There has been a lot of discussion over the last few months about curbing the ever rising obesity rate in this country by taxing food/drink items such as soda which contain sugar and high-fructose corn syrup. Supporters of this plan feel that high taxes work for cigarettes, pricing them out of the range where more and more people just aren’t interested in buying them anymore. But opponents say that this is more government nanny-state meddling and that a person should be permitted to do whatever it is that they wish to their body and unlike tobacco and alcohol, there are no second-hand issues that the government should feel it can become involved in protecting the rest of the public from enduring.
Last week The New York Times presented us with an article which asked if ‘fat taxes’ work and offered an interesting glimpse into what I believe to be the real reason for the government to be interested: money and lots of it. According to the article, “The Joint Committee on Taxation calculated that a 3-cent tax on each 12-ounce sugared soda would raise $51.6 billion over a decade.”
A recent Huffington Post article entitled Denny’s Culinary Crime Spree which claims that Denny’s is basically on the verge of killing its own customers, something that the article states it probably doesn’t really want to do, because of the ungodly amount of sodium used in each of its dishes (e.g. the article states, “Denny’s (bigger) double cheeseburger with fries has 4,130 mg of sodium. That’s 275 percent of the recommended daily limit.”) Ouch.
The LA Times talks about the government wondering if forcing fast food restaurants to post calorie counts next to their menu items will help people make smarter choices about their food. The article gets straight to it and exposes the fact that everyone realizes that this is another meaningless requirement which helps nearly no one:
We’re under no illusions that posting calorie counts on menus is the miracle-diet solution to the country’s weight problem. Nobody goes to Taco Bell expecting to get health food; some consumers will pay no more attention to the calorie information than they do to the nutritional labels on packaged foods. Yet those labels do make a difference for many people, and although savvy consumers can already find health statistics on common fast-food menu items by checking websites that track them, the group that is least likely to access this kind of information — people from low-income and minority communities — is also the group that’s most at risk of obesity. The calorie-count mandate would not only give people information that’s vital to protecting their health, it would encourage restaurants to offer low-cal alternatives.
The Washington Post talks more of the same regarding fighting obesity with taxes but even the author states that even she is a bit skeptical of the entire thing and feels that it oversteps the boundary that the government should set between ensuring its people are safe and outright controlling every last little thing they do.
So what do you think about all of this? Do you believe a fat tax will help to bolster the economic disaster that obese people have brought upon us? Do you think that these taxes, as low as some may be, will be a deterrent? Do you think that this is just more government meddling that must be stopped? Whatever you think about the proposed fat taxes, go ahead and comment on as I’d love to hear what you all have to say.
Dakota Complaints Map
Dakota Inmate Dashboard
Loading ...
August 11th, 2009 at 8:00 am
One word: Darwinism
Let the people who refuse to pay attention to what they eat do what they will to their bodies.
Although, I once heard a few years back (and I am MUCH too young to remember this) that junk food and fast food had been much more expensive than health food. I think I was told that once people took an interest and money was made on the crappy food versus the real food that the prices flip-flopped.
I guess people will pay the price to get something “good” (meaning delicious and bad for you) until they are able to get it for the prices they want as well. Gotta love those dollar menus!
Have you ever noticed how expensive it is to buy “real” food (and even that has been genetically modified, fertilized, picked early, waxed, you name it… probably the reason for the high price – too much labor involved).
I think (and I’ve always been one to have a strong and somewhat offensive opinion) let them eat cake… and pay the price of being obese. If you can’t stop yourself it’s no one’s fault but your own.
On the flip side, I think the FDA has done their fair share to create “guidelines” that aren’t allowing us to buy good food either. Some of the best food I have ever eaten was when I was in Europe and it was by no means “health food”, it simply did not have the preservatives and whatnot that our FDA forces. Although, I have found way too many links between the FDA, the drug companies and the rest of our government. In that sense, we’re screwed.
Bring back the family garden! Or, at least attempt to buy locally from someone who grows their crops correctly.
August 11th, 2009 at 9:19 am
Some of the articles above talk about the fact that the people hardest hit by junk foods are those that cannot afford to eat foods that are “good” because of the cost involved.
August 11th, 2009 at 10:01 am
As someone who is over weight and was let go from a job of 7 years for the single reason of being overweight this is a touchy subject.
I think the first concern is lumping all overweight people together saying all we do is sit around drinking pop and eating candy. Now I am not saying I became overweight from eating carrots and apples. But I have had a healthy balance of food in the fridge and I am not sure taxing me more for chips is going to force me to buy a apple.
I would love to weigh 125 pounds but I don’t. With the exception of last year when I dropped 90 pounds because of some weight loss meds I was on but could not afford to stay on, my weight has stayed within 5 pounds for the last 10 years. To a extent I think that is somewhat good.
I am over weight. I accept that. It is my personal responsibility to do something about it. Yet its my concern that it’s easy to jump or blame someone but to add a tax under the illusion that your trying to help me???? Lets just be honest in that this is all that its really about.
When I drink a coke and eat a cheeseburger and get in my car and drive I am not putting anyone else in danger. I can have kids in the back seat and eat french fries and cause the kids no harm. These are my choices and I accept the personal responsibility for consequences that drinking a coke may do. But don’t judge me for what you think I may or may not be eating and don’t tax me and say your trying to help me.
Wow all this typing has made me hungry. Im off to Denny’s for one of those bigger double cheeseburger with fries Bill mentioned in the article.
