March 2015 Question #1
In the article’s
introduction, the authors mention that there are numerous tactics that could be
used to modify consumer purchasing of less than healthy food items. Among the
options, the authors mention “taxation/subsidies.”
Do you believe that taxing
the manufacturers who choose to make unhealthy food products and/or providing
subsidies to manufacturers who choose to either reformulate or otherwise make
healthier options available is a good idea? If so, why? If not, why?
posted by Unknown @ 2:33 PM
32 comments
32 Comments:
I go back and forth on this issue because I can see both sides of the argument, but I think you walk a fine line when you start to tax unhealthy food products. I can see the side of the argument about allowing the consumer the right to choose wherever they want to spend their money, but when you see how much money obesity related diseases cost the United States, it definitely makes you think about whether or not taxing junk food would be beneficial. Other countries have implemented taxes on junk food or sweetened drinks and have found that it has had some very positive outcomes. I think that obesity is so complex and is a multifactorial issue, and it would take a lot of different factors working together to see significant results. The fact that other countries have implemented a “fat tax” and have seen beneficial results suggests that it might be something to consider in the US.
I too see both sides of the issue, but I side more with NOT offering a healthy food subsidy or unhealthy food tax. How would one determine which food products the "fat tax" would apply to? Would it be a certain category of foods - such as the RTE GBD products? Or would the tax apply to foods that contain an above threshold level of specific nutrients? Depending on the method for determining which foods would lead to a reimbursement or tax, possible healthy options may end up getting taxed in the process. Food options such as cheese, dairy, and meat contribute to our saturated fat intake - but would these foods be included in the tax is saturated fat content is one of the key nutrients to tax? Overall, this issue seems very complex and almost unrealistic to implement. The most challenging issue would be in determining what is considered a healthy versus an unhealthy food. When we promote as dietitians that all foods can be incorporated into a healthy diet with moderation, I do not see how this idea of taxing is promoting this idea to consumers.
Like Sammy and Jenn, I can see both sides of the argument but I think that there should be a tax on unhealthy items/fast food restaurants. There would need to be extensive discussion as Jenn pointed out with what the criteria would have to be, but at least that way, there is a start to the process. I think if we can tax cigarettes for being harmful then we can tax unhealthy foods, whatever that definition comes out to be.
With that being said, I'm even more for government subsidies shifting away from corn and soy to other produce instead! The subsidies system in place dates back to Depression Era and change is definitely needed. There corn and soy in so many things because have such an abundance of it. Now if we can imagine all that money going into other produce, then those items can be even cheaper and maybe people can stop using the excuse of healthy foods are "expensive".
I personally think that there should be a tax on unhealthy foods that manufactures create and distribute. Just as Tina said, other unhealthy practices such as cigarette smoking and tanning, which can cause chronic and deadly diseases as well, are things that are currently being taxed on in the United States. Nutrition can affect the onset of so many chronic diseases, so starting to tax manufacturers who make unhealthy food products would hopefully be a great place to start with decreasing obesity and preventing chronic diseases. It may prevent manufacturers from releasing as many unhealthy food products, which in turn, would prevent the consumers from buying them. Consumers tend to buy what is quick, easy, affordable, convenient, and most importantly, accessible. Making these food products less accessible could potentially be a start to resolving this issue. Taxing manufacturers would also raise the price of these unhealthy foods for consumers, in turn, causing consumers to buy less of these food products. Many consumers complain that produce is "too expensive," but taxing manufacturers for unhealthy products could cause similar "expensive" results for consumers with unhealthy food products. I understand that most manufactures are concerned with making money and many of their unhealthier products which are cheaply and easily made provide them with the most income, but it would be an interesting idea if there was some type of incentive offered to manufacturers from the government who chose to create and market healthier food products to consumers. As Jen mentioned, the criteria would have to be discussed thoroughly as it is a complex issue. I would assume that most of the taxation would apply more to your processed and refined foods (prepackaged chips, crackers, and cookies) that contain more trans fat, additives, and enriched or white flours, along with fried fast foods that also contain trans fats. Again, as Jenn mentioned, some of the foods that provide us with saturated fat are healthful foods if eaten in moderation. As of now it is also hard to say if saturated fat would be a nutrient to be taxed on as more research needs to be done on it to determine its role in CVD according to the supplemental articles. I would say our biggest job now as dietitians is to educate our clients and patients on choosing whole, nutrient dense foods while shopping (fruits, vegetables, lean meats, whole grains) with less ingredients and less additives, and advocating or lobbying with government agencies and local/state officials and representatives for laws and changes that need to be made within the corporate world of manufacturing food products.
