Taxing Processed and Junk Food

Grokette

Let's Discuss.......................... Processed, junk food, soda and frozen packaged foods (such as hot pockets and TV dinners) should be taxed at a higher rate than fresh meat, fruits, vegetables, nuts and dairy?

Everyone keeps talking about how high the obesity epidemic is soaring - but no one is trying to do anything about it. If we want change, we have to exact the change we are looking for.

Bad Food? Tax It, and Subsidize Vegetables
By MARK BITTMAN
Published: July 23, 2011


Should You Trust Calorie Counts?

Is there a better way than calorie counts to raise awareness about nutrition, or should the government stop worrying about what people order?

WHAT will it take to get Americans to change our eating habits? The need is indisputable, since heart disease, diabetes and cancer are all in large part caused by the Standard American Diet. (Yes, it’s SAD.)

Though experts increasingly recommend a diet high in plants and low in animal products and processed foods, ours is quite the opposite, and there’s little disagreement that changing it could improve our health and save tens of millions of lives.

And — not inconsequential during the current struggle over deficits and spending — a sane diet could save tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars in health care costs.

Yet the food industry appears incapable of marketing healthier foods. And whether its leaders are confused or just stalling doesn’t matter, because the fixes are not really their problem. Their mission is not public health but profit, so they’ll continue to sell the health-damaging food that’s most profitable, until the market or another force skews things otherwise. That “other force” should be the federal government, fulfilling its role as an agent of the public good and establishing a bold national fix.

Rather than subsidizing the production of unhealthful foods, we should turn the tables and tax things like soda, French fries, doughnuts and hyperprocessed snacks. The resulting income should be earmarked for a program that encourages a sound diet for Americans by making healthy food more affordable and widely available.

The average American consumes 44.7 gallons of soft drinks annually. (Although that includes diet sodas, it does not include noncarbonated sweetened beverages, which add up to at least 17 gallons a person per year.) Sweetened drinks could be taxed at 2 cents per ounce, so a six-pack of Pepsi would cost $1.44 more than it does now. An equivalent tax on fries might be 50 cents per serving; a quarter extra for a doughnut. (We have experts who can figure out how “bad” a food should be to qualify, and what the rate should be; right now they’re busy calculating ethanol subsidies. Diet sodas would not be taxed.)

Simply put: taxes would reduce consumption of unhealthful foods and generate billions of dollars annually. That money could be used to subsidize the purchase of staple foods like seasonal greens, vegetables, whole grains, dried legumes and fruit.

We could sell those staples cheap — let’s say for 50 cents a pound — and almost everywhere: drugstores, street corners, convenience stores, bodegas, supermarkets, liquor stores, even schools, libraries and other community centers.

This program would, of course, upset the processed food industry. Oh well. It would also bug those who might resent paying more for soda and chips and argue that their right to eat whatever they wanted was being breached. But public health is the role of the government, and our diet is right up there with any other public responsibility you can name, from water treatment to mass transit.

Some advocates for the poor say taxes like these are unfair because low-income people pay a higher percentage of their income for food and would find it more difficult to buy soda or junk. But since poor people suffer disproportionately from the cost of high-quality, fresh foods, subsidizing those foods would be particularly beneficial to them.

Right now it’s harder for many people to buy fruit than Froot Loops; chips and Coke are a common breakfast. And since the rate of diabetes continues to soar — one-third of all Americans either have diabetes or are pre-diabetic, most with Type 2 diabetes, the kind associated with bad eating habits — and because our health care bills are on the verge of becoming truly insurmountable, this is urgent for economic sanity as well as national health.

Justifying a Tax

At least 30 cities and states have considered taxes on soda or all sugar-sweetened beverages, and they’re a logical target: of the 278 additional calories Americans on average consumed per day between 1977 and 2001, more than 40 percent came from soda, “fruit” drinks, mixes like Kool-Aid and Crystal Light, and beverages like Red Bull, Gatorade and dubious offerings like Vitamin Water, which contains half as much sugar as Coke.

Some states already have taxes on soda — mostly low, ineffective sales taxes paid at the register. The current talk is of excise taxes, levied before purchase.

