Should We Have a Tax on Junk Food? Scientists Say Yes

morris

Superstar
Joined
Oct 8, 2014
Messages
15,777
Reputation
4,689
Daps
34,806
Politicians, however, are another story.
By Peter Hess

If you had to pay a higher price for McDonald’s, would you still eat there? What if the movie theater charged you more for a 64-ounce cup of Dr. Pepper? You might pony up the money for a while, but you might also decide your wallet deserves better than taking a hit for your unhealthy snack indulgences. Perhaps you’d even opt out of junk food altogether and reach for a healthier option. That’s why scientists and public healthadvocates think we should put a tax on junk food. And now, they have the numbers to bolster their argument.

In a paper published Wednesday in the American Journal of Public Health, a team of public health, nutrition, and policy researchers from New York University and Tufts University systematically reviewed the available scientific, tax, and policy literature on junk food taxes to figure out how feasible it would be for governments to impose taxes on unhealthy foods. By looking at how different state and local governments categorize junk foods and impose taxes on them, the researchers concluded that it’s definitely possible and probably wise to start putting a tax on junk food.

999381e15110.jpeg

4c9d467da4cd.jpeg

While a number of state and local governments have imposed sugary soda taxes, the study’s authors say they want to take a more comprehensive approach since sugary beverages aren’t the only junk food out there.

“We of course support sugar and beverage taxes that are being proposed and implemented by state and local governments nationally. But we were really wanting to improve the population’s health across the country even if they don’t live in a motivated state or local jurisdiction,” first author Jennifer Pomeranz, JD, MPH, an assistant professor of public health policy and management at New York University, tells Inverse. Pomeranz says that sugary beverages are unique among junk foods in that they deliver huge amounts of sugar and fail to satiate the people consuming them. But they are just one piece of the public health puzzle.

“The science shows that more than just sugary beverages create diet-related chronic disease,” says Pomeranz. “However, junk food, specifically things like processed meat, sugary beverages, and refined grains are associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease, weight gain, diabetes, and other diet-related chronic diseases.” For this reason, the study’s authors looked closely at taxes that target foods not just by ingredients, but also by category, to provide regulators and public health officials a practical resource for making decisions.

The researchers hope that their work will help inform public policy changes that encourage consumers to stop buying junk food and start eating better, as well as giving food manufacturers the opportunity to reformulate their products to be healthier. Pomeranz says she and her colleagues don’t want to simply make people pay more for junk food but discourage them from consuming it altogether.

Encouraging people to make healthier choices is just one piece of the solution, though. The next step is actually putting revenue from junk food taxes to productive use for public health purposes, especially to help low-income citizens who may not have healthy food resources in their communities.

35e9e5e37453.jpeg

b111c6fc0d16.jpeg

“A lot of low-income people do lack access to affordable, healthy foods,” says Pomeranz. “So one use of the revenue could be to subsidize healthier foods such as fruits and vegetables, nuts, seafood, whole grains, yogurt, beans, things like that to improve the overall diet. That would be the next step where the paper leaves off.”

Of course, imposing taxes on junk food requires political will and capital — something that Pomeranz fears the federal government currently lacks. She and her co-authors are hopeful that this research could provide state and local governments with insights and frameworks to establish junk food taxes until. Such a change generally starts from grassroots movements, so even if the federal government isn’t interested in junk food taxes, perhaps local communities can lead the way.

2ef1819c5c8f.jpeg

Science does not exist in a vacuum, though. Just because researchers tell us that junk food is bad for us and causes diseases and blah blah blah, doesn’t mean that anyone will do anything about it. There are millions and billions of dollars at play here, and the food industry is aggressive about protecting its profits. A tax on junk food would be a direct attack on the food industry, and Pomeranz is acutely aware of that fact.

“The food industry has a very strong lobbying component. They would join together and lobby against this,” she says. “Industry opposition to public health policies, in general, has been very successful.”

This effort includes not just lobbying, but also industry-funded junk science that supports the industry’s positions and interests.