I agree with Tina and Janelle's valid points reminding us that there are taxes on other unhealthy practices and I think that taxing a certain criteria of junk food could be helpful. There are so many factors contributing to obesity and it is a complex solution, however, taxing may be a beneficial implementation. Many people think that eating healthy is much more expensive so their excuse is to choose the cheap less nutritious choice. The tax could lead consumers to try new healthier items and find ways to make them less expensive. Buying and preparing in bulk, frozen produce, home cooking, etc. Having CHEAP junk food "ready-to-eat" and fast food on every corner makes it hard to resist for many consumers. I believe the tax would be a good incentive to develop new healthy habits eliminating empty calorie choices. We need make multiple changes to help prevent obesity and this one may have a positive impact on the typical American mentality of "more bang for your buck".
Tina - I am very open minded about government subsidies being expanded to other produce items to benefit both farmers and consumers. It certainly may be the positive change that is needed to improve the negative stigma that exists about healthy eating being too expensive.
In regards to comparing this issue to cigarettes, do you believe that the tax on cigarettes promoted a large proportion of individuals to quit smoking? As we can perceive food as an addictive substance, do you think that a tax would be enough to change consumer's shopping patterns? Perhaps it is the food environment overall that needs to change as opposed to taxing manufacturers/consumers as a "punishment" for poor nutritional choices.
Taxes may not necessarily stop someone from eating the foods, but with our consumers complaining about healthy foods costing too much, it may deter them from consuming it as often. Also, if they're like smokers and decide they want to pay higher prices for their choices, then hey, at least we can use that extra money for something else. Bottom line is it's still their choice no matter what.
Jenn, I like your point about determining the criteria for the "fat tax," I feel as though that would stir quite a bit of controversy. I do think that it would be manageable though. True, there is saturated fat in meat and dairy, but it's naturally present saturated fat. It's not added by any food manufacturer. Added fats and sugars would probably be the target of any taxation, and a threshold could be set for density of added saturated fat and/or added sugars. I love this discussion, let's keep it going!!
I can see a taxation or subsidy being a great option for promoting healthier food choices. Sure, people will be mad that we are "forcing" them to eat healthier foods, but when healthcare costs affect all of us, I think there needs to be some changes made to the way food is made and sold in our country. As Tina mentioned, it's not as though these options would not still be available - people could still choose to eat these items, but they will have to pay for them. It doesn't seem right that a family can get a highly processed meal for a very cheap price, but feel as though fresh produce is out of their budget. In addition, I've seen several patients in the hospital setting who are simply unwilling to make any lifestyle changes, which ultimately led them to being admitted to the hospital in the first place. Sending these patients home, knowing they will go back to their old habits, is hardly helping the situation. Sometimes people need a little push to make better choices, and I think a tax could help.
I definitely see Jenn's point about the categorization of foods. I think this is an issue that should be decided by public health officials, and especially input from RDs. We need to be seen as food and nutrition experts, and being heard on issues such as this is extremely important for our profession.
I don't support taxing or subsidizing of companies for making unhealthy products. I believe in educating the public and helping them to make the right decisions. After that supply should equal demand.
Like Sammy said, It creates a legislative nightmare that I can only assume will cost tons of money.
I can see both sides of the taxation and subsidies idea. However, I do not think taxation of unhealthy foods is the only solution to Americans’ obesity epidemic. I think most multi-billion dollar companies would still manufacture their well-known, unhealthy products even if they are taxed. These companies can afford to pay a tax because they have an enormous amount of money. For example, Nabisco is still going to manufacture Oreos even if they are taxed, because Oreos are an American favorite and people want to purchase them. People would probably go crazy if their classic Oreo was reformulated to taste differently. Nabisco would most likely lose customers if they changed their Oreo formulation. Therefore, the money Nabisco would lose from taxation would perhaps be equal to or even less than the profit lost from losing customers.
On the other hand, perhaps the taxation/subsidies may be more influential on smaller companies that don’t have iconic products. Smaller companies would be less willing to pay a tax, and more interested in getting subsidy money.
Overall, I don’t know how effective the taxation and subsidies tactic would be on its own. I think what we as future RDs should focus on is educating people about how to make healthy food choices. Until we can convince the majority of Americans to purchase Oreos less often, I believe the demand for Oreos will always be there and Nabisco will supply the Oreos even if they are taxed.
Jenn,
You brought up a great point about determining what is a healthy food vs. an unhealthy food. I can foresee a lot of confusion and legal issues if certain foods start being taxed. Ultimately, I think it should be the consumer's responsibility to purchase healthier foods more often, and RDs can educate people about healthier food options.
My initial response is no, I do not think taxation and/or subsidies are a good way to go. I think my issue is with the fact that we would have no choice but to draw an arbitrary line as to what qualifies and what doesn't. It’s a continuum from healthy to unhealthy, without a clear dividing point. As soon as you draw that line, manufacturers are going to find ways to fudge the line, anyway. Plus, I think we have to teach people to take responsibility for their own health decisions. This type of action almost implies that food manufacturers are responsible for our health – but it’s the individual who is making the choice. The more we can increase healthier choices, the more results should be seen from manufacturers in response (ideally).
Like many of the other commenters, I am torn on the issue of taxation/subsidies when it comes to food. I can see where taxation of the manufacturers of unhealthy/junk food may benefit the health of U.S., but I would like evidence that increased prices would actually move U.S. eating habits away from unhealthy foods. I also think that providing subsidies to manufacturers who choose to reformulate or make their products healthier could be a slippery slope. What would the criteria be? Could it turn into another less-than-0.5g-means-the-label-can-read-0g situation? For these reasons, I think I am opposed to both taxation and subsidies for manufacturers. U.S. citizens need more nutrition education, not manipulation of prices with the hope that it will force citizens to chose healthier foods.
With that being said, I agree with Tina's point that subsidies would be beneficial for produce manufacturers. I am opposed to the idea of subsidies to make RTE GBD products "healthier," but subsidies for produce (which would mean lower prices) may help to increase fruit and vegetable consumption in the U.S.... which would hopefully decrease RTE GBD consumption!
The consumer has the right to choose to purchase a product regardless of the cost/tax that is imposed with it. I think it doesn't necessarily work as a deterrent to add a higher cost to items that are in demand (look at the tax on cigarettes for instance, the sales did not abruptly go down as a whole for this product when higher taxes were invoked, people merely switched brands or sucked it up and purchased them anyway). I think it is a good incentive, however to provide healthy foods at a lower cost. The complaint I most often hear from people who choose not to eat healthy is "it costs more to buy healthy foods". As practitioners, we can debunk this thought process, however there does need to be specific guidelines, made by practitioners and not by government workers, to decide which foods constitute as healthy. There could be a tiered tax, started at whole unprocessed foods, minimally processed, extremely processed, etc.
I agree with those of you who state that fast food, convenience foods need to be taxed, but we also need to look at this from a food stamp prospective because this issue does have an impact on those purchases. From my experience, food stamp funds are used on many unhealthy products. If we increase the cost of those products, the food stamp funding will not go as far for each family. We have gone back and forth with legislation about limitations of what can be purchased. This can be argued as an infringement on a person's right to choose and a limitation brought on them due to their current financial circumstance. With this in mind, if policy was to change regarding the types of foods that were taxed and the amount that was taxed, policy would also have to change regarding our food stamp system. This is a battle that would need to be implemented slowly and will take decades.
Charity, you bring up a good point about that common complaint of consumers that "healthy food" is too expensive. I, too, believe that part of our job is to debunk this notion. Fruits and vegetables are affordable, especially if you go for produce that is "in-season," or use farmer's markets and things like that. Canned and frozen are options as well. For instance, you can get a can of carrots at Aldi's for 59 cents, a bag of frozen broccoli for 99 cents. True, the canned carrots aren't the lower sodium version, but if you do some rinsing (which I realize is not going to get rid of it all) and also cut out processed foods that contain even more sodium, that's a good option. Aldi's even has avocados for 79 cents. Not too shabby. Not every geographic region or city has an Aldi's, but there are similar stores in many cities.
