Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Should junk food be taxed?
Options
Replies
-
midwesterner85 wrote: »No, we are not discussing a proposed law; we are discussing a proposed policy that might someday become a proposed platform resolution.
To discuss policy, as well as to discuss law, you have to identify and define the proposed policy solution. You see that here: someone is saying "oh, it's OBVIOUS what junk food is" whereas the actual proposal packerjohn is making is about added sugar, so would leave out some things normally considered junk food, while including others that normally are not. There are also a variety of different policies worldwhile. So it is essentially that anyone trying to convince others that a policy is a good idea DEFINE what that policy is.
It's not "oh, it's obvious, anyone who claims otherwise obviously does not care about health" as--IMO--has been asserted, falsely.Those who don't understand the difference here seem to want to discuss formation of a proposed bill, which is still not the same as discussing a proposed law or even a proposed bill.
I understand the difference perfectly well. I am a lawyer. It is still necessary to demonstrate how the policy would work -- questions such as how would the tax apply? Above a particular amount, per gram, per percentage, per serving, what? As someone considering such a proposal in my own state (hypothetically) all of these would make a difference.4 -
reducinglisa wrote: »possibly should be banned... but no, not taxed. We have enough to worry about financially and people do have the right to eat badly if they choose to.
Banning? You know prohibition was a complete failure2 -
@lemurcat12 too long to quote you on my phone...
I don't know if the answer is a junk food tax. It's a discussion on the forum. It's an idea. I missed your follow up questions and do not feel obligated to go back.
Everyone does not have an obesity problem. That doesn't mean society as a whole can't help the ones that do. If the statistics are correct about obesity related illnesses in the future it seems that society would be better off doing something to help the situation.
I find it odd that you perceive the tax as helping those with an obesity problem. Seems terribly patronizing.
I think it perhaps helps the societal problem, but someone with an obesity problem who eats these foods (not all do -- it wouldn't have affected me much at all) would actually be negatively affected for the most part. It's a tax on eating high cal foods. If one doesn't want to eat them, seems weird to say you need a tax to stop. Just stop.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »No, we are not discussing a proposed law; we are discussing a proposed policy that might someday become a proposed platform resolution.
To discuss policy, as well as to discuss law, you have to identify and define the proposed policy solution. You see that here: someone is saying "oh, it's OBVIOUS what junk food is" whereas the actual proposal packerjohn is making is about added sugar, so would leave out some things normally considered junk food, while including others that normally are not. There are also a variety of different policies worldwhile. So it is essentially that anyone trying to convince others that a policy is a good idea DEFINE what that policy is.
It's not "oh, it's obvious, anyone who claims otherwise obviously does not care about health" as--IMO--has been asserted, falsely.Those who don't understand the difference here seem to want to discuss formation of a proposed bill, which is still not the same as discussing a proposed law or even a proposed bill.
I understand the difference perfectly well. I am a lawyer. It is still necessary to demonstrate how the policy would work -- questions such as how would the tax apply? Above a particular amount, per gram, per percentage, per serving, what? As someone considering such a proposal in my own state (hypothetically) all of these would make a difference.
The level of detail being requested by some is not necessary at this stage. It is definitely important when it gets to a proposed bill; but looking for a list of specific food items, for example, is well beyond the detail ever necessary or valuable at the "idea" level.
