mirth Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 Do you think the Danish Health Minister has a point that's worth worth taking to the bank? “Higher fees on sugar, fat and tobacco is an important step on the way toward a higher average life expectancy in Denmark,†health minister Jakob Axel Nielsen said when he introduced the idea in 2009, according to The Associated Press, because “saturated fats can cause cardiovascular disease and cancer.†I'm asking because this weekend, Denmark started adding an extra tax on fatty foods. It already taxes high sugar foods. But only 10% of Danes are considered obese compared (by the same standards) to 34% of Americans. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/02/denmark-fat-tax-obesity http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2011/10/02/denmark-introduces-fat-tax-on-foods-high-in-saturated-fat/ Even if other nations follow ... do you think your country should? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aelwydd Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 (edited) Do you think the Danish Health Minister has a point that's worth worth taking to the bank? “Higher fees on sugar, fat and tobacco is an important step on the way toward a higher average life expectancy in Denmark,” health minister Jakob Axel Nielsen said when he introduced the idea in 2009, according to The Associated Press, because “saturated fats can cause cardiovascular disease and cancer.” I'm asking because this weekend, Denmark started adding an extra tax on fatty foods. It already taxes high sugar foods. But only 10% of Danes are considered obese compared (by the same standards) to 34% of Americans. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/02/denmark-fat-tax-obesity http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2011/10/02/denmark-introduces-fat-tax-on-foods-high-in-saturated-fat/ Even if other nations follow ... do you think your country should? Can't comment about the Danes, because even if their rate of obesity is 1/3 of ours, it may still constitute a huge trend to them, especially if it was, say, only 5% 10 years ago. Without more information, I can't really say whether they're acting in an alarmist fashion or not. Regarding whether such a tax would ever be enacted here, I--- :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: .... Sorry, I had to get that out of my system. I just find it enormously funny to imagine that happening (it never would) in the U.S. It if passed, any health benefits derived from it would be negated by the sheer numbers of people spontaneously combusting out of acute indignation and outrage. Also, the government would be overthrown the next day by armies of pick-up trucks and angry militias from the heartland. So, to answer your question, no, I don't think it should happen here, because morbidity and mortality rates would definitely increase. Edited October 3, 2011 by Aelwydd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barb_ Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 There is an obvious and clear link between cigarettes and disease. But really, who decides what is a dangerous food. How much sugar? How much fat? What if a food contains both sugar and fat? What about foods like dark chocolate that contain sugar and fat, but also clear health benefits? Way too complicated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosie_0801 Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 There are far stupider tariffs and taxes. I'd rather be charged more for crappy food than have us ploughing our oranges into the ground because the tariff on plane fuel makes it cheaper than land fuel, so it is cheaper to import oranges from Brazil than get them from the orange groves a mere 600km away. But I'm inclined to agree with Aelwydd about the reaction to introducing it in the US. :lol: Rosie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snickerdoodle Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 Aren't we already on the hook for subsidizing low quality food production in the first place? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrothead Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 (edited) It would be virtually impossible for this to happen in the US. The system is set up (corn and other subsidies, to start) to keep us fat, happy and unquestioning. We have the means to be the healthiest of nations. Unfortunately that is not what is wanted. Edited October 3, 2011 by Parrothead Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serenade Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 There is an obvious and clear link between cigarettes and disease. But really, who decides what is a dangerous food. How much sugar? How much fat? What if a food contains both sugar and fat? What about foods like dark chocolate that contain sugar and fat, but also clear health benefits? Way too complicated. The problem is not in consuming fat or sugar. The problem is in consuming too much fat and sugar. That's why I think a tax on individual products like this is silly. Are we going to punish someone who consumes in moderation? There is no way to measure who consumes "too much", so everybody has to suffer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrs.m Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 Having to pay more doesn't mean an adjustment in anything except our pocket book. People have to want to change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mamajudy Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 It's ridiculous. Keep the government out of my pantry! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IsabelC Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 I don't like the logic that says 'x is bad, so let's tax it'. If it's not really that bad, the government should stay out of it. If it's really seriously and indisputably bad, it should be banned/regulated/limited. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C_l_e_0..Q_c Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 Well, I can sort of see a tax on the sugar itself, and obvious sources of fat at the *ingredients* level. Therefore companies which put a lot of sugar in their baked meals will be taxed, and will pass on that tax to consumers as a price increase (and not as a tax). You consume products with little to no sugar? The price hike is minimal. You consume products that are high in sugar? Then you get a bigger price hike. If you tax at the ingredient level and not the final product, it makes sense. At least, that's the theory. How well it would work in practice is something else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josie Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 It's ridiculous. Keep the government out of my pantry! :iagree: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barb_ Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 The problem is not in consuming fat or sugar. The problem is in consuming too much fat and sugar. That's why I think a tax on individual