It's realistic tips such as the seasonal shopping, making use of Farmer's markets (or similar programs), community gardens, and/or discount grocers that can really help to save some $$$--which is what many consumers seem to be primarily focused on.
Emma and Tina, I also like your point about the subsidies for produce manufacturers. If the price of other types of produce could be lowered to any extent (and we, as nutrition professionals could make consumers aware of such a price drop...), that could entice more people to purchase more produce (theoretically).
I think most everyone seems to agree that, regardless of stance on taxation/subsidies, we need to educate consumers on the importance of non-processed foods (e.g. fruits/veggies) and shift their emphasis on these products versus the processed counterparts (e.g. RTE GBD). This conversation is too legit to quit, I'm glad everyone has an opinion! Good work everyone.
I support the idea of taxing because, as Susan said, many of the patients I saw at the hospital were there because of their eating habits, and some were unwilling to change. But while I support the idea, I think taxing junk food would be an administrative nightmare. As Jenn and Caroline discussed, how would you determine which foods are taxed? It would be an ongoing process as new foods are continually being added to the market. Who would make that decision? What happens when new research determines something previously taxed no longer falls within the criteria that originally made it be taxed? Much of the funds received from taxing products would likely be spent making these determinations.
I agree with Tina and Emma that government subsidies need to shift from corn and soy to fruits and vegetables. Not only should subsidies be added to fruits and vegetables, but they should be removed from corn and soybeans. Without the subsidies, hopefully corn and soybeans will be less profitable to grow and a small quantity grown may lead to less processed food such as gbd made from corn and soybeans.
I like the intention behind taxation and subsidies; however, the biggest problem I see is how to determine nutritional criteria for taxation and subsidies. Who would be in charge of deciding what is healthy and what isn’t? A general idea of what is healthy exists within nutrition oriented professionals, however drawing fine lines that could mean differences of thousands (a very conservative estimate) of dollars to companies would be a very hairy proposition. In a sense it goes against our idea of “everything fits in moderation” by labeling foods as good (subsidized) or bad (taxed). Even if limits could be set, but the manufacturers will likely adjust in whatever way possibly to minimize profit loss or maximize their subsidy potential. This could mean packaging changes and alterations in recommended serving sizes. As Brady mentioned, manufacturers will find a way to fudge the line.
An issue in addition to those previously discussed is the problem with big versus small companies. Large companies with a lot of brands often sell both healthy and non-healthy items. For example Coca-Cola sells soda and Dasani water. I’m sure the same situation exists with producers of RTE GBDs. If a large company is subsidized for one healthy product they produce, who is to say the money will not go toward producing the unhealthy product? In the end the small companies with single or few product lines end up paying the price. They will likely not get both sides of the deal like the big companies, making the taxation or subsidization a more significant determinant for their success. The benefit I do see from this is the incentive to bring new healthy products to the market and discouragement of new unhealthy products.
Overall, taxation and subsidization would have wide reaching effects on entrepreneurial opportunities in the food industry. Enforcing a program like this seems very complex. It would need to be well organized and have a high degree of transparency for justification of categorization of products.
I agree with Tina and Emma on produce subsidies being a way to promote fruit and vegetable consumption. Corn and soy are highly subsidized agricultural products (too highly in my own opinion). As a result of their inexpensiveness, manufacturers put these agricultural products in just about everything it seems like. Then consumers end up eating a lot of them because they are so ubiquitous. This shift of subsidy to produce doesn't seem too complex to arrange being within the same sector, but you can bet we would hit a stone wall of lobbying from the corn and soy interests. No one likes their profits to take a hit.
