Bad Food? Tax It, and Subsidize Vegetables

Take a look at Mark Bittman's OpEd piece in the NY Times today: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24bittman.html?ref=opinion

And before you get concerned over what will happen to the poor, read his full scenario of making healthy foods more affordable and more ubiquitous and helping our entire population become healthier.

"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."

Bittman offers some staggering information about the costs in the nation's health as a result of the subsidization of bad foods.

"Health-related obesity costs are projected to reach $344 billion by 2018 — with roughly 60 percent of that cost borne by the federal government. For a precedent in attacking this problem, look at the action government took in the case of tobacco."

He makes a very good case. IMO, he is offering a coherent food policy for the U.S. Rather than throwing up our hands and saying nothing can be done, we should take a good look at his thoughtful article.

Right after you subsidize the time and energy needed to prepare everything from scratch every night.

Or here's a novel thought: Why don't you keep your nose out of my pantry and let me eat what the fuck I want to, and I'll keep my nose out of yours and give you the same courtesy.

What is it with the authoritarianism? Are you just not fucking happy until SOMEONE is paying extra for what you don't like? Or we could simply call it what it is: An attempt at 'forcing' vegetarianism.

Or trying to punish/reward them for their choices?

Your body, your choice. Next up - the RW will want a $100 tax on abortions....

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

live and punishing you when you don't do what they think is best.

Me, I kind of like individualism, freedom of choice, etc.

Maybe that is not a progressive ideal anymore.

But while we are arguing about individualism how about this: I like and enjoy fresh fruits and vegetables but high prices are interfering with my freedom to choose them. I also pay taxes. OK, why should my taxes subsidize bad food and not the food I want to eat? Maybe that is not a progressive ideal anymore...

I was a foodie before bittman was even a speck.

I may have less money than a heck of a lot of people on DU but the prices of fresh vegs and fruits aren't prohibitive to anybody with basic understanding of how to shop. That I know how to do and I can help you do it too, CTYankee.

First off, I don't know where you live but Asian and/or Latino markets almost always offer FRESHER fruits and veggies (not to mention poultry) at prices 20% lower than supermarket chains. They also take WIC and food stamps.

Have you heard of Super H-mart? Assi? They are national chains. There are a couple of others. But if you aren't near these check out where Indians, Asians and Hispanics shop in your area. You'd be amazed at the variety, prices and quality available.

We have a thriving immigrant class of people here in the New Haven area...

basic understanding of how to shop." Nice.

Here's something you need to have a basic understanding of - millions upon millions of people live in places where it is hard to find decent fresh produce at any price. The nearest ethnic grocer with fresh produce is over 100 miles away from where I live. Farmers collect billions in subsidies all around me to grow dried up corn to feed to bloated, hormone-laden, environment-killing cows but a small watermelon can cost me around $6 to $7 at the market.

We need to quit subsidizing corn and start subsidizing healthy food. Tax the shit out of bacon. Subsidize healthy, whole plant-based foods.

"food deserts" that now exist, offering more choices for consumers, even the poorest consumer...

To keep the prices low.

They're among the biggest receivers of agricultural subsidies. Why shouldn't healthy foods receive equivalent subsidies?

necessary to provide agricultural subsidies - and I don't really dispute that; a country being able to feed itself seems to be a worthwhile investment - why not apply the subsidies to get the most bang for our buck as a nation? At one time, perhaps beef and sugar were perceived as the key staples, but we've learned a lot since then.

It doesn't really have to cost anything, just a gradual dollar-for-dollar swap from one commodity to another...

... stop subsidizing ALL factory farms/ranches.

If you don't like the idea of government promoting public health, Somalia awaits. Enjoy.

to become sick?

People who extol regressive taxation are not targeting the upper or middle classes, they just want to squeeze the balls of the poor even tighter.

Apparently this satisfies some sick control fetish for them? :shrug:

and subsidizes the hell out of bad food. And you think that's a great choice for poor folks?

Really, whose side are you on?

and really ultimately won't keep them from those choices would help them? How, exactly? Why wouldn't ending the subsidies and targeting policies at corporations be better? That would ultimately affect all consumers equally, and not put the burden of cost disproportionately on the poor.

Why do you do that? Are they less intelligent than you think they are? Can't they make decisions on their own, without your help?

Why in the world do we not subsidize healthy food for EVERYONE rather than subsidize unhealthy food for people who feed us shit?

I really need an answer to this question!

:silly: I'm not the one propsing a tax on junk food, buddy. You are...

It's not my fault you seem to have no ability to grasp the concept of regressive taxation.

What do you have against the people?

If you don't understand how regressive taxes disproportionately harm those with lower income, that could be a big part of the problem. Those who aren't "against the people" as you you say usually have a grasp of this. But here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regressive_tax.

There are better ways to offer fresh, healthy food to the people, I'm sure.

We talk a lot about food. They "get it" and it is something that they have to struggle with. For my Turkish community, they have a grocer that they go to for some things. I think their community has grown to where they have an influence in the local supermarkets.

I have learned from these people. I did not know what their issue were before. They have wise and wonderful choices in their food which is fresh and wonderful. I cannot describe it to you.

With a more progressive tax policy, they will be able to continue their family tradition and not adopt our fast food culture. What is wrong with that?

I am just speechless at what some people are saying on this thread. Really, folks. THINK.

