How does Taxing junk food prevents Obesity?

[Hutzpa]

You don't cut cost by raising taxes on junk food likewise raising taxes would not prevent
a poor person who cannot afford healthy food to suddenly start buying expensive healthy food.

My argument here is taxing has never solve problems but has helped increase hardship on people
who cannot afford these purchases in the first place.

What imo needs to be addressed here are the ingredients that are included in foods in the United States,
that is what the government should be heavily regulating, you control the ingredients
placed on foods, you control obesity, simple, none of these complicated approach that not only
hinders progress but will eventually kill any effort to curtail obesity.

These articles http://www.speakout.com/activism/issue_briefs/1332b-1.html">fat tax and http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/junk-food-tax-would-help-fight-obesity-20100225-p4hn.html">junk food that I came across are not only misleading but are skewered in such way
that it introduces into your memory that taxing junk food (which are processed foods) are the way
forward forgetting to address the core issues, which is what type of ingredients are placed in these
foods that allows for cheaper price which in turn creates the opportunity for poor folks to purchase
these foods.

That should be the debate, not taxing, because taxing affects poor folks who are the ones that
could not afford expensive healthy food. Why not start the debate on that.

Just my two cents.

[ncguy]

1. The bad thing is

we started the precedent long ago by taxing liquor and then tobacco with outrageous taxes.

[hughee99]

2. The goal isn't to prevent obesity, it's to generate revenue from it.

Much like all other "sin" taxes.

[Dulcinea]

79. We have a winner! *ding*ding*

Follow the money!

[NC_Nurse]

3. The tax revenue could be used for healthcare spending, which is increased by

the obesity problem in this country.

[Kalyke]

4. Healthy food isn't expensive.

I keep hearing that, reading that... but have no anecdotal proof that it is (and I live in a stupid state that taxes food in lieu of an income tax).

I see vegetables - fresh or frozen - on sale for much less than carb and preservative-laden pre-made foods. I see fruit on sale - as long as you buy what's in abundance and in season - all the time. I don't eat much meat, but, when we do, we buy a sale and cut the fat off.

But, if I were to take your point to its logical conclusion, then we could not tax cigarettes or alcohol, either. After all, taxing them hasn't really solved any problems, either.

[Hutzpa]

9. When was the last time you try

buying skimmed milk? Try comparing the prices of organic vegetables and non organic veg.

[RaleighNCDUer]

14. The choice, however, is not between organic vegetables and non organic veg.

The choice is between ANY veg and McFatBurgers.

The claim is that junk food is so cheap - you can get a burger and a coke for $2. Well, you can get 2 lbs of dried beans for $1.89, and they will feed you a lot longer.

[Hutzpa]

18. Thats an absurd similarity

and you know, you're not doing anyone justice by using those misleading numbers, a bottle of coke
is more than $2 as well as burgers, so lets try and be at least honest when presenting our arguments.

[RaleighNCDUer]

27. So, you are defending your support of junk food by pointing out it is even

MORE expensive than healthy alternatives?

Doesn't that support MY argument?

[Hutzpa]

30. Wrong

I am not supporting junk food, I am however in favor of regulating the ingredients that are placed
in food to help curtail obesity.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

67. I can get a double stacker and a coke at Wendy's for 2 dollars and change.

I can also get a healthy frozen dinner for under 2 dollars. At least try to be informed before you call others dishonest.

[dustbunnie]

35. Skimmed milk is cheaper than full fat milk.

Any vegetables are better than pizza pockets, and cheaper too.

Obesity is also not relegated to poor people.

[Jennicut]

15. Availability is the main issue, not cost. Some poor areas have local corner stores

that do not offer fresh produce or frozen vegetables.

[Zoeisright]

59. Yes it is. Especially if you live in a poor area with crappy grocery stores

that do NOT stock fresh produce or anything healthy. Don't compare the food you can buy with food in a poor inner city neighborhood.

And every time the tax goes up on cigarettes, few people light up. That's been proven. So your 'conclusion' isn't at all 'logical'.

[JanForFairness]

70. taxes aren't enough

The problem isn't taxing unhealthy or safe items, but making them illegal. we need to prevent people from poisoning their bodies

[NoPasaran]

82. You forgot your "sarcasm" smiley

I hope

:sarcasm:

[TransitJohn]

5. How does taxing cigarettes prevent lung cancer?

:shrug:

[Hutzpa]

16. Beats me

but there are those who will argue that second hand smoking led to lung cancer, see how they get the facts twisted with time.