My initial thought was that taxation of unhealthy foods and subsidizing healthy foods would be an efficient method of reducing obesity in the United States and encourage more consumption of fruits, vegetables, and whole grains. However, Jenn's comment about determining "fat tax" will complicate this solution. Many foods cannot be clearly defined by either healthy or unhealthy which could lead to semi-healthy food products being taxed if it is classified as unhealthy or a semi-unhealthy food product being subsidized if it is classified as healthy. I think there are much more efficient strategies to reducing obesity such as early childhood nutrition education, limiting the unhealthy foods able to be purchased through SNAP or other benefit programs, and increasing physical activity promotion. As Janelle said, it is our job as future RD to promote healthy living and healthy grocery shopping, which will, over time, help to reduce the obesity epidemic in the United States.
The idea of taxing unhealthy food and subsidizing companies who produce healthy food such as produce seems practical and brilliant in reducing obesity and poor eating habits for Americans. The costs would then be passed onto consumers who may be influenced to purchase less unhealthy foods and purchasing more of the healthy foods. However, it could infringe on people's rights to choose to eat freely. Taxation/subsidies as such is a way to force people to eat certain food products, which could be thought of as manipulative and outrageous. Although this may seem practical to reducing obesity, it becomes an issue of ethics. Is it right for the government to influence what people want to eat?
There are already laws such as these in place in some cities. In Chicago, candy, soda and alcohol gets double taxed while most other groceries do not. In New York, there was a ban on selling sugary drinks more than 16 oz. To health professionals such as RDs, we would encourage such laws and celebrate them. However, for the general public they are protesting for their rights. Eventually, NY's ban on sugary drinks was rejected by the final court because of its infringement on peoples' freedom of choice to drink/eat whatever they want.
So although the idea of taxation/subsidies is a good idea to influence consumers to make healthier choices, it does not seem possible.
I do not think taxing the manufacturers of these unhealthy products is the way to go about eliciting change. In my mind, all I can focus is on is what level of the consumer chain these taxes will be made up for. I would think that a big business would raise the prices of a diverse amount of products to make up for the money lost in paying for the tax, not just the unhealthy ones. If that was the case, all consumers would end up paying the price, while simultaneously demonizing the institutions and organizations who supported the tax in the first place. Perhaps if the tax law was put in to place with stipulations, ex: only the price of products that meet certain criteria can be increased....then maybe I would be more in favor of that sort of tax. I feel that those sorts of details and restrictions are a bit unrealistic, and at the end of the day all consumers (not just those who buy healthy items) would end up getting nickeled and dimed by big businesses.
While speaking of taxes, it seems that everyone has brought up Jenn's idea of what constitutes a healthy or unhealthy food to be taxed. I think that Gina makes an interesting point in who would decide this what constitutes this. Would it be an RD? A food scientist? Etc.?
I also agree very strongly with Stephanie. She pointed out many other ways an RD can prevent people from buying unhealthy foods besides taxing. We should start with nutrition education at as early of an age as possible, advocating for laws that limit the types of foods that can be bought with SNAP benefits, and encouraging physical activities.
My initial reaction is to support taxation but after critically analyzing the implementation that would have to take place I realize that it would be a lot more difficult than I first imagined. Like multiple people stated, how would parameters be made for what is considered "unhealthy", and as seen with the changes in school lunches these guidelines are challenging. I also agree that our jobs should be focussed around educating and empowering individuals to make healthy choices.
I do agree with Tina that adding subsidies could help making fruits and vegetables cheaper. The expense of fruits and vegetables is a common reason we hear for why individuals don't consume them, if they were to be cheaper that reason would no longer be valid. I'm not saying another reason wouldn't take it's place but it would be a stepping stone to getting fruits and vegetables to more people.
I thought this was a very interesting article that made some great points. I do not think a “fat tax” is the answer. Like Jenn and many others said, how would and who would determine what food items will have the added tax? I don’t think it is right for us to label foods as ‘good’ or ‘bad’. Nutrition is not black and white and I believe that moderation is key. I also don’t think a tax will stop people from making unhealthy food choices. Obesity is a much bigger problem than putting an addition tax on unhealthy food. Just like Sammy said, obesity is complex and multifactorial issue. It will be interesting to see what the upcoming years bring for this topic!
