Taxing "Unhealthy" Foods

daffodilsoup

In October, Denmark became the first country to tax any food containing more than 2.3% saturated fat. (Read more here: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2096185,00.html). In the US, there is a push to tax "junk-type" foods such as soda, candy and processed foods.

What are your thoughts on this? Should the government have a right to determine what is healthy or not, and tax foods appropriately? Do you think this will have any effect on the obesity epidemic?

_VoV

I think much more can be accomplished on the food production side of things. The meat and dairy industries are heavily subsidized by federal grants. The video 'King Korn' is a real eye-opener as to this reality. On the other hand, farmers who grow fruits and vegetables are lucky to get any subsidies whatsoever. I would love to see meat, dairy and eggs reflect their true cost, instead of having the cost low at tax-payer expense. Then, maybe people would use those products more sparingly.

KimmieBrie

In don't agree. It's not the governments place to decide what is and is not good for me - and besides, most things are fine in MODERATION. A soda a month isn't going to kill me. A piece of candy once a month isn't either. Butter has a lot of saturated fat yet is used in many recipes and in moderation. People who go overboard will continue to do so. It's all about balance.

MikeSEA

I have a couple problems with this type of tax.

1) It's sort of a similar approach to sin taxes on cigarettes and alcohol. The problem is that smoking really is bad for you. No one credible is going to argue against that. Apart from some indication that wine might have benefits, no one's really going to argue that vodka shots nightly isn't poisonous. Saturated fat isn't really in the same league. Trans fats, maybe.

2) I just don't think it will be effective. I suspect, but don't know, that people are obese in part because they feel out of control of their eating. Thus, they'll still spend the money to eat the food; they'll just be bitter that it's more expensive. I think it would probably be better if we gave people incentives for being healthier by it being easier and more fun to have active lifestyles.

Spend more on infrastructure for bike lanes in areas where people can and like to bike. Make public transportation more convenient and efficient, so people aren't exhausted when they get home because they had to spend 1.5 hours in traffic just to get home. Not sure how I would feel about subsidies for gym memberships. Perhaps a tax break for those who demonstrate that they're taking positive steps toward a healthier life. Make preventative care free, flat out.

One could always argue that that's all well and good, but how do you pay for it? Well, that just ends up being another debate over government spending, which I don't know that I really want to get into here. It's really about where we want to put our priorities.

_VoV

In don't agree. It's not the governments place to decide what is and is not good for me - and besides, most things are fine in MODERATION. A soda a month isn't going to kill me. A piece of candy once a month isn't either. Butter has a lot of saturated fat yet is used in many recipes and in moderation. People who go overboard will continue to do so. It's all about balance.

There's already a sin tax on wine, which has known health benefits in moderate amounts. I think these taxes will come for recreational foods like soda and candy because it's hard to make any case that they do anybody any good (well maybe dark chocolate in tiny amounts). But, I think the taxpayer backlash to sin taxes on these items won't be worth it.

The government already manipulates food production by giving out farm subsidies. It artificially changes the market. That could be changed. As a vegetarian, I am not hugely fond of the idea of supplementing consumers who want to buy cheap meat, dairy and eggs.

Here's a pie-chart demonstrating what U.S. tax-payers are subsidizing:

http://www.pcrm.org/media/news/usdas-new-myplate-icon-at-odds-with-federal

leanmachinedream

Taxing unhealthy food thinking it will curb obesity is like thinking taxing cigarettes has curbed smoking. I can understand the premise and get behind wanting people to live a healthier lifestyle - but let's target food production first, not consumers.

NightOwl1

The problem I have with this tax is while it sounds good in theory, it's also very regressive. Unfortunately the poor have the fewest options when it comes to eating healthy, and are the most likely the ones to be affected by this tax. So I think education is the best option instead of financial penalty.

daffodilsoup

Taxing unhealthy food thinking it will curb obesity is like thinking taxing cigarettes has curbed smoking. I can understand the premise and get behind wanting people to live a healthier lifestyle - but let's target food production first, not consumers.