ETA: I do believe that some of the details are relevant for a policy discussion, but this is not discussing a proposed law, as you claimed. As a lawyer, you really should have known we are not discussing an actual bill, so the question of what is contained in that bill is ridiculous.0 -
Here's the actual study on the Mexican junk food tax:
http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1002057To prevent continued increases in obesity and diabetes, in January 2014, the Mexican government implemented a 1 peso-per-liter tax on SSBs (equivalent to approximately 10% tax) and an 8% tax on nonessential foods with energy density ≥275 kcal/100 g. In Mexico, total prices including the tax price are included on the shelf label, so the price consumers see includes the tax. The law defined nonessential foods in the following categories: chips and snacks, candies and sweets, chocolate, puddings, peanut and hazelnut butters, ice cream and ice pops, and cereal-based products with substantial added sugar.For the first full year after Mexico’s taxes on SSBs and nonessential energy-dense food taxes, we find significant changes in the observed per capita volume of household purchases of taxed foods compared to the counterfactual (i.e., what was expected based on pre-tax trends). Overall, we find that taxed foods declined by 25 g/capita/month (-5.1%), whereas untaxed food purchases did not change (-0.3%). Moreover, we find much larger declines for lower SES households (-10.2%), whereas medium SES households changed by 5.8% and high SES households did not change.A great complexity of implementing a food tax is to define the characteristics of the foods subject to it. If only selected unhealthy foods are taxed, individuals can substitute with other unhealthy untaxed foods; on the other hand, if the tax categorization is too broad, many relatively healthy products will also be affected, increasing the cost of food without the public health benefit [24,25]. Overall, this tax successfully targeted unhealthy foods, as it focused on processed foods and did not disincentive traditional cooking ingredients such as sugar and fats (a criticism the Danish fat tax has received) [26]. However, the use of a single energy-dense cut-point in the Mexican tax without other nutritional attributes left out foods that are otherwise considered unhealthy (e.g., most ice creams were untaxed), whereas foods like peanuts and nuts were taxed. Moreover, sorting products out into “essential” versus “nonessential” is an iterative process, and throughout 2014 there were clarifications on the initial law ambiguities, representing about 2.3% of all products (see S2 Table). In contrast, new Chilean controls on food marketing that will go into effect July 1, 2016, uses as a cutoff not only energy but also sodium, saturated fat, and total sugar for foods and beverages separately [27]. An additional complexity of analyzing the Mexican tax is that each producer interprets the law and determines the total amount they have to pay (without reporting for which products they are paying). Thus, we cannot be certain which exact products were actually taxed.0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »No, we are not discussing a proposed law; we are discussing a proposed policy that might someday become a proposed platform resolution.
To discuss policy, as well as to discuss law, you have to identify and define the proposed policy solution. You see that here: someone is saying "oh, it's OBVIOUS what junk food is" whereas the actual proposal packerjohn is making is about added sugar, so would leave out some things normally considered junk food, while including others that normally are not. There are also a variety of different policies worldwhile. So it is essentially that anyone trying to convince others that a policy is a good idea DEFINE what that policy is.
It's not "oh, it's obvious, anyone who claims otherwise obviously does not care about health" as--IMO--has been asserted, falsely.Those who don't understand the difference here seem to want to discuss formation of a proposed bill, which is still not the same as discussing a proposed law or even a proposed bill.
I understand the difference perfectly well. I am a lawyer. It is still necessary to demonstrate how the policy would work -- questions such as how would the tax apply? Above a particular amount, per gram, per percentage, per serving, what? As someone considering such a proposal in my own state (hypothetically) all of these would make a difference.
The level of detail being requested by some is not necessary at this stage. It is definitely important when it gets to a proposed bill; but looking for a list of specific food items, for example, is well beyond the detail ever necessary or valuable at the "idea" level.
People are asking for that level of detail to make the point that the idea itself is unrealistic and problematic. They are saying it is impossible to truly define specific foods or ingredients that across the board make people obese, because quantity is the one important factor, not the specific foods. It's a debate strategy, and this is a debate.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »@lemurcat12 too long to quote you on my phone...
I don't know if the answer is a junk food tax. It's a discussion on the forum. It's an idea. I missed your follow up questions and do not feel obligated to go back.
Everyone does not have an obesity problem. That doesn't mean society as a whole can't help the ones that do. If the statistics are correct about obesity related illnesses in the future it seems that society would be better off doing something to help the situation.
I find it odd that you perceive the tax as helping those with an obesity problem. Seems terribly patronizing.
I think it perhaps helps the societal problem, but someone with an obesity problem who eats these foods (not all do -- it wouldn't have affected me much at all) would actually be negatively affected for the most part. It's a tax on eating high cal foods. If one doesn't want to eat them, seems weird to say you need a tax to stop. Just stop.
Education about nutrition and CICO would help the situation. That will cost money. A tax on junk food could cover that. I am not 100% sure that a tax is the answer. I am not picketing the White House or putting a petition up on change.org for a junk food tax. I am discussing the idea on a forum.
I have not said anything patronizing or condescending.0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »No, we are not discussing a proposed law; we are discussing a proposed policy that might someday become a proposed platform resolution.
To discuss policy, as well as to discuss law, you have to identify and define the proposed policy solution. You see that here: someone is saying "oh, it's OBVIOUS what junk food is" whereas the actual proposal packerjohn is making is about added sugar, so would leave out some things normally considered junk food, while including others that normally are not. There are also a variety of different policies worldwhile. So it is essentially that anyone trying to convince others that a policy is a good idea DEFINE what that policy is.
It's not "oh, it's obvious, anyone who claims otherwise obviously does not care about health" as--IMO--has been asserted, falsely.Those who don't understand the difference here seem to want to discuss formation of a proposed bill, which is still not the same as discussing a proposed law or even a proposed bill.