[RaleighNCDUer]

38. Never mind the documented statistics of higher incidence of lung cancer

in non-smokers who live in smoking households than non-smokers who live in non-smoking households.

What twisted facts are these?

[RaleighNCDUer]

17. By keeping tobacco expensive enough that kids don't get started in the first place.

Very few people quit because it is getting too expensive, but a great many never start because of the price.

[TransitJohn]

20. I quit because it got too expensve.

I'm closing in on a year tobacco-free, after 20 years of a pack a day habit.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=326&topic_id=515&mesg_id=515

[RaleighNCDUer]

31. Well, technically I quit because it was too expensive also.

The doctor bills were killing me, with my chronic lung conditions after 25 years of smoking. Going on 7 years now, and damned if I don't know that I WOULD pick up a smoke even now if not for the fact that if I did I would not be able to breathe after doing so.

congrats on your year - it DOES get easier, if you just stay vigilant.

[Captain Hilts]

6. There is GREAT price elasticity of demand among younger buyers. nt

[Ron Green]

7. Stop subsidizing Big Corn and Big Soy, both requiring huge petroleum inputs.

Encourage local farming and eating in-season.
And yes, tax food processing in a way that makes food more expensive the farther it gets from nature.

[jody]

8. Same way it prevents alcoholism. n/t

[PSPS]

10. It doesn't. But it apparently is an 'acceptable' way to extract more taxes from the poor.

[TransitJohn]

23. Winner, Winner, chicken dinner!

:hi:

[wuushew]

11. Why is government control of ingredients better than a soda tax?

Seems you would necessarily create a very large institution dedicated to food formulation that does not now exist. Conversely if you elimated all corn subsidees the price of cereal would increase along with those foods which are sweet.

[Hutzpa]

13. You see this is the twisted ideology

that creates this type of thinking, believing that taxing is the solution to this endemic
is like saying giving teachers more money will create a better teacher. It's just a ridiculous
theory.

[RaleighNCDUer]

22. You got it all bass ackwards. Creating parity between the cost of junk food

and real food will cause a diminishing of the use of junk food.

And, BTW, paying teacher more DOES create better teachers, as those who love the profession but can't support their families are not obliged to find better paying jobs outside the field. And, money attracts talent. Econ 101.

[Hutzpa]

25. Heres another perspective

back in the day growing up, I learned that teachers where more into educating kids than
worrying about how much they get paid. Remember those days?

[RaleighNCDUer]

36. Yeah, I remember those days, of eating cheese sandwiches and

tomato soup six days a week because my dad only brought in 3K a year as a teacher.

He was doing considerably better when he retired early because he couldn't handle being paid $42K after 27 years of teaching and having to put up with the students and the bureaucracy for that amount. He felt he was doing better by NOT teaching, collecting his gov't pension and SS (after it kicked in a few years later).

OTOH, if he had been making as much money as, say, a bank teller after 27 years of service he might have been able to still justify putting up with it.

Anybody who told you that teacher LIKED being paid 20% less than anyone else in the job market LIED. And what is wrong with being a dedicated professional AND being well paid for it?

[demmiblue]

41. Sure as shit they are concerned with pay.

A good portion of that pay goes back to their students (in a lot of cases).

I talked to one teacher several years ago that had to bring in toilet paper because the district couldn't afford the cost. This was on top of the thousands said teacher used of their own money to supplement the cost of paper, pencils, learning materials, etc.

Teachers should be paid a professional wage simply because of their value to society.

[CTyankee]

96. While I pretty much agree with your statement on taxation, I don't agree

that we couldn't get better teachers if we paid them a better salary. It would "make" better teachers but it would expand the pool of good people going into teaching, who might not otherwise consider it because they could get a higher salary in another profession. After all, our society pays for the best athletes and most talented performers in films and music. Why not make teaching lucrative?

[Iggo]

12. I would guess that taxing a vice has never gotten rid of that vice.

I would further guess that it does is create a whole bunch of people who depend on the revenue from that tax, and who have no incentive to encourage others to discontinue that vice.

[sinkingfeeling]

19. So you think only poor people eat junk food? We have millions of middle-class kids that live on it.

[Hutzpa]

24. I don't get your point

but, my post is about taxing junk food and the category of people it will affect the most.