You are simply mistaken. Those who are more affluent will be proportionately less affected by it. There is nothing progressive about that. IF you want to direct food choices, education is by far the best method. If you want to enact policies aimed at the corporations themselves, hell, I won't complain. But this punitive measure that disproportionately punishes people with fewer means I cannot get behind at all. Especially since I see daily how a similar tax affects people.

And really, why do you doubt the intelligence of the working poor? Can't they choose the foods they want? You seem to say they want crap and they are condemned to want crap, but I don't buy that. I give them more credit than you do!

I'm not the one fretting over food choices. You are. I'm only advocating against a regressive tax. That's it. Also, who says I want to give food corporations a tax advantage. Tax the crap out of them! Go for it, I say. This liberal gives the stamp of approval, for sure.

Why not reward GOOD companies that give us good food? What is so EVIL about that? Really?

I am flabbergasted that so many DU liberals on this board who scream and yell at our corporate system in America get all hysterical over a mild suggestion from a food editor who simply says our food policy in this country is effed up...

Go figure.

Have you taken a poll of people on the low end of the income spectrum and come up with this scientific evidence?

I think people can make their own decisions and I trust the poor as well as the affluent to do so if given the economic impetus...why don't you?

But here. From the link I sent ya in another post in this thread. Others may come along and elucidate you. But it's a basic regressive tax. I promise you. It's true:

The term is frequently applied in reference to fixed taxes, where every person has to pay the same amount of money. The regressivity of a particular tax often depends on the propensity of the tax payers to engage in the taxed activity relative to their income. In other words, if the activity being taxed is more likely to be carried out by the poor and less likely to be carried out by the rich, then the tax may be considered regressive. To determine whether a tax is regressive, the income-elasticity of the good being taxed as well as the income-substitution effect must be considered.

Neo Classical work "Principles of Economics", I have understood what your basic thesis here is. He said it a little differently in his section on Value and Utility, but OK.

What we don't know with absolute certainty is how a group in society will react when offered a better deal than what they have had. Are you saying that you already know this? That somehow people at the lower economic level can't or won't give up one "good" for another, better "good" when given the chance? That they won't choose the apple over the Twinkie? I am arguing that we can't just assume the Twinkie wins every time in the matchup with an apple. Perhaps the Twinkie wins because there is no real "apple," since the apple is more expensive. So Bittman sets out to change that equation. So that there is more than a level playing field between the two food products. That is what Bittman offers here.

There is a school of thought put forth by people such as Dr. David Katz at Yale who believe that the junk food in our midst has had an addictive effect on people consuming it. Mostly, he is talking about sugar. I won't go into his theory here except to say that I prefer to be healthily skeptical of the "addictive" charge. I say that as a former smoker who gave up a 20 year habit without enduring one spasm of "withdrawal" symptoms, when I was supposedly "addicted" to nicotine. And I can assure you that I am not all that strong willed.

And speaking of tobacco, Bittman points out how successful public policies against smoking have been in getting Americans to stop smoking. The difference here is in the array of food choices that would be easily and immediately available under Bittman's scenario. When folks like me quit smoking, there wasn't a real substitute. The "substitute" was not immediately forthcoming. Yes, I saved money. Yes, my clothes no longer smelled of smoke. But those are less immediate, and certainly less sensory, benefits. They are more of a rational, instead of an emotional, nature.

So, if the junk food is taxed but healthy, fresh food made immediately available as a substitute, why wouldn't the "substitution effect" be a positive one? And how do you "know" that the poor wouldn't transition to healthier foods? After all, in our long evolution as human beings, food appeals to us on many levels: that of color, texture and, of course, taste. What I absolutely love about Turkish food is their wonderfully beautiful jewel tones arranged on a plate and that that cuisine exploits this feature dramatically for the people consuming it. That it is also healthy is not merely a coincidence, IMO. Nature intends to attract us to that beauty.

Lastly, there is something oddly undemocratic about saying that the poor can't make good food choices when offered real alternatives, that only the rich can make good food choices. The rich can make good food choices because they have the money opportunity. Level the playing field for the poor and we'll see what happens. If good food costs less than bad food, rational humans will choose the good. It is odd to me that some people here seem to think that the poor cannot be just as rational as the rich when it comes to choosing the best options for them. And that fresh, good food isn't as "attractive" than artificially colored and flavored foods.

I thank you for your time in reading this long post...

At any rate, no, I"m actually not saying that. They may not pay the tax. You could be right, though it isn't very likely. But the thing is? I don't care. It isn't right whether they pay it or not! It isn't right to enact such a tax in the first place.

Go after the corporations. Take away their subsidies. Do something about the food deserts. Give grocery stores incentives to open stores in those areas.

You are...

I just understand regressive taxation. I'm not advocating that. You are.

What is it that is bad for them? REALLY?

Taxing food items is bad. It really is. It isn't progressive in the least.

I am not understanding the problem here...

I don't know why. It isn't difficult.

are getting so screwed by our present tax policy. They are getting taxed to subsidize food that diminishes or limits their health. And this is good, WHY? Why isn't it regressive taxation to force people into subjugation to eat foods bad for their health while subsidizing with THEIR TAX DOLLARS the very companies that feed them this poison?

Regressive taxation, indeed!

My concern is about additional taxes on food, particularly grocery items, that would disproportionately affect them. I am adamantly opposed to those.

that helps people eat better foods and be healthier.

that's crazy...

You want to tax what is bad in a regressive way. Yes, you're taxing bad things hoping it makes people make better choices. But that tax hurts people who make less money a lot harder. That's what makes it regressive. Not everyone will make the choices you're hoping they'll make. People will still get "punished" That punishment will hit them harder. And it's unfair. Progressives are supposed to care about unfair stuff like that, you see?

people in low income situations get the better food choices?

Really,did you read the article? Please, at least give the guy a fair chance. He talks extensively about subsidizing good health food choices for low income people. It's part of his policy ideas.

PLEASE READ THE ARTICLE...

And I'm sorry. I oppose regressive taxation. I do not believe that is a solution, I'm sorry. I'm not opposed to subsidizing healthy food for low income people. Absolutely not. But absolutely no regressive taxation.

when it comes to an economic situation? If they can get healthy food at a good price and would have to pay a higher price on junk food, wouldn't you trust them to make their own decision about their own best interests?

Do you not trust them to make those decisions for themselves? REALLY?

You are the one all about food choices. I'm saying your tax idea will affect them disproportionately because they make less money. That's the key definition of poor, see? The taxes will be harder on them. Because they make less money... Am I getting you, here?

You are assuming that because they are poor,they automatically make poorer choices in food. I am not. I am saying they will make BETTER choices, because it is economically better for them, just like other people will.

And the fact is it will disproportionately affect people who make less money when they make the choice to buy a food with this tax affixed to it. That isn't a fair tax. It is not progressive.

support bad food, they will have the opportunity to make the healthier choice.

Why do you oppose their choice in the matter? Isn't that their right? What right do you have to speak on their behalf?

Uh, no. It's not. Even if that "opportunity" means they're making a healthier choice. I can still think of better ways! Sorry.

I think that is a rather unfortunate assumption on your behalf, really. Can't they think for themselves and make their own choices? Why do you "condemn" them to a fate that you have somehow cooked up in your own head?

I will trust people to make their own choices, thank you...and I think they will go with their pocketbook and choose the better foods if we change our tax policy...I don't write them off as being unable to do this!

Not everyone's definition of healthy maybe be the same, and even if everyone's definition matched perfectly, human beings are not 100% perfect. That's why I assume. Would you expect sudden 100% compliance where no one would buy anything on the naughty naughty list? Please!

I am not the one saying that. I want to give them a choice. Good Lord almighty...

OMG, this is too funny...

Own it!

And enact a consercative policy as a solution. Really. This is nuts. This is one of the crazier discussions I've ever had on DU.

You know. Poor feet and posture is a growing problem, too. Tax cheap shoes. That way people have to buy better shoes! Beter posture and healthier feet can only be good, right? Really? It's for their own good. And people getting sick because they aren't dressing warm enough. So, in the winter? I propose a heavy tax on all clothing that isn't warm enough. And, hmmm. Shoddy housing. Tax it. They really should be living in better housing. I know, we could be going after slumloards and shoddy builders, and we can do that, too, but the tennants could be making better choices, too! Tax those slummy places. They'll move to nicer homes!

You've changed my way of thinking. This whole tax policy of yours is gold :sarcasm:

that is the problem.

I love the shoe thing. Some women are spending huge sums of money on shoes that deform their feet. Some women are not. More expensive is not necessarily better. So your clothing analogy is pretty weak.

Affordable housing is a real problem, tho. With an artificially low supply of it, people are denied choices. In a more equitable society, people would not be forced to live in slums.

farmer's markets ... i simply CHOOSE not to eat very many fresh fruits and vegetables because i don't like vegetables very much and i don't care for very many kinds of fruit either.

i eat what i choose because i like it. it fits my lifestyle. my husband likes it.

some people just plain are not interested in eating the way the foodies say they should.

and you can save me the lecture about my health too, thanks very much.

here.

I am certainly not advocating that you eat what I eat. Eat what you like. I do not care. However, I think we have an incoherent food policy in this country that outright subsidizes unhealthy foods and allows the "market" to charge up the wazoo for fresh, good food.

Who wants to stop you from eating what you want? It's your choice. God bless...

when all these people with their toddler diets end up with diabetes down the road, it's going to be everyone else's health insurance premiums that support their care. That's why poor diets are a public health problem that calls for a public solution.

did not have a "toddler diet" ... they ate the same diet as my father who did NOT develop type ii.

mom and dad are both 85.

and me and my "toddler diet" are doing just great at 51. all blood work continues to be FINE, bp and cholesterol are FINE, colonoscopy and stroke prevention screening are FINE, bone density is GREAT.

you pay for my "public health problem" and i'll pay for your kids. isn't that how it's supposed to work?

will tell you stories that would curl your hair...

then what do we need this ridiculous tax for? That makes no sense. Let's get on with the choices! Bring them on! No need for a punitive tax. THey'll freely choose the better food.

There are 2 possibilities:

1. Poor parts of town have no grocery stores and fast food chains up the ass because they willingly choose that garbage, or
2. The grocery stores intentionally ignore them and fast food chains are quick to jump on the market, forcing them to buy their crap.


I want to eat healthy, but sadly, the CPA in me is highly motivated by money. While I love fast food, I cannot justify the cost. Fact is that it IS more expensive than buying healthier foods. I read a story showing how canned vegatables retain almost as much nutrition as "fresh" vegatables. I can get some canned vegatables, some boneless skinless chicken breasts and a gallon of milk and feed my family of 5 for much less than it would cost to eat at a fast food restaurant.

The fact is that using our tax code as a means to influence policy (something that has led to a 10,000+ page Internal Revenue Code and 40,000+ pages of Income Tax Regulations) is NOT the answer. The key is education and ultimate realization that some people will still make bad choices.

"I hate control freaks, period..."

I imagine that without further qualifiers, you must really despise those guys who came up with the concept of traffic lights. They certainly interfere with one's individualism and freedom of choice(etc...).

folks on the right will use the same language as those on the left to get the results they want.

You want to punish others who don't eat like you (speaking about the article here, not you) to save them from their sinful ways, and the right thinks abortion is a sin and could be prevented (anyone who does not know sex leads to pregnancy raise your hand) - so abortion is an avoidable choice. So tax the behavior and we won't have as many.

Same logic, different party. Me? I prefer to stay with the baseline called freedom and screw either party trying to remove it and make me obey their puritan choices.

You wanna control someone? Have some kids and raise them your way - leave adults to be free to make their own choices.

And your "logic" about abortion is illogical. Abortion is a safe procedure that saves many women's lives and it is safer for a woman than pregnancy and childbirth. It is also a woman's constitutional right, established by Supreme Court rulings. You go off a logical cliff when you compare abortion rights to an individual "right" to eat food that you know is unhealthful and charge the taxpayer with subsidizing that "right." It's actually funny...

even with a tax, the wealthy could get still get an abortion, no? what are you whining about then?

It's using money as a way to artificially strangle access to products and services by a few wackos with control problems to satisfy their personal or political prejudices.

something else is. What about MY individual choice to eat healthier foods? Why am I penalized and must pay more money than those who eat subsidized food?

this is not an argument against anybody, but surely you see that there are more losses on your side of the argument than on Bittman's...

I highly suggest you learn the definition of subsidize.

if not, then surely you would not wince at a $50,000 surcharge on abortions in order to "teach those people how to live right".

about food policy and abortion. Until you have actually worked in the abortion wars of the past 20 years or so, you can't really tell me anything.

Abortion rights and food policy could not be further apart...and YOU KNOW IT...

I guess I was just naive...silly me...what a debate...

I should have looked more carefully. :-(

and it is not like it is a natural product. We are talking huge corporations spending millions of dollars to brainwash people into thinking cigarettes are good for them or hydrogenated oil is super yummy.

If I can find a link to you posting on DU and your electric usage, etc, are you going to stop (because you do so by choice - you could be amish you know)?

If we are going to tie everything everyone does into everything then be prepared to give up your choices, and I am sure you will be happy to do so.

How about people mind their own business.

letting people mind their own business? You're simply not subsidizing bad food.

What on earth do you have against fresh, good food?

What I am against is nanny-statists wanting to dictate everything to me and do away with freedom of choice.

I don't care what you eat. That's your business, not mine. I don't want to be anybody's nanny. And, once again, how is what Bittman proposes taking away your freedom of choice? PLEASE explain...

retail price?? Why should we subsidize the consumption of junk that winds up placing a public health burden on society??

why isn't getting a better deal on fresh, healthy food a GOOD thing for Americans (of any class)?

we pay for the external costs... the corporations, manufacturers should be paying it!!

But taxing 'treats' (sodas, cookies, candy, cakes) will have no impact upon the wealthy and a heck of a lot of impact upon the poor and elderly. For many of us sodas are an occasional treat which does us no harm.

Control freak legislation is not a 'liberal' value. And I'm one of the most outspoken 'progressives' on DU.

people.

"My body, my choice," isn't limited to reproductive rights.

Where in the article specifically does he say he wants to limit your right to eat what you want?

In fact, our food subsidy policy now inhibits MY choice to eat fresh foods. MY taxes pay to subsidize food products I do not buy. So if anybody is getting screwed here, it's me...

I mean, if you wouldn't be deprived of freedom of choice in fast food, why would you care?

Perhaps the biggest impediment to a plan such as this is a complete lack of real grocers in poorer neighborhoods. As a result, grocers would have to be heavily, heavily subsidized to build stores in said areas. Transportation is also another major issue, which would also have to be greatly subsidized.

through government in our society. That is what the Democratic Party has stood for, for many, many years...

are open to them, even if they choose in ways I think are misguided, and I am uncomfortable in deliberately shaping our tax system to influence those choices. It may be a good strategy in some situations, but I prefer to see it carefully and sparingly applied - this does not strike me as one of those cases.

As I look through the thread, it seems to me that you are not clearly distinguishing between subsidies in the ag industry and taxes in the supermarket. Changes to the former, which can gradually shift support to healthier crops, seems wise to me; changes in the latter will almost certainly drop a burden on individuals (and likely on those who can least afford it)...

I am a Literacy Volunteer and teach at classes in the area. My students are not wealthy by any stretch of the imagination, but they do cook. They all cook. They want to bring us their dishes to feed us their food. They are generous. They have come here as refugees from situations you cannot imagine. And yet they cook their native foods, even here, in apartments I cannot even imagine in terms of their kitchen facilities. These people would BENEFIT from the policies that Bittman advocates here.

HOw can I NOT advocate for these people?

but to hell with everyone else?

He's talking more about the poor than about anybody...

what I just said in post 134. I live in a state that taxes groceries. I lived in states that don't. There is a big difference in quality of life for just about everyone who isn't affluent. I think we should keep the states that don't tax groceries that way and leave well enough alone. That's what I mean about "everyone else" That's what I mean about regressive taxes. There are better ways.

It is immoral and it is counter productive to growth, altho I think amoral is the better description! I am appalled!

Any state that taxes food should be immediately overthrown, IMO!

I hope you get your state changed for tax purpose in terms of food soon! Your problem isn't with Mark Bittman, it's is with your state's tax policy...

My god, my dear mother would be appalled...(and she lived in a red state)...

It's an important distinction to keep for when I move back someday to a state that doesn't tax grocries. Keep that red state bullshit out of the grocery store. No tax on any groceries. Again. There are better ways.

If there is a discrepancy, then that can be worked out (I can only think of something like corn on the cob in supermarkets now). I'm sure it's something that can be handled.

Are we so lame we cannot come up with a sane, rational and coherent food policy in this country that bets on the side of our population's health and food safety?

REALLY?

But again. I don't see the need to work it out, because it's a regressive tax and shouldn't be implemented in the first place. I think our red state hell should flat out get rid of ours. As next to impossible as our fight is I imagine it would make it all that harder if we had this tax on top of it. So, no thanks.

I don't know why you don't embrace it. It is a policy that would help everybody's health and well being. The only losers would be the big corps like McDonald's.

Why can you not see beyond to understand this? I really do not understand...

It's the same reasons I don't embrace every other conservative ideal. I'm really not sure why you aren't getting it, honestly.

I don't get it...

Not everyone's always going to make the choices you want them to. Very few people eat perfectly healthy 365 no matter what income bracket they're in. So. Those who are in lower income brackets will pay more of your tax proportionately. Red state hell.

And this just offers this a lower price option of good food instead of bad food. What is so bad about that? Right now, their options are pretty limited. Why don't you want them to have MORE, not fewer, choices?

I trust people to make their own choices...

Says the person who backs a junk food tax. Yeah...

people? Yeah...

the national benefits of the tax idea you and Bittman propose (the tax end, not the ag subsidies) will outweigh the individual costs. And as a liberal, I choose to err on the side of not limiting the choices people make, and not trying to manipulate individual behavior if I can avoid it...

Wake up. You need a bigger stick.

Sorry.

:shrug:

help the American people. That is what I believe.

I believe our tax policy can enhance the lives of our people. I believe in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

This idea is in line with those ideas. We are liberals. We believe in the power of government to help people, not hurt people.

Therefore, I believe we should not reward corporations that poison people with their food with tax subsidies. Instead, we should reward people who grow healthy, good food for people, ALL people with subsidies so anyone in our society can afford them.

That is what I believe.

And you?

I'm also not sure you grasp the difference between the subsidy end of the discussion (where I support change) and the tax end, which I strongly doubt will have the beneficial effect you think.

But yes, we're liberals - you just happen to be a liberal who is currently touting a bad idea...

cost of it, which logically includes factoring in the cost to society of paying for medical care for its victims.

All it advocates is giving more advocacy for healthful foods, not subsidies with OUR TAX DOLLARS to crap food that harms people.

What is it about that that bothers you?

when they suffer heart attacks and strokes and cancer NEEDLESSLY and, because they are likely poor, without benefit of medical insurance.

So we have every right to look at this as the PUBLIC HEALTH THREAT that it is.

I know, some of you people hate big government and public ANYTHING.

I think we should tax the junk food producers right out of business. And use the taxes collected to pay for the consequences of eating their crap.

To grow corn (for high frutose sugar) and other sugar and to keep those non-nutritional foods cheap.

The way I understand the proposal in the article is to stop making those non-nutritional foods cheaper and use subsidy powers to make healthy foods cheaper. If you leave out the "sin tax" for the unhealthy food, I can go along with that.

Or just remove all subsidies - something we could justify in this budget cutting atmosphere - and see how things shake out when corporations no longer can buy cheap sugars to inset into every food product on the market.

To many people that would be the equivalent of taxing the food. It's kinda the way Republicans look at repealing the bush tax cuts on the rich. They call that a "tax increase."

Actually, tho, I don't think Bittman's proposal would work without an actual tax on bad food. What I am arguing that consumers need a better array of choices and if they have cheaper good food they won't want the bad food in the first place. Because they have made a rational choice. I don't know why we are to assume that the poor can't make rational decisions about their food choices...that's really demeaning, IMHO.

That is what we are doing now - giving huge amounts of money to producers of the ingredients that many consider part of the problem in food today. We are artificially keeping the cost of junk food low - how can that be justified?

Why should US Sugar and producers of corn sugars get billions of taxpayer dollars? Then taxpayer money goes to health care when that junk food creates health problems, so we are paying at both ends. Cut the subsidies, provide more money for health care, and encourage healthier choices.

One of the big problems facing many people today is that they have no or little access to healthy food. A lot of city centers are "food deserts" with few groceries that carry fresh foods. People in those areas may be able to make rational decisions but without access, they cannot act on those decisions. One suggestion is to offer incentives to stores in those areas to offer more fresh vegetables and fruits so the people can make those rational choices.

and enacting a regressive tax that disproportionately affects the poor. Sure, you stop allowing corporations to feed at our trough, and they'll probably raise prices. That's still a hell of a lot better than a regressive tax that disproportionately affects the poor.

That's the way I look at it.

Banning cheeseburgers is rather extreme don't you think? And I am really not up for another Volstead Act experience...

Rather, I think his tobacco example is more apt.

Goodness no. Don't tax or ban those!

I thought you were talking about BAD food.

:sarcasm:

It kept a lot of people from drinking.

It didn't stop everyone from dringing but it certainly stopped a lot of people and especially corporations, who take production and sales of bad things to an extreme.

There may be some merits to legalizing drugs... I am a proponent only of trying it in one state first and seeing how that goes.... but there's not denying that the reason there are no corporations that mass produce drugs today is because they're illegal.

in building the mafia

Let me guess. You work for or own stock in major food processors, maybe McD's, maybe the HFCS company......

I own no stock in any food company, am not I employed by one, and in fact have never owned or worked for a food comapny. Most people who support freedom of choice and are opposed to the nanny state (such as I) aren't employed or own stock in such companies, and insinuating anybody that is against such measures automatically owns a food company is a straw man argument.

Don't like fast food? Fine. Then don't eat it. Don't like beer? Fine. Then don't drink it. Don't like cigarettes? Fine. Then don't smoke them. Don't like places that serve those things? Fine. Then don't give them your business. Doesn't this sound awfully familiar to a frequent pro-reproductive rights statement, "don't like abortion? Fine. Then don't get one."?

"My body, my choice," goes beyond reproductive rights.

Why should I do that?

Not to mention that not everyone enjoys cooking and plenty of people don't have access to as much as a refrigerator, let alone full cooking facilities.

If you're buying lots of fresh stuff transportation also becomes an issue, most of the country is not NYC with little shops on nearly every block. It's easy to shop every day or every other day in NYC or somewhere similar, far more difficult in a great many other places.

In fact I read here on DU where a woman was convicted of vehicular manslaughter because one of her kids was killed while she was jaywalking with them in order to avoid a six tenths of a mile walk with supplies and several small children.

If you don't have a car then getting to any store at all becomes a major expedition for a lot of people, I'm stuck without a car now and the very closest store of any sort is three miles of walking on the shoulder of busy roads away.

ETA: That's three miles each way for a round trip of six miles, it's over 100 degrees and the humidity is high right now.

the situation you describe. Hence, his rather sweeping recommendations on access issues.

It's odd to me that it's only recently that cooking has been regarded as too burdensome. All throughout history people have worked at extremely backbreaking work and have managed to prepare foods to eat, some more laborious to make than others. What you point to, though, would have to be considered: that is, subsidization of proper refrigerators and cook stoves. If we had sufficient low income housing in this country, that could very well be accomplished.

Why just give up? Especially in view of the terrible toll bad food proliferation is taking the health and lives of our lower income population.

Housekeeping and so forth in most family units..

That's not so true nowadays, extended cooking takes quite a bit of time if you're starting from raw ingredients, lots of families just don't have someone with the time free from an external job to do that work any more.

And is it all that onerous? Esp. if people have adequate, good low income housing units that have adequate cooking facilities. I think diets would evolve to more plant based foods, but that is what the human race subsisted on mainly for eons...nothing new here...

And yeah, cooking from scratch can be pretty damn onerous.

Particularly so if you don't know how to cook and don't have anywhere to do it even if you did.

That's the situation all too many people find themselves in now.

in turn depending on schedules(and the kids help out with simple chores). good lord, our forebears to this country did this in tenement and prairie kitchens with far more poverty than we experience today...

I always got the short end of the stick, I tried to cook without making a major mess for the other person to clean up, my ex was a better and more varied cook than I but she always made every pot in the kitchen dirty and then I got to clean it all up afterward.

It got to the point that I was doing most of the cooking just because I didn't want to have to clean up after my ex, indeed unless it was a special menu item I got to the point that I'd prefer cooking and then cleaning up after myself than just cleaning up after her..

can learn to cook, and no education is necessary at all, else how would humans have cooked before the advent of formal education?

This is a bright woman with two degrees who is married to a physician now..

The recipe called for two eggs in the mix, she hard boiled two eggs, chopped them up very fine and added them..

Needless to say, the cake was less than appetizing.

They've always worked. Whether it was, mending or cooking or cleaning or taking in laundry or piece work. And the cooked the meals for the family usually with the help of their children.

When I was growing up, I did all the food prep after school (cut potatoes, wash and trim vegetables, put all the necessary pots and pans and utensils, and set the table. When my mother got home from work, all she did was cook the meal. My sister and I did the dishes.

And will again. And healthier...the situation we have now is crazy...

It sounds like you're saying that lack of transportation, cooking facilities, and time, force poorer people to eat fast-food or food laced with preservatives.

I'll be the first to agree that choices in finding quality natural ready to eat foods in poor neighborhoods SUCK.

But I think the OP recognizes that, too, and advocates taxing crap food to subsidize healthier choices, made more available.

Good food choices, ready to eat, that don't need refrigeration, abound- they just aren't available and affordable.

We can change that.

Without histrionics that would shame an ADHD three year old.

Theoretically we could change the food distribution system in the US as you outline, honestly I think that's about as likely to happen as really excellent public transportation over the entire country, or single payer health care for that matter.

People cling even harder to the familiar in times of change, getting folks to change their dietary habits is going to be a real uphill battle even if every other barrier was overcome.

to bad foods is but an eyelash in time if you look at the history of human beings on this earth. Using tax policy has been PROVEN to change habits. You have only to look at the taxation of tobacco and the subsidization of home mortgage interest to instantly know what I am talking about.

I do agree that this article has what seems to us now as Utopian. But most of us here on DU also want single payer health care, also a Utopian idea, and progressive taxation and improved funding of public education. We talk about it constantly, and constantly come up with plans and ideas we'd like to see be tried out.

Only when we talk about food policy do we stop, throw up our hands and say "I give up!"

I'm one of those that grew up cooking and I've even cooked professionally a bit but it's never been something I do for pleasure, it's always a chore and cleaning up after is even more of a dreaded chore.

These days I'd far sooner buy something I can just warm up in the microwave or eat raw than cook and then have to clean up after it, it's just not worth the effort for one person.

processed ingredients. It's EASY. It's simple. It's cheap if you know how to shop and use time-honored frugality techniques.

I bake a lot of my own bread in the cooler months and use my crockpot a lot. You really ought to visit the Cooking & Baking Group on DU (but we don't tolerate nastiness of any sort over there).

It's something I do because I have to so I keep it to an absolute minimum.

I'm sure that there are things that I enjoy and find easy that you would find both unpleasant and difficult.

And if you want them paid a living wage, expect that premium to be steep.

Having someone else cook for you is a luxury for most of the world.

$5.00 a day for breakfast, lunch, dinner and any snacks I might have from time to time.

If I really tried to conserve I could cut that in half and if I was dead serious about it I could eat on $50 a month but it wouldn't be much fun.

In the worst neighborhoods around here, locally owned restaurants are dying off every month, but the Golden Arches live on. It might be worth tinkering with tax policy to make it easier for the local places -- which serve traditional, local, more sustainable food -- to thrive.

Of town... It's just so very sad.

by not buying junk means you don't have work so freaking many hours.

He is advocating making the healthful foods economical and the bad foods a luxury...

There's no reason why you need it

It costs less, but it ends up costing you in other ways...

But I'm not sure fast foods cost less. I can make pretty economical meals at home than what I would spend at McDonald's...

I spend my meager food budget on bulk staples (just bought 18 lb of rolled oats today for $16) at the restaurant supply chain here and cheap produce at a local ethnic market and the dollar store. I NEVER waste any food. I use my freezer and do some home canning, and I probably eat better than most Americans from a health standpoint.

And did I mention my MEAGER food budget (sub-food-stamp-amount usually)?

It saves an awful lot of money because I buy on sale. Yes, it takes time (not a lot) to divide up the chicken thighs or whatever and put them into separate packages, but it's no big deal). It's fine. I certainly don't spend a day on it! Maybe a half hour...big deal...

Subsidize junk food and ConAgra, ADM and Monsanto get richer and we (in the general sense) all get fatter and more unhealthy.

Eat food, not too much, mostly plants is what Bittman is saying.

I'm thinking we should tax:

Couches (where people spend their time in front of the tube)
Desks (where people spend their time in front of the keyboard/monitor/mouse)
Desk Chairs (ditto)
Time (unless the End User is doing something the Good/Bad Commission finds healthy and desirable with said time)

Heck, those things are just the tip if the iceberg. I'm sure there are THOUSANDS of things we're not taxing now that we could be. And, what better way to decide things/ideas/actions to tax than to form a commission to decide what's good for you and what's not, what's proper thinking and what's not, and what's beneficial to the public good and what's not.

It's like the OP said in a reply: "Why do you hate taxes?" I say we learn to love taxes on a grand scale and appoint many commissions to decide what/who to tax based on things/actions/ideas we believe no one should possess/do/think.

Again I ask, what is wrong with the government policy offering a better deal to the American people with subsidization? THAT is the question and I await an answer...

it does not automatically follow that the same strategy is equally correct for any other behavior we wish to influence. Tobacco is not a necessity, food of some sort absolutely is. I find it hard to believe that the coarse manipulation of food taxes described here would have benefits for the nation that outweigh the costs to individuals.

The other side of the proposal - adjusting subsidies and support at the producer end - I do approve of...

Essentially, it is one of public health. We have a public health crisis with obesity and diabetes in this country, due to our horrible policy on subsidizing this industry. It endangers our health and our national security since an unhealthy society is by definition an endangered one.

It is the proper role of government to protect the people, not to protect the private interests of industries. That's the argument here...

Seriously - someone upthread mentioned that people on the Left and right want to control the actions\choices of other people by extraordinary means - such as taxing it out of reach.

So...let's say we get the government we fear (Bush 43 on steroids) and they decide to regulate\tax rap music, coffee shops, Democratic Underground...etc???

Sometimes it seems like the Adjustment Bureau writ large...

discussing/defending Michelle Obama for eating a burger, fries and a shake. His view was that she took enjoyment from it occasionally and that's OK. I think "occasionally" is a good term for what this movement is all about. the doc saw nothing wrong with treating yourself to these foods once in a while just for the sheer pleasure of it.

You can't paint with a broad brush here...

The classic example given by Marshall is of inferior quality staple foods, whose demand is driven by poverty that makes their purchasers unable to afford superior foodstuffs. As the price of the cheap staple rises, they can no longer afford to supplement their diet with better foods, and must consume more of the staple food.
As Mr.Giffen has pointed out, a rise in the price of bread makes so large a drain on the resources of the poorer labouring families and raises so much the marginal utility of money to them, that they are forced to curtail their consumption of meat and the more expensive farinaceous foods: and, bread being still the cheapest food which they can get and will take, they consume more, and not less of it.
—Alfred Marshall, Principles of Economics (1895 ed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giffen_good

as a matter of economic (tax) policy and instead offering the subsidy of good, fresh foods.

Marshall, whose treatise I read, also recommends that consumers "buy a few things made well by highly paid labour rather than many made badly by low paid labour." He was interested in the "wellbeing" of individuals and favored collective action to secure such wellbeing (in his example lighting of streets) and cooperative association for certain branches of business. And, of course, he was writing in 1895...

produce. We could also make changes in eligibility for crop disaster relief to reduce the artificial attractiveness of growing less healthy products. But I'm less comfortable with the idea of tax manipulation at the consumer end...

is turn otherwise liberally-minded people into libertarians that start reading Ayn Rand and listening to Glenn Beck.

You can debate whether the nanny state is a good thing or a bad thing, but I think it's pretty clear it turns people away from progressive politics.

taxation.

Funny, that.

I'm about as far from right-wing as it's possible to be, and I believe that this is nanny-state bullshit. Plenty of us are able to see that.

I support personal freedom, and that includes the freedom to make unpopular choices. I don't want or need other people to force me into their idea of "good" choices. I have my own ideas about what choices are best for me and my family in our particular circumstances. I don't like control freaks and rule-nazis--whether they're right-wing or left-wing.

Sorry.

Just like the mortgage interest tax break, for example.

Not nannyism. Nobody is telling you what to do or not do. Do what you like. Who's stopping you?

Because that's what the actual result will be. Oh sure, THEORETICALLY anyone could choose to pay more for the privilege of eating those things--but we don't live in a theoretical world. We live in a real one. The actual, practical end result is that the freedoms of the working class would be smothered, while the wealthy continue to gorge themselves on anything they want. Kind of like how both the poor AND the wealthy are forbidden to sleep under bridges; only one of those groups would actually be AFFECTED by such a law, and as usual, it's the poor.

I don't like social engineering via taxes.

healthy foods with tax dollars instead of what we do now, which is subsidizing bad food. Who loses in that scenario? The poor win under Bittman's proposal. You've got it just backwards. I can only assume you haven't read the article and that is a shame, really...give it a shot and then get back to me...not being snarky here...

The best part of this suggestion is increasing access to healthy food.
The most effective ways to do that are food co-ops and farmers' markets.

Arguably the sales tax exemption for food should only apply if it actually IS food
(debatable, in some cases).

what I see in the supermarket. This is just in the last few years. Markedly and unhealthy looking obese patrons huffing and puffing their way through the aisles, picking the worst available.

Then, at checkout, they use their food stamp cards (now called a new name, can't remember what).

Michelle chose the right agenda for us -- but the message is not here, yet.

Many healthy items are now in season, but those are ignored for chips, sodas, and other processed foods.

Don't know if a tax is in order, but more education and positive incentives could definitely help.

The bad food industry has, thru help from their massive infusion of our tax money, been able to advertise their products massively on the public. To overcome that we need to utilize tax policy changes for the better and that is the real gist of this article...

I would agree with policies that deal directly with the food industry, however. And before you ask, yes I did READ the ARTICLE.

Why do you disagree so much, then? How does it hurt people to pay LESS taxes on good food and improve the distribution and access of such food to them? I don't understand what your argument is...

I'm not sure why that's hard to understand :shrug:

I'm not sure why that's so hard to understand?

There are ways that would affect all consumers equally and not disproportionately punish the poor. There is nothing progressive about what you propose.

not bad?

Honest.

and it's a damn site better than a junk food tax. That would especially be cruel in areas where people have little access to healthier foods.

Bittman and those like him to save them from themselves. They are just too stupid to live without being coerced and manipulated by tax policies.

:eyes:

You are telling me there is something bad about human beings doing that?

I mean, REALLY?

Nothing wrong with eating plant based food and why would you even think that's what I said?

I do not need politicians choosing "agendas" for us.

industry and not the healthy food industry?

Along with the corn producers who are, at base, the progenitors of junk food marketing.

I stand with Bové and Bittman and Pollan.

Eat food, not too much, mostly plants.

It is my own guiding food philosophy. I don't ask anybody else to adopt it. Just level the playing field...that's fair.

Is causing such consternation and anger.

I guess if you're raised on junk food - and there's no doubt that it's junk - and sugary salty snacks you're going to feel threatened by anyone who points to a different way to eat.

And go on the attack.

I truly believe that many Americans just don't know any better...

"Food Fascist".

Puzzled here...

some of say our tax dollars should be subsidizing healthy food instead.

There is no evil "agenda"-but there should be an effort to let the local farmers & producers get a tax break for a change.

I am sorry they are so disgusting in their obesity and poverty.

ETA: Unfortunately I should probably tack this :sarcasm: on here for the people who will not realize on their own...

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

damn are we so brainwashed and addicted in this society that it is considered a hardship that our poor can't drink soda???