“Excise taxes have the benefit of being incorporated into the shelf price, and that’s where consumers make their purchasing decisions,” says Lisa Powell, a senior research scientist at the Institute for Health Research and Policy at the University of Illinois at Chicago. “And, as per-unit taxes, they avoid volume discounts and are ultimately more effective in raising prices, so they have greater impact.”

Much of the research on beverage taxes comes from the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale. Its projections indicate that taxes become significant at the equivalent of about a penny an ounce, a level at which three very good things should begin to happen: the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages should decrease, as should the incidence of disease and therefore public health costs; and money could be raised for other uses.

Even in the current antitax climate, we’ll probably see new, significant soda taxes soon, somewhere; Philadelphia, New York (city and state) and San Francisco all considered them last year, and the scenario for such a tax spreading could be similar to that of legalized gambling: once the income stream becomes apparent, it will seem irresistible to cash-strapped governments.

Currently, instead of taxing sodas and other unhealthful food, we subsidize them (with, I might note, tax dollars!). Direct subsidies to farmers for crops like corn (used, for example, to make now-ubiquitous high-fructose corn syrup) and soybeans (vegetable oil) keep the prices of many unhealthful foods and beverages artificially low. There are indirect subsidies as well, because prices of junk foods don’t reflect the costs of repairing our health and the environment.

Other countries are considering or have already started programs to tax foods with negative effects on health. Denmark’s saturated-fat tax is going into effect Oct. 1, and Romania passed (and then un-passed) something similar; earlier this month, a French minister raised the idea of tripling the value added tax on soda. Meanwhile, Hungary is proposing a new tax on foods with “too much” sugar, salt or fat, while increasing taxes on liquor and soft drinks, all to pay for state-financed health care; and Brazil’s Fome Zero (Zero Hunger) program features subsidized produce markets and state-sponsored low-cost restaurants.

Putting all of those elements together could create a national program that would make progress on a half-dozen problems at once — disease, budget, health care, environment, food access and more — while paying for itself. The benefits are staggering, and though it would take a level of political will that’s rarely seen, it’s hardly a moonshot.

The need is dire: efforts to shift the national diet have failed, because education alone is no match for marketing dollars that push the very foods that are the worst for us. (The fast-food industry alone spent more than $4 billion on marketing in 2009; the Department of Agriculture’s Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion is asking for about a third of a percent of that in 2012: $13 million.) As a result, the percentage of obese adults has more than doubled over the last 30 years; the percentage of obese children has tripled. We eat nearly 10 percent more animal products than we did a generation or two ago, and though there may be value in eating at least some animal products, we could perhaps live with reduced consumption of triple bacon cheeseburgers.

Government and Public Health

Health-related obesity costs are projected to reach $344 billion by 2018 — with roughly 60 percent of that cost borne by the federal government. For a precedent in attacking this problem, look at the action government took in the case of tobacco.

The historic 1998 tobacco settlement, in which the states settled health-related lawsuits against tobacco companies, and the companies agreed to curtail marketing and finance antismoking efforts, was far from perfect, but consider the results. More than half of all Americans who once smoked have quit and smoking rates are about half of what they were in the 1960s.

It’s true that you don’t need to smoke and you do need to eat. But you don’t need sugary beverages (or the associated fries), which have been linked not only to Type 2 diabetes and increased obesity but also to cardiovascular diseases and decreased intake of valuable nutrients like calcium. It also appears that liquid calories provide less feeling of fullness; in other words, when you drink a soda it’s probably in addition to your other calorie intake, not instead of it.

To counter arguments about their nutritional worthlessness, expect to see “fortified” sodas — à la Red Bull, whose vitamins allegedly “support mental and physical performance” — and “improved” junk foods (Less Sugar! Higher Fiber!). Indeed, there may be reasons to make nutritionally worthless foods less so, but it’s better to decrease their consumption.

Forcing sales of junk food down through taxes isn’t ideal. First off, we’ll have to listen to nanny-state arguments, which can be countered by the acceptance of the anti-tobacco movement as well as a dozen other successful public health measures. Then there are the predictions of job loss at soda distributorships, but the same predictions were made about the tobacco industry, and those were wrong. (For that matter, the same predictions were made around the nickel deposit on bottles, which most shoppers don’t even notice.) Ultimately, however, both consumers and government will be more than reimbursed in the form of cheaper healthy staples, lowered health care costs and better health. And that’s a big deal.

