We often hear calls for a junk food tax or “fat tax” when there’s discussion of Australia’s growing obesity problem. The idea behind such a tax is that it would enable governments to subsidise healthy foods so that they’re more affordable, and make unhealthy foods comparatively expensive so people buy less of them.
But would they really? Is cost really the most powerful determinant of what food products people buy?
Let’s consider the likely effects of a junk food tax. Researchers claim that a 20% tax on a can of soft drink would be a sufficient deterrent to purchasing it.
It’s easy to visualise this: someone approaches the refrigerator in a convenience store wanting to buy a drink and ready to make a decision based on taste and cost. If a soft drink is more expensive than low-fat milk or water, it becomes less attractive and we could see a change in buying behaviour – and the attendant reduction in the consumption of obesity-promoting products.
Correlation ≠causality. “Healthy” applies to only plants & animals (that are in good health). “Healthful” is the proper term to use when describing things or conditions that contribute to good health (e.g., healthful food). So-called “unhealthy” foods already cost more per pound (and per nutritive value) than “healthy” foods.
Finally, a reasoned, rational approach to the “healthy” food question. It’s even worse than the author suggests, but at least its a start in the right direction.
“Efforts to combat obesity need to look beyond simple pricing strategies, to the underlying knowledge and skills that influence food choices.”
Yes, we need to teach people that if they eat too much, they will gain weight.
Wait . . . what? You think they already know that?
We need more government studies.
A “Fat Tax” is nothing more than a tax against unfashionable behaviour imposed by busy-body elites upon the lower orders who they’ve decided – as is always the case in class conflicts – need to be told what to do, and can’t be trusted to make a decision for themselves. Consider that if smoking cigarettes was considered fashionable by the upper classes – as was the case in the past – then smoking in bars and restaurants would be legal.
Just a thought.
VicB3
I would note that cigarettes are still smoked in spite of the huge cost. If obesity is the serious problem we are being told it is, shouldn’t we be rationing food so no one can overeat? Certificates that allow you to buy only so many calories per person could be used and restaurants would cash out the number of calories you ate there. Unless, of course, this is just a government attempt to extract more money from people for their spending sprees.
So what is “healthy foods”? Everyone has an answer of course even the government the problem is all the answers are different. More to the point are people who eat “healthy foods” all healthy weights and people who eat “unhealthy foods” all obese. The two simple truths are we pretty much all eat “unhealthy foods” and yet about 20% are obese, 25-30% are overweight (often by just a few pounds, about 30-40% are a healthy weight and about 20% or so are to skinny. And yet we all eat the same crap. Hmmmm! Maybe it’s time for a different theory.
Obesity is genetic, you get it from your parents not “unhealthy food”. If you are obese it is next to impossible to diet yourself to a “normal” weight and stay there. If you are a normal/average weight it is next to impossible to become obese. I defy anyone to define “healthy food” or a “healthy diet”. My first question for you to prove is prove it makes you live longer or avoid serious diseases. How many vegetables do I eat a day to guarantee I live to be 100 years old?
I agree with you that the notion of “healthy foods” is bogus.
As far as obesity being hereditary, not so much. A person’s weight is determined by how much they eat.
Not what their mother ate.
As Gamecock said, the amount of calories to a large degree determines weight. Genetics may determine your metabolic rate, but not so much your size. This does make it difficult for someone with a low metabolic rate to stay skinny. I eat twice what most of my friends do, but don’t gain weight. My sister looks at food and gains weight. My one brother is “normal” weight and the other is over 6 feet tall and weighs about 130. My father was thin, my mother not so much. So where does genetics put me? Then add that I have been on a strict diet since I was 15 due to chronic illness. Weight is not just about genetics. There are many, many factors. And taxing “bad” food won’t fix any of it.
There is a fundamental truth: different people are simply different.
There is another fundamental truth: there are some people who cannot stand other people who are different.
There is important truth: there are some of the people who cannot stand other people being different and work to gain the power to eliminate all differences among people.
Interesting idea: why not let other people be what and who they are and take care of yourself. Then, if anybody wants to change, it is THEIR responsibility for taking the steps necessary for changing THEMSELVES. This idea is called FREEDOM!
“But…but…”,you say, “don’t fat people run up the cost of health care for everyone?” Yes, but why? It is because too many of us have bought into the idea that health care should be free and that someone else must pay for it. That someone else is anyone who produces wealth. Some (most or all) of that wealth is to be taken by force to be given to those who don’t produce anything but wants, needs, and demands. The problem is not that some people are fat, it’s the the idea that YOU can do good by voting for the government to take other people’s wealth and give it to still other people. There is no moral difference between theft and theft by proxy. Both are evil to the core. That it is done to help another does not change the underlying evil of the theft.
Freedom means respect for the right of EACH individual to be left alone to live HIS life as he sees fit without some thug (including and especially government thugs) stepping in and forcing things to be different. If this were done, the stupid people doing stupid things would either discover how not to be so stupid or pay the price by eliminating themselves by their own actions. Surprising as it may seem, people do have the right to be stupid. They critical thing is they should pay for their own stupidity and not be able to force someone else pay.
Lionell:
You are so correct. If costs of services were not forcibly shared, this whole matter would be mute. Take the case of Rush Limbaugh (you may all boo and hiss or cheer for a moment….). He has said he does not have health insurance because he just pays for his health needs. So do we care if Rush smokes cigars, is overweight, a secret Twinkie junkie, whatever the case may be. No. He pays for what he does. Eliminate the “right” to someone else paying for your health care and the behavior control freaks have nothing to use to defend their rules and domination.
I also find it very refreshing that so many people seem to understand and say that stealing by proxy is still stealing. There may be hope yet.
Well said, Lionell!
It irks me that government insists on paying the bill, then gripes about how much it costs.