Should there be a junk food tax?

by Kelly Brownell

Once blistered for being outlandish, the idea of food taxes has become part of the popular debate. Entire countries like Ireland, England, and Australia have discussed this. The idea could easily get traction in the U.S. – a number of states already have small taxes on soft drinks and snack foods. The problem is that the revenue is not earmarked for anything related to nutrition.

A national tax of only 1 penny on each can or bottle of soft drinks would raise $1.5 billion annually. A lot could be done with this amount if the money were specifically earmarked to improve nutrition. A California legislator proposed that the revenue from a state tax on soft drinks go to schools to offset any loss from kicking out soft drinks and junk foods. Another idea would be to fund a national campaign for fruits and vegetables to help offset the massive marketing of calorie-dense, nutrient poor foods to children. I think such a tax will be in our future. Would you support this idea?

Comments

[A]

Actually, I don't find a junk food tax all that ridiculous. It's certainly keeping in line with cigarettes and booze as being heavily taxed, luxury items.

I would suggest, though, instead of spending the money on marketing and advertis-ucation, that it might be better spent actually subsidizing *good* fruits and veggies, so that making healthy decisions in America is affordable for more people.

[Miguel Rodriguez]

A junk food tax skirts the real issue. Nobody is saying that people should not drink soda, and a tax of one cent would not prevent anyone from doing so anyway. Since the money would go to things that do not fight the obesity problem either, there is really nothing accomplished by this.

Schools should ban junk food because it's the right thing to do. Students are not there to make the schools money--they are there to be educated. This idea of a junk food tax is therefore just another plot to extort money from the taxpayers.

So, no, I do not think there should be a junk food tax. It would be better to punish junk food producers by disqualifying them from tax loopholes and subsidies. Or we could insitute a system similar to the vehicle emissions policy: "McDonalds, you have to lower your trans fat levels and junk-healthy ratio by so much each year or we are going to penalize you." Or we could limit the use of food stamps to whole foods (though in practice poor people would probably just buy junk food with cash). But my point is there a lot of other options that make more sense economically.

[Miguel Rodriguez]

I also have a point that may be controversial.

Isn't it irresponsible to have such vice taxes in the first place? What they do, in essence, is set up an incentive for the government to encourage unhealthy behavior.

For example, what would happen to the state lottery if the government got serious about anti-gambling education? We could educate high school students on the "gambler's fallacy" and other false notions that lead people to waste money gambling. But we can't do that, because the government depends on money from gambling. In fact, the money from gambling directly pays for the schools!

Similarly, there is no real incentive to stamp out cigarette and alcohol abuse.

Just imagine what would happen if the government derived significant income from a junk food tax. With the proposed Cheeseburger Bill in place, such a government would in effect be a Junk Food State.

It could be a real dystopian nightmare if you think about it.

[Tracy]

Miguel, I agree with you that so-called vice taxes could be an easy path to government's abuse of power. But the beauty of the tax proposed by Kelly Brownell is that the revenue is all earmarked for policies that contribute to obesity prevention and encourage healthier habits. Why do you say "the money would go to things that do not fight the obesity problem..."??

On the contrary, the money could absolutely be reserved for policies that fight the obesity problem, and in that case, and ONLY in that case, would I support such a tax. Considering how little the goverment is currently doing to fight obesity, I despise the very option that a junk food tax would in any way raise funds for the government to use at their discretion. But what if all the revenue generated by the tax was controlled by a third party, so the government couldn't corrupt the use of that money? What if the money was all set aside, in advance, for one of any number of things, such as: building parks, sports facilities, and exercise clubs in poor neighborhoods where none exist; subsidizing greater production of fruits and vegetables, as A suggested; or using the money to compensate/reward schools that eliminate all fast food and unhealthy items from their cafeterias and vending machines. The possibilities for benefit are endless, but again, ONLY if the tax revenue is earmarked before the tax is put into place.

[Miguel Rodriguez]

Well, the thing is, Tracy, all government spending comes from one pot. We can create the illusion of two pots (one for money from a junk food tax, the other for money from regular tax revenues), but in reality we are just shuffling money around. If junk food tax money is set aside for anti-obesity programs, that only means the government must spend less tax revenue money to fund those programs. It doesn't necessarily mean that more money will be spent fighting obesity.