I definitely hear this sentiment, but where I live (Central NJ), a pack of cigarettes is $13 with tax. This has definitely turned a lot of people, especially younger smokers, to at least decrease the amount they smoke every day, if not cut it out of their lives completely.

_VoV

Taxing unhealthy food thinking it will curb obesity is like thinking taxing cigarettes has curbed smoking. I can understand the premise and get behind wanting people to live a healthier lifestyle - but let's target food production first, not consumers.

I definitely hear this sentiment, but where I live (Central NJ), a pack of cigarettes is $13 with tax. This has definitely turned a lot of people, especially younger smokers, to at least decrease the amount they smoke every day, if not cut it out of their lives completely.

Well, as an aside, a 'sin tax' on private health insurance brought me here. As a self-insured person with a high BMI, only a few health insurance companies would consider issuing a policy to me. Most tacked on a HUGE penalty for uncomplicated obesity with no associated health problems. That motivated me to change. I'm not proud of the fact that the impetus for getting fit was external, but that's the truth.

honeysprinkles

It's not something I support. I'd rather see a decrease in price or an incentive to buy fresh foods, but not a tax for buying junk.

Bahet

How about lowering the price on healthy foods. Those are almost always more expensive if they are labelled "organic" but there's no reason aside from profit for it to be that way. If the government really wants to make people healthier then they need to start regulating what goes into our foods rather than letting the manufacturer put any old crap in it and then penalizing us for buying it. Start by eliminating food dyes and other unnecessary things alson with some of the harsher preservatives. You cannot buy a Butterfingers candy bar in Germany (don't know about the rest of Europe) because some of the crap in it is banned. On the flip side our government in it's infinite stupidity has banned Kinder Eggs (chocolate candy around a plastic vial with a little toy in it) because some moron might try to eat it and choke. Gah.

Elizabeth_C34

How about lowering the price on healthy foods.

THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS!

and what MikeSEA said.

MikeSEA

On the flip side our government in it's infinite stupidity has banned Kinder Eggs (chocolate candy around a plastic vial with a little toy in it) because some moron might try to eat it and choke. Gah.

In general, I don't think inedible toys inside a candy shell is probably a good thing. I'm unfamiliar with the product though, and only just looked it up online. While I can see where it seems unlikely that someone would chomp into the toy, I've met some really dumb people....Just sayin'

BrettPGH

Taxing unhealthy food thinking it will curb obesity is like thinking taxing cigarettes has curbed smoking. I can understand the premise and get behind wanting people to live a healthier lifestyle - but let's target food production first, not consumers.

I definitely hear this sentiment, but where I live (Central NJ), a pack of cigarettes is $13 with tax. This has definitely turned a lot of people, especially younger smokers, to at least decrease the amount they smoke every day, if not cut it out of their lives completely.

Got any numbers to go with that? Because that's always the rational given for raising the taxes on a pack of smokes, but silly old skeptical me thinks MAYBE they're just trying to tax a group of consumers most people don't like in the first place. Don't pick my pocket and tell me you're doing it for my own good.

Sin tax... things are legal or they aren't. If they're so awful and dangerous make them a crime, don't just take a cut.

What will lawmakers decide they don't like next that they'd want to tax to the point where you can't afford it? Right now it's cigarettes and booze. Hey maybe some of these books are giving people the wrong ideas.. let's tax them extra!

There's no reason to tax any one group of items more than another. The exception being having no tax on necessities like food and clothing. I don't need the government telling me what I should and should not be buying. They consider pizza a vegetable anyway, how can I trust they'll tax the right foods?

(See I'm not always so liberal)

Azdak

I have never been a fan of "sin taxes" in general. We all participate in a continuum of behaviors. Who is to say that eating a Big Mac, for example has a more negative health consequence than eating organic food, but living in a polluted neighborhood, or going skydiving, etc, etc, etc.

