pop and see what happens, as an example. You might see "bake-easies" pop up across the US. Which would be kind of funny, actually.5 -
Taxation is theft.3
-
First, there is as much of a commonly-understood definition of what is "junk food" as there is of the term "assault weapon" (in other words, there is no commonly-understood definition). Second, taxation just means more money going into government coffers, and we all know how sensibly they spend it. Third, "junk food" doesn't cause obesity or diabetes, sugar doesn't cause obesity or diabetes. Diabetes (specifically Type II diabetes) is a metabolic syndrome with multiple risk factors, chief among them being obesity. And, obesity is caused by nothing other than chronically excessive caloric intake.
Given all of that, let's just say we can all agree on what a definition of "junk food" actually is. Obviously it would include some calorically-dense, nutritionally-sparse food items, but probably not others. So, the substitution effect would set it. Yes, making something cost more does result in that something being consumed less.
But people will eat, and people will want to eat things that taste good - and so as certain (likely prepackaged, mass-produced foods) might get slapped with taxes (because they're "junk food"), people will just substitute other things. Sales of donut makers and home deep-friers would soar. People would learn how to bake cookies, cake, etc. more (I already am pretty handy with baking stuff like this - it's actually pretty easy).
I also think the idea that taxation has decreased the rates of smoking in the US is quite overblown. I think more than anything, social approbrium, the increasing popularity of bans on indoor smoking, etc., and also education about the dangers of smoking - these have had a much greater effect than taxation.
Finally, taxation, when taken to a high enough level, can incentivize black markets. It's already happening for tobacco (New York has a bustling business in illegal and smuggled cigarettes due to their punishingly high tax rates). You want to see it happen for "junk food"? Try taxing donuts five bucks a pop and see what happens, as an example. You might see "bake-easies" pop up across the US. Which would be kind of funny, actually.
This^^^ ETA: High Five!!2
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K 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
- 423 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