August 11th, 2009 at 10:07 am
Greg, now I realize this is a touchy subject and what I’m about to say can really get under someone’s skin but bear with me, take it in stride, and don’t think I’m singling you out or questioning your parenting. With that disclaimer stated:
When you walk around and see the unhealthy (and healthy for that matter) parents who are raising children that are obese themselves, don’t you have to wonder what you’re teaching them by stopping at a fast-food restaurant and more or less forcing your unhealthy eating habits on another person who is impressionable?
I do not believe for a second that this tiny tax will deter parents from feeding their kids crap and I certainly don’t believe it will stop the children from making their own poor choices based on pressure from external sources (friends, TV, etc) but perhaps if parents, who are obese themselves, would make better choices and realize that by eating fries with kids in the backseat of their cars they are giving their children the impression that it is ok to eat these things and be obese.
Thoughts?
August 11th, 2009 at 10:16 am
While I dont have much of an issue with taxing unhealthy foods on the surface, it becomes a very complex subject when viewed from any reasonable perspective.
First, the govt cant continue to increase taxes forever. At some point a breaking point will be reached. Any increase in taxes should be required to match up with a reduction in spending, and the fed govt should be required to operate on a balanced budget. The fact that they sit there and chide business leaders for running companies into the ground while the Postal Service looses billions and they simply borrow trillions to pay for thier every dream drives me crazy.
Second, some consideration should go to the fact that at some point this will cut into the sales of many companies. What will it do to a fragile economy if Coke or Pepsi have to lay off 30 or 40 percent of thier workers because this tax actually changed peoples behavior?
Third, while I agree that obesity may hasten death, death is not avoidable. I dont think many of these studies do a great job of showing the actual cost to society of obesity. Yes, there is a cost, but was it going to be incurred either way? At some point, regardless of how many healthy meals you eat, you are going to die, and whatever medical costs were associated with the heart disease that killed the obese guy at 55 may also be associated with the cancer that killed the skinny lady at 95, after she had collected social security for 30 years. Its very possible that that costs of an aging society actually out”weigh” the costs of obesity.
Last thought, sorry for the long post, its a very heavy issue deciding who gets to decide what is healthy and what is not. What gets taxed and what does not.
This just seems like the type of do gooder greed that will bring about full blown enforcement of the law of unintended consequences.
August 11th, 2009 at 10:17 am
As a side note, the reasoning behind this type of tax is exactly the reason that many drugs currently illegal will be legalized in the coming years.
August 11th, 2009 at 10:42 am
I think it’s a matter of the government looking for additional revenue sources. If I choose to have White Castle once in awhile, why should I be punished?
If the government really wants more money, they should open their own fast food chain and call it “IRS Burger”. Oh wait, the Simpsons already thought of that: http://www.snpp.com/episodes/3F12.html
The IRS took over Krusty burger to generate the necessary income to pay back all the taxes he owed.
August 11th, 2009 at 11:05 am
I assume we are talking about a tax at the federal level here; maybe I am wrong. I wonder where in the Constitution this subject would be covered???
My quick thoughts… At any government level, this is simply a revenue generation avenue more than anything else. The government has no place in taxing specific foods based on some criteria that they determine “bad”. Most food is bad for you to some extent. Take an apple for example, some might consider the carbs bad, some people consider the carbs good. Now that example is probably extreme and obvious, but I don’t know where it starts and where it ends and how we are OK with playing favorites.
August 11th, 2009 at 11:08 am
So now all the naturally skinny people have to pay a greater portion of their income to eat the food they wish just because fat people like to eat it too?
It’s ridiculous for the government to consider attempting to control our diet through taxation. It’s one thing to protect the citizens through the FDA and testing and basic requirements for food safety. It’s another thing to try and change our behavior though artificially increasing the cost of foods.
This hunt for funding sources by the governments is getting out of hand.
August 11th, 2009 at 11:18 am
If the $1 value menu at McDonald’s becomes the $1.25 value menu, I can’t imagine that there will be any drastic changes.
August 11th, 2009 at 11:19 am
I’m obese. But I almost never eat chips or candy. I only drink diet soda. I almost never eat fast food.
I do shop at my co-op for 50% of our food. I shop at the farmers’ markets often. I eat tons of veggies and some fruits.
My problem is two fold, I am an emotional eater and I love food, both cooking and eating. I’m also very lazy and don’t get enough exercise, so that’s three reasons. No tax in the world is going to stop that though.
But, I’m really trying to lose weight. I go to WeightWatchers, which is about $35/month. I’m going to join the gym today which will be like $90/month (dual membership for my obese husband too.)
For many people, that is way too much money. Much more than any taxes that will be put on bad food. Instead of taxing food, they should be subsidizing these type of services for people on government health care programs and who are making progress in weight loss or are a healthy weight. That will save tons of money that the government pays out for expensive procedures and other costs associated with heart disease, stroke, diabetes, joint pain, high blood pressure and other things related to weight.
August 11th, 2009 at 11:23 am
Oh, and this goes along with trying to disallow using Food Stamps for junk food. It is so unfair. Sure, I shouldn’t be eating a bag of chips, but what right does the government have in limiting this? Maybe I’m bringing it to my book club and want to appear normal. Maybe my child wants to have chips for their birthday. Maybe the chips are the one treat we have in my household every week.
Not everyone is irresponsible with junk food. Why punish them? Unlike cigarettes, junk food isn’t addictive and won’t kill you in moderation.
August 11th, 2009 at 11:40 am
There was a hint of sarcasm in some of what I wrote. I was comparing the french fries with kids in the back seat to smoking in the back seat.