If you look at some of the Framingham data, for example, and you graph heart attack frequency with lifestyle behaviors, and you segment those behaviors (and activity) between light, medium, and heavy, you would find that sedentary individuals with no risk factors had higher rates of heart attack (and all-cause mortality) than "high activity" individuals who were in the "low" category for smoking, hypertension, high cholesterol, etc. (hope that makes sense). So do we have a "couch potato" tax? Everyone has a body bugg implant and they are taxed based on number of steps?

There is no way to come up with a neutral equitable system, and, even if there was, what would be the point?

This is one area where I disagree sharply with many liberals and also many healthcare professionals. To me, it goes in the "cure is worse than the disease" category.

atomiclauren

The problem I have with this tax is while it sounds good in theory, it's also very regressive. Unfortunately the poor have the fewest options when it comes to eating healthy, and are the most likely the ones to be affected by this tax. So I think education is the best option instead of financial penalty.

Yes! That's a better approach to fixing the underlying issue at hand.

BrettPGH

I have never been a fan of "sin taxes" in general. We all participate in a continuum of behaviors. Who is to say that eating a Big Mac, for example has a more negative health consequence than eating organic food, but living in a polluted neighborhood, or going skydiving, etc, etc, etc.

If you look at some of the Framingham data, for example, and you graph heart attack frequency with lifestyle behaviors, and you segment those behaviors (and activity) between light, medium, and heavy, you would find that sedentary individuals with no risk factors had higher rates of heart attack (and all-cause mortality) than "high activity" individuals who were in the "low" category for smoking, hypertension, high cholesterol, etc. (hope that makes sense). So do we have a "couch potato" tax? Everyone has a body bugg implant and they are taxed based on number of steps?

There is no way to come up with a neutral equitable system, and, even if there was, what would be the point?

This is one area where I disagree sharply with many liberals and also many healthcare professionals. To me, it goes in the "cure is worse than the disease" category.

Proving again that I always enjoy reading your opinion on things.

Some things people say aren't always true, they just hear them and parrot them. The common wisdom is that "smokers cost everyone more in insurance costs". I've read studies saying the exact opposite. See smokers die young, because they smoke. While they may have some costly treatments before death (most don't) it still saves the insurance company a fortune compared with a non-smoker living into their 80's or 90's. That's the real expense. Elderly citizens spend a great deal of time at doctor's as their body slowly wears down. We try to do what we can to prolong their lives because that's how we view medicine in the west. But it costs a fortune. As people live longer and treatments/medications cost more these costs truly skyrocket. It's a blessing to insurance companies that smokers die off younger, saving them a ton.

But they're not going to tell you that. They're going to tell you the reason your rates are high is because of those awful smokers. Not the CEO's golden parachute check. So everyone gets mad at smokers and gives insurance companies and the government a reason to take money out of the pockets of their hard working fellow citizens. Because they know smoking is a prejudice they can play on.

We've had these taxes for quite a while now. Has smoking gone away? Have insurance rates decreased?

I don't know about you but I really don't like being played for a fool.

summalovaable

Of course the government is primarily focused on taxing to make more money. Why do the less healthy options have to be taxed, why can't they use tax dollars to make healthier foods more affordable? This way no one has the right to say "I can't afford to eat healthy"

nikolaim5

I think taxing that which adds to the financial burden of the healthcare system is perfectly reasonable. Alcohol, tobacco, unhealthy foods. I wouldn't want to see it happen as a singular movethough. I think there should be a tax incentive elsewhere, such as on healthy lifestyle choices as other have said.

