• silverwhisper said on Jul 15, 2009....

  the tax credit you're describing doesn't sound workable to me, curm. wouldn't it require itemizing every grocery bill? most households shop once/week or so: that's a fair bit of paperwork, no?
  
  ed

• curmudgeon said on Jul 15, 2009....

  If you want to take advantage of a tax break, yeah, you have to fill in some paperwork.
  
  Think about it this way - if families are chucking the Triscuits, ice cream, Entennman's baked goodies and the good ol' Aunt Jemima in favor of tofu and organic veggies, those receipts will be easy to itemize.
  
  Either way my guess is a tax on fatty foods will accomplish only one thing: the labeling of every product on the shelf as "low fat" by reason of some ridiculous measure, such as potato chips being lower in fat than fried pork rinds.
  

• silverwhisper said on Jul 15, 2009....

  in all honesty, there's some very rigorous demands on the labeling of food products, curm.
  
  ed

• curmudgeon said on Jul 15, 2009....

  yet despite those rigorous demands so many prepared foods are so vastly unhealthy for us. It's as though we don't care what's on the label (or in the food for that matter) at all. Signs are posted in fast food restaurants all over NYC and people still opt for the fried and fatty stuff all day long. I know I do!
  
  I bet we would care a whole lot more about our food if there was a financial incentive (as opposed to a tax disincentive - high alcohol taxes do not dissuade even the poorest of people from drinking) to be obtained from the food we eat.

• silverwhisper said on Jul 15, 2009....

  curm: while that's certainly true, you cannot make people make good choices.
  
  ed

• sheltercrow said on Jul 15, 2009....

  As an understanding of the cost of conventional food. From the Organic Consumers Association, July 8, 2009
  
  
  Many... consumers are conscious of the fact that organic food and other products are actually "cheaper" in real terms than conventional food and other items-since industrial agriculture's so-called "cheap" products carry hidden costs, including billions of dollars in annual tax subsidies, and hundreds of billions of dollars in damage to our health, the environment, and climate.
  
  
  Link
  
  They go on...
  
  
  Millions of health-minded Americans, especially parents of young children, now understand that cheap, non-organic, industrial food is hazardous. Not only does chemical and energy-intensive factory farming destroy the environment, impoverish rural communities, exploit farm workers, inflict unnecessary cruelty on farm animals, and contaminate the water supply; but the end product itself is inevitably contaminated. Routinely contained in nearly every bite or swallow of non-organic industrial food are pesticides, antibiotics and other animal drug residues, pathogens, feces, hormone disrupting chemicals, toxic sludge, slaughterhouse waste, genetically modified organisms, chemical additives and preservatives, irradiation-derived radiolytic chemical by-products, and a host of other hazardous allergens and toxins.
  
  
  From the CDC
  
  
  An estimated 76 million cases of foodborne disease occur each year in the United States. The great majority of these cases are mild and cause symptoms for only a day or two. Some cases are more serious, and CDC estimates that there are 325,000 hospitalizations and 5,000 deaths related to foodborne diseases each year. The most severe cases tend to occur in the very old, the very young, those who have an illness already that reduces their immune system function, and in healthy people exposed to a very high dose of an organism.
  
  
  Link
  

• SeanRenaud said on Jul 15, 2009....

  Yes you can.  Curm already told us how infact.  You TAX the unhealthy things until the healthy things are CHEAPER.  It's quite simple.

  Of course this probably wouldn't help bring down the prices of things that take a long time to grow initially (ie fruit trees) I would imagine that produce in general prices would plummet if we stopped paying farmers not to farm. 

  I honestly think that is part of the problem here is that we protected farming as an industry.  While regulations should clearly have been put in place to prevent certaint hings from happening (Potato Famine comes to mind) farming had reached a point where it was no longer a viable business.  We could probably have made enormous strides in eliminating world hunger if we'd gone the opposite direction and said farm, and export and export and export.  But that's beside the point.

• curmudgeon said on Jul 15, 2009....

  shelter - if someone has a limited food budget, "hidden" cost or not, he or she will likely go for the less expensive option. If we want folks to eat healthier, those products must be placed within a wider reach. Until that happens, organic farming will never amount to anything more than a niche industry that indulges the whims of well to do urbanites.
  