Abby makes a good point about being interested what the future years hold for this complex issue. I feel as though a few years ago the food and nutrition industries would have never guessed that someone would coin the term "fat tax". I think it just goes to show that you can never be certain what the future of this vast and ever changing industry holds! Who knows, a few years from now this conversation could be irrelevant?
I believe that there should not be taxation on unhealthy food options because I think obesity in America has grown to be a much larger problem and increasing the price on high fat items probably will not stop those with a large obesity problem from buying these products. Placing a higher tax on companies that sell high fat products can also be detrimental to our nation’s economy. Since many larger organizations in our nation that sell these high fat products are national leaders in the food industry they highly influence our economy. If companies were taxed more and had to raise their prices leading to a decrease in sales this could hurt our economy in the future.
I think a great idea that Tina and Emma mentioned was government subsidies shifting to fruits and vegetables. Subsidies could lower the prices of fruits and vegetables further and would help settle the misnomer that fruits and vegetables are “too expensive”. I think the solution to the taxation/ subside problem is complex. However, personally I think people would be happier and more willing to buy fruits and vegetables over high fat items if they were cheaper due to government subsides rather than having to pay more for high fat items due to taxation.
I agree with Des that by increasing taxes on companies that produce high fat items will cause a spike in the price of these high fat foods. The reality of it is the companies that sell these high fat products are some of our countries leading companies that keep are economy running. By increasing tax on these companies it will cause an increase in sale prices and inhibit a percent of the population from being able to afford such products. At first glance cutting out a portion of the population that can afford these items sounds like a good idea. However, the population that will be eliminated from buying these products are usually in food deserts and do not have readily available access to healthier options like fruits and vegetables and therefore the foods they are able to purchase will be decreased further by the tax.
When determining whether I felt that there should be taxation on manufacturers producing unhealthy food products, I couldn’t decide at first which stance I took. However, as I began examining the question more, I asked myself “What exactly is an ‘unhealthy’ vs ‘healthy’ food item?” Abby took the similar perspective in mentioning that nutrition is not a black and white subject matter. Much of the decision of whether a food item is deemed “healthy” is a subjective matter. While I might think one food product is healthy, another person might say it is unhealthy. Where would you draw the line.
Another stance I took on this question is the evolution of research. For example, we have been taught year after year in our dietetic education that saturated fat consumption is associated with CHD and CVD. However, I found the supplemental articles that Arthur provided to be interesting. Supplemental article 3 was a meta-analysis showing “no significant evidence that dietary saturated fat is associated with increased risk for CHD or CVD.” In addition, the 4th supplemental article stated “current evidence does not clearly support cardiovascular guidelines that encourage high consumption of polyunsaturated fatty acids and low consumption of total saturated fats.” With that being said, when trying to determine which foods to tax, what would you choose? Would you take the stance of saturated fats contributing to CHD/CVD or would you use these two articles to guide your decision? This is one of the problems with taxation. Nutrition is such a young science that we are discovering new things each day. It would be unrealistic to correctly/fairly tax all the right food manufacturers. As Gina mentioned in her comment, the matter of taxation would be much more complex of an issue than we are able to take on.
Jenn brings up a great point about how to determine whether a food should be taxed or not. My first thoughts were taxing items such as candy, soda, sugary baked goods (Little Debbie goods, twinkies, etc), and other items high in added sugar and contributes plenty of empty calories.
Sammy mentioned that other countries have implemented a "fat tax" and have seen a beneficial result, I think the U.S. and follow suit with the system and do something similar to reduce obesity rates in the U.S. However, I also feel that many individuals and groups in the U.S. are extremely opposed to government control over freedom of choice; so I can see the U.S. facing a lot of resistance when considering a "fat tax". Perhaps instead of "punishing" people for purchasing unhealthy foods, we can remove tax on foods we know are healthy, especially produce since that is mainly what we push for. It could provide an incentive for families, especially low-income families, to save a little money by purchasing produce rather than "junk food".
Many cities already have increased taxes on fast food restaurants and eating out in general, which can discourage people from eating out so often. However, increasing taxes on dining out can also lead to small businesses and possibly large corporations/chain restaurants running out of business too and affecting the economy. So I can't imagine increasing the taxes anymore on dining out options.
Post a Comment
<< Home