According to a 2012 obesity update by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), although obesity rates have slowed or stopped growing in the last decade in many countries in Great Britain, Europe and the Far East, they have increased 4 to 5 percent in Ireland, Canada and the U.S.
The above statistics have some wondering if junk food taxes in countries like Denmark, Hungary, Finland and France are having an effect of what consumers buy. Belgium, Ireland and Romania are among countries that are actively looking into creating junk food taxes, and debates have been taking place in the United States and Italy for some time on the subject.
You can read the full article written by SFGate.com or download a PDF of the OECD’s Obesity Update 2012.
So, what do you think: Is a junk food tax a good idea? Vote in our poll and also feel free to leave a comment below:
Do you think the U.S. should implement junk food taxes?
No, but I think we should get rid of corn subsidies and force junk food manufactures pay the actual value of corn to the farmers. Then junk food will naturally increase in price. The way it should be. As opposed to the current system, where the government pays corn subsidies to farmers so that these huge junk food manufactures can pay less for it and charge less for their food, making junk food far less expensive than healthy food.
By simply removing the subsidies:
– the government saves money by not having to pay out subsidies
– huge corps with all of their money pay farmers what they deserve
– farming becomes lucrative, where as now most corn farmers just break even and sometimes go under.
– people are encouraged to by healthy foods, instead of being swayed by the low price of junk food.
– lowered medical bills because of the lack of illnesses.
– and of course… a healthier more productive US of A
No more nanny laws!! This is suppose to be a free country.
Since you mentioned Europe, I have experience living in Scandinavia and saw myself lose about 8-10 pounds in a couple of months without exercising more (I was actually going to the gym less, as it had horribly inconvenient hours compared to the states). I wondered why and concluded that I was simply buying more vegetables. I was on a tight budget and most things in Scandinavia are very expensive. It was nearly 10 dollars to get a hamburger. 8 dollars for a half liter of beer in the pub. Junk food in the grocery store was also at least double the price. After analyzing my purchasing habits, I realized that without thinking about it I was saving soda, junk food, beer, and fast food for special occasions and special cravings while eating more simple grains, root vegetables, and frozen vegetables during the regular part of the week.
The reason these products were cheaper has to do with the tax scheme and lack of subsidies for corn. I was unconsciously directed towards better eating habits, even in a country where fresh fruits are rare, the tomatoes are terrible, sweets are plentiful and popular and junk food and alcohol go together well on long, dark Scandinavian nights. Since we actually have the right climate for so many healthy fruits and vegetables in the US, I can only dream how healthy we’d be if we adopted the Scandinavian approach to subsidies and taxation, where healthy, simple foods are low cost and processed junk, fast food, and alcohol cost you a lot.
NO. The government is not the answer! Health choices need to be personal things. If we want to keep the government out of our bedrooms we need to keep it out of our kitchens, too.
Yes. We should impose a tax, but it should be a very specific tax that only targets the sale of foods with ingredients or processes known to cause health problems. Ultimately, everyone’s health is in their hands. That’s why people who make bad food choices should do more to pay for the consequences of their choices. We already have high taxes on very unhealthy choices like cigarettes. Obesity causing sugars, fats, and processed foods should be taxed at a higher rate than raw, frozen, or minimally processed fruits and vegetables.
You know something is wrong when low income people can only afford fast and junk food but can’t afford to prepare a real meal with wholesome ingredients. Too often, that’s exactly the case. Free choice to buy and eat what you want should never be taken away from consumers, but it only seems practical to use the tax code to make it cheaper to buy “real” healthy food as opposed to “junk”. The combination of no sales tax on the healthiest foods and high sales tax on the least healthy foods could help a lot of consumers make better choices for themselves while helping to cover some of the costs obesity and disease caused by poor dietary habits inflict on society.
From the far, taxing the junk food instantly seems to be a good idea. But we have to look at the US circumstances and compare to the European countries. Do European countries have subsidies on corn production? If the answer is no, then we are not comparing apples to apples. I say so since, majority of all consumption patterns and related health issues stems down to what food products are subsidized and what are not. If nothing is subsidized and even then people eat junk food, then the junk food tax is welcome, not otherwise.
In the current US circumstances, corn is subsidized and organic food is not. Hence all byproducts of corn are cheap (which make up majority of the junk food contents). On the other hand, organic food is expensive. (I am not talking about the pesticide industry which is also a related discussion). So after the junk food tax is introduced, the people who are used to eating junk food are not magically going to switch to eating organic food. What will happen is they will continue to eat the same junk food but at a higher price. Currently, they have to deal with health issues. After the JF tax, they would have to deal with health and the associated higher costs. The only benefactors will be the government who will get more tax money without doing anything for anyone.
Why can’t everything be organic and just get rid of organic and non-organic food. We will produce less, but that’s ok. We waste half of what we cheaply produce anyways.
You bring up a good point with corn subsidies. One corresponding reason why junk food is so cheap is the corn products that are a major component are produced using subsidies from taxpayers. Ending these subsidies entirely would certainly change the cost of making corn products and thus the cost of a lot of junk food. However, it would also have consequences the price of corn products that are not at all related to junk food. Abandoning the subsidies entirely might have more consequences than simply raising the price of junk food. Even though corn subsidies and junk food markets interact, they are separate issues for discussion. Finally, if we decide to keep the corn subsidies, that doesn’t mean a junk food tax would not have the desired effect. It simply means the junk food tax would to some degree be counteracting a result of a government subsidy program.
I personally would abandon the corn subsidy and, if anything, subsidize the production of native high nutrition foods while taxing junk food. A great deal of observed and health problems would be eliminated if consumers saved money eating nutritiously rather than unhealthily.