TheRoadDog

I want the government to stay the hell out of my fridge and pantry.

atomiclauren

I agree for the most part that this isn't the greatest idea - another issue, though - do entities that make/serve food products have some sort of corporate social responsibility to not make such crap?

atsteele

Taxing unhealthy food is not about encouraging healthier lifestyle choices or limiting poor food choices. It's about bringing in additional revenue for an overbloated government.

flyawaybyebye

If you only eat an "unhealthy" food occasionally, you'll pay a very small amount of additional tax, so really, what's the problem? For those who eat unhealthy foods regularly, there would be incentive to change their dietary habits (and fewer complaints about the high cost of healthy foods used as an excuse to eat poorly.) And the taxes could be used to pay for the additional medical costs associated with unhealthy foods, like diabetes, heart-disease and other obesity-related health problems - things all tax payers, including those who make better food choices, currently have to help pay for. I see it as a win-win.

Bahet

If you only eat an "unhealthy" food occasionally, you'll pay a very small amount of additional tax, so really, what's the problem? For those who eat unhealthy foods regularly, there would be incentive to change their dietary habits (and fewer complaints about the high cost of healthy foods used as an excuse to eat poorly.) And the taxes could be used to pay for the additional medical costs associated with unhealthy foods, like diabetes, heart-disease and other obesity-related health problems - things all tax payers, including those who make better food choices, currently have to help pay for. I see it as a win-win.

Lowering the costs of healthy foods would accomplish the same things. I don't eat organic because it costs a good deal more. I don't buy the leanest cuts of meat/hamburger fo the same reason. 80/20 ground beef is a lot cheaper than 90/10. A regular banana is nearly have the price of organic and it's not like I'm eating the peel anyhow. I buy a local brand of potato bread because it's cheap and tastes good. I'm not going to spend double for whole grain.

Of course, you also have to define healthy food. I've known people who think if it's not McDonald's type stuff it's fine and others to say that if there is 1 can of condensed soup in an entire casserole with 8 servings that it becomes junk or that canned green beans are junk food. IMO, the fast food, candy, sugar/salt/fried snacks would be junk food. I don't consider canned veggies or a casserole made with a can of soup to be junk food.

flyawaybyebye

If you only eat an "unhealthy" food occasionally, you'll pay a very small amount of additional tax, so really, what's the problem? For those who eat unhealthy foods regularly, there would be incentive to change their dietary habits (and fewer complaints about the high cost of healthy foods used as an excuse to eat poorly.) And the taxes could be used to pay for the additional medical costs associated with unhealthy foods, like diabetes, heart-disease and other obesity-related health problems - things all tax payers, including those who make better food choices, currently have to help pay for. I see it as a win-win.

Lowering the costs of healthy foods would accomplish the same things. I don't eat organic because it costs a good deal more. I don't buy the leanest cuts of meat/hamburger fo the same reason. 80/20 ground beef is a lot cheaper than 90/10. A regular banana is nearly have the price of organic and it's not like I'm eating the peel anyhow. I buy a local brand of potato bread because it's cheap and tastes good. I'm not going to spend double for whole grain.

Of course, you also have to define healthy food. I've known people who think if it's not McDonald's type stuff it's fine and others to say that if there is 1 can of condensed soup in an entire casserole with 8 servings that it becomes junk or that canned green beans are junk food. IMO, the fast food, candy, sugar/salt/fried snacks would be junk food. I don't consider canned veggies or a casserole made with a can of soup to be junk food.

That would be a great idea - how do you propose we do that? Subsidize healthy foods? Great idea, IMO. I'd love to see that happen. Where would we get the $$ for those subsidies, though? Taxes. Taxing unhealthy food could allow the government to subsidize healthier choices. I'd be all for that.

Bahet

If you only eat an "unhealthy" food occasionally, you'll pay a very small amount of additional tax, so really, what's the problem? For those who eat unhealthy foods regularly, there would be incentive to change their dietary habits (and fewer complaints about the high cost of healthy foods used as an excuse to eat poorly.) And the taxes could be used to pay for the additional medical costs associated with unhealthy foods, like diabetes, heart-disease and other obesity-related health problems - things all tax payers, including those who make better food choices, currently have to help pay for. I see it as a win-win.