The Resulting Benefits

A study by Y. Claire Wang, an assistant professor at Columbia’s Mailman School of Public Health, predicted that a penny tax per ounce on sugar-sweetened beverages in New York State would save $3 billion in health care costs over the course of a decade, prevent something like 37,000 cases of diabetes and bring in $1 billion annually. Another study shows that a two-cent tax per ounce in Illinois would reduce obesity in youth by 18 percent, save nearly $350 million and bring in over $800 million taxes annually.

Scaled nationally, as it should be, the projected benefits are even more impressive; one study suggests that a national penny-per-ounce tax on sugar-sweetened beverages would generate at least $13 billion a year in income while cutting consumption by 24 percent. And those numbers would swell dramatically if the tax were extended to more kinds of junk or doubled to two cents an ounce. (The Rudd Center has a nifty revenue calculator online that lets you play with the numbers yourself.)

A 20 percent increase in the price of sugary drinks nationally could result in about a 20 percent decrease in consumption, which in the next decade could prevent 1.5 million Americans from becoming obese and 400,000 cases of diabetes, saving about $30 billion.

It’s fun — inspiring, even — to think about implementing a program like this. First off, though the reduced costs of healthy foods obviously benefit the poor most, lower prices across the board keep things simpler and all of us, especially children whose habits are just developing, could use help in eating differently. The program would also bring much needed encouragement to farmers, including subsidies, if necessary, to grow staples instead of commodity crops.

Other ideas: We could convert refrigerated soda machines to vending machines that dispense grapes and carrots, as has already been done in Japan and Iowa. We could provide recipes, cooking lessons, even cookware for those who can’t afford it. Television public-service announcements could promote healthier eating. (Currently, 86 percent of food ads now seen by children are for foods high in sugar, fat or sodium.)

Money could be returned to communities for local spending on gyms, pools, jogging and bike trails; and for other activities at food distribution centers; for Meals on Wheels in those towns with a large elderly population, or for Head Start for those with more children; for supermarkets and farmers’ markets where needed. And more.

By profiting as a society from the foods that are making us sick and using those funds to make us healthy, the United States would gain the same kind of prestige that we did by attacking smoking. We could institute a national, comprehensive program that would make us a world leader in preventing chronic or “lifestyle” diseases, which for the first time in history kill more people than communicable ones. By doing so, we’d not only repair some of the damage we have caused by first inventing and then exporting the Standard American Diet, we’d also set a new standard for the rest of the world to follow.


A version of this op-ed appeared in print on July 24, 2011, on page SR1 of the New York edition with the headline: Bad Food? Tax It.

marquesajen

I'm all for it. It seems drastic, and I know it SHOULD be a personal responsibility to be healthy, but that isn't working so I think a tax on crap would be good.

lockef

Although I don't totally agree with subsidies, I think a tax on processed foods and other "junk" is a good idea. Not only would it help the organic food economy, but it would have a positive effect of our nations healthcare crisis.

Too bad it will never happen. Americans love their junk food. The general public would be in an uproar.

Look at how long it took to get a tax like this for cigarettes.

Maggie_Pie1

I'm all for it. I don't know if it's the same in all states, but in Texas - 'real food' is tax free, but taxes are charged for junk food at the regular sales tax rates. I wouldn't mind increasing that tax rate, whether it goes to subsidizing farms or even adding to the funds allotted to education, or maybe a little of both.

MassiveDelta

Absolutely NOT! Taxes should never ever be implemented to change behavior. Sin taxes? Is that what we have come too? Why not just personal responsibility. We should never have put that tax on cigarettes either. You smoke you die. You eat crap you die. If you want to do something you give incentives to the healthy responsible citizens not penalize the others.

Why try to do anything? Ask that. They will die and natural selection will work its course.

Maggie_Pie1

We should never have put that tax on cigarettes either. You smoke you die. You eat crap you die.

A counter to that is "You smoke you die, but you also affect the health of those in the vicinity of where you are smoking" and "You eat crap you die, and also teach your children bad health habits that will likely follow them into adulthood and/or result in you dying early and unable to care for any minor children you might have had".