Given my past your question about when I see obese parents is a tough one because i’ve seen what happens when people judge people.
For 7 years I worked a highly physical job. Tuns of lifting turning and bending. Yet my weight stayed the same. We have this image that overweight people just sit on the couch eating chips. Before I got injured I would have gladly gone against any skinny person reading this and had them do what I did for 7 years for 1 day.
Are their changes I could make to my diet… Sure But my life is not filled with Coke and Chips either.
You need a license to cut hair but not to be a parent. Parenting is difficult and watching any parent I think we could find various things they could do differently (not just food related) does that mean the government forces people who make tv’s to have a kill switch if the tv is on for more then 2 hours to encourage kids to go outside and play? Yes I wish all parents helped teach their kids to make better choices. But we walk a fine line between the government imposing these things and parents being parents. Yes, there will always be bad parents.
I am overweight. But it’s one thing I cant blame my parents. Becoming disabled has not helped but my weight has not changed much since.
For me personally this is a touchy subject because I have seen obesity used as a scapegoat. I did the same very physical job for 7 years. One day I got injured. I saw top MN Dr’s and surgeons who called it a simple work injury. The company insurance company sent me to one of their Dr’s and his report said “he has been overweight his adult life, had he been skinny he may not have gotten hurt so it must be his fault.†The next day I was let go for being over weight. This was after 7 years of doing the same job with no issues or problems and weighing the same.
We went to court and the judge ruled “It is unclear how Dr. _____ reaches the conclusion weight has impacted the employees condition…Dr ____ offers no anatomical explanation for such a casual connection, nor is there any logical/common sense connection apparent.â€
Im not sharing that for sympathy but to show what its like to be flat out judged based on size. I lost my job because a Dr judged me based not on medical fact but solely on my size. I am seeing the same type of attitude with the tax talk.
Lets just admit this is a attempt to get more money through taxes. Im fine with that, but lets not create this illusion your trying to help me because Im too dumb to realize McDonalds is not good for me on a daily basis.
And to parents of any size, take care of your kids. Be a parent. Teach them the right things, not just relating to food but life. Being a skinny parent with a skinny kid does not make you a better parent then a overweight parent with a overweight kid.
Were talking about two different things here. Should parents try to be more responsible with the images they give their kids by their own example such as but not limited to the food they eat and the answer is yet. The other thing is should the government get involved and try to use taxes as a way to force people into eating differently and I believe the answer is no.
Tax soda because you want the $51.6 billion over a decade it would bring in. But don’t lie saying your doing it for my own good.
I have seen how easy it is to take a situation and use the excuse “well he’s over weight†and used that to justify actions without “any logical/common sense connection apparent†(using the judges words).
Now im not blaming my weight on anyone but myself. But I caution people from lumping people and prejudging assuming all overweight people do is sit on the couch eating chips all day. A tax wont change people, people have to want to change.
August 11th, 2009 at 11:58 am
It will generate revenue, but there’s better ways to do that, and it’s not going to stop anyone from consuming these foods, just like tobacco and alcohol taxes don’t either.
If obesity is such a problem (I think it’s real to an extent, but also somewhat manufactured), then provide real ncentives for people to change their behavior. Positive reinforcement works better than negative reinforcement.
August 11th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
Tobacco taxes supposedly lowers the number of people smoking every single time they go up (I have no source for that one because I’m just too lazy to find it) but NY, who has the highest tobacco tax, has proven that it helps to stop teenage smoking: http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-03-27-tobacco-tax_N.htm
August 11th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
Well, color me surprised. I didn’t know that about tobacco taxes.
August 11th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
From: http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2007-08-09-1Alede_N.htm and I hate USA Today but it’s dominating the Google searches today (emphasis mine):
August 11th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
I know tons of former smokers. Me, my mom, and my dad have all quit in the last few years and none of have quit due to the cost of cigarettes.
I think a more valuable statistic would be the number of people who have quit smoking since all these tax increases in economic groups where the tax would mean a large portion of their income. I live in a low income neighborhood and there are a lot of poor smokers around here.
Also, South Carolina has lower annual household incomes and lower levels of education than the comparison states. Additionally, there would need to be a look at smoking cessation programs in each state to see if those mattered.
August 11th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
They can pry my icy cold Coca Cola from my cold dead hands.
I’ll pay the tax. It isn’t healthy to drink soda but I love it so I will.
August 11th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
Bill, great information and I’m happy all those people are quitting smoking but I would be surprised to hear you support something like this because the “ends justify the means”.
August 11th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
I don’t support taxes on anything nor do I believe the government should meddle in the personal affairs of anyone. I’m more interested in seeing what everyone else thinks.
August 11th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
I live in America, I can eat what I want, drive what I want, pick the doctor I want, worship where I want. Oh wait, that was before this administration. This is only the beginning folks.
August 11th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
I am sure this is true, raise the taxes in the state and the consumption in that state goes down. As long as you measure it state by state and not show the numbers for consumption in surrounding states or measure it from a manufacturers perspective these numbers are suspect.
You don’t think that when the state piles on a $1.00 per pack or whatever and the surrounding state is only .25 people are not just flocking to the nearby state, closest Indian Reservation or Internet Sales to buy their smokes?
Look at the flocking of people and businesses from MN to South Dakota, Texas, Florida, Nevada, Alaska and a few other States that do not have a State Income Taxes. Of course taxation laws are going to influence behaviors, however to what extent is debatable because I suspect people are simply changing where and how they buy their vices or where they recognize their income to avoid the taxation.