  There are other solutions which I may post at a later date. My larger point is that taxing products we don't like is only half the equation to promoting a healthier lifestyle. Perhaps half is a bit generous.
  

• curmudgeon said on Jul 15, 2009....

  silver - it seems to me that taxation of unhealthy products is more coercive than tax incentives. Don't want to change your food habits? OK, but then you lose out on a little money.
  
  I suppose one could argue - as Sean suggests - that taxation of fatty foods will make people choose healthier (if the price point puts fatty stuff out of reach), but really only if the healthier choices present a significant cost savings. A tax credit could be the nudge people need.
  

• sheltercrow said on Jul 15, 2009....

  Fraud is rampant in organic labeling... for example:
  
  
  Washington D.C., July 11, 2007 - The Center for Food Safety today filed a complaint and legal petition with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) urging the agency to enforce the integrity of the U.S. organic food label by preventing the misleading practice of labeling seafood imports as "organic". Increasingly, U.S. consumers are confronted with imported seafood labeled as organic despite the fact that there are no U.S. organic seafood standards in place.
  
  
  Link
  
  Dairy farms turn out industrial waste...
  
  
  USDA Criticized for Helping 'Industrialize' Organic Farming
  
  Proposed new federal organic livestock regulations are coming under sharp criticism for failing to close critical loopholes that are allowing a handful of factory-scale dairy farms in western states to continue bringing into their milk herd new animals raised with antibiotics, hormones, and genetically engineered feed produced with toxic pesticides. The new rules ignore recommendations endorsed by the USDA’s own expert advisory panel, the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB).
  
  
  Link

• SeanRenaud said on Jul 15, 2009....

  You would have to tax to the point that the healthier foods were significantly cheaper if you wanted a complete reversal.  But as you've pointed out there are a large number of poor who eat fatty foods because they are less expsive.  Often by a dollar or more.  (though I'd quit eating Cheetos before I started eating baked over crunchy.  I don't like the regular poofs either)

• D6fer said on Jul 15, 2009....

  It didn't work with cigarettes.....what makes you think it will work with food?
  
  There are enough options out there....if people want organic bad enough, they will find a way to afford it.....enough people want it, and the free market will drive down the price.....that is if we have a free market very much longer.
  

• Expendable said on Jul 15, 2009....

  Bring back gardening. It's amazing what you can grow in a container.

• ALIENated said on Jul 16, 2009....

  Hey, how about if the government just tells us what to eat, you know, like they are our mother ... or a DICTATOR. Oh my god. Listen to the crap you are saying. How about the government NOT tax the shit out of us and leave us the fuck alone. This is incredible. Democrats believe in liberty my ass. This is sickening. More and more government control in the name of doing what is good for us. The nuts are truly in charge of the nuthouse.

• silverwhisper said on Jul 16, 2009....

  curm quoth:
  it seems to me that taxation of unhealthy products is more coercive than tax incentives. don't want to change your food habits? OK, but then you lose out on a little money.

  
  as it happens, i agree: i was merely arguing about what would or would not be easiest for consumers. the problem is that making unhealthy food products is mind-bogglingly cheaper than healthy food products. we're talking a 33-50% difference here in cost to the consumer. manufacturers wig out over any kind of increase in retail prices--they'd go apoplectic over this. special interests will kill any such taxation outright or it'll never leave a committee, as far as i can tell.
  
  ed

• bloc said on Jul 16, 2009....

  sheltercrow mentioned an important point, and I'm not sure if everyone noticed. The unhealthy foods are cheaper because they are heavily subsidized. 

• silverwhisper said on Jul 16, 2009....

  i need to see something to substantiate that point, for my part.
  
  ed

• sheltercrow said on Jul 16, 2009....

  From 1995 - 2006 the industrial farm subsidy was $3,560,356,847
  
  Link
  
  
  Putting aside the (legimate) animal welfare arguments associated with animal agriculture and fishing (which kills thousands of marine mammals and other creatures), the fact is that it is extremely inefficient and and environmentally damaging on almost all dimensions. A new study by researchers at the University of Chicago shows that the CO2 emissions of an animal-based diet are significanly higher than for plant-based diets. What's surprising is that most types of fish require almost the same amount of energy as industrial beef because of the long boat rides required to catch them. Of course, there's also the new article in Science that discusses the potential collapse of most of the world's fisheries by the middle of the century due to over-fishing.
  
