Bad Food? Tax It, and Subsidize Vegetables

southsiderosie

I know there was a thread on this a few months ago, and many posters were quite skeptical. But in today's NY Times, there was an extended op-ed calling for a national tax on unhealthy food, with the proceeds going to subsidize fresh fruit and vegetable production and distribution, particularly in poor neighborhoods. It's rather long, but here is an excerpt:

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....

...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.

Now some aspects of this proposal are problematic; I can only imagine the kind of hysterical lobbying that would take place to get certain products off of the 'bad' list. That said, I strongly believe that agricultural subsidies for grain commodity production should be cut ASAP - for both health and ecological reasons.

I am sure that this will be met with cries of "nanny state-ism", but when we look at other unhealthy behavior, such as smoking, educational programs did not have nearly the impact that heavy taxation and restrictions on where you could publicly smoke did on tobacco usage. Therefore, I think that using tax policy is a smart and more effective way to re-shape people's choices about food consumption. It's not an outright ban, so the choice is still there, but it facilitates smarter and healthier decision-making.

mikemac

Will there be retaliation, like the economic war of the 30's?
A huge amount of grain is imported from the UK so we tax British grain and they retaliate and tax Irish beef exports?

I'm not sure how this works with the EU though and free trade

Suryavarman

The problem with something like this is, who gets to decide what's bad and whats good? Any implementation of a system like this is going to lead food manufacturers to corrupt politicians to get their food off one list and onto another.

We also have to consider that generally it is poor people that eat unhealthy/"bad" food due to it being cheaper.

Sticky_Fingers

southsiderosie wrote: »

I am sure that this will be met with cries of "nanny state-ism"

This to be honest, can you really call it anything else?

southsiderosie wrote: »

when we look at other unhealthy behavior, such as smoking, educational programs did not have nearly the impact that heavy taxation and restrictions on where you could publicly smoke did on tobacco usage. Therefore, I think that using tax policy is a smart and more effective way to re-shape people's choices about food consumption.

To me this can be boiled down to "people are too stupid to make their own decisions so we have to goad them into making the "right" ones".

FTA69

Sticky_Fingers wrote: »

To me this can be boiled down to "people are too stupid to make their own decisions so we have to goad them into making the "right" ones".

Evidently many of them are hence the massive obesity epidemic in the western world.

Einhard

southsiderosie wrote: »

Therefore, I think that using tax policy is a smart and more effective way to re-shape people's choices about food consumption. It's not an outright ban, so the choice is still there, but it facilitates smarter and healthier decision-making.

I know you don't mean it as such, but that sounds pretty sinister. What's wrong with letting people make their own decisions on their personal consumption? I don't think it's at all smart to tell people that they aren't smart enough to make their own decisions, and must have the government make them on their behalf, or incline them towards certain "approved" options.

dr.bollocko

Unfortunately flawed nutritional information being given to us from government appointed bodies (food pyramid etc.) suggests that any implementation of this will most likely not improve public health as intended.
That coupled with the lobbying which could well result in dubious choices being passed untaxed.
The naughty naughty approach is somewhat dismaying.

Denerick

I think it is reasonable to tax people for activities that cause strain to public institutions; thus there is an argument for a specific tax on alcohol and tobacco. On the other hand this doesn't really add up, as a smoker who dies at 65 is actually a lot cheaper to the exchecquer than a healthy person who lives to a 100, clogging up the health system for the last ten years of their lingering lifespan.

I reject this tax on the basis of 'bugger off'. I can micromanage my life (And ruin it in my own unique way) very well withour humourless, uninspired politicians telling me how 'concerned' they are about my life choices (Presumably after spending a months salary on a coke & hookers binge, immediately after claiming expenses on a third house that had been paid for a decade previously...)

southsiderosie

Einhard wrote: »

I know you don't mean it as such, but that sounds pretty sinister. What's wrong with letting people make their own decisions on their personal consumption? I don't think it's at all smart to tell people that they aren't smart enough to make their own decisions, and must have the government make them on their behalf, or incline them towards certain "approved" options.

Sticky_Fingers wrote: »

To me this can be boiled down to "people are too stupid to make their own decisions so we have to goad them into making the "right" ones".