I understand the difference perfectly well. I am a lawyer. It is still necessary to demonstrate how the policy would work -- questions such as how would the tax apply? Above a particular amount, per gram, per percentage, per serving, what? As someone considering such a proposal in my own state (hypothetically) all of these would make a difference.
The level of detail being requested by some is not necessary at this stage. It is definitely important when it gets to a proposed bill; but looking for a list of specific food items, for example, is well beyond the detail ever necessary or valuable at the "idea" level.
People are asking for that level of detail to make the point that the idea itself is unrealistic and problematic. They are saying it is impossible to truly define specific foods or ingredients that across the board make people obese, because quantity is the one important factor, not the specific foods. It's a debate strategy, and this is a debate.
It is possible to define what would be included in such a tax, but some won't like that definition. The question at this point, though, is more broad than how to define what foods need to be included in order to make the policy into law. The debate is whether the policy is acceptable at all. The debate strategy to distract from the idea to jump ahead into the details is, well... a distraction.0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »
None, yes, doesn't apply, doesn't apply.stephanieluvspb wrote: »So @Zipp237, how much of my money will be put on this card? Does everyone get the same amount? If I use all the money on my card before it gets refilled, do I just starve? Will the goverment take the rest of my paycheck and tell me what to do with it?
Wait, so the healthy food allowance isn't even our own money? And everyone has the same amount, regardless of income? Where does the money come from?stephanieluvspb wrote: »
None, yes, doesn't apply, doesn't apply.stephanieluvspb wrote: »So @Zipp237, how much of my money will be put on this card? Does everyone get the same amount? If I use all the money on my card before it gets refilled, do I just starve? Will the goverment take the rest of my paycheck and tell me what to do with it?
So where is the money coming from?
Who said anything about money? No offense, but these kind of questions illustrate the need for something like a Healthy USA Food Program. People just don't understand what is explained to them and need help. A card would do that. Nobody would have to understand what was explained, the card would just work. If you've used up your junk food allotment, no more junk food. No thinking required. The receipts could even make suggestions, like "How about some grapes?" It could be intuitive based on things you've purchased before, suggesting items that you like instead of more Oreos.
Now this has gotten absolutely ridiculous. There is no way that you have such a fundamental lack of understanding of how basic economics works. Everyone gets the same amount on their cars, but no payment is rendered to the food providers? No one needs to understand how it works it just works? Even my 5 year old understands that food costs money, and when told he can't have something, he wants to understand why and asks limitless questions.
I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt yesterday and probe to better understand the concept you were proposing as well as see if you even understand it... Today, I'm convinced like others that you are trolling. Especially since every time someone suggests that is what is going on you insist that our questions support the need for such a ludicrously flawed system...2 -
reducinglisa wrote: »possibly should be banned... but no, not taxed. We have enough to worry about financially and people do have the right to eat badly if they choose to.
People have the right to eat it, but it should probably be banned?1 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »No, we are not discussing a proposed law; we are discussing a proposed policy that might someday become a proposed platform resolution.
To discuss policy, as well as to discuss law, you have to identify and define the proposed policy solution. You see that here: someone is saying "oh, it's OBVIOUS what junk food is" whereas the actual proposal packerjohn is making is about added sugar, so would leave out some things normally considered junk food, while including others that normally are not. There are also a variety of different policies worldwhile. So it is essentially that anyone trying to convince others that a policy is a good idea DEFINE what that policy is.
It's not "oh, it's obvious, anyone who claims otherwise obviously does not care about health" as--IMO--has been asserted, falsely.Those who don't understand the difference here seem to want to discuss formation of a proposed bill, which is still not the same as discussing a proposed law or even a proposed bill.
I understand the difference perfectly well. I am a lawyer. It is still necessary to demonstrate how the policy would work -- questions such as how would the tax apply? Above a particular amount, per gram, per percentage, per serving, what? As someone considering such a proposal in my own state (hypothetically) all of these would make a difference.
The level of detail being requested by some is not necessary at this stage. It is definitely important when it gets to a proposed bill; but looking for a list of specific food items, for example, is well beyond the detail ever necessary or valuable at the "idea" level.
People are asking for that level of detail to make the point that the idea itself is unrealistic and problematic. They are saying it is impossible to truly define specific foods or ingredients that across the board make people obese, because quantity is the one important factor, not the specific foods. It's a debate strategy, and this is a debate.
It is possible to define what would be included in such a tax, but some won't like that definition. The question at this point, though, is more broad than how to define what foods need to be included in order to make the policy into law. The debate is whether the policy is acceptable at all. The debate strategy to distract from the idea to jump ahead into the details is, well... a distraction.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree, I think the ability to define the foods is imperative to the debate on whether or not the policy is acceptable!