Hmmm, where do twin cities residents go for off sale beer on Sundays, and where do we go for fireworks?
August 11th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
1. I would argue with Kassie that food is addicting, especially the over-processed kinds talked about being taxed, which causes a problem, because food addiction is the hardest kind to beat. You wouldn’t tell a cocaine addict, “you can keep using, but just a little” which is exactly what overweight people are told every single day. You can keep eating, but just a little.
2. We already tax junk food, in MN anyway. The ‘good’ stuff isn’t taxed, but the fast food and such is.
3. A better way to “help” the overweight and obese population would be to flip-flop the prices, make the good stuff more affordable, eating well is expensive, not only in food prices, but in gas costs, and wear and tear on a vehicle because good food has less preservatives and requires more frequent shopping trips.
4. Taxing the “bad” foods will also cause levels of hunger to go up in the low-income populations. They’re already struggling to make ends meet, now we’re going to make them stretch the money even further by giving them less bang for their buck?
5. The average overweight woman makes something like 6K less per year than her slender counterpoint. Random fact, I can’t remember where it came from, I think USA today.
Is it government meddling, yes, but they’re not really caring about the overweight person, they’re only trying to raise money to pay for their idiocy. Does calling it one thing when it’s really another solve anything? I dunno.
August 11th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
This is a joke, right? Seriously?
August 11th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
Cigarettes, regardless of how someone feels about it, are not required for sustained human body operation. Food is, and as such, food in general should not be taxed in a targeted way to make it too expensive for people to choose it.
Not only would it be a violation of the basic ideas behind the US Constitution, but meddling in the free market like that is only going to further damage the US Economy. Every dollar the government collects is a dollar that is not going towards the improvement of the US Economy. Every single one of them. We throw enough of our money into the empty hole that is the government. We don’t need to find ways to pour more in to it, especially in such a regressive way.
August 11th, 2009 at 7:40 pm
I’m sure I’m re-covering bases already hit, and going to offend some, but, I have that right, correct?
Taxing food… geez. Personally, I eat healthy, to try and be less of a lard-ass, I really don’t care for the way I feel after eating a #2 Value Meal from the golden arches, nor do I like that what I used to pay $3.18 back in 2000, I pay nearly $5.00 for, only to feel like shit and lazy after. Sure, fast/junk food is a quick fix for parents who have a busy life, tons of kids or, flat out don’t give a rats ass what they feed their family.
I didn’t grow up with fast food at every meal, nor was it avoided like the plague, it was a fun thing, once in awhile. SO, to those people thick or thin that consume it for 2 or more meals a day, go to the darn grocery story, or if you’re too busy or lazy, have it delivered. Buy healthy foods, buy Hungry Man or Lean Cuisine and throw it in the microwave.
Eating things in moderation is more what the issue is if you’re concerned with helping the obese population that sit and plays video games and eats chips all day. You’d have to tax it way more than a reasonable amount to put it out of the grasp for a daily meal to people.
As for the taxation – who is to say what is healthy and what is not? A panel of health experts and nutritionists, or the Government? That would be interesting to see. Would the 6pc chicken tenders at McD’s be taxed, but the sun tea, or McSalad Shakers not be taxed? Where are they drawing the line?
Also, in taxing the food industry, would it push them to provide healthier meal options at their establishments? Would it put some out of business because of lowered consumers or higher production costs? If so, are we prepared to see our unemployment rate go up, because 1/5 of the Culvers or similar establishment has to close to make the books level? What is the economic reaction to this action?
On the flip side, if we are going to tax people for eating Taco Bell, do we credit those who participate in a weight loss program, or health club? If the point they are making is ‘taxing the shitty food to help us be a healthier society’ Why don’t we get a 500$ tax credit for membership to your local Golds or Lifetime. – Yes I realize the counterproductive effect that would have, but for the sake of playing devils advocate.
As for feeding our kids crap, come on.. some of the young adult males have bigger breasts than the female counterparts their same age, and weigh more than I can bench-press. In most cases (I do realize there are some gene and disorders that cause obesity) it’s a lifestyle choice. You either fill your kids full of fruit loops, doritos and meals from a box in the freezer, or you spend a little time, and make them good meals, and show them how to eat healthy and have an active lifestyle. Starting out being overweight and having poor habits will only lead to bad habits and health problems in most cases in adult life. There is no reason for a child 1/2 my age in school, to weigh as much, or more than me (and I weigh 225)
So, with all that bantering being said, is the current ‘face’ of the tax relevant? Sure, if you want to charge $5.00 for a small fry and $15.00 for a double quarter pounder value meal, that might force those who frequent this type of food to make better decisions. Otherwise, let the wolf shed it’s sheep’s clothing and reveal what it really is, just another tax to help get us out of debt, which in reality, will end up funding something else.
For the record, I’m not a health fanatic, nor am I a skinny twig. I used to eat my meals from a frozen box and eat like crap. I made a decision to eat better, which SAVED me money, and take a more proactive step in my future health. The thought of man-boobs and losing the sight of Mr. Winkle in the shower were really not appealing to me, so I decided to make a lifestyle change.
August 11th, 2009 at 10:19 pm
I think there’s a considerable amount of hypocrisy in taxing junk food considering that:
(1) Government corn subsidies have played such a large role in reducing the cost and increasing the consumption of corn syrup-laden junk foods,
(2) The food pyramid that all kids are taught to hold sacred at a young age is hugely influenced by the lobbying efforts of the food industry,
(3) The school lunches, at least where my son goes to school, aren’t much different than anything you’d get at a fast food restaurant. I think the company that creates the menu has someone on staff whose sole job is to come up with new names for breaded, fried chicken chunks. Chicken dinosaurs anyone?