Well you can look at it somewhat differently and say that people make perfectly rational choices when they eat junk food because processed junk is in many cases much cheaper and more available than fresh produce. So when I say 'shaping people's choices', I'm starting from the assumption that people are economically rational when it comes to what they choose to eat.

Given that people are rationally going to buy cheaper food (unless they can afford to buy fresh salmon and spinach, etc.), then we need to look at why crappy food is so cheap in the first place. Well, that is largely down (in the US anyway) to the subsidization of agricultural commodities, most importantly corn, which is used to make high fructose corn syrup...which is in EVERYTHING.

At a minimum, commodities subsidies should be done away with entirely. But if you want to take the activist leap (as with smoking), then the next step is not just to end the subsidies, but to actively tax processed and unhealthy foods in order to subsidize the production and distribution of fresh produce (which is more expensive to harvest and grow).

CatFromHue

i'd prefer better education and labelling before adding on an extra tax.

recently, well currently too, i had to try and lose some weight. it was only when i started looking at the labels on some foods when i realised these weren't as healthy as i thought, eg there is alot of sugar in a standard yoplait yoghurt. then there is also the portion sizes that the nutritional breakdown is applied to. this is usually printed on the front of the package. some of these portion sizes are far too small but on a quick glance give the appearance of being healthy. this is all before you get to take aways etc.

Slushfund

Any such tax should also be used to help local producers of healthy food expand and create jobs. That would be a win-win situation for us all.

Slushfund

Sticky_Fingers wrote: »

To me this can be boiled down to "people are too stupid to make their own decisions so we have to goad them into making the "right" ones".

Like other laws and taxes ?

BKtje

Ireland is already too much of a nanny state. Two wrongs (in the case of heavily taxing smokers) don't make a right. I'm a non smoker by the way and really wish my girlfriend would stop smoking but it's her choice to make.

the impact that heavy taxation and restrictions on where you could publicly smoke did on tobacco usage.

I thought the whole where you can and can't smoke was to protect us non smokers and employees from second hand smoke.

Slushfund

BKtje wrote: »

Ireland is already too much of a nanny state. Two wrongs (in the case of heavily taxing smokers) don't make a right. I'm a non smoker by the way and really wish my girlfriend would stop smoking but it's her choice to make.

So do you disagree with the extra tax on cigarettes ?

Corsendonk

southsiderosie wrote: »

Well you can look at it somewhat differently and say that people make perfectly rational choices when they eat junk food because processed junk is in many cases much cheaper and more available than fresh produce. So when I say 'shaping people's choices', I'm starting from the assumption that people are economically rational when it comes to what they choose to eat.

Given that people are rationally going to buy cheaper food (unless they can afford to buy fresh salmon and spinach, etc.), then we need to look at why crappy food is so cheap in the first place. Well, that is largely down (in the US anyway) to the subsidization of agricultural commodities, most importantly corn, which is used to make high fructose corn syrup...which is in EVERYTHING.

At a minimum, commodities subsidies should be done away with entirely. But if you want to take the activist leap (as with smoking), then the next step is not just to end the subsidies, but to actively tax processed and unhealthy foods in order to subsidize the production and distribution of fresh produce (which is more expensive to harvest and grow).

Actually most reports say the growers of produce only get 1/3 of the final product price, one of those great myths that supermarkets use to warrent high prices . Even promotion prices are subsidised by the grower and didtributor. Perhaps you should put pressure on retailers to cut their profit margins on healthy fruit and vegetables before asking for subsidies for growers. How would your system work if the state was subsidising Irish producers while its Dutch and Spanish competitors were at an unfair advantage? You would have to be very careful in the form of subsidies you offer to Irish growers to avoid the EU over turning your system.