I would rather see the ingredients placed on foods being highly regulated instead of taxing
food, my argument is to make sure food is affordable for every works of life, not to tax it in
such a way that majority of Americans would end up not having food on their table, thats my
point.

[sinkingfeeling]

32. I don't get yours. In my state we're all taxed on groceries already.

[Hutzpa]

33. All states are taxed on foods

not just your state, what we are discussing here is adding more
excess tax on sugary foods to prevent people from buying them,
hope this helps.

[sinkingfeeling]

37. Again, not true. As of 2009, only 9 states tax food items for home consumption. 5 others tax and

then rebate the tax.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=1230

Thirty-one states and the District of Columbia exempt most food purchased for consumption at home from the state sales tax. South Carolina is the state that most recently eliminated its sales tax on food (effective November 1, 2007).

[Codeine]

56. Not true.

We don't tax food in California. Big state on the Pacific coast -- maybe you've heard of it?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

69. Next time do some research before posting.

[Obamanaut]

74. Actually, that isn't quite true. Many, if not most, of the regular food

items in the grocery stores are not taxed - a lot of the junk type food items are - but not real food. I'm in Florida.

[Silver Swan]

21. Believe it or not

But it is possible to be fat without "junk" food.

[Taitertots]

26. Increase the cost, and people will buy less

If people buy less than they are eatting less. Eatting less junk food is a good step toward better health.

[Ron Green]

28. +1, but there are people posting here who see junk food as some kind of

"only choice" for poor people, and therefore deserving of protection from a "regressive tax."

:eyes:

[Hutzpa]

29. So you don't think

that will create hardship on people who cannot afford these high taxes.

Why do you think people are buying cheap foods? it is because they cannot
afford healthy food to begin with.

[sinkingfeeling]

34. Not necessarily true. Some 'poor people' have very limited access to 'healthy food' but

plenty to junk. Some live in the inner cities without full service grocery stores. Replace half of the 'convenience' stores with a single IGA or Kroger's and people will eat better.

[Hutzpa]

39. From your argument

that you've put forward, how does taxing junk foods relates to
those examples you have provided?

[sinkingfeeling]

42. Uh, people will spend their money for better food if they have access to it. So placing a tax on

soda and other junk isn't a great burden and might just cause them to stop and compare what they can get for the same amount of money. In relationship to the millions of kids that almost live on junk food, I would hope that raising the cost of a soda might pay for them to be educated on what they're doing to themselves.

You've implied that taxing soft drinks would be a regressive tax on 'the poor' because they're the ones who consume the most junk. I disagree with that premise. I think the 'junk food' habit is across all economic classes and a penny or two tax on a can of Coke isn't going to hurt anybody, but might reduce consumption.

Now if you looked at stats, you'd find that most smokers are in the lower income percentiles, but no one got up in arms about putting a couple of dollars worth of taxes on a pack of cigarettes. Who yelled about regressive taxes on tobacco?

[dustbunnie]

43. Couldn't have worded this post better myself. n/t

[Hutzpa]

45. What you are ignoring is the reason

behind parents who spends their money on junk foods, could it be because their parents cannot
afford descent foods, or are they just being cheap skate in buying unhealthy food for their kids?

Is it possible to address this than just assuming that imposing taxes on junk food would mysteriously solve the problem of obesity.

[sinkingfeeling]

46. Of course, most parents want to see their children become obese and develop diseases that will

reduce their life spans. I work on an university campus next door to a high school. We must have a 100 fast-food restaurants within blocks of these two campuses. I really don't see parents buying their kids super-sized Cokes and Hostess cupcakes. I see the kids (14 to 24) buying that junk.


And then let's look at prices. A bag of potato chips costs about $3.39 and a frozen higher quality dinner costs about $2.97.

[Hutzpa]

48. Don't you think it's because of what

they can afford, why do you think some schools use to provide kids with unhealthy foods? my guess
is because of insufficient funds, the schools has to provide foods on a cheap just so kids can eat
lunch.

And then let's look at prices. A bag of potato chips costs about $3.39 and a frozen higher quality dinner costs about $2.97.

Where have you been shopping?

[sinkingfeeling]

49. No, Shop at an IGA here in Fayetteville, AR.

[Hutzpa]

50. Where I'm from is the

opposite, healthy foods are a lot more expensive than so called junk foods.