products like this is silly. Are we going to punish someone who consumes in moderation? There is no way to measure who consumes "too much", so everybody has to suffer. Exactly. One cigarette is too many, but attaching sin taxes to food ingredients doesn't make any sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crimson Wife Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 It's ridiculous. Keep the government out of my pantry! I'd agree with you IF my family's hard-earned tax dollars weren't going to pay for the medical costs of obesity through Medicare and Medicaid. Get rid of taxpayer-subsidized healthcare and I wouldn't care what c**p you choose to eat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lily_Grace Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 It's ridiculous. Keep the government out of my pantry! The government is already in your pantry. Who do you think is responsible for corn syrup in EVERYTHING? Who allowed genetically modified food to be sold without warning consumers? If you want the government out of your pantry you have to grow your own food! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anne in CA Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 My BIL is from Denmark. He moved here because they take 65% of your money for taxes as it is and dole out healthcare in tiny unusable portions to the point that he was forced to move as a father of four. With four children he could not take mass transit everywhere, and that is all he could afford there. He also could not get medical care in a timely manner. When you have a sick toddler and a a sick wife you need to get to the doctor NOW to avoid missing work, but their healthcare system is not that efficient. I think it is safe to say from what I know from him that if Denmark thinks it is a good idea, it probably is not ideal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aubrey Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 Well, I can sort of see a tax on the sugar itself, and obvious sources of fat at the *ingredients* level. Therefore companies which put a lot of sugar in their baked meals will be taxed, and will pass on that tax to consumers as a price increase (and not as a tax). You consume products with little to no sugar? The price hike is minimal. You consume products that are high in sugar? Then you get a bigger price hike. If you tax at the ingredient level and not the final product, it makes sense. At least, that's the theory. How well it would work in practice is something else. I was thinking this, too, but then I realized--if the gov't starts taxing, say, sugar, companies would just increase their usage of HFCS. :glare: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aubrey Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 I'd agree with you IF my family's hard-earned tax dollars weren't going to pay for the medical costs of obesity through Medicare and Medicaid. Get rid of taxpayer-subsidized healthcare and I wouldn't care what c**p you choose to eat. I'd rather tax dollars go to healthcare (for whoever) than to subsidizing genetically-modified corn! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aubrey Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 Having to pay more doesn't mean an adjustment in anything except our pocket book. People have to want to change. Sure it does--think how few people buy organic due to cost. How many people buy HFCS because of cost. We *may* generally buy what we like, but we buy it in the forms we can afford & value. If the healthiest version is the cheapest option, then a person would have to WANT the unhealthy version to pay more for it. Some would, sure, but a lot wouldn't. Unfortunately, I don't think this tax leads to making healthier foods cheaper. I think it leads to making cheap foods less healthy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrothead Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 I don't like the logic that says 'x is bad, so let's tax it'. If it's not really that bad, the government should stay out of it. If it's really seriously and indisputably bad, it should be banned/regulated/limited. But the experts can't even decide what is bad and what is not. Remember eggs were bad for you? Not any more. Remember that chocolate was bad for you? Not any more. Marijuana? All you need now for that is to live/visit the correct state and get a 'script. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrs.m Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 (edited) Sure it does--think how few people buy organic due to cost. How many people buy HFCS because of cost. We *may* generally buy what we like, but we buy it in the forms we can afford & value. If the healthiest version is the cheapest option, then a person would have to WANT the unhealthy version to pay more for it. Some would, sure, but a lot wouldn't. Unfortunately, I don't think this tax leads to making healthier foods cheaper. I think it leads to making cheap foods less healthy. So taxing cigs has made people choose to stop smoking? I know too many people that can't afford it and continue on. All a recent tax hike in our state did was make them adjust their pocket book. Healthy foods aren't that expensive in comparision. Pound for pound a bag of potato chips costs 200% more than a whole potato. Many people still aren't choosing the cheaper option or they wouldn't sell it. You can buy a whole chicken for less cost per pound than a pack of hotdogs. People are choosing to not buy these foods. It's cheaper to eat at home and people are still truckin' through the drive-thru. I don't need the government to add more costs to my already rising food bill. Edited October 3, 2011 by jannylynn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C_l_e_0..Q_c Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 I was thinking this, too, but then I realized--if the gov't starts taxing, say, sugar, companies would just increase their usage of HFCS. :glare: Not if HFCS is taxed even higher. It is a source of sugar input, it would be taxed too. If the gvt (in an ideal world) plays its hand properly, it can influence how companies make decision. Tax the 'bad' ingredients higher than the ok ingredients, and don't tax at all good ingredients. Suddenly you'll see better products on the market. But life has a way of going around ideal worlds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aubrey Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 So taxing cigs has made people choose to stop smoking? I know too many people that can't afford it and continue on. All a recent tax hike in our state did was make them adjust their pocket book. Healthy foods aren't that expensive in comparision. Pound for pound a bag of potato chips costs 200% more than a whole potato. That's apples to oranges. If the prices were the same, or the (relatively) healthier potato chips were cheaper, people might choose things like baked over fried, natural over chemical. Still potato chips, though. Some people still aren't choosing