The economy has tanked. More than 10% of Americans are unemployed and even more are under-employed or have stopped looking for work. The grim statistics we hear day to day question our stability as individuals and as a nation. When hard times like this occur, creating new means of revenue are always contentious. In our current situation we also have a failing healthcare system that no one wants to pay for. Public education is not looking so good either. And the health of our citizenry is pitiful. For a nation that prides itself with wealth and freedom, we sure have a lot of problems.
In lieu of the ominous warnings around us there are measures of hope and idealism. The challenge is acknowledging what is hopeful and what is not. In the context of public health and our national food system, I believe there are some powerful ideas out there for mending it. At the same time, the most provocative and powerful measures are strongly disliked by too many people. When it comes to weight (60% of Americans are overweight or obese,) a long-overdue position has been put forth. To combat obesity and the foods linked to it, why not simply tax junk food? Will taxes change our behavior and make us healthier? Or just make folks more angry with the federal government?
Like our nation’s addiction to tobacco, sugar is the new target of public health initiatives. The main distinction being: tobacco smoking is addictive and linked to disease – if you smoke you are likely to get sick and die. Sugar on the other hand, is not so transparent. Yes, many people consume multiple sugary foods and beverages every day and this is linked to weight gain and health concerns. But, you can have a soda every once in a while or junk food on occasion and not be distressed over obesity and heart disease.
So where does taxation enter the issue? Well, as mentioned before, our economy is still in trouble and job growth remains stagnant. As far as the government (both state and federal) is concerned, jobs = revenue and happy Americans. When there is a drop in revenue, government programs are cut or underfunded and Americans are pissed off. To bring in money (and disregard the happiness of the population) taxes are sometimes introduced. Given the plethora of studies linking sugar/soda/junk food to obesity, type 2 diabetes and heart disease, there is a real incentive to taxing the beast(s) of unhealthy foods and beverages.
A recent study that was published in Psychological Science discovered in important piece to the taxation conundrum. Scientists at SUNY Buffalo found that an increase in junk food cost led to an increase in healthy food purchases. Since the idea makes sense, I suppose it’s good to hear the assumption proved true. The assumption being that expensive junk food will prevent shoppers from purchases and instead, further the investment in healthy food. That said, a counter discovery was also exposed. Tom Laskawy, a writer for Grist.org wrote a great article on the study. While discussing the findings, Laskway explains that the increase in healthy food does not suggest a profound change in consumer behavior.
The junk food taxes caused a real shift in nutritional quality because the money saved on junk food was spent on healthy food, which has more nutrients per calories. However, when the researchers subsidized healthy food in their test, many participants spent the savings on—wait for it—junk food. A subsidy for health foods actually increased the amount of fat, protein, and carbohydrates from that simulated shopping trip by about 10 percent each.
It seems the interest in eating healthy is not so intentional, instead its plain ol’ economic. If expensive junk food makes people purchase healthy food, which by contrast (in the study) is cheaper. Doesn’t that prove the importance of subsidized healthy food choices?
The playing field is currently unequal, drastically so. The subsidization of corn, wheat and soybeans has provided industries the opportunity to vastly expand the processed food market. Meanwhile, a farmer interested in growing fruits and vegetables has to compete at the same store as subsidized food items.
The last time I wrote about the soda tax, I argued against the logic of it. I think it’s ludicrous to tax soda and still subsidize corn. This time around, it is clear that subsidization of healthy foods must happen. In another article, Laskway writes, “It’s nice that we are finally willing to start taxing unhealthy food. But without doing something about the good stuff, we’re only fighting half the battle.” For a country that prides itself on the “free market,” the grocery store is an awful example of this economic ideal. At any grocery store, you have whole foods competing with processed foods, and the latter has the advantage of subsidized ingredients. If we want to practice what we preach, the least we could do is subsidize the whole foods too.
If the study at SUNY Buffalo is to tell us anything, it’s that the average person seeks junk food over healthy food. Taxes will likely change people’s behavior. I would like to think that over time, when people’s taste buds regain form and can distinguish tasty food that has no sugar, returning to the study would make for interesting analysis.
If the subsidization of whole fruits, vegetables and grains is out of the question. If removing the subsidies on corn, wheat and soy are also out of the question. Then I say we tax the hell out of soda and junk food. As many agree, the billions in revenue would be more than enough to create farmers markets across the nation, especially in poorer communities. Shoot, we could even use the revenue to support (subsidize) the growth of healthy food and make the playing field equal. Even though I think the subsidization of corn, wheat and soy is outrageous, I think it’s high time we pay the real price for a hamburger, a can of soda and bag of chips.
Related posts:
- A Tax on Soda = Illogical Food Policy
- Drink Soda, Get Fat or “Don’t Drink Yourself Fat”
- Food Subsidies – Our Biggest Threat
- Michael Pollan strikes again!
- Urban farming, Low-Income Communities and Burgeoning Dietary Epidemics
Tags: diet, Food Politics, Nutrition, subsidies
This problem has several layers as I see it:
1) Consumers are repeatedly lied to, either directly or through omission, by junk food makers about the nutritional merits of their products. The USDA and FDA are complicit in this.
2) There is evidence that shows that several key ingredients in junk food, alone and in combination, cause people to exhibit classic addict behaviors in order to get them. The junk-food addicted rats study is a good one to mention. In other words, an addicted person’s decision-making abilities are compromised thus making them easier targets for #1.
3) Junk foods are some of the cheapest you can buy.
4) Junk foods require little to no cooking skills to make edible. Let’s ignore raw fruits and veggies for the sake of the argument.
If you believe any the above then it doesn’t make sense to tax the consumer. That is in effect punishing them for being ignorant, manipulated, poor, addicts. Instead let’s punish the junk food makers by taking away their ability to advertise and adding a tax to the producers. It was done with cigarettes and to a limited degree with alcohol. Sure, it hasn’t stopped people from drinking too much and smoking cigarettes but in the case of junk food children and teens are being targeted more heavily and directly than practically any other age group. Kids usually can’t purchase food themselves but they can demand that it be bought for them.
If processed foods were more costly to produce then they would be more expensive in the store and healthy whole foods would become more competitively priced. The revenue could be put into better food education and direct subsidies on whole foods.