[Art_from_Ark]

61. 100 fast food places near the UofA/Fayetteville High?

Wow, I must have missed them all when I was there-- or they have been popping up like mushrooms since I left.
The closest fast food place I remember near the high school was Brenda's Better Burger on W. 6th Street

[sinkingfeeling]

75. 6th. Street is now MLK Blvd. and there's a Chick-fil-a, Burger King, Taco Place, McDonald's,

Zaxby's, Subway, 3 pizza places, a BBQ, Waffle House, Wendy's, Taco Bell, and a few others within a couple of blocks on MLK. More being built. Then they built the new baseball stadium on Razorback and there's a bunch between MLK and 15th. Street. There are numerous outlets for fast food on the campus itself. And of course, there's still side by side restaurants/bars on Dickson Street. So I guess you haven't been here in the last few years.

[Art_from_Ark]

76. Wow, I guess it has been a while since I was there

I remember Brenda's Better Burger as being the only fast food place on W. 6th between the bypass and College Avenue! (Well, maybe there was a Pizza Hut at 6th and College? And a Waffle House near the bypass?) When I left, they had just moved the Wal-Mart a few hundred yards up the road to Farmington. I went back a few years later to find that Bud Walton Arena had replaced Barnhill Fieldhouse, and they were getting ready to tear down Carlson Terrace. They still hadn't figured out what to do with Carnall Hall, but they had gotten Old Main up and running after a million dollar renovation.

[ZombieHorde]

77. "Who yelled about regressive taxes on tobacco?"

Me. I was working hard turning someone to the Dem side when the rolling tobacco tax increased significantly. He went from independent to hating the Dems. There is no argument which will make him feel better about having less money.

[laughingliberal]

90. There were many who got up in arms about it but smokers are the equivalent of child molesters

in today's world. Many have been warning against the trend towards more and more sin taxes which are regressive in nature. I guess they'll look for any way to avoid having the rich pay their fair share. I don't favor any new taxes before the tax cuts on the wealthy are rolled back.

[Hutzpa]

92. Thats actually a very good point

it's all about getting even, since Obama is making sure the rich pay back their
share which they have been stealing, why not find a way to tax the poor and this
is it.

[Taitertots]

51. Unhealthy foods are not cheap

I'm low income and I manage to eat decently healthy foods.

[Hutzpa]

93. I think you'll find that it varies

based on your location.

[prolesunited]

40. Seems taxing smoking

has reduced smoking rates

[taterguy]

52. Smokers are evil people, gluttons are jolly

Totally different set of rules apply to those vices

[prolesunited]

57. I'm not making value judgements about the people who engage in either

I'm just saying there is a correlation. Both habits have long-term effects on health.

[taterguy]

58. But the philosophical question becomes which unhealthy habits should have financial consequences

Smoking isn't popular so it's an easy tax to impose.

[Hutzpa]

66. Just as speeding isn't popular

but motorist are the easier target for police with speed gun, on that note
it seen as ok.

[endless october]

44. it doesn't.

and one can become obese on healthy food, too.

[Igel]

47. Problems.

First, corner stores are run by people who get to decide, very often, what they'll sell. They want to make money. If they thought selling arugula would make them money, they would. The walls of beer and soft drinks, the aisles of canned pasta and preserved baked goods would be replaced by what whole grain foods and fresh fruit. (In fact, where I worked near downtown LA there was precisely such a place--Persian pastries, decent sandwiches, some soft drinks, milk, and fresh fruit. Three miles south it would have been canned spaghetti, corn dogs, and malt liquor.)

Second, many people buy and consume junk food knowing that it's not good for them. They do it in small quantities or large quantities, but they know it's not good for them. Granted, some people have missed the news or don't believe the news--they want their sugar, fat, and salt on barely edible beef or pre-chewed chicken. So teach them. I suspect most are like my uncle--he knew that a diet of sausages, hot dogs, and ranch dressing exposed to a piece of lettuce wasn't good for him, but he didn't care. When I was in my 20s I'd eat pretty healthily most of the time, but from time to time would have a junk-food day. To try to regulate junk food out of existence is to say that people can't responsibly consume low-nutrition food products. They can. On this, I'm pro-choice. In fact, I consider the tax to be mostly a revenue-generating device by wannabe nannies: They think they're more deserving of running our lives and want to get money for their other projects.