  
  Link
  
  
  Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations: EPA Needs More Information and a Clearly Defined Strategy to Protect Air and Water Quality from Pollutants of Concern
  
  
  
  Government Accountability Office, September 2008.
  
  
  Link
  
  
  Antibiotics and Industrial Farming
   
  Every day, doctors use antibiotics to treat thousands of sick children and adults. Humans depend on these life-saving medicines for their personal health. But did you know that as much as 70 percent of all antibiotics sold in the U.S. are being fed to cattle, swine, and poultry on industrial animal farms, for purposes other than treating disease?
  
  
  Link
  
  
  The Animal-Human Interface and Infectious Disease in Industrial Food
  Animal Production: Rethinking Biosecurity and Biocontainment
  
  
  Link
  

• curmudgeon said on Jul 16, 2009....

  expendable - I'm with you! Will post on this after I do some research.
  
  bloc - ok, so let's remove the subsidies and see how many people starve to death because they still can't afford healthier products. Again, accessibility is an issue here.
  
  Is it the carrot, the stick or both, or none of the above?
  
  I must say what Alienated says makes sense. What if we just quit trying to punish "sin" or reward "virtue" and let folks make up their own minds about all of this?
  

• sheltercrow said on Jul 16, 2009....

  The industry spends 30 billion, (yes billion!) dollars a year on advertising, targeting both children and adults.  Does advertising influence what we eat?  Definitely!  The 10000 TV commercials your kids see each year are all too effective.  They wouldn't keep spending 30 billion if they weren't.
  
  
  Link
  
  
  Drug Companies Use an Army of 623 Lobbyists to Keep Profits Up
  
  Click Here for a PDF Version of the Full Report
  Click Here for the Press Release
  
  
  Link
  
  How Food Industry Giants Are Undermining the Organic Movement
  
  The Junk Food Lobby Wins Again
  

• SeanRenaud said on Jul 16, 2009....

  It didn't work with cigarettes because your average person can still afford them.  We didn't hit the break point.  Not that I approve of that I'm simply stating a fact, that it would work.

  I'm all for yanking the subsidies and also to stop paying farmers not to grow.  I highly suspect that there are lots of advances we could have made over the last few decades that were not made because of those two reasons.  Just judging by how much food we throughout in the country NOW, it more like food shouldn't really cost money it does because we decided farming is sacred.

• bloc said on Jul 16, 2009....

  @silver
  There is a documentary that came out recently called 'Food Inc' which gives details on this situation.
  
  @curm
  I'm not quite sure I understand your point. People aren't starving to death because of the price of healthy foods. In fact, it's quite the opposite. They are becoming obese because of the cheapness of highly processed and subsidized corn products like high fructose corn syrup.
  

• SeanRenaud said on Jul 17, 2009....

  His theory is that if we stopped subsidizing the cheap stuff everything would go up because the cheap stuff would cost as much or more than the expensive stuff does now and the expensive stuff would either stay as is (out of reach of many) or would move up simply because it's supposed to cost more.

  I kinda think the exact opposite.  I'm pretty sure that we could flood the market (and easily at that) with so much produce that you couldn't make a real profit off of it.

• bloc said on Jul 17, 2009....

  "I'm pretty sure that we could flood the market (and easily at that) with so much produce that you couldn't make a real profit off of it."
  
  That is exactly what happens now with soy and corn. It's done because the giant corporations that make processed foods lobby for it. Our farm policies don't help farms, they help these giant mega corps.
  
  Food is a funny thing and the pure market doesn't really work for it. For example, farmers can predict their crop most of the time and in a pure market would only grow enough so that the price would stay at a level that is profitable. I.e. they wouldn't grow more than people would eat, because the price would plummet if they did. This is how markets usually work until nature comes in and ruins a crop one year and we suddenly find we dont have enough food to feed everyone. We need the government to smooth out these things, but we need them to do it in a way that is good for society. We've had good farm policies in the past but they were changed by nixon I believe.
  

• SeanRenaud said on Jul 17, 2009....

  I hate it when you are right.

  That said I suspect we could safely let the price plummet, get more automation involved in the harvesting, I have no idea how much land is used by paying farmers not to grow but it seems to me that food (or at least the basics of food) could be basically free (like water or to a lesser extent electricity) if we woke up and decided that was how we wanted it.  I think we are delibrately in some cases fighting against this. 

  It seems criminal to me that we are BOTH throwing away tons of food AND paying farmers not to grow while people starve.  Yes I'll be the first person to say that people matter in an ever decreasing aura starting with me.  My brother is MORE important than my friends.  My friends are more important than you (of course you kinda enjoy double status as I both know you AND you're a Californian)  Californians are inherently more important that the other 49 states.  I could go on and on but you get the point.  That doesn't mean we shouldn't help the guy at stage ten, particularly if it's easy and that's the impression I'm getting.  I mean hell if we were growing THAT much we could probably get away with a lot LESS pesticide just because it wouldn't matter if we lost x because we're dealing in infinity plus 1.

• sheltercrow said on Jul 20, 2009....

  Food Production Externalities: from freedocumentaries.org
  
  
  Frankensteer: The Passionate Eye
  
  A disturbing documentary that reveals how the ordinary cow has been turned into an antibiotic-dependent, hormone-laced potential carrier of toxic bacteria, all in the name of cheaper food. Frankensteer exposes the harsh and sometimes frightening realities of how our beef gets to our tables. According to this compelling documentary, the beef industry, supported by North American government agencies and pharmaceutical companies, has engaged in an on-going experiment to create the perfect food machine.

• bloc said on Aug 12, 2009....

  Here's an interesting take on this issue from a conservative. source  
  
  
  "[O]besity – and especially child obesity - is at least as proper a subject of government concern from a conservative point of view as single parenthood. Conservatives correctly realize that a society with a lot of single parents will require a bigger welfare state. Since conservatives prefer a smaller welfare state, conservatives have a stake in sustainable family patterns. Yet obesity also creates a demand for government programs, even more directly and expensive than the costs of single parenthood. Here’s a paper from the Texas Department of Human Services that estimates that Type 2 diabetes accounts for 9% of the state’s Medicaid budget, about $192 million per year. If diabetes continues to increase at the current trend line, by 2030 the disease will consume somewhere between 13% and 20% of the state’s Medicaid budget.
  
  The policy response to this crisis is not obvious. And yet there are some immediate steps that make sense. State governments should ban soda machines from schools. Local governments should adopt zoning ordinances that prevent the siting of fast-food restaurants within 1000 yards of schools. (Research suggests that the near presence of a fast-food restaurant causes a 5% increase in student obesity.) Impose a steep excise tax on high-fructose corn syrup."

• SeanRenaud said on Aug 12, 2009....

  Maybe it's a Southern California thing but I really don't remember there being that many obese people in school  PArticularly not if you don't adhere to the strictest meaning of the word.  And I don't remember Soda machines on ANY elementry or Middle School campuses and I'm sorry by High School you've got to losen the chains somewhat.

• bloc said on Aug 13, 2009....

  The part about schools isn't what interested me, it's the part about the costs we all pay. Also, obeisity has been increasing rapidly so what was true a decade ago isn't any more.

• SeanRenaud said on Aug 13, 2009....

  But it's hard to argrue that we could just cut those systems entirely and not spend that money.  I mean I imagine that 6k more in each American's budget would go a long way towards healthcare.

• bloc said on Aug 14, 2009....

  I didn't your last comment. What systems?

• curmudgeon said on Aug 14, 2009....

  "Local governments should adopt zoning ordinances that prevent the siting of fast-food restaurants within 1000 yards of schools. (Research suggests that the near presence of a fast-food restaurant causes a 5% increase in student obesity.) Impose a steep excise tax on high-fructose corn syrup."
   
  Just because a self-described conservative advances an argument doesn't make it palatable to other conservatives. Frum doesn't define "fast food." Within 1000 feet of the public school down the street from me, there are two Chinese takeout places, one of the best Pizza places in Brooklyn (and therefore the world), a bakery that's been serving cops, firemen and teachers for two generations, four or five bodegas, a Mexican place, and a retail pharmacy, all of which offer sugary drinks and carb-rich, fat-laden foods and snacks, all are frequented by the kids who enter and exit that that school and play in the schoolyard every day, even weekends.
   
  Oh crap - I just realized Frum is talking 1000 YARDS, not feet! OK, within a half mile there are four Chinese restaurants, ten bodegas, one chain coffee-muffin store...hopefully you get the idea.
   
  Frum's idiotic zoning suggestion might very well put a great many minority-owned businesses out of business and leave a host of public employees hungry.
   
  Frum's stuff and nonsense about unwed mothers is just twisted. I oppose social conservatives' use of government to promote their idea of an American utopia  just as much as I oppose the liberals doing the same.
   
  If your neighbor is a fat slob and you don't like it for whatever reason, you get in his face and tell him so. Don't involve me in your dispute with his decisions.

• SeanRenaud said on Aug 14, 2009....

  Medicare and medicaid.  According to all the numbers I've seen America spends more on its socialized healthcare than any other nation, most by almost double.  If we cut all those systems and saved six thousand dollars per person it seems to me we could pay for a lot more private care.  Personally I think France got it right where they spend 3k and have both but still

  Why is it France gets everything right except being men?

• bloc said on Aug 14, 2009....

  @curm
  
  
  Yeah, the zoning stuff needs to be rethought. I seem to have been unclear on why I posted the comment since both you and sean focused on parts of it that I didn't pay much attention to. I was just trying to point out that we all pay a high price for the obesity in this country so it may be a good idea to deal with it in some societal way. 
  
  
  @sean
  our private systems cost more than the public ones. medicare spends much more of it's dollars on healthcare than the private insurance companies. I think private insurance with regulations that prevent insurance companies from denying care and coverage because of preexisting conditions plus a few more smart regulations is good improvement over our current system. That and decoupling insurance from employment. 

• D6fer said on Aug 14, 2009....

  why not just bring back P.E. and competitive sports in k-12?

• SeanRenaud said on Aug 14, 2009....

  Bring back?  When the hell did they get rid of them?  I think we could start with making it officially not okay to be fat.

• D6fer said on Aug 14, 2009....

  oh yeah....the pc crowd has really fucked fat people up by pushing the whole "accept people for what they are" thing......fat people need to know it's not ok.....it's not ok to take the space of 2 people....it's not ok to be filling up the er rooms.....raising all of our insurance costs....and have you ever been a pallbearer for a fat guy?....those damn coffins are already heavy!.....you put a 300 lb body in there, and youre going to have 6 guys with back problems!......I told my best buddy (probably 500 lbs) that when he dies, I'm havin his ass cremated and we're putting him in 2 urns!

• curmudgeon said on Aug 15, 2009....

  bloc - I agree with your ideas on preexisting conditions and decoupling insurance from employment 100%.
  
  The best place to deal with this particular problem, I think, is in the daily dietary discipline of individuals and families. I doubt that taxation will in the end influence dietary practices to any great extent, especially among people who culturally tend to consume or prepare foods that are carb-rich and fat-laden. Change the culture from "meat and potatoes" and "all you can eat" and "more is better" to something else, and maybe we might have a shot at this.
  

• SeanRenaud said on Aug 15, 2009....

  Changing the culture is going to take time.  I think it starts with as stated earlier.  FAT IS NOT OKAY. 

  I still believe that by offering free or nearly free check ups we could catch a great deal of problems a lot earlier and thus solve them while either ideally the patient can afford it, or hell if the government is going to end up paying one way or another I'd rather pay while it's a cheap surgery rather than an emergency room trip.

  The other option is of course deny emergency care for those who can't afford it.  I'll even be nice and make exceptions for acts of violence or fell circumstance.  (ie car accidents, bullets) 

• bloc said on Aug 15, 2009....

  @curm
  
  
  Yeah, i'm not convinced that a tax is the right way, but I think the government could do something. Even if it's a lot of public service announcement type things that remind people. I'm also thinking the problem isn't so much the meat and potatoes as it is the quick stop super gimongous big gulp gallon of sugar followed by doritos and a blended coffee with caramel and whipped cream. 
  
  
  My whole family grew up eating meat and potatoes and we don't have fat people, although we do have chronic heart disease.

Comment on "Tax the Sin, or Incentivise Virtue?"

Currently tagged	politics health Taxation gardening taxes (Click to add tags below)
Tag this post	(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Your comment