Also as another poster stated how do you define bad food? When they lauched the "traffic light" nutritional labelling on food in the UK cheese producers were upset because they were red due to salt and fat levels How would you like to explain to the artisan cheese business here that we have to tax them?

southsiderosie

Corsendonk wrote: »

Actually most reports say the growers of produce only get 1/3 of the final product price, one of those great myths that supermarkets use to warrent high prices . Even promotion prices are subsidised by the grower and didtributor. Perhaps you should put pressure on retailers to cut their profit margins on healthy fruit and vegetables before asking for subsidies for growers. How would your system work if the state was subsidising Irish producers while its Dutch and Spanish competitors were at an unfair advantage? You would have to be very careful in the form of subsidies you offer to Irish growers to avoid the EU over turning your system.

Also as another poster stated how do you define bad food? When they lauched the "traffic light" nutritional labelling on food in the UK cheese producers were upset because they were red due to salt and fat levels How would you like to explain to the artisan cheese business here that we have to tax them?

First, the original article is within the context of the US. I am not sure how EU agricultural policy works. But given that the article mentions that several EU countries including Denmark and Hungary are considering 'unhealthy' food taxes, taxation seems within the realm of possibility even if subsides are not (and as far as I know, EU agricultural subsidies are quite high as it is). I would guess that any reverse-subsidy scheme would have to happen at the EU level.

As for the relationship between retailers and growers, I don't necessarily disagree. One of the proposals the author put forward was that the subsidy program could be used to link farmers to consumers more directly.

I don't disagree that the 'bad food' warning issue would be contentious. If there were a general baseline in terms of added sugar and/or certain levels of fat per 100 grams however, that might be a place to start. Yes cheese will be high on the list, but that's the reality of how it is made - it's delicious in part because there is so much fat in it. I do think, however, that there needs to be some kind of weighted fat vs. nutritional content baseline however for foods like eggs.

Sticky_Fingers

Slushfund wrote: »

Any such tax should also be used to help local producers of healthy food expand and create jobs. That would be a win-win situation for us all.

Not really, why should someone who eats junk food help subsidize a product they don't use, that would be like placing a tax on Microsoft products so that Apple can get government support. As for creating jobs, I wonder would enough extra jobs be created to pick up the shortfall caused by those lost in the junk food industry?

Slushfund wrote: »

Like other laws and taxes ?

Yes, I have a major problem with any law or tax that is used to try and modify a persons behavior (as long as such behavior causes no harm to others).

southsiderosie

southsiderosie wrote: »

So when I say 'shaping people's choices', I'm starting from the assumption that people are economically rational when it comes to what they choose to eat.

That's some assumption, ssr

No, I don't think they should start "encouraging" people to eat a certain way. As people have mentioned, there is too much room for lobbying for bad foods, and we all saw how that safefoods thing worked out.

If there were a general baseline in terms of added sugar and/or certain levels of fat per 100 grams however, that might be a place to start. Yes cheese will be high on the list, but that's the reality of how it is made - it's delicious in part because there is so much fat in it. I do think, however, that there needs to be some kind of weighted fat vs. nutritional content baseline however for foods like eggs.

People are already reeling from years of misinformation, such as the kelloggs' sponsored cholesterol studies which has people advising you can't eat more than a couple eggs a week, and the myth that all fats are bad for you. Fats are not bad for you. And if the govt are as susceptible to this as everyone else and then start throwing their weight behind it, it would all go very wrong.

Slushfund

Sticky_Fingers wrote: »

Not really, why should someone who eats junk food help subsidize a product they don't use, that would be like placing a tax on Microsoft products so that Apple can get government support. As for creating jobs, I wonder would enough extra jobs be created to pick up the shortfall caused by those lost in the junk food industry?

Yes, I have a major problem with any law or tax that is used to try and modify a persons behavior (as long as such behavior causes no harm to others).

Most junk food is supplied from abroad, I would like to see some support for fresh locally produced food.

drkpower

Einhard wrote: »

I know you don't mean it as such, but that sounds pretty sinister. What's wrong with letting people make their own decisions on their personal consumption? I don't think it's at all smart to tell people that they aren't smart enough to make their own decisions, and must have the government make them on their behalf, or incline them towards certain "approved" options.

Taxes have always been used, in various ways, to influence behaviour of both the activities of individuals and corporations. This is nothing new. For those who suggest this type of activity is nanny-statism, do you favour no additional taxes on cigarettes/alcohol (intended to disencourage this activity), or the revocation of tax relief on pensions or charitable gifts (intended to encourage these activities) or any other form of incentivisation via taxation (or regulation).