Third, regulating the content of food as you'd want is tricky. To say that fat can't be over a certain percentage or that sugar can't exceed a certain amount makes little sense. Low-fat chocolate and low-sugar baklava are non-starters with me. Unless we want to stipulate in great detail: Baklava can have up to 35.3% of its calories from sugar, of which 18.6% can be from glucose, etc., etc. Trying to regulate consumers' choices to make it impossible for them to sin--I'm sorry, so it's impossible for them to make bad choices--is very difficult. Even now when I'm in the mood for junk food I still make my own. Made a huge batch of cinnamon rolls a couple of weeks ago, and cookies before that.

In fact, I credit junk food with keeping me alive a few years ago. I was downing 3-4 liters of soda, donuts, and all the sugar I could get my hands on, in addition to my usual diet. (I tallied it up--an extra 3k calories or so just from sugar and junkfood each day.) I had been losing weight and that kept me from going below 150 lbs (at 5' 10"). Fat didn't do it. Starch barely did. I was severely hyperthyroid--what I had for breakfast would go right through me by dinner time, so most of the fat I ate wasn't digested. (Easy to suffer from malnutrition. On the other hand, sugar is absorbed very quickly.) The doctors didn't catch it--few people are hyperthyroid, most of those are women, and of the men that fall ill to what I had they're mostly in their 30s or 60s, not late 40s. Rah, rah, junk food.

Fourth, taxing certain categories of food is at least slightly less arbitrary than meddling with the content of the food. It preserves choice and doesn't say that only government bureaucrats--not consumers or producers--have a clue as to what we do.

Fifth, the idea is that if junk food costs as much as healthy food, then people will choose the healthy food. I think it's a self-serving excuse to avoid facing the actual problem while letting moralists in government feel good about their superiority over the little person. I was raised to eat fairly healthy by two parents working shifts, and when my income was at bare-survival levels I lived on beans, apples, carrots, cheese, and the occasional piece of chicken. Fairly low in sugar and not high in fat or salt. As a kid and when poor I still had friends who lived on junk food.

Then I look at my current neighborhood. Every family has a car. Healthy meals cost no more than junk-food meals (if you add in a bit of food preparation)--we have neither stores nor restaurants for a mile or two in any direction. Yet the trash cans overflow with boxes from pre-prepared food and there are McDonald's wrappers in the street. There are 5-6 unemployed men on my street; they could have a small garden in their backyards, grow tomatoes, kale, collards, lettuce for perhaps $10/year. Nope: They meet 3-4x/week to grill hot dogs and swill beer. And they already have their kids trained. My kid's 6 and his friends come over sometimes. We offer graham crackers, milk, fruit--and they say no because they want soda or juice boxes (just none of the kind with mostly real fruit juice), cookies and candy. The school's cafeteria workers complain that the trash cans are heavy because a large percentage of the kids throw away their milk and veggies. They succeed in imbalancing their pre-balanced free and reduced-cost meals. It's their choice: They, both kids and adults, like fat, salt, and sugar. We're primates: We evolved to like fat, salt, and sugar when such things were fairly rare. Some are trained to make better choices now that they're common; some aren't trained. As long as we're really active you don't see the problem. With more video games, tv, and even more sugar and fat, it's a problem.

Both sides have people who want to stamp out what they consider to be sin. Some define "sin" in religious terms. Some in secular terms. Same kind of totalitarian impulse--to command that which is good and prohibit that which is bad.

[Hutzpa]

98. I would like to see an independent

revue, one that is not governed by any political parties or sponsored by any corporate
organization. One that can do their findings with no interference from any major
organization, then maybe I'll buy into this myth that taxing has helped solve
smoking or that taxing junk food would prevent obesity in the future.

[gulliver]

53. They should just tax obesity directly.

If you weigh more than 5 lbs. over the ideal weight for your height, your taxes are doubled.

[Iggo]

95. I THINK THEY SHOULD TAX PEOPLE WHO STAND IN WATER!!!!

:P

[Hutzpa]

101. OR BOARD PLANES!

:P

[LanternWaste]

54. Om what objective basis do you

Om what objective basis do you posit that junk food is less expensive than healthy food? Also, on what objective basis do you posit that low income families buy more junk food per capita than non-low income families?

[DeSwiss]

55. Taxing junk food....

...won't necessarily prevent obesity. But taxing junk food will help fund education programs (particularly aimed at our kids) about obesity prevention.

Taxing fast food isn't designed to prevent obesity as much as it's designed to fund education about obesity and how it can and should be avoided. The pubic health issues that obesity places at everyone's doorstep in some way must be addressed somehow. So if a hamburger from Mickey D's costs 2 cents or 5 cents, more but helps educate young people in a positive way, at least they have better information. And we will have at least tried to improve their chances in life by avoiding debilitating diseases that result from obesity.

There is no magic bullet to solve our problems. Least of all obesity. Taxing fast food isn't one either. But I think its a step in the right direction.

My

[nonconformist]

60. Taxing junk food won't work.

What I think it boils down to for many people... not all, but MANY... is that they don't want to or can't cook. So they reach for convenience foods like fast food and prepackaged stuff. If you care to cook, you CAN eat healthier on the the same budget. Will it be a fancy organic most-healthy-food-ever diet? No, probably not, but it will be A LOT better for you.

I've been poor before, and the last thing we did when we were poor was waste what little money we had on fast food. For what it costs to buy 4 fast food meals, I can make a relatively decent meal for my family that includes leftovers, and you won't be hungry again a couple of hours later after eating it like you will with fast food.

I think one of the best gifts we can give our children is teaching them how to cook and sitting down for a "normal" meal every day together. It's something that they'll take with them through their lives and pass down to their own children.

[applegrove]

62. Right now the cheap food causes obesity. Healthy food is more expensive.

[proudohioan]

63. No, it doesn't prevent obesity (IMO)...

some willpower and one's own personal incentive will more likely stop their own consumption of junk food.

What I object to are these "nanny taxes" in general. They are in essence moral judgments. They are one group of people telling another group of people that "their choices are so much better". The choices that group "B" make are ruining the lives of group "A" and everyone in between.

The same argument could be made from folks who ride their bikes as opposed to driving. Or folks that drive small, fuel efficient cars as opposed to those who drive large trucks and SUV's. And the arguments go on and on and on. This is the same kind of mentality used by the RW Christian "moral majority" type people. Do we really want to stoop down to that level?

And when does it end? Remember the good old days of book banning? Back when "Catcher in the Rye" was considered "harmful"?

Cost of junk food vs healthy food really isn't the issue. The issue is really more of a sin and vice tax issue. Who gets to decide what are sins and vices? And if they are so detrimental that we need to tax those things in order to reduce consumption, why not just ban them altogether? Do we really want to go there?

[Hutzpa]

64. What an excellent point

what strikes me though is that I never thought I'll see the day where some so called
progressive/liberal democrats calling for imposing excessive tax on food just to
prevent obesity. What? Have we become so narrow minded that we have suddenly lost
our sense of morality. Where did these people came from? Don't they realize once you
go down that road there is no turning back as we've seen with everything else.

[liberal_at_heart]

68. some liberals use the same tactics as conservatives. They just have a different agenda.

[proudohioan]

72. No doubt.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.....

:)

[proudohioan]

71. Yeah, I never thought I'd see that day, either.

That kind of stuff was usually reserved for "fanatics"!

No, I don't think that people realize the consequences of going down that road. It can so quickly be taken to extreme!

:)

[liberal_at_heart]

65. That just puts all foods out of reach for poor people

They need to make fruits and vegetables and lean meats more affordable if they want poor people to eat better. I live in the Northwest. Salmon capital. I guarantee the poor people are not eating salmon. They are eating hamburger meat.

[izzybeans]

73. A cucumber costs less than a candy bar.

I could give a rip if a candy bar gets more expensive.

[Scout]

81. who the hell wants a fricking cucumber when they feel like a snack?

i could give a rip what a cucumber costs.

[dustbunnie]

83. Children need vegetables and fruits to grow up to their healthy potential.

You of course, are free to choose whatever you want to put into your body.

But that doesn't mean others shouldn't care about the nutrition available to growing children, as well as the adults who would benefit from better foods too.

[liberal_at_heart]

84. My kids eat healthy and you don't want to know what my grocery bill is

Kids want grapes, strawberries, apples, oranges, corn, carrots; not cucumbers. Grapes, strawberries, apples, oranges, corn and carrots are not cheap.

[dustbunnie]

85. So the answer is to feed them a chocolate bar instead?

I think the poster was speaking in metaphor by the way. Cucumber, as in representing a healthier choice than molten brown and white sugar with some coacoa thrown in for texture. If you don't like it, replace that word with the veggie of your choice.

I shop for groceries every week as well. Coke, chocolate bars and frozen foods are expensive with no nutrition to show for the purchase, plus they're heavy and bulky to lug home. It's much cheaper and less bulky to shop fresh and for staples like rice, lentils, beans, etc.

[liberal_at_heart]

87. poor people do eat rice and beans

They do eat the healthy food they can afford like rice and beans. They just don't eat the healthy food they can't afford like blueberries and broccoli. I am from the Northwest; salmon capital. Poor people in this area are not eating salmon. They are eating rice, beans, hamburger meat, anything they can afford and right now junk food is more affordable than healthy food.

[dustbunnie]

88. Yes, I imagine it depends greatly on where you live.

I live in the northeast, and it's definitely cheaper to eat non-junk where I am.

[Scout]

89. yeah, vegetables and fruit with meals ... but if a kid wants a candy bar, give them a frickin' candy

bar.

if you continually deprive them of the stuff they want, when they are out of your control they will eat what they want anyway.

i'm sick of the smug fucks who assume that because someone eats "junk food" that they don't "care about the nutrition available to growing children" ... jesus christ on a fucking pogo stick ... if healthy means i'll live longer, who wants to if all i have around me are smug, stick-up-their-ass food snobs.

i'm glad you're not my parent. :eyes:

[liberal_at_heart]

91. I agree

My kids do eat healthy but they also eat fun stuff that kids enjoy eating. There is nothing wrong with a kid having a candy bar.

[dustbunnie]

99. If you had been my child it's doubtful that you'd be such an angry and overly aggressive person.

We value joy and laughter in our family. You seem to think that by virtue of the fact that you're overweight, that you're the only person worthy enough to speak of health, exercise and nutrition. You're not, and mostly you just come off as being really angry and unhappy. I'm glad you aren't related to me either. it'd be depressing to face you at family gatherings with that tude.

[Scout]

100. aaawwwww, i'm angry and overly aggressive?

at least i'm not a stick up my ass food snob.

:rofl:

got anything to say that applies to the discussion?

[RandomGuy12]

78. Well...

Guess What! It worked for smoking! They put a tax on that, and it has worked pretty well. I'm not saying that I'm against junk food - it's great, but this concept may work. If you look into it, like I have, this essentially means LOWERING the price of these "expensive healthy foods." Hence, lower income people will be able to buy these healthy things. I do see where you are coming from with the cheaper ingredients, but the fact of the matter is that these less expensive ingredients in our food is terrible for us, and is making lower income people obese. I have a feeling that this will work, like it did for cigarettes. I'm sorry that you think that healthy food is not worth the money, as it is, and I have a feeling that you aren't a little person. Sorry. Maybe I'm wrong, but as I said, I just have a slight feeling. But this IS a good idea.

JUST MY TWO CENTS BEEATCH

[slackmaster]

80. The same way taxing cigarettes prevents smoking, and taxing gasoline prevents driving

It puts the government in the untenable position of relying on sales of products, the use of which should be discouraged in the interest of public health, in order to raise revenue.

[surrealAmerican]

86. It might work, if it comes up with a very good legal description ...

... of just what "junk food" is.

Companies that produce "food products" are going to want their products to be more affordable to more customers. Some will opt to make their products nutritious enough to avoid the tax.

[Hutzpa]

94. In adding

I think imposing taxes on companies that uses ingredients that are responsible for
obesity would be a much more productive approach than taxing the products, lets
say company (a) makes every efforts to include nutritious ingredients on their
products, you then entice that company by reducing their taxes which would be
seen as an incentive to creating healthy eating.

This is how you start controlling obesity, besides, this will produce a faster results
than taxing which would create unwarranted animosity toward the democratic party.

[Yavin4]

97. "The Five Dollar Box. It Rocks. It Rocks."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNLilO7mEEU

A morbidly obese Charles Barkley hawks cheap fast food which is comprised of high fat, carbs, and sugar, all for $5. It's cheap and already prepared for consumption for that family whose parents are working two jobs and have no time to prepare a meal. Bad food is cheaper whereas good food is indeed more expensive and takes time to prepare. Time that a lot of families simply do not have.

Hell, even in the commercial, Charles can barely fit through the telephone booth.

By taxing junk food, you would force restaurants like Taco Bell to offer affordable healthier items.