I've never smoked a cigarette in my life. Ever. But both my parents smoked, and if a 'sin tax' would have modified their behavior to smoke less or even quit all together, then perhaps I wouldn't have been as affected by secondhand smoke.

This is obviously something you feel strongly about, and perhaps I would feel the same way if smoking and junk food eating *just* affected the smoker or the junk food eater. It affects everyone, one way or another.

Grokette

Although I don't totally agree with subsidies, I think a tax on processed foods and other "junk" is a good idea. Not only would it help the organic food economy, but it would have a positive effect of our nations healthcare crisis.

Too bad it will never happen. Americans love their junk food. The general public would be in an uproar.

Look at how long it took to get a tax like this for cigarettes.

I believe it is going to happen, sooner than later. I am currently in the middle of reading another article and it is being considered in many cities around the country already.

This can be done even at the City level and currently, there are at least 30 cities and states considering taxes on soda or all sugar-sweetened beverages. Americans, on average, consume 278 additional calories daily since 1977 and more than 40 percent of that came from soda, and sweetened drinks like Kool-Aid and Crystal Light, as well as energy drinks like Red Bull and Gatorade. Even the brand Vitamin Water as about half the sugar of a serving of Coca-Cola. In some states, soda carries a sales tax but there are measures to turn this into an excise taxes, which is levied before purchase.

Grokette

Absolutely NOT! Taxes should never ever be implemented to change behavior. Sin taxes? Is that what we have come too? Why not just personal responsibility. We should never have put that tax on cigarettes either. You smoke you die. You eat crap you die. If you want to do something you give incentives to the healthy responsible citizens not penalize the others.

Why try to do anything? Ask that. They will die and natural selection will work its course.

In a time where junk foods, junk cereals, processed crap, etc is pushed and marketed to the height it is - people are not going to be personally responsible.

The selection of crappy bread, crackers, cookies, frozen foods, boxed and packaged foods, etc make up a far greater section of the store than the produce, fresh meat, egg and dairy aisles. This is sad and a shame.

I say tax the junk and processed foods so that fresh, locally grown meats, vegetables and fruits can then be subsidized to bring back the ways of the old farmers..............not this new factory farming crap.

This will also ruin the likes of companies such as Monsanto and Cargill which I am all for!!

lockef

You smoke you die. You eat crap you die.

I kinda agree with you. It's not the governments place to force us to do something that is considered good for us. However, everyone else does have to pay for higher insurance premiums and healthcare.

This is a slippery slope that I don't want to be on.

starwhisperer

No I don't think so. Has smoking been curtailed by the tax? Alcohol? lottery? The things that a person can become addicted to will be addicting despite what people have to pay to have them. Thus people who have ruined their lives drinking too much, lost family, lost jobs, lost homes. it doesn't stop the drinking though because they are addicted. Besides the government might go all high and mighty and tell you that they are taxing to save lives, but give me a break, they are taxing to subsidize the national debt. I seldom thing that taxing is the answer for anything.... and that personal responsibility is the answer for most everything. You can't force responsibility though, through money or threats. While I was a smoker I always said, if the price goes up anymore i am quitting.. yeah right. I ended up paying over 5 dollars a pack and the price had nothing to do with my quitting.

FitJoani

I'm all for it. It seems drastic, and I know it SHOULD be a personal responsibility to be healthy, but that isn't working so I think a tax on crap would be good.

AGREED. Unfortunately it won't stop people from indulging

MassiveDelta

You smoke you die. You eat crap you die.

I kinda agree with you. It's not the governments place to force us to do something that is considered good for us. However, everyone else does have to pay for higher insurance premiums and healthcare.

This is a slippery slope that I don't want to be on.

Dont pay for them...someone mentioned that we pay for the health care for those that do...Stop paying for it. Its that simple. Give hospitals and doctors passes to avoid being forced to help someone that refuses to help themselves. That would make a few people think twice about this. If they wont help themselves why should I help them or anyone else. You can only drag some of these people along for so long before you realize they are just dead weight.

End6ame

While I agree with the sentiment, I disagree with the implementation.

Taxes and subsidies just give the government permission to reach further into our lives and dictate our decision. Education is still the best route. If more people begin to chose healthier options there will be less junk on the shelves. It is simple supply and demand.