I suppose the government can tax almost anything it wants, but if it’s truly aiming to reduce obesity then it should start by unmuddying the message it’s conveying with its current policies.
August 11th, 2009 at 10:23 pm
1. It’s all about money.
2. The government is incapable of figuring out what healthy food is.
3. Kassie, I’m sorry, but diet soda causes weight gain and health problems. Mrs. Marcos, I’m also sorry, but regular soda wears out your pancreas, causing weight gain and diabetes.
4. Every one of the studies that showed saturated fat causes obesity and health problems has been disproven; yet dieticians, the press, the government, etc., continue to promote low-fat and fake-fat diets which cause nutrient deficiencies. Flies won’t even land on margarine – they don’t recognize it as edible because it isn’t.
5. Fake food is the root of all evil and makes up about 80% of what’s sold in your average grocery store.
6. THE GOVERNMENT HAS NO IDEA WHAT HEALTHY FOOD IS (It bears repeating).
August 12th, 2009 at 1:00 am
I know I’ll probably take a ton of crap for this post but I’m going to say it anyway…
I TOLD YOU SO!!!
Months ago on this site we had a “spirited” discussion about the increases in cigarette taxes in this state and at the federal level. We discussed the law about no smoking with a child under 18 in your car. I admitted I was a smoker and was basically told I had a disgusting habit and should quit anyway rather than bitch about the increased taxes and laws. Oh and I made the mistake of saying that smokers were “persecuted”. (I’ll never live that one down whether stated for effect or not.)
I warned you then that the “fat tax” was next because studies were starting to show that obesity was a bigger drain on healthcare than smoking. So here we are just months later and the “fat tax” is being proposed and discussed. And again I’ll say, is coffee next? Caffeine isn’t known to be all that good for you either.
Of course it’s about the revenues! If they really wanted me to quit smoking they would just outlaw cigarettes and if they wanted people to stop eating unhealthy foods they would simply outlaw unhealthy foods. If all the smokers in this country quit smoking tomorrow there would be tons of new taxes being discussed and implemented to make up for the loss in revenue from cigarette taxes. That’s why they tax the things that some people are addicted to and a majority of other people don’t care about, like cigarettes and unhealthy food.
Chad, your comment that the government can’t continue increasing taxes forever almost makes me laugh. I believe that Ronald Regan was once lambasted for having a 150some billion dollar deficit one of the “years” he was President. I just heard that the estimate for July of 2009 was 180some billion dollar deficit for the “month”. Spend and tax, it’s all they know. The government can and will continue to increase taxes in anyway they can think of that a majority of people will turn their heads and not give a damn because it doesn’t effect them. It will continue until the citizens of this country revolt or we become the USSA (United Socialist States of America).
OK, maybe the USSA is a bit extreme but then again, maybe not. The government takes all your money and they decide what you “need” to get by. We all simply work for the government and they ration the things we need to us. Yes, they the government decide what we need and what is good or bad for us. I think a “fat tax” means we’re headed that direction but then agian I thought cigarette tax increases got the ball rolling that way in the first place.
OK, what I wrote was extreme and exaggerated on purpose to make a point. We as citizens cannot sit back and ignore taxes on things that don’t effect us. If we disagree we need to say we disagree. We need to forget about cigarettes and sugar and caffeine, it’s not about the items they want to tax and their hoping you’ll say “well I don’t smoke or I don’t eat fast food and I don’t drink coffee or soda so tax the shit out of it for all I care”. It’s about “WHAT’S NEXT?” And the government is hoping you never saw it coming.
Bill I couldn’t agree with you more. I don’t support taxes on anything and I especially don’t believe the government should meddle in the personal affairs of anyone. I just wish more people would have agreed that all the increases in cigarette taxes were wrong, but they never saw it coming.
We all need to start looking at every new issue, every new law and every new tax from the persepective of those it will effect and how might something similar effect us in the future. We can’t be complacent because it “doesn’t effect me” If government is the devil then complacency is the devils advocate. Just ask anyone here from Burnsville. None of us voted for Mayor Kautz and for the life of us can’t figure out why anyone would. It must be complacency!
Sorry for the LONG rant/diatribe. I had a long, hard and crappy day.
August 12th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
Diet soda does not cause weight gain. Switching from HFCS to aspartame should probably be the first thing anyone does if they want to get healthier. Obviously diet soda is not health food either but HFCS is probably the worst thing you can put in your body and eliminating it will save you 600 calories a day if you drink 3 cans a day.
August 12th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
As a person who recently switched over to drinking diet soda (I won’t mention brands for fear of retribution), I can attest that I’ve lost weight.
August 12th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
You know, I’ve never been that fond of my pancreas! :)
August 12th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
Mrs. Marcos your shtick about Coke is getting old. And no, my comment was not a joke. America is about freedom of choice. I agree Bill’s comment, “I don’t support taxes on anything nor do I believe the government should meddle in the personal affairs of anyone. “
August 12th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
It’s like Family Guy. The joke has gone so far that it’s funny again.
August 12th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
As a registered dietitian and consultant for the food and beverage industry, there is no one food or beverage that is responsible for obesity. Research from the American Beverage Association shows that consumption of full-calorie beverages is dropping and has continued to drop for the past 4 years.