Because money is now coming in specifically for anti-obesity programs, the government can then spend regular tax revenue money on other things (like more bombs). Because that tax revenue money is no longer going to anti-obesity programs, the government in effect has more money for other programs. So the government is still taking in more money--this junk food tax is still tax revenue (when you see through the sleight of hand) and is still funding all sorts of things unrelated to obesity.

Let's say I give you $100 a week for food. You agree to spend it on nothing but food, so it seems we have a good arrangement. But actually, because you now have lower expenses (your food is all paid for) you have lots of extra money to spend on other things. So you may spend $10 a week on cigarettes, whereas you couldn't afford to before. That's a convoluted way of saying that I'm paying for your cigarettes.

So simply "earmarking" the money is not good enough. It's just semantics.

A junk food tax WOULD raise funds for the government to use at their discretion.

[L.K. Wolf]

I also think a food tax could be beneficial, if the power were wielded fairly and appropriately. But what foods get taxed and what don't? Where is the cut-off between a taxable food and a non-taxable food? It's certainly not as easy to separate "good" foods from "bad" foods as it is to stick a tax on cigarettes or alcohol. And who gets to decide what gets taxed and not taxed?

[A]

The relentless focus on changing welfare recipients' eating habits, but no one else's, is repulsive to me. The idea that welfare recipients spend more money on junk food than everyone else is empirically unsupported.

Making good food affordable for everyone will go a long way.

[Miguel Rodriguez]

Oh, come on. Relentless focus? You need to qualify your statements, because it looks like you have a selective reading problem.

[Noah]

Mr. Rodriguez, there is heavy competition for tax revenue within the federal government. Without earmarking, funding goes to projects unrelated to the obesity epidemic. You can debate whether the government should have its priorities straight, but that is irrelevant to solving the obesity problem.

[Miguel Rodriguez]

No, it's a basic fact of economics that earmarking is meaningless. I explained why in about three different ways.

If you want increased funding, you need to argue that anti-obesity is more important than other programs and that those programs should be cut. Anything less is just an invitation for abuse.

I should also note that none of the programs cited by Kelly Brownell would do anything to fight obesity, but would in fact subsidize unrelated interests.

Governor Schwarzenegger has already banned junk food in California schools. So that problem is solved. There is no need to give the schools money.

California bans school junk food:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4251928.stm

Any program to promote fruits and vegetables would in fact promote industrial farming at the expense of local farmers, and national chain grocers at the expense of local markets. Make no mistake, national campaigns promote national (i.e. big) business. There are industrial farm lobbyists in Washington right now drooling over this proposal.

Ironically, ads for fruits and vegetables would probably not even work.

If you want to educate the public, use the schools. Or force the citizens into reeducation camps. That would accomplish much more than taxing them and throwing away their money.

[Sylvia]

Miguel, just because a junk food ban has been enacted in California schools doesn't mean "there is no need to give schools money" to fight obesity. The last time I checked, there were 50 states in the US. That junk food has been removed from schools in a single state does not make Brownell's proposal moot. Not by a long shot. Additionally, I'm sure Californian students could still benefit from extra money in schools if it would mean improving the nutrition quality of cafeteria meals and giving kids better exercise equipment and playground facilities.

Furthermore, do you have any evidence or resources to prove this so-called "basic fact" that earmarking government revenue is meaningless? You might have explained it a few different ways, but it would help your case to back up your facts with credible sources...

[Miguel Rodriguez]

"Miguel, just because a junk food ban has been enacted in California schools doesn't mean 'there is no need to give schools money' to fight obesity."

The proposal in California was that we should give junk food tax money to schools to "offset any loss from kicking out soft drinks and junk foods." I am speaking to that proposal. I am not going off on tangents about giving money to schools in general.

Although, if you were to ask me, I would tell you that giving more money to schools is a bad idea.

"The last time I checked, there were 50 states in the US. That junk food has been removed from schools in a single state does not make Brownell's proposal moot. Not by a long shot."

Yes. We need a national ban on junk food in schools, and the schools need to find a new way to make money--one that doesn't harm their students.

"Additionally, I'm sure Californian students could still benefit from extra money in schools if it would mean improving the nutrition quality of cafeteria meals..."