The reverse side of this though, is that we, as a nation, do not have the resources to feed every American fresh meats and produce. So as less and less junk food is being sold, the prices of fresh meats and produce would increase because the demand would increase but the supply cannot. So in reality, the people buying all the junk food are keeping the meat and produce prices lower for you and I.

Acg67

Why should all the people that can eat so called junk food in moderation be punished with a tax? Because it may possibly deter those with no self control from over eating it?

Rage_Phish

Why should all the people that can eat so called junk food in moderation be punished with a tax? Because it may possibly deter those with no self control from over eating it?

Not a good enough reason for me. Let the market dictate these things.

PanteraGirl

Bump

eamconnor

Has smoking been curtailed by the tax? .... While I was a smoker I always said, if the price goes up anymore i am quitting.. yeah right. I ended up paying over 5 dollars a pack and the price had nothing to do with my quitting.

It seems your personal experience isn't typical. Overall, when tobacco taxes go up, consumption goes down. A lot of factors affect that dynamic, but yes, tobacco taxes do seem to curtail smoking.

jellybaby84

No way.

Nanny state taken to the extreme. People have to be free to eat what they like.

Rage_Phish

Has smoking been curtailed by the tax? .... While I was a smoker I always said, if the price goes up anymore i am quitting.. yeah right. I ended up paying over 5 dollars a pack and the price had nothing to do with my quitting.

It seems your personal experience isn't typical. Overall, when tobacco taxes go up, consumption goes down. A lot of factors affect that dynamic, but yes, tobacco taxes do seem to curtail smoking.

I think the facts that people have become more educated on the dangers of smoking as well as the banning of cigarettes in many places has much more to do with the lower rates of smoking than the taxes do.

Acg67

It seems your personal experience isn't typical. Overall, when tobacco taxes go up, consumption goes down. A lot of factors affect that dynamic, but yes, tobacco taxes do seem to curtail smoking.

i believe the actual stats show that while less people begin to smoke, it did little to actual stop those who were already smoking.

eamconnor

It seems your personal experience isn't typical. Overall, when tobacco taxes go up, consumption goes down. A lot of factors affect that dynamic, but yes, tobacco taxes do seem to curtail smoking.

i believe the actual stats show that while less people begin to smoke, it did little to actual stop those who were already smoking.

Good point. I wouldn't go so far as to say taxes did "little" to affect people already smoking, but I agree with the general sense of your post. High tobacco taxes are particularly instrumental in deterring people from taking up the habit, yes.

lisabel87

Groceries should not be taxed in any state. That goes for junk food. I do think that they should raise te overall prices of junk food though. Eating healthy is costs more than eating junk. Not cool.

eamconnor

Has smoking been curtailed by the tax? .... While I was a smoker I always said, if the price goes up anymore i am quitting.. yeah right. I ended up paying over 5 dollars a pack and the price had nothing to do with my quitting.

It seems your personal experience isn't typical. Overall, when tobacco taxes go up, consumption goes down. A lot of factors affect that dynamic, but yes, tobacco taxes do seem to curtail smoking.

I think the facts that people have become more educated on the dangers of smoking as well as the banning of cigarettes in many places has much more to do with the lower rates of smoking than the taxes do.

Yes, the things you mentioned are all factors. Which one is *more* or *most* important depends on where, when, how the study is done, what kinds of peole are involved -- all kinds of variables come into play. I agree, though, that you've mentioned some important points. And they are relevent to what we're talking about now -- where and when food is available, for example.

VeganGal84

I think it's a bad idea. It's along the same lines of not being able to use food stamps on certain foods. It's none of anyone's business what anyone else eats.

And who would be the judge of what's "healthy" or not? Some people think that meat and dairy is unhealthy (vegans- Myself included) but I don't think that meat and dairy should be taxed more than any other foods.

I love diet sodas, some think that those are unhealthy. I would throw a fit if my diet cokes were taxed more, since they already cost about $5 a 12 pack!

Too much room for error with this, and I disagree with all of it.

InaWarZone

QUOTE In a time where junk foods, junk cereals, processed crap, etc is pushed and marketed to the height it is - people are not going to be personally responsible. UNQUOTE

Yes, people are too stupid to do the right thing for themselves. Luckily, we have the smart people like you and our government who know better and will make sure you do the right thing... or else. Sorry but we have to tax the crap out of anything that we think isn't good... for your own good, because you're an idiot.