“We see this throughout history for firearms and tobacco,” says Pomeranz. “And now we’re seeing it with food.”
0f44a1e2764a.jpeg

Abstract:

Objectives. To evaluate legal and administrative feasibility of a federal “junk” food (including SSBs [sugar-sweetened beverages]) tax to improve diet.

Methods. To assess food definitions and administration models, we systematically searched (1) PubMed (through May 15, 2017) for articles defining foods subject to taxes, and legal and legislative databases as well as online for (2) US federal, state, and territorial junk food tax bills and laws (January 1, 2012–February 28, 2017); SSB taxes (January 1, 2014–February 28, 2017); and international junk food tax laws (as of February 28, 2017); and (3) federal taxing mechanisms and administrative methods (as of February 28, 2017).

Results. Articles recommend taxing foods by product category, broad nutrient criteria, specific nutrients or calories, or a combination. US junk food tax bills (n = 7) and laws (n = 2), international junk food laws (n = 2), and US SSB taxes (n = 10) support taxing foods using category-based (n = 8), nutrient-based (n = 1), or combination (n = 12) approaches. Federal taxing mechanisms (particularly manufacturer excise taxes on alcohol) and administrative methods provide informative models.

Conclusions. From legal and administrative perspectives, a federal junk food tax appears feasible based on product categories or combination category-plus-nutrient approaches, using a manufacturer excise tax, with additional support for sugar and graduated tax strategies.
 

ORDER_66

The Fire Rises 2023
Joined
Feb 2, 2014
Messages
140,256
Reputation
15,608
Daps
568,779
Reppin
Queens,NY
This is bullshyt... HEALTHY foods is expensive... Now JUNK foods are expensive.... what the fukk can poor people buy after this?!? :stopitslime:
 

Shogun

Superstar
Joined
May 3, 2012
Messages
25,174
Reputation
5,861
Daps
61,882
Reppin
Knicks
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/healthy-vs-unhealthy-diet-costs-1-50-more/

The healthiest diets cost about $1.50 more per day than the least healthy diets, according to new research from Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH). The finding is based on the most comprehensive examination to date comparing prices of healthy foods and diet patterns vs. less healthy ones.

“This research provides the most complete picture to-date on true cost differences of healthy diets,” said [[Dariush Mozaffarian]], the study’s senior author and associate professor at HSPH and Harvard Medical School. “While healthier diets did cost more, the difference was smaller than many people might have expected. Over the course of a year, $1.50/day more for eating a healthy diet would increase food costs for one person by about $550 per year. This would represent a real burden for some families, and we need policies to help offset these costs. On the other hand, this price difference is very small in comparison to the economic costs of diet-related chronic diseases, which would be dramatically reduced by healthy diets.”

Why Healthy Food Doesn't Have to Cost More
“If you Google ‘healthy foods expensive,’ you find an incredible amount of advice out there trying to tell you how to shop healthy on a budget—implying that it's actually very difficult,” Reczek says. But, reports Reczek, price doesn't necessarily correlate with nutritional value.

Healthy foods may not be as pricey as you think
The study, which appears in the Journal of Consumer Research, wasn’t meant to investigate the actual relationship between healthy foods and pricing — just people’s perceptions or assumptions about the two.

The findings suggest that the “expensive-equals-healthy bias” can have an unfortunate impact on people’s food choices, said Reczek, because people may cheat themselves out of healthy, affordable options.

“I’d caution people: don’t use price as an indicator of how healthy a food is. Don’t think you can’t eat healthy if you’re on a budget,” she said.

Eating healthy is cheaper than you think.
 
Last edited:

the cac mamba

Veteran
Joined
May 21, 2012
Messages
92,818
Reputation
13,336
Daps
273,118
Reppin
NULL
its a stupid idea because the issue isnt the food, its how much of it you eat. you can eat bad shyt in moderation

although i guess that would discourage eating garbage regularly :patrice:
 

dora_da_destroyer

Master Baker
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
61,245
Reputation
14,445
Daps
244,717
Reppin
Oakland
Yea, so they can pump you full of rgbst dairy, hormone laden meat/poultry, mecury/metal filled seafood, and gmo grains. Switch one evil for another brehs :blessed:
 
Top