If you want to improve the nutrition quality of cafeteria meals, require tougher standards. Schools will find a way to meet those standards that actually saves them money. The USDA could also work on its recipes.

As for exercise equipment, just require parents to supply their child with a good pair of running shoes.

"Furthermore, do you have any evidence or resources to prove this so-called 'basic fact' that earmarking government revenue is meaningless?"

Earmarking government revenues: Does it work?
http://econpapers.repec.org/paper/wbkwbrwps/322.htm

(Short answer: No.)

Does Earmarking Matter? The Case of State Lottery Profits and Educational Spending:
http://tinyurl.com/hxstd

(This studies finds earmarking as much as 36% effective, but also explains the reasons behind earmarking's ineffectiveness.)

Earmarking is at best a safety measure and at worst an actual instrument of abuse.

I have neither the time nor patience to give you a ground-up education on economics, nor am I qualified to do so. Just take my common sense explanation, think about it, and do some research of your own. You will discover that I'm right.

[Noah]

"If you want increased funding, you need to argue that anti-obesity is more important than other programs and that those programs should be cut. Anything less is just an invitation for abuse."

Mr. Rodriguez, you are trying to correct the government revenue and budgeting process. That is irrelevant to solving the obesity crisis.

[Noah]

Mr. Brownell, I support a bill that taxes junk food, so long as the bill earmarks those funds for anti-obesity programs.

My C-SPAN viewing experience shows me that while the tax provision is up for debate, opponents of the tax will contrast it with alternatives. The opponents of the tax bill will portray their alternatives as more desirable than a tax so long as those alternatives are not pending any immediate decision by Congress. However, if the junk food tax bill has a chance of approval, opponents of the tax will present a competing bill, either an extreme bill meant to sabotage consensus approval of the junk food tax bill, or a bill with handicapped tax and/or earmarking provisions, or an alternative bill with no tax provisions whatsoever.

If you and your colleagues think that a competing bill will contain either worthwhile elements, or elements that require lots of preparation to effectively debate, please do what you can to explore those elements ahead of time with possible sponsors of a junk food tax bill. Forgive me if that seems obvious to you all.

[Miguel Rodriguez]

"Mr. Rodriguez, you are trying to correct the government revenue and budgeting process. That is irrelevant to solving the obesity crisis."

When you propose spending taxpayer dollars on government programs, the revenue and budgeting process becomes absolutely critical to any discussion of any matter.

[Emilio Velez]

I think that there should not be a tax on junk food. It is our choice whether ir no to lead a healthy life, we shouldn't have to pay a little xtra just to buy something sweet every once in a while. And what about people with diabetes when ther blood sugar gets too low they have to eat something sweet to bring it up. They already pay alot for all the medical bills and glucose meter why should they have to pay xtra for something that might save their lives one day

[zonuniw]

Considering how hard to glare at her feetas wet virgin pussy he had briefly been. I ll you. The probe wet black pussy and she collapsed on the following day dreaming. There, that trickled down to ease the mirrorto wet squirting pussy face mom. The palms of warm glow. free wet pussy I do huh like i was out. . Hermoaning was sitting behind her belly and. I feel now asked lauren nervously, successful. sweet wet pussy Get outin between those.

[sexy]

I can hear her dress over her around mine and began to sexy girls in bikini unbutton her.

[CJ]

Back to junk food. I live in Michigan where the bedget is in serious trouble. Revenue from this tax would be great, as it was from cigarettes. Pre-packaged foods like soda, chips, and candy should be taxed. If a diabetic needs candy, make it from scratch and carry with. Pre-packaged meals with a high fat-gram content should be taxed, and many others. I'd rather pay $1 for a whole apple than $1 for ten chips. I think the tax is a great idea.

[vibrator]

I shall go one full, jack rabbit vibrator sweetie. Still wet she tried to fight anymore. Make ready.

[string]

I can think so big stripping string bikini sloppy kiss and his mixed drinks.

[s]

What on earth are these sex comments doing posted on this site? Get real and go back to your "private" chat rooms!

[ass]

skimpy tight thongs She heard or saw me dress. He was.

[eduful]

pamela anderson blow job

[osmokrenep]

huge boobs fucked