Why don't you tax unprotected sex while you're at it? TV watching too?

Where does it end? And for that matter, since when has the government become a master of the people rather than servant of the people?

I have spent many years in defense of our freedom, ideology like this (and all the coolaid drinkers nodding in agreement) make me wonder if my service was in vain.

silkysly

I think we are over taxed as it is..., i'll pass.

InaWarZone

Groceries should not be taxed in any state. That goes for junk food. I do think that they should raise te overall prices of junk food though. Eating healthy is costs more than eating junk. Not cool.

Agree about the taxes but idea of price control is exactly the same thing... comrade.

corsayre8

The issue is bigger than a tax - having junk food taxed at a higher percentage is only going to ad pennies, (at least here in cali where we already have a snack tax).

It is cheaper to buy a two liter of soda than it is to buy juice or milk.

It is cheaper to buy frozen fruit and veggies that are filled with sugar than it is to buy fresh produce.

It is cheaper to buy a loaf of wonder bread than any of the whole grain breads.

It is cheaper to buy the highly processed sandwich meats than it is to hit the deli counter.

Pretty much accross the board, the junk food options are cheaper then the healthy options. Adding a tax like suggested is only going to add more of a hardship on those with a fixed income.

I'm not sure what the soltion is, but it is going to require much more restructuring that simply adding on a new tax.

eamconnor

The issue is bigger than a tax - having junk food taxed at a higher percentage is only going to ad pennies, (at least here in cali where we already have a snack tax).

It is cheaper to buy a two liter of soda than it is to buy juice or milk.

It is cheaper to buy frozen fruit and veggies that are filled with sugar than it is to buy fresh produce.

It is cheaper to buy a loaf of wonder bread than any of the whole grain breads.

It is cheaper to buy the highly processed sandwich meats than it is to hit the deli counter.

Pretty much accross the board, the junk food options are cheaper then the healthy options. Adding a tax like suggested is only going to add more of a hardship on those with a fixed income.

I'm not sure what the soltion is, but it is going to require much more restructuring that simply adding on a new tax.

I think your experience is borne out...junk food calories ARE cheap to buy. Soda is cheaper than real juice or milk, and so on. I think in the original article, Mark Bittman makes the point that right now, junk food can be cheaper because food policy has us *subsidizing* it. Imagine if we subsidized fresh fruit and vegetables instead!

mamashatzie

I strongly agree with the sentiment that healthier foods should be cheaper and more accessible than junk foods, I very strongly disagree with government taxation of junk food. The phrase "nanny state" sums up my feelings pretty well. The government does not need to monitor what we eat.

Find a way to make fresh fruits and veggies, lean protein, and whole grains cheaper, yes. But do that without passing judgement on foods that are arbitrarily deemed unhealthy.

susanswan

While I agree with the sentiment, I disagree with the implementation.

Taxes and subsidies just give the government permission to reach further into our lives and dictate our decision. Education is still the best route. If more people begin to chose healthier options there will be less junk on the shelves. It is simple supply and demand.

The reverse side of this though, is that we, as a nation, do not have the resources to feed every American fresh meats and produce. So as less and less junk food is being sold, the prices of fresh meats and produce would increase because the demand would increase but the supply cannot. So in reality, the people buying all the junk food are keeping the meat and produce prices lower for you and I.

Me, too. But what next? Cheese? Butter? Whole milk? Fatty cuts of meat? Things will just cost more if people buy less. They already are sky high.

We just met a guy from New Zealand this year who said he was totally blown away by the sheer number of extremely obese individuals and whole families that he saw here in CA. He was beside himself because he said in NZ he is considered very overweight and an oddity and yet he would be considered "normal" here. Probably 6'1" and 235 pounds. I asked him what he thought was different. His reply was obvious to me: "We don't have 4 different fast food restaurants to choose from at every single intersection." His culture is that people "make dinner". It is from actual food, not packets or cans.

I don't know what the solution is. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. The info is out there. We all got it some how. We were all fat and eating junk most likely, yet we are just a small handful of people that is actually doing something about it for any number of reasons. Congratulations, guys! I guess it is live and let "live".