Lowering the costs of healthy foods would accomplish the same things. I don't eat organic because it costs a good deal more. I don't buy the leanest cuts of meat/hamburger fo the same reason. 80/20 ground beef is a lot cheaper than 90/10. A regular banana is nearly have the price of organic and it's not like I'm eating the peel anyhow. I buy a local brand of potato bread because it's cheap and tastes good. I'm not going to spend double for whole grain.

Of course, you also have to define healthy food. I've known people who think if it's not McDonald's type stuff it's fine and others to say that if there is 1 can of condensed soup in an entire casserole with 8 servings that it becomes junk or that canned green beans are junk food. IMO, the fast food, candy, sugar/salt/fried snacks would be junk food. I don't consider canned veggies or a casserole made with a can of soup to be junk food.

That would be a great idea - how do you propose we do that? Subsidize healthy foods? Great idea, IMO. I'd love to see that happen. Where would we get the $$ for those subsidies, though? Taxes. Taxing unhealthy food could allow the government to subsidize healthier choices. I'd be all for that.

Oh I know it won't happen. The government can't just lower the prices at Kroger. But taxing unhealthy foods won't make anything any better for poor people. they just won't be able to afford anything BUT rice and beans. And again, it all depends on what you define as "unhealthy". Are canned veggies unhealthy? What about breakfast cereals like Frosted Mini Wheats? Or is unhealthy a much narrower group such as fast food, candy, cookies, etc?

flyawaybyebye

If you only eat an "unhealthy" food occasionally, you'll pay a very small amount of additional tax, so really, what's the problem? For those who eat unhealthy foods regularly, there would be incentive to change their dietary habits (and fewer complaints about the high cost of healthy foods used as an excuse to eat poorly.) And the taxes could be used to pay for the additional medical costs associated with unhealthy foods, like diabetes, heart-disease and other obesity-related health problems - things all tax payers, including those who make better food choices, currently have to help pay for. I see it as a win-win.

Lowering the costs of healthy foods would accomplish the same things. I don't eat organic because it costs a good deal more. I don't buy the leanest cuts of meat/hamburger fo the same reason. 80/20 ground beef is a lot cheaper than 90/10. A regular banana is nearly have the price of organic and it's not like I'm eating the peel anyhow. I buy a local brand of potato bread because it's cheap and tastes good. I'm not going to spend double for whole grain.

Of course, you also have to define healthy food. I've known people who think if it's not McDonald's type stuff it's fine and others to say that if there is 1 can of condensed soup in an entire casserole with 8 servings that it becomes junk or that canned green beans are junk food. IMO, the fast food, candy, sugar/salt/fried snacks would be junk food. I don't consider canned veggies or a casserole made with a can of soup to be junk food.

That would be a great idea - how do you propose we do that? Subsidize healthy foods? Great idea, IMO. I'd love to see that happen. Where would we get the $$ for those subsidies, though? Taxes. Taxing unhealthy food could allow the government to subsidize healthier choices. I'd be all for that.

Oh I know it won't happen. The government can't just lower the prices at Kroger. But taxing unhealthy foods won't make anything any better for poor people. they just won't be able to afford anything BUT rice and beans. And again, it all depends on what you define as "unhealthy". Are canned veggies unhealthy? What about breakfast cereals like Frosted Mini Wheats? Or is unhealthy a much narrower group such as fast food, candy, cookies, etc?

The government can, though, by subsidizing healthy foods. And I'm unclear as to how it benefits poor people for bad food to be cheap? If it's cheap, they're tempted to buy it instead of buying nutritious foods, which means that they pay the price later in terms of higher medical costs... I really think taxing bad food would be much, much better for poor people - especially if those taxes went to create subsidies to lower the price of healthy foods.

As far as what constitutes "healthy" foods... I'd say that anything that requires a lot of packaging and a list of ingredients to explain what it is qualifies as unhealthy. Simple, whole foods would qualify as healthy.