I kind of feel like we have all beat this debate to death anyway :drinker:3 -
-
janejellyroll wrote: »reducinglisa wrote: »possibly should be banned... but no, not taxed. We have enough to worry about financially and people do have the right to eat badly if they choose to.
People have the right to eat it, but it should probably be banned?
No. I just meant it in jest.
2 -
this thread has gone into loony tune land....2
-
queenliz99 wrote: »reducinglisa wrote: »possibly should be banned... but no, not taxed. We have enough to worry about financially and people do have the right to eat badly if they choose to.
Banning? You know prohibition was a complete failure
I just meant it in jest.
I'll stay out of it....1 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »No, we are not discussing a proposed law; we are discussing a proposed policy that might someday become a proposed platform resolution.
To discuss policy, as well as to discuss law, you have to identify and define the proposed policy solution. You see that here: someone is saying "oh, it's OBVIOUS what junk food is" whereas the actual proposal packerjohn is making is about added sugar, so would leave out some things normally considered junk food, while including others that normally are not. There are also a variety of different policies worldwhile. So it is essentially that anyone trying to convince others that a policy is a good idea DEFINE what that policy is.
It's not "oh, it's obvious, anyone who claims otherwise obviously does not care about health" as--IMO--has been asserted, falsely.Those who don't understand the difference here seem to want to discuss formation of a proposed bill, which is still not the same as discussing a proposed law or even a proposed bill.
I understand the difference perfectly well. I am a lawyer. It is still necessary to demonstrate how the policy would work -- questions such as how would the tax apply? Above a particular amount, per gram, per percentage, per serving, what? As someone considering such a proposal in my own state (hypothetically) all of these would make a difference.
The level of detail being requested by some is not necessary at this stage. It is definitely important when it gets to a proposed bill; but looking for a list of specific food items, for example, is well beyond the detail ever necessary or valuable at the "idea" level.
People are asking for that level of detail to make the point that the idea itself is unrealistic and problematic. They are saying it is impossible to truly define specific foods or ingredients that across the board make people obese, because quantity is the one important factor, not the specific foods. It's a debate strategy, and this is a debate.
It is possible to define what would be included in such a tax, but some won't like that definition. The question at this point, though, is more broad than how to define what foods need to be included in order to make the policy into law. The debate is whether the policy is acceptable at all. The debate strategy to distract from the idea to jump ahead into the details is, well... a distraction.
Defining what junk food is and how it would be taxed is critical to my opinion on whether it's a good policy or not. I'm not inherently opposed to taxes, but I'm strongly opposed to stupid ones. If we define junk food as primarily HFCS-based, we could accomplish a price hike by reducing corn subsidies. If we define junk food as Mexico has, nuts are taxed, and nuts are already very expensive. If we define it as ultra-processed foods, I have fewer objections, but I have concerns about how you prevent manufacturers from redistributing costs. And overall, can we show stats of obese groups eating foods within our junk food definition that would be impacted enough by the tax to stop eating them? If poor people can no longer afford pizza, what do they replace it with? These are things I want to know before I'm strongly for or against a tax.1 -
-
reducinglisa wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »reducinglisa wrote: »possibly should be banned... but no, not taxed. We have enough to worry about financially and people do have the right to eat badly if they choose to.
Banning? You know prohibition was a complete failure
I just meant it in jest.
I'll stay out of it....
This thread has blurred the lines of jest and just insane.0 -
Nobody has said that the food had to be provided. *Sigh.* Another example of people not understanding, demonstrating the need for a food system. People still but their food and make their choices. The card is just a guide to stop them from making bad choices.Packerjohn wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »
None, yes, doesn't apply, doesn't apply.stephanieluvspb wrote: »So @Zipp237, how much of my money will be put on this card? Does everyone get the same amount? If I use all the money on my card before it gets refilled, do I just starve? Will the goverment take the rest of my paycheck and tell me what to do with it?
Wait, so the healthy food allowance isn't even our own money? And everyone has the same amount, regardless of income? Where does the money come from?stephanieluvspb wrote: »
None, yes, doesn't apply, doesn't apply.stephanieluvspb wrote: »So @Zipp237, how much of my money will be put on this card? Does everyone get the same amount? If I use all the money on my card before it gets refilled, do I just starve? Will the goverment take the rest of my paycheck and tell me what to do with it?
So where is the money coming from?