Personal responsibility is more of the concern. People are responsible for their own health and well-being. They are responsible for the choices they make. Placing a tax on any food or beverage is just unfair. It’s as if the government is just giving the country a big hand slap and a shame on you. Our country is definitely hurting economically, but choosing to target the food industry is not the answer.
According to the American Beverage Association (ABA), West Virginia and Arkansas excise a tax on soft drinks. According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), these two states rank amongst the highest in obesity. West Virginia ranks fifth and Arkansas at sixth. How long has this been in affect? From these statistics, has the tax really helped the obesity problem.
I know we’ve heard it before, but honestly, ALL things CAN fit into a healthy lifestyle. The key is a healthy and balanced lifestyle. Which includes a balance between choices of foods and physical activity. That’s a lifestyle that you choose to make. We can’t force people to take care of themselves differently. We can only encourage and support behavioral change in a positive manner.
August 12th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
Nicole, are you saying that you are a lobbyist for the (industrial) food and beverage industry?
cos said:
“Switching from HFCS to aspartame should probably be the first thing anyone does if they want to get healthier. ”
On the contrary, stopping the consumption of soda of any sort is the first thing anyone should do to become healthier. Choosing between HFCS and Aspartame is like choosing between arsenic and rat poison.
MDs and PhDs from Harvard, Brown, UCLA, George Washington, and several other top research schools have formally requested that the FDA strongly consider looking into revoking its approval of Aspartame. There is strong evidence linking Aspartame to cancer, neuron destruction, epilepsy, MS…..and the list goes on.
As for HFCS, we all know about the direct link between it and diabetes and obesity.
August 12th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
Oh, and behavioral change can only come about as a result of accurate, available information and education regarding the crap sold in our grocery stores. The average person trusts the food and beverage industry and the overwhelmed FDA to provide and allow only healthy, nutritious foods. This is the first mistake of the average person.
August 12th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
“MDs and PhDs from Harvard, Brown, UCLA, George Washington, and several other top research schools have formally requested that the FDA strongly consider looking into revoking its approval of Aspartame. There is strong evidence linking Aspartame to cancer, neuron destruction, epilepsy, MS…..and the list goes on.”
[citation needed]
I really don’t understand when people say this sort of thing or have these kinds of ideas. Reminds me of birthers. Please read this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame#Controversy
“In 1999, FDA officials described the safety of aspartame as “clear cut” and stated that the product is “one of the most thoroughly tested and studied food additives the agency has ever approved.”
Also, the talk page is very informative.
August 12th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
The letter from the 12 U.S. environmental health experts can be found at:
http://cspinet.org/new/pdf/aspartame_letter_to_fda.pdf.
August 12th, 2009 at 5:46 pm
http://cspinet.org/new/pdf/aspartame_letter_to_fda.pdf
August 12th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame_controversy#Ramazzini_Foundation
“After reviewing the foundation’s claims, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)[60] the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)[91] discounted the study results and found no reason to revise their previously established acceptable daily intake levels for aspartame. A comprehensive review of aspartame safety stated that the Ramazzini studies were flawed in several ways: comparing cancer rates of older aspartame-consuming rats to younger control rats; unspecified composition of the “Corticella” diet and method of adding aspartame, leading to possible nutritional deficiencies; unspecified aspartame storage conditions; lack of animal randomization; overcrowding and a high incidence of possibly carcinogenic infections; and the U.S. National Toxicology Program’s finding that the ERF had misdiagnosed hyperplasias as malignancies.[6] The U.S. FDA requested the study’s data and offered to review tissue slides, but the Ramazzini Foundation did not send all of the data and withheld its pathology slides. From the materials received, the FDA found that the data did not support the researcher’s published conclusions.[91]
The New Zealand Food Safety Authority (NZFSA) questioned the validity and significance of the Ramazzini studies, stating, “These studies were conducted in a way that could not possibly have provided any information about the toxicity of aspartame – or in fact anything else in the rats’ diet. … In fact, the only conclusion that can be drawn from the results is that aspartame appears to be safe because the studies showed that those rats fed it (even at very high doses) lived as long (if not longer) as untreated rats, despite consuming up to more than 100 times the ADI every day of their lives. If aspartame was as horrendously toxic as is being claimed, it would be logical to expect the rats dosed with it to have shortened life-spans. The conclusions drawn by the researchers were clearly not backed up by their own data”[92]
In 2007 the ERF published another study with similar conclusions.[93] Magnuson and Williams stated that the Ramazzini researchers ought to have improved upon the methodologic and conceptual weaknesses that had been present in their earlier paper.[94] Soffritti disputed these criticisms and suggested that critics had mislead readers.[95] Several other scientists supported the study,[96] and two called for a study of aspartame workers.[97]”
30 seconds of my life well spent.
August 12th, 2009 at 6:30 pm
I like pancakes.
August 12th, 2009 at 7:08 pm
I do agree that crappy food should not be additionally taxed.
We could play research wars forever, but you still won’t get me to eat industrial chemical pseudo-food.
Time will tell.
Read Michael Pollen.
August 12th, 2009 at 7:19 pm
Cute, MSPD. Real maple or HFCS?
August 13th, 2009 at 8:41 am
Okay, Sandy, time to show your cards — who are these Harvard PhDs, exactly? Since my brother actually, well, is one, I’m sure he would know them. Especially since he specifically researches cancer.
August 13th, 2009 at 9:16 am
Mrs. Robinson, next you’ll say that Chili’s isn’t good?
I admit that I didn’t read all the comments, because a lot were long and boring, but what is HFCS?
August 13th, 2009 at 9:18 am
High-fructose corn syrup
August 13th, 2009 at 9:52 am
I think that this is all about the money. I totally agree with Joel that if the government gave a rat’s ass about our health, it wouldn’t basically subsidize unhealthy foods to begin with. Related to that opinion, I think that the government already has way too much control over what we do or do not consume, and too much say in deciding what we do or don’t need. In other words, I don’t support taxes on anything.
However, I understand that there would have to be a lot of re-shuffling of systems in order for individuals to gain some autonomy back from the government. In the meantime:
1. I try my best to use my right as a consumer to choose not to support corporations and products that I don’t agree with by not giving them my money. How we spend our money (that’s left after we pay our income taxes, etc.) is one of the few realms where individuals still have some power.
2. I would encourage the government, when adding taxes, to cut the crap (and hypocrisy) and just say they want our money.
August 13th, 2009 at 9:59 am
I usually have some local Grade-B (the good stuff) maple syrup on hand, but I hog it and give the kids the Mrs. Butterworth’s.
I’m a little less inclined to join the Michael Pollan blind cultish following (and I mean in general, not you specifically Sandy) and the anti-HFCS zealotry.
I can eat (and feed my family) 80 or 90% “local/organic/whole/whatever” and not get my undies in a bunch about the crappy stuff. I find the people that are most hardcore about the “no HFCS, no processed foods, etc.” tend to portray food as some kind of enemy that America has to conquer rather than a more sane view of food, moderation and common sense as our best possible ally in health and wellness.
Anyway…I could go into this ad nauseum but I’m bored with it.
August 13th, 2009 at 10:02 am
Can I drink Coke Zero? Is it better for me than Mountain Dew? Or are they equally bad?
What about Ragu? It says on the can that every serving has a full serving of Vegtables……..it must be good for me.
JIF Peanut butter? Good or bad?
How about V8 Fusion where every cup has a full serving of fruits and vegtables?
Yogurt covered raisins?
Dried fruit packages?
What about Apple Sauce that does not have HFCS, like Healthy Harvest?
How about Yogurt? All the different flavors, not the plain yucky stuff.
The healthier I try to eat, the more confused I become.
August 13th, 2009 at 11:12 am
Did I have a post this morning get caught in the spam filter?!
August 13th, 2009 at 11:22 am
Yup, you did. Sorry about that.
August 13th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
No problem, now someone go up and answer all my questions!
August 13th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
No. No. Yes. Haven’t you heard that you can clean battery terminals and disintegrate cast iron pans with Coke products? You could die.
Ragu is not a local and sustainable product, therefore you can not eat it. You could die.
Peanut allergies, which a prominent researcher I know nothing about says, are caused by childhood vaccinations just like autism. If you’ve ever been vaccinated for anything, it’s bad. You could die.
Where does the color come from in that V8 Fusion? That’s right…Red Dye. Made in a lab. Bad. You could die.
Do you know where those raisins were grown? And just how do they get “yogurt” to stick to them? It reeks of chemicals and processing. Bad. You could die.
Duh. Who eats packages? You’re supposed to eat what’s in them. Bad. You could die.
Weren’t you around in the mid-90s?!? “Scientists” said apples are chock full of Alar. Once I heard that, I immediately and without any independent thought stopped eating them. You should too. Science said they’re bad. Bad. You could die.
Have you ever seen a yogurt plant? I didn’t think so. It’s not from the earth man. Bad. You could die.
August 13th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
What about pancakes?
August 13th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
MSPD, while that did make me laugh out loud, I was kinda serious. For someone who tries to put healthy food on the table for his/her family, looking at labels and/or doing basic research on what we eat makes things more confusing every day.
August 13th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
I know you were kind of serious. Here’s the thing….Unless you have a serious medical condition/food allergy, if you never looked at another food package or nutritional content label ever again and just went with what your common sense told you re: portion size, food types, sources, you would probably live as healthful a life as those that track everything. You’d also be filled with a lot less stress and aggrivation.
You’re really wondering if yogurt covered raisins are OK to eat? Of course they are. Just don’t eat 17 handfuls of them or eat them several times every day without mixing in some other food types. And if they’re sitting next to some equally delicious, fresh organic fruit, do a little of each.
Is all of that artificial crap in the other things on your list harmful? What does your mind say? Mine says: Be cautious. So…I don’t make a habit of eating all of that crap very often. I know from 3rd grade science that my body is designed to process and eliminate a certain amount of toxins, etc. from itself. I don’t stress out about a little bit of food dye or HFCS every now and then. I’ll eat about 1,095 meals this year…I’m sure a box of Kraft Mac N Cheese or a Big Mac isn’t going to send my body into an instant death spiral. Maybe eating them for 900 of the 1,095 meals wouldn’t be so good, but do I need Michael Pollan or some Harvard scientist to tell me that? Duh.
Are the fruits in those packages coming from a farmer that lives in your community? No? Well, I might try and find something a little more win-win for where I live vs. a large food corporation.
You don’t need absolute answers to your questions, nor do you need to mire yourself deeper and deeper into the quagmire of labels and science.
Make sure you know where MOST of your food comes from. Make sure to eat some green stuff, some meat/protein stuff, some fibery grainy stuff, etc. every day. Eat what you know is a sensible portion.
Flame away.
August 13th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
I tried to read Michael Pollan, Sandy, i think we talked about him at Ronin, and I was bored.to.tears. Talking about how food is bad isn’t fun. Talking about how food is good is fun.
MSPD speaks the truth.
August 13th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
Speaking of Ronin and talking, any ideas where we should do the next meetup?
August 13th, 2009 at 7:53 pm
Dawnmarie, so reading this type of food book isn’t your cup of tea. That’s OK. I enjoyed his books, and they are NYT bestsellers. He celebrates wonderful foods as well as describing iffy ones.
MSPD, I’m disappointed in you. If you know about Grade B maple syrup, and you visit the wonderful restaurants that you speak of here, you should know better about food in general. The autism remark was a low blow.
Chad, it’s easy. Ignore the stupid nutritional labels and just look at the ingredients. If they all look like food, they’re good. You’re best off buying fresh or frozen fruits and veggies, meat that doesn’t have ingredients on the package, and plain, recognizable dairy products. Bread is harder; the health claims on crappy bread are shocking.
You need only to eat real food for a short while before you don’t want the Big Mac anymore – you won’t like it.
August 13th, 2009 at 8:10 pm
Off of the high horse.
Bill, name your top five SOTR restaurants and put it to a vote.
August 13th, 2009 at 10:04 pm
Sandy, I did agree with a lot of what I read, I just found it a boring read. I want my MIL and FIL to read it though, so they stop serving margarine…
(also, Twilight was a NYT bestseller too, just saying :])
August 13th, 2009 at 10:35 pm
Good point.
August 14th, 2009 at 9:22 am
Sandy, the autism remark was CLEARLY satirical. Read it again. If the satire wasn’t clear at that point, it should have been when you got a couple lines down with the reference to the ridiculous Alar scare of the mid-90s.
It isn’t making light of autism it’s poking fun at people who blindly believe what someone says a scientist said. The urban myth suckers that see a headline in the Strib and immediately restructure the way they eat or raise their kids whether or not it makes one bit of sense.
And I DO know about food. Personally, I read labels mostly for fun. But I don’t think it’s necessary to obsess about it to lead a healthy life. Quite the contrary: As Chad illustrated, and as you hear from the mouths of people struggling with “diets”, you can easily get overwhelmed by all of the information, advice and theories. The more you try to micromanage the food you consume, the less realistic/more restrictive a basic facet of life becomes and you find yourself in a never-ending war with food.
I’ve heard no amount of “science” or popular theory on dieting and/or nutrition that is superior to the very most basic amount of common sense.
I do love food because it’s a wonderful and accessible way to dabble in the arts, cultures of the world, socioeconomics, geography and a whole host of other things that touch my mind and soul.
That said, I’m also an intermediate endurance athlete so, to that end, I take an interest in the nutritional minutae of food. If I’m going to do a 100-mile bike ride in a couple of weeks, I need to make sure my body is prepared.
Well, and food tastes good too.
August 14th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
We elves try to stick to the four main food groups: candy, candy canes, candy corns and syrup.
August 14th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
MSPD – excellently put. My family doesn’t obsess – we just eat real food; all kinds of it.
Food is history and culture. If you enjoy cooking and baking, you have a lifelong hobby about which you will never learn everything; there will always be something new.
Mrs. Marcos, I think Red Green’s food groups are great: Meat and salt.
August 14th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
Meat and salt. Bestill my heart.
August 14th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
sandy, I’m tired of picking a place to do the meetups. Someone else’s turn! :-)
August 14th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
hm-mm…does the SOTR apply?
August 14th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
Not necessarily. If you have a compelling location that would work for a group, bring it on!
August 14th, 2009 at 5:40 pm
Off the top of my head (none may be right, but it starts the brainstorming, I hope!):
-Brasa on Grand
-The Ugly Mug to see Rockers’ Lament (August 21)
-The Renaissance Festival
-Brunch somewhere
-Johnny’s Dogs/Beef in AV (I haven’t been there, but you all seem to like it)
-Mediterranean Cruise
-Bryant-Lake Bowl
August 14th, 2009 at 5:40 pm
-Matt’s Bar
or
-The Nook
August 14th, 2009 at 5:41 pm
-Potluck at some unlucky person’s house
August 14th, 2009 at 5:42 pm
I can’t do 8/21 and the RenFest is a bit expensive IMO but any of the others would work just fine for me. In fact, I love the brunch idea–being that we had burgers for breakfast last time :)
Anyone else have some thoughts either on Sandy’s list or others to add? On Sunday I’ll put up a poll to choose which one we go to next so get in on the fun!
August 14th, 2009 at 6:00 pm
Hell’s Kitchen?
January 12th, 2012 at 4:35 pm
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/01/12/145112865/could-a-soda-tax-prevent-26-000-deaths-per-year?ft=1&f=1053
January 12th, 2012 at 5:56 pm
I don’t think taxing the industry at non-punitive rates that would go into some sort of fund to offset healthcare costs to treat obese related health issues would be a bad thing.
It won’t happen of course (and I really am not advocating that we do this so save any libertarian diatribes for another topic) but doesn’t anyone think that the fast food industry is a major contributing problem to the “obesity epidemic” we have now?
How many deaths are there from smoking each year?
How many deaths are from complications related to obesity each year? I’ll bet it’s quite a bit more.
Should the fast food industry take any responsibility for the condition we are in these days?
When I was growing up we ate at home most of the time. It was a BIG deal to go to McDonalds and the nearest one was in another city (this was in the 60′s).
Today people are too lazy to cook and substitute fast food for decent meals because there’s a FF place on almost every corner now and it’s too tempting to just pick something up rather than get out the pots and pans.
It’s also cheap.