As for the OP, it is an excellent idea - long overdue. For those who have legitimate concerns over how foods will be classified, take a loook at how the state (through independent bodies) already classifies millions of other prodcuts into medicines, cosmetics, biocides, foods where there exists much overlap between them. It is far from an insurmountable task.

Sticky_Fingers

Slushfund wrote: »

Most junk food is supplied from abroad, I would like to see some support for fresh locally produced food.

Your free to fill your shopping trolley with all the Irish produce you want, however that doesn't give you the right to try and force others (through the imposition of taxes) to do likewise. As a small country whose very survival depends on exports we shouldn't be so quick to slap taxes on stuff just because it wasn't made here, we'd be crying in our beer if they did the exact same to us.

Corsendonk

Slushfund wrote: »

Most junk food is supplied from abroad, I would like to see some support for fresh locally produced food.

Any stats for that? We seem to have a very successful Irish junk food industry without imports. Just some:

Snacks- Tayto/King/Hunky Dory
Largo Fooda Ashbourne

Frozen Pizza and Pies- Goodfellas etc
GreenIsle Naas

Carbonabonated Sugar Drinks
Coco Cola-Dundalk
C & C Dublin
Shannon Minerals
Gleeson Group

McDonalds & Burger King
100% Irish Beef
Baps are Irish Baked

Chocolate
Celtic Chocolates
Cadburys
Lir

Any crackdown on junk food will damage the home market for the above Irish employers.

Slushfund

Corsendonk wrote: »

Any stats for that? We seem to have a very successful Irish junk food industry without imports. Just some:

Any crackdown on junk food will damage the home market for the above Irish employers.

Not really, as they are local, I'm sure they can move into providing local fresh healthy options with the backing of the taxes collected on the junk. Also they'll be using more local suppliers.

silverharp

drkpower wrote: »

Taxes have always been used, in various ways, to influence behaviour of both the activities of individuals and corporations. This is nothing new. For those who suggest this type of activity is nanny-statism, do you favour no additional taxes on cigarettes/alcohol (intended to disencourage this activity), or the revocation of tax relief on pensions or charitable gifts (intended to encourage these activities) or any other form of incentivisation via taxation (or regulation).

In reality taxes are just that, taxes, with any number of jumped up reasons to justify them. Having just come back from France where I could buy a bottle of wine from less then 2 euros, I expected to see French people passed out at every street corner :pac:
btw couldnt help thinking about property reliefs and taxes in Ireland as a classic example of why the government should just stay the hell away from trying to influence behaviour of Irish people one way or the orther.

southsiderosie

I have to admit, I'm pretty surprised by the number of people who seem to think there is something particularly nefarious or underhanded about using tax policy to drive consumer behavior and/or subsidize other state costs.

Let's take the gas tax. Gasoline tax is essentially a user tax: if you drive, you pay the tax. So while non-drivers may pay indirect gas charges through higher costs for goods requiring transport and the like, the main cost is borne by users. The tax itself exists mainly for several reasons: 1) to pay for road maintenance (i.e. a way of making road users pay for upkeep), 2) to discourage people from driving (or driving gas guzzlers), and 3) to subsidize the cost of public transportation, which is an optimal alternative to driving as it decreases traffic and is better for the environment.

Gas taxes are a very efficient way of achieving targeted policy objectives because the price of gasoline has a clear behavior effect on both how much people choose to drive (versus carpooling or taking public transport) and what kinds of cars they choose to buy (fuel efficient vs. gas guzzlers). It is not enough to educate people about the environmental impact of driving everywhere, or the geo-political ramifications of relying on imported oil. People are generally economically rational, and that combined with a lack of infrastructure that makes it easy to not drive makes it very difficult to get people to give up their cars (and especially their large SUVs, in the case of the US).

As I see it, the same logic clearly applies to food taxes. Yet for some reason, any talk of food taxes seems to provoke a level of hostility from some quarters that I do not think would be the case if the issue at hand was gasoline tax - yet the logic and mechanisms behind them are the same.

silverharp

southsiderosie wrote: »

I have to admit, I'm pretty surprised by the number of people who seem to think there is something particularly nefarious or underhanded about using tax policy to drive consumer behavior and/or subsidize other state costs.

Let's take the gas tax. Gasoline tax is essentially a user tax: if you drive, you pay the tax. So while non-drivers may pay indirect gas charges through higher costs for goods requiring transport and the like, the main cost is borne by users. The tax itself exists mainly for several reasons: 1) to pay for road maintenance (i.e. a way of making road users pay for upkeep), 2) to discourage people from driving (or driving gas guzzlers), and 3) to subsidize the cost of public transportation, which is an optimal alternative to driving as it decreases traffic and is better for the environment.

Gas taxes are a very efficient way of achieving targeted policy objectives because the price of gasoline has a clear behavior effect on both how much people choose to drive (versus carpooling or taking public transport) and what kinds of cars they choose to buy (fuel efficient vs. gas guzzlers). It is not enough to educate people about the environmental impact of driving everywhere, or the geo-political ramifications of relying on imported oil. People are generally economically rational, and that combined with a lack of infrastructure that makes it easy to not drive makes it very difficult to get people to give up their cars (and especially their large SUVs, in the case of the US).

As I see it, the same logic clearly applies to food taxes. Yet for some reason, any talk of food taxes seems to provoke a level of hostility from some quarters that I do not think would be the case if the issue at hand was gasoline tax - yet the logic and mechanisms behind them are the same.

the cause and effects become so muddled though. take your fuel taxes, someone rattling around west Kerry pays the same fuel tax as someone in Dublin. Yet someone driving from outer Dublin to the city centre during rush hour pays the same marginal road use charge as a small town driver. Then the gov builds a "free" motorway through Wicklow so that people can commute to Dublin. There is no rational or "efficient" behaviour being supported here.
As for the food example to put it bluntly its a responsibility issue which appears to have a class bias but at the same time is not driven by marginal cost. I'd argue that could give many families free veg and they would still fill their fridges with highly processed food

Sticky_Fingers

silverharp wrote: »

As for the food example to put it bluntly its a responsibility issue which appears to have a class bias but at the same time is not driven by marginal cost. I'd argue that could give many families free veg and they would still fill their fridge with highly processed food

This is very true, does anyone actually believe that wholesome food is anymore expensive than junk food? In my experience cooking your own dinner from scratch is far far cheaper than buying it preprocessed and ready to eat. People are already paying through the nose for convenience and adding an additional tax isn't going to change their minds much IMO.

drkpower

silverharp wrote: »

In reality taxes are just that, taxes, with any number of jumped up reasons to justify them..

No, they are not. They can be use to influence behaviour and they always have been used to influence behaviour. You can disagree with that but there is no point denying it.

silverharp wrote: »

btw couldnt help thinking about property reliefs and taxes in Ireland as a classic example of why the government should just stay the hell away from trying to influence behaviour of Irish people one way or the orther.

Dont throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Sticky_Fingers

drkpower wrote: »

No, they are not. They can be use to influence behaviour and they always have been used to influence behaviour.

Your right, I smoke and buy all my cigarettes on the continent whenever I go on holidays, the Irish Exchequer hasn't got a cent off me on tobacco in over four months. I haven't stopped smoking I just refuse to pay exorbitant taxes on something I can get much cheaper elsewhere.
Portuguese economy 1 - Ireland 0

You have to remember Newry's just up the road and a hell of a lot cheaper as it stands, why compound the problem by slapping additional taxes on "unhealthy" products.

silverharp

drkpower wrote: »

No, they are not. They can be use to influence behaviour and they always have been used to influence behaviour. You can disagree with that but there is no point denying it.

Dont throw the baby out with the bathwater.

they might or will influence behaviour but the effects are not predictable and might create depending on the situation considerable blowback or unintended consequences. As was mentioned in this thread there is not even an adequate definition of what healthy is given that the food pyramid is more akin to supermarket product placement.

Black Swan

southsiderosie wrote: »

Now some aspects of this proposal are problematic...

Problematic indeed:

• Is this a form of regressive taxation; e.g., the higher your income, the less affect such legislation has on your fast food buying behaviour; and vice versa? Is this a balanced model for a democratic society?
• Do we need more government in our lives or less? Max Weber suggested in Economy and Society that the march of rationalization (e.g., government regulation) could be compared to a subtle and increasing "iron cage" that served to constrain our personal choices and freedom overtime.
• From a practical standpoint, what is to prevent pork barrel politics (please excuse the pun) from occurring, where these new subsidies are earmarked for narrow special interests that lobby and financially contribute to the (re)election of politicians that favour such earmarks?

drkpower

silverharp wrote: »

they might or will influence behaviour but the effects are not predictable and might create depending on the situation considerable blowback or unintended consequences..

That is potentially true. And before any active steps are taken, I presume that there will be an analysis of how this has worked in countries that have tried it and an assessment of how it will work here. If the assessment shows that the positives outweigh the negatives, i would welcome it.

silverharp wrote: »

As was mentioned in this thread there is not even an adequate definition of what healthy is given that the food pyramid is more akin to supermarket product placement.

Between nutritionists, medics and the FSAI, I am confident that reasonably balanced criteria can be drawn up. There will be some borderline products, no doubt, but that is no different to the other areas the state already regulates (medicines, cosmetics, biocides etc).

Chuck Stone

Sounds like a bureaucratic nightmare tbh. As has been said how do we decide what is a good food?

I like cake.

silverharp

drkpower wrote: »

That is potentially true. And before any active steps are taken, I presume that there will be an analysis of how this has worked in countries that have tried it and an assessment of how it will work here. If the assessment shows that the positives outweigh the negatives, i would welcome it.


Between nutritionists, medics and the FSAI, I am confident that reasonably balanced criteria can be drawn up. There will be some borderline products, no doubt, but that is no different to the other areas the state already regulates (medicines, cosmetics, biocides etc).

it still comes back to it wouldnt work. Tax is too simplistic a mechanism to change society or behaviour. For anything like this to work one cant be allowed socialise bad behaviour. Eating one MacD meal a week is not a health issue so see no reason to punish someone for doing this. On the other hand if an insurances based health system allowed weighted premiums (pun intended :pac: ) then someone could make the choice to eat unhealthy if they were happy to pay the marginal health cost as determined by the insurer at least now you are tying the behaviour to the health consequences.

drkpower

silverharp wrote: »

it still comes back to it wouldnt work. Tax is too simplistic a mechanism to change society or behaviour. For anything like this to work one cant be allowed socialise bad behaviour. Eating one MacD meal a week is not a health issue so see no reason to punish someone for doing this. On the other hand if an insurances based health system allowed weighted premiums (pun intended :pac: ) then someone could make the choice to eat unhealthy if they were happy to pay the marginal health cost as determined by the insurer at least now you are tying the behaviour to the health consequences.

Saying 'it still comes back to it wouldnt work' doesnt make it so. You need to do a little better than that!

Yes, tax may be a ssimplistic mechanism; but noone would seriously suggest that taxation should be used in isolation. It should be part of a multi-pronged campaign to tackle bad nutrition/obesity. Education & information should be at the forefront of that campaign. The question is whether taxation should be part of that campaign.

Sticky_Fingers

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I like cake.

Cake, let them eat wholegrain crackers

On the topic of cake, considering all the nonsense that has gone on in the UK courts over whats the definition of a cake as opposed to a biscuit it would be just a taster (sorry ) of what lies ahead for any possible junk food tax.

drkpower

drkpower wrote: »

Between nutritionists, medics and the FSAI, I am confident that reasonably balanced criteria can be drawn up. There will be some borderline products, no doubt, but that is no different to the other areas the state already regulates (medicines, cosmetics, biocides etc).

Did you see this, drk?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056307124
I am not as confident as you are

silverharp

drkpower wrote: »

Saying 'it still comes back to it wouldnt work' doesnt make it so. You need to do a little better than that!

Yes, tax may be a ssimplistic mechanism; but noone would seriously suggest that taxation should be used in isolation. It should be part of a multi-pronged campaign to tackle bad nutrition/obesity. Education & information should be at the forefront of that campaign. The question is whether taxation should be part of that campaign.

well lets see, cigarettes and alcholol are multiples of the cost of supply, yet if taxes and information are the multi prong approach then they have not worked in Ireland. High carb junk food is essentially addictive if eaten too much so I bet I could sell a mars bar to a fat person for €5 if they had no other option.
Meanwhile your solution punishes the athlete, hiker etc. or sensible eater who eats junk food in amounts that do not cause harm. I cant see why this would be acceptable as it is unjust by definition.

Slushfund

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I like cake.

Locally made cake with fresh local ingredients, no problem, and give them grants to expand from the junk food tax.

Cheap stale mass produced imported foreign junk jammed full of chemical preservatives made 2 months ago - TAX IT

Chuck Stone

Slushfund wrote: »

Locally made cake with fresh local ingredients, no problem, and give them grants to expand from the junk food tax.

Cheap stale mass produced imported foreign junk jammed full of chemical preservatives made 2 months ago - TAX IT

Now that's just blatant cakeism.

Shame on you.

BKtje

So do you disagree with the extra tax on cigarettes ?

Yes.

southsiderosie

Sticky_Fingers wrote: »

This is very true, does anyone actually believe that wholesome food is anymore expensive than junk food? In my experience cooking your own dinner from scratch is far far cheaper than buying it preprocessed and ready to eat. People are already paying through the nose for convenience and adding an additional tax isn't going to change their minds much IMO.

In the US, and in particular in large cities, it is more expensive to buy fresh food than to buy processed food.

Black Swan wrote: »

Problematic indeed:

• Is this a form of regressive taxation; e.g., the higher your income, the less affect such legislation has on your fast food buying behaviour; and vice versa? Is this a balanced model for a democratic society?

No, because the proposal as outlined in the article makes healthier food more accessible to poor people.

Black Swan wrote: »

[*]Do we need more government in our lives or less? Max Weber suggested in Economy and Society that the march of rationalization (e.g., government regulation) could be compared to a subtle and increasing "iron cage" that served to constrain our personal choices and freedom overtime.

Well, the proposal in question is a net wash for government involvement, as the government is already involved in food subsidies. At a minimum, getting rid of all commodities subsidies and doing nothing else (which would drive up the cost of processed food) would represent an overall decrease in government interference into the lives of individuals.

Black Swan wrote: »

[*]From a practical standpoint, what is to prevent pork barrel politics (please excuse the pun) from occurring, where these new subsidies are earmarked for narrow special interests that lobby and financially contribute to the (re)election of politicians that favour such earmarks?

Nothing, which from the get-go has been identified as part of the problem. But given that it is a problem regardless of what piece of legislation goes before Congress, I don't see pork-barrel politics as something that should prevent us from seeking reforms. If that were the case, then nothing would ever get done in Congress. Oh, wait...

Corsendonk

Slushfund wrote: »

Locally made cake with fresh local ingredients, no problem, and give them grants to expand from the junk food tax.

Cheap stale mass produced imported foreign junk jammed full of chemical preservatives made 2 months ago - TAX IT

Ehhh, are you joking there? You would have rather bland cake if you relied on local ingrediints,. No currants, raisins, sultanas, lemon, ginger, mixed spice, cinammon etc. I

beeftotheheels

I hate to be a killjoy but in Europe we already do this to some extent. Basics/ necessities which include fruit and veg in their unadulterated form are VAT free

http://www.revenue.ie/en/tax/vat/leaflets/food-and-drink.html

whereas chocolates and processed foods are generally not.

I know it goes against the spirit of the thread to point out that the original post broadly reflects a European reality, and in a Member State with VAT rates well above the 15% minimum it can make quite a difference.

But there we have it. The nay sayers should have had this debate back in 1971.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Sticky_Fingers

beeftotheheels wrote: »

I hate to be a killjoy but in Europe we already do this to some extent. Basics/ necessities which include fruit and veg in their unadulterated form are VAT free

http://www.revenue.ie/en/tax/vat/leaflets/food-and-drink.html

whereas chocolates and processed foods are generally not.

I know it goes against the spirit of the thread to point out that the original post broadly reflects a European reality, and in a Member State with VAT rates well above the 15% minimum it can make quite a difference.

But there we have it. The nay sayers should have had this debate back in 1971.

Not really since VAT applied in this case is more to do with these items being luxury goods and has no bearing upon the nutritional quality of the food. For example a healthy whole fruit smoothie is liable for the standard rate of tax along with carbonated soft drinks. What the OP was suggesting was to place an additional tax upon the soft drink just because the fatties are liable to consume more of it than the healthier option.

Overheal

Currently this is how US food subsidies look:



Should we really need subsidies at all? Agriculture would be just fine without them. You don't need to subsidize vegetables. But you don't need to subsidize meat, dairy and sugars either. Don't tax raw ingredients/foodstuffs either: Sugar, Honey, Eggs, Milk, Vegetables, Meats, etc. But tax anything processed: Bread, TV Dinners, Soups, etc.

Alopex

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I think there's a happy middle ground. 5-6euro a box is still heavily taxed enough to cover their lung cancer and stroke costs, but perhaps not enough to warrant people buying counterfit smokes. In countries like Netherlands or Finland where a box costs 4-5euro vast majority don't bother with counterfeit stuff. Unfortunately anti-smoking lobbyists, whilst well-meaning, are often clueless idiots who have probably never smoked, and don't understand the mentality of a smoker. Therefore they think price increase = less smokers, price decrease = more smokers, your stats prove otherwise.

As Black Swan says, the real question here is whether we need more government in our lives, or less. When it comes to choosing between a hamburger or a banana for lunch, I think that should be my decision, not the regulators'.

Well thats all very well, but we are not living in a libertarian country. In theory I agree with you, though in reality we still have to pick up the tab for diabetes clinics, cardiovascular health centres, obesity related pharmaceuticals etc etc.

So on that count I have no problem with the government manipulating the prices of goods with the intention of reducing obesity. Whether it will work is another question.

What I wouldn't like to see is a tax on fat content, or a tax on calories per 100g, that's really unfair on athletes.

For now I think the best thing to do would be increase subsidisation of vegatables, in the hopes people may replace pasta/bread etc with them at dinner, though that would need education, and unfortunately our nutrition body unsafefood, are still telling people to eat plenty of bread and starches.

Corsendonk

Alopex wrote: »

I think there's a happy middle ground. 5-6euro a box is still heavily taxed enough to cover their lung cancer and stroke costs, but perhaps not enough to warrant people buying counterfit smokes. In countries like Netherlands or Finland where a box costs 4-5euro vast majority don't bother with counterfeit stuff. Unfortunately anti-smoking lobbyists, whilst well-meaning, are often clueless idiots who have probably never smoked, and don't understand the mentality of a smoker. Therefore they think price increase = less smokers, price decrease = more smokers, your stats prove otherwise.



Well thats all very well, but we are not living in a libertarian country. In theory I agree with you, though in reality we still have to pick up the tab for diabetes clinics, cardiovascular health centres, obesity related pharmaceuticals etc etc.

So on that count I have no problem with the government manipulating the prices of goods with the intention of reducing obesity. Whether it will work is another question.

What I wouldn't like to see is a tax on fat content, or a tax on calories per 100g, that's really unfair on athletes.

For now I think the best thing to do would be increase subsidisation of vegatables, in the hopes people may replace pasta/bread etc with them at dinner, though that would need education, and unfortunately our nutrition body unsafefood, are still telling people to eat plenty of bread and starches.

What subsidies do market gardners get in Ireland for growing fruit and veg in the first place?

Alopex

Corsendonk wrote: »

What subsidies do market gardners get in Ireland for growing fruit and veg in the first place?

Sorry, badly phrased, I meant what beef referred to in post #44. I think this should be extended in some way for vegtables

Corsendonk

Alopex wrote: »

Sorry, badly phrased, I meant what beef referred to in post #44. I think this should be extended in some way for vegtables

Exactly, apart from the odd grant for building packhouses and new glasshouses the horticulture industry in Ireland gets little support and to be honest most of the grants were swallowed up by the large players in the business.