Who said anything about money? No offense, but these kind of questions illustrate the need for something like a Healthy USA Food Program. People just don't understand what is explained to them and need help. A card would do that. Nobody would have to understand what was explained, the card would just work. If you've used up your junk food allotment, no more junk food. No thinking required. The receipts could even make suggestions, like "How about some grapes?" It could be intuitive based on things you've purchased before, suggesting items that you like instead of more Oreos.
Sorry, money is the first thing that needs to be addressed. How would this be funded? Nobody would provide the food, the administrative costs, etc of something like this for free.
Any small cost associated with writing programs to load on the cards and mailing them out would be offset by a junk food tax. It would create jobs for those working on the system.
Your inability to explain things =/= people not being able to grasp what you think is an easy concept. The questions are for clarification because your lack of details is impeding the message.3 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »No, we are not discussing a proposed law; we are discussing a proposed policy that might someday become a proposed platform resolution.
To discuss policy, as well as to discuss law, you have to identify and define the proposed policy solution. You see that here: someone is saying "oh, it's OBVIOUS what junk food is" whereas the actual proposal packerjohn is making is about added sugar, so would leave out some things normally considered junk food, while including others that normally are not. There are also a variety of different policies worldwhile. So it is essentially that anyone trying to convince others that a policy is a good idea DEFINE what that policy is.
It's not "oh, it's obvious, anyone who claims otherwise obviously does not care about health" as--IMO--has been asserted, falsely.Those who don't understand the difference here seem to want to discuss formation of a proposed bill, which is still not the same as discussing a proposed law or even a proposed bill.
I understand the difference perfectly well. I am a lawyer. It is still necessary to demonstrate how the policy would work -- questions such as how would the tax apply? Above a particular amount, per gram, per percentage, per serving, what? As someone considering such a proposal in my own state (hypothetically) all of these would make a difference.
The level of detail being requested by some is not necessary at this stage. It is definitely important when it gets to a proposed bill; but looking for a list of specific food items, for example, is well beyond the detail ever necessary or valuable at the "idea" level.
ETA: I do believe that some of the details are relevant for a policy discussion, but this is not discussing a proposed law, as you claimed. As a lawyer, you really should have known we are not discussing an actual bill, so the question of what is contained in that bill is ridiculous.
Since you seem not to have followed this particular exchange, let me refresh you:
(1) I (and some others) said that in order to consider the proposal we'd have to understand what is going to be taxed. Not as in the specific foods, but as in what is the general idea, how will it apply? Calories, nutrients, processing, fat, sugar, what? When you say tax junk food, what are you taxing, it could be a number of things.
(2) 100df: "everyone knows what junk food is, that's a dumb question and you are just pretending not to understand the proposal because you hate health." (Yeah, I'm paraphrasing for effect, but I felt that she was being intentionally insulting.)
(3) Me: I cannot tell you whether I would consider or agree with a particular policy without knowing what it involves. I don't know enough from "let's tax junk food." How much? How are we going to define junk food. And it's insulting and ridiculous to claim that everyone knows what junk food is: any law is going to require a definition, obviously.
(4) Packerjohn: I want to tax added sugar.
(5) Me: great! That's a wonderful start at answering the question--a few other things I'd want to know to understand how it would work is how the tax is applied. Over a certain amount of added sugar only? By percentage? By gram? If by gram, on the whole package or serving? Do we care that this might put the tax on ketchup or flavored yogurt and not chips?
That's the point -- I do not think my questions are unnecessary to address now. I think they go to the heart of the policy. (And so does the Atlantic piece I quoted.) Saying "let's tax junk food"! and responding to questions about what criteria would be used to define how to apply the tax is like saying "let's seal the borders" and refusing to explain the policies you'd use. But again, what I took offense to was that these are not important or sincere questions and that asking them shows the terrible state of the world, since apparently anyone who would ask is an idiot who doesn't understand nutrition. IMO, objecting to questions like these is what is anti-discussion and demogogic. Look, all that matters is that we be against obesity! I am for a tax against obesity, and if you don't agree and ask questions, you must be pro obesity! Time to make America thin again!
Edit: for the record, of course I was not asking what would be in the bill as a whole. You know as well as I that that would be EXTREMELY complicated. I was asking about basic provisions. The point of bringing up the bill is that the idea that asking for how something would be defined when we are supposedly talking about something that would become a law eventually (or such was my understanding) is that of course you have to be able to define it. Saying "everyone knows what junk food is" is not a good answer and was, again, an intentional, rude insult by the person who said it, when I think asking what the proposal would cover (something that would have to be decides) is an important and rather basic question.2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 937 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions