Tax on Junk Food!!! It's NEAR!

I don't think sugar has been studied enough to determine if it does have the same addictive properties as a so-called drug; maybe it has a lot to do with the definition of addiction. In effect sugar could have the same properties of many street drugs that have predominately psychological addictions, but sugar has withdrawal symptoms as well (which is kind of scary). I would think the withdrawal symptoms are probably mild compared to certain street drugs, but they do exist, once someone is addicted to sugar.

Hee. You ever try to take a candy bar away from a kiddo addicted to sugar? It ain't pretty. :D

But I hear what you're saying. And I totally agree that artificial sweeteners should've been banned long ago, along with the cyclamates. Stevia seems pretty ok though, from what I've read (but then, stevia isn't an artificial sweetener).

There really does need to be help for the lower income folks, so they can have access to fresh produce and healthy foods, and maybe they should enter a program that helps them select healthier options for their families (so they know what to choose) before they can accept government food aid. That may aid this whole crazy issue.
 
Ketsugi said:
It's actually way cheaper to eat healthy. All of the packaged and processed foods are super expensive. It is super cheap to throw together a healthy meal. I speak from the Asian diet point of view; I'm not sure what the healthy American diet is.
Click to expand...

non-existent
 
Florida taxes the hell out of cigarettes, just added a dollar tax a year or two ago. Guess what, people are still smoking. You know what helps curve the number of cigarette smokers, proper health education.
 
Instead of taxing soda, why don't we consider getting rid of the government subsidy for corn growers? If we did that, and corn (and the HFCS made from it) actually cost in the marketplace what it costs to grow and produce, and it had to compete in the market fairly alongside other choices, that "cheap" bottle of soda wouldn't be so inexpensive anymore. Nor would any number of products made with HFCS.

Another issue: The United States obesity epidemic began at the same time of the introduction of the current Food Pyramid. Coincidence? I think not.

A low-fat, high-carb diet doesn't seem to work for the majority of people, based on the results witnessed across a large population.


cheers,
Ian
 
Not going to comment on the social tax, but keep in mind that diet soda generally contains phosphorous in sufficient quantities to damage your liver and kidneys over time. Of course, non-diet soda does too. Only a few types do not.

I say this as an avid soda junkie who is desperately trying to quit.
 
For everyone screaming nanny government...it didn't pass. Besides, it's a state level thing, hardly federal. For all the Constitutional fundamentalists out there, this is perfectly within a state's power to attempt. They went about it legally, and it got defeated. Clam down, Orwell isn't in his grave spinning right now. If it did pass, do the "fundamentalist" thing to do (or at least their answer when ever someone doesn't like a state law)...move.

(That's partly a joke)

But to the point, if we have "sin" taxes, why isn't something as surplus and unneeded as soda a "sin"? It generally isn't taxed under sales tax (or at least not in my state), and why the hell not? Groceries, because of necessity, are generally exempt from sales tax to even out the blow it causes to the poor but why is pop?

People say taxing cigarettes is okay because if you're stupid enough to buy them, you should have to pay for them. Well, if that's the arguement, I say if you're stupid enough to drink soda, you should have to pay for it.

What I don't understand is how soda can be exempt from a tax, like it is in my state. We tax nearly everything, soda should not escape taxation.
 
Interesting. In many states, soda is one of the few 'food's (hahaha) not exempt from tax along with other candies. It is also not an acceptable element of a Wic or whatever the new name is program.

The question of whether to nanny/sin tax comes down to whether one has as a priority for collective responsibility or individual liberty. I'm not going to debate that here, as the only thing I know for certain on this issue is people with the opposing value refuse to listen to each other and would rather kill each other than compromise.

But one thing I do know: soda is the devil. Avoid it at all costs.
 
Taxes are gay.
 
The only news here is about cola. And the article doesn't talk about some government wanting stuff, but some bunch of doctors wanting stuff to be done. Hm. Hysteria much? Political movements to force doctors to stop with the attempts to help their patients properly?

On an unrelated note, I wonder if some products are proven to be addictive and deadly, should the market be let free for thousands of years until the cumulative effect from the deaths of all the poor junkies becomes prevalent enough for it to not be profitable anymore to exploit people with? Is it even sure that such survival convergence will occur in practically finite time?

If anything, my conclusion is that tax is not the right tool to use. Maybe tariffs as Prof. Winkler suggested. Something less explicit, which doesn't auto-trigger the average folk to go "OH NOES I CANTH BREATH THE BIG EVIL KANGAROOS ARE TAKING MAH AIR FROM MEH IMMA FIGHT FOR JUSTICE TILL IMMA BE DEATH".

And this:
Gordon Brown vetoed a plan for a tax on burgers and sweets in 2004, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the grounds that it would disproportionately affect the poor.
Click to expand...
"could simply mean higher prices for consumers - especially those on lower incomes".
Click to expand...
is extremely sad. Do you realize what it says ?
 
There is already a tax on tanning now.
I wouldn't mind seeing a tax on junk food.
Stop taking as many taxes out of my paycheck and supplement it with tannorexic junk food moneys.

Personally, I don't care.
 
I think the biggest problem here is the definition of junk food. We don't need to smoke anything, but we do need to eat something. If the lawmakers want to tax bad food in order to improve our diets (or, more bluntly, to cut healthcare costs and generate revenue), they have to separate food into good and bad categories. And that's something that will be hotly contested.
 
TheLastMohican said:
I think the biggest problem here is the definition of junk food. We don't need to smoke anything, but we do need to eat something. If the lawmakers want to tax bad food in order to improve our diets (or, more bluntly, to cut healthcare costs and generate revenue), they have to separate food into good and bad categories. And that's something that will be hotly contested.
Click to expand...

That is a good point, TLM. I have a feeling, though, that we instinctively "know" that we can't eat cookies, cake, ice cream and chips exclusively while continually having a functioning mind and body. But separating food from good and bad categories is another issue, and no one would be fighting that classification more than PepsiCo and Coca-Cola and all the cookie manufacturers in the world. And they have the money to do it, too.

It'll be at least twenty years from now, maybe even more, before any studies will come up with enough data to show if junk food has the same addictive/withdrawal properties as even some street drugs (although a little evidence exists now). Even if the truth was blatantlyin our faces it wouldn't change anything for a few years/decades. And Big Debbie will have enough politicians in her back pocket to stop senators from passing junk food laws - just like Big Tobacco.

You can't shame anyone into not consuming junk food, regardless of their size. You can't judge someone for eating it, and we shouldn't - it's going to be eaten. But it's not real food; it's a pseudo-food. It's made to stimulate our taste buds and make us feel better, and it's made so we'll continue eating it. It's a business. So of course they won't pass any laws against it.

But taxing certain areas of it (like vending machines) is one possible practice for the government and for us. We're *going* to pay for this down the line.

I would say this (and it's something to ponder): Why is there no FDA approved daily allowances for sugars? And why don't we hear about the recommended amount of sugars one should have in a day..?
 
It'll be at least twenty years from now, maybe even more, before any studies will come up with enough data to show if junk food has the same addictive/withdrawal properties as even some street drugs
Click to expand...
I doubt it has the same addictive/withdrawl properties of drugs.
Actual food addictions seem like something entirely psychological/emotional and even then I doubt someone would steal a tv and sell it to order pizza hut.

I had to stop eating junk food and downing seven cans of pepsi per day when I was diagnosed diabetic. The worst of it was an excruciating headache that lasted several hours and was a result of my blood sugar lowering.

There's some sort of physiological cycle with sugary foods, I don't know if I'd call it an addiction.. Your body, craving actual sustenence confuses it with an appetite for sweets.. It becomes, the more you eat the hungrier you become and sugar is what you crave.
As soon as you realize what it is and start eating healthier it goes away.
 
Last edited:
I did say "if", but I know what you're saying (and I admit it's pretty far-fetched). I know there are a few drugs (not necessarily street) that aren't really physically addictive but have strong psychological addictions.

But I'm glad you were able to cut back on that soda, acd...that is a lot, but you did it.

I'm glad I don't like soda...but my vice is usually ice cream.

I think you can overcome it, but even replacing it with healthier foods might not be the entire answer - although, I know it is for many (especially in the US where sugary snacks are abundant).
 
Well, replacing it with healthier foods doesn't totally cut out cravings for junk food. I still have them and indulge every so often.. healthier foods seems to cut cravings for it and having a disciplined mind with healthy food alternatives is important..

They do taste better. It's those damn fats and salts and sugars.. I wonder if they taste so good to us because before people really ate crappy foods, those things were hard to come by and they are essential to every diet to a degree.. but now we just overkill it by eating mostly just to eat instead of eating for fuel.
 
Last edited:
acd said:
They do taste better. It's those damn fats and salts and sugars.. I wonder if they taste so good to us because before people really ate crappy foods, those things were hard to come by and they are essential to every diet to a degree.. but now we just overkill it by eating mostly just to eat instead of eating for fuel.
Click to expand...
That's the current hypothesis, if I remember right. Biologist think that maybe in a few thousand years we will have lost the taste for fat and salt because they're so dangerous for us when consumed in large quantities.
 
Do you think in a few thousand years we'll still have the capability to be mass producing and consuming quantities of non-food for that to even happen?
 
acd said:
Do you think in a few thousand years we'll still have the capability to be mass producing and consuming quantities of non-food for that to even happen?
Click to expand...
Possibly, but probably not. However, if our diet continues to rely heavily on salt and fat (which it may or may not) we may lose the taste for it. Maybe...

So my definite answer is perhaps.
 
mf said:
That's the current hypothesis, if I remember right. Biologist think that maybe in a few thousand years we will have lost the taste for fat and salt because they're so dangerous for us when consumed in large quantities.
Click to expand...
I think that's pretty unlikely. Since when did fat and salt start killing people before they were able to reproduce?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top