the cheaper option. You can buy a whole chicken for less cost per pound than a pack of hotdogs. Again, apples to oranges. I didn't say people would start eating different FOODS. I mean they might buy the healthier ding dongs. They might buy the healthier hot dogs. Hot dogs & chicken don't taste the same. Hot dogs are much more convenient. If you're working several jobs & your dc have to feed themselves, a whole chicken won't do it unless you've got the time & resources to cook it first. That's a whole other thread! :001_smile: People are choosing to not buy these foods. It's cheaper to eat at home and people are still truckin' through the drive-thru. It depends on what you're cooking at home vs what you're buying at the drive-through. A frozen pizza (for ex) isn't necessarily cheaper than a $1 burger at a drive-through. I don't need the government to add more costs to my already rising food bill. But if you're already choosing healthier options, they wouldn't be adding anything to your food bill. As long as you're one of the people who's figured out to buy the whole chicken, what do you care if the hot dogs cost more? Or if the hot dogs get healthier in order to stay the same price? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aubrey Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 Not if HFCS is taxed even higher. It is a source of sugar input, it would be taxed too. If the gvt (in an ideal world) plays its hand properly, it can influence how companies make decision. Tax the 'bad' ingredients higher than the ok ingredients, and don't tax at all good ingredients. Suddenly you'll see better products on the market. But life has a way of going around ideal worlds. Well, sure, but since they're currently SUBSIDIZING HFCS (here), I figure a tax on "sugar & fatty foods" would find its way very quickly around corn products. Think about the HFCS mindwashing commercials! "HFCS is similar to sugar. It's a good replacement for sugar. Being a Nazi isn't bad..." :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parker Martin Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 This is moronic and based on behind-the-curve science. You're better off with saturated fats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mamajudy Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 I'd agree with you IF my family's hard-earned tax dollars weren't going to pay for the medical costs of obesity through Medicare and Medicaid. Get rid of taxpayer-subsidized healthcare and I wouldn't care what c**p you choose to eat. :iagree: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mamajudy Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 There is an obvious and clear link between cigarettes and disease. But really, who decides what is a dangerous food. How much sugar? How much fat? What if a food contains both sugar and fat? What about foods like dark chocolate that contain sugar and fat, but also clear health benefits? Way too complicated. :iagree: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrs.m Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 But if you're already choosing healthier options, they wouldn't be adding anything to your food bill. As long as you're one of the people who's figured out to buy the whole chicken, what do you care if the hot dogs cost more? Or if the hot dogs get healthier in order to stay the same price? A healthier version of Ding Dongs, are you serious? All that happens is I eat more of them. :lol: I don't think that the low fat version of hotdogs is healthier. So we are going to let the government decide? :lol: And I don't believe for one minute that the food companies would reduce their price because making the healthier version means that their production/product cost is higher. (not always) I care, because I do like to eat hotdogs on occassion and I don't want to pay more when I want some because some other people can't do the right thing. And the price of the healthy stuff isn't going to go down. People need to take personal responsibility and stop looking to the government to run their lives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amy in NH Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 Maybe there should be a personal registration tax based on weight - like car registrations. People who are morbidly obese cost society extra money in health care, disability, and lost productivity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aubrey Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 A healthier version of Ding Dongs, are you serious? All that happens is I eat more of them. :lol: Well...lol...only in the sense that it would kill you of a heart attack before it would kill you of cancer. :lol: I don't think that the low fat version of hotdogs is healthier. Ok, neither do I. I guess I was imagining a tax on nitrates. So we are going to let the government decide? :lol: And I don't believe for one minute that the food companies would reduce their price because making the healthier version means that their production/product cost is higher. (not always) Healthier versions are only more expensive because of gov't subsidy on the unhealthy stuff (to some extent--this is just a generalization). But...I did say before that they were unlikely in a tax on fat/sugar to stop subsidizing the chemicals & corn, so...you're probably right. I care, because I do like to eat hotdogs on occassion and I don't want to pay more when I want some because some other people can't do the right thing. And the price of the healthy stuff isn't going to go down. Oh. I can't remember buying hotdogs. But if I'm going to buy something outside the norm, I think it would be nice if the organic option were the cheaper one. I doubt this tax would lead to that conclusion, though. People need to take personal responsibility and stop looking to the government to run their lives. I agree, but I don't think that either this tax or the current situation leads to that conclusion. I think at this point, "personal responsibility" for healthy eating is being impeded by gov't subsidies. The government is making it harder & harder for people to be responsible in a lot of cases. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aubrey Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 Maybe there should be a personal registration tax based on weight - like car registrations. People who are morbidly obese cost society extra money in health care, disability, and lost productivity. (I know you're joking, but...) so do super-skinny people who are either anorexic or in a drug-induced skinny state. ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mamajudy Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 But if you're already choosing healthier options, they wouldn't be adding anything to your food bill. As long as you're one of the people who's figured out to buy the whole chicken, what do you care if the hot dogs cost more? Or if the hot dogs get healthier in order to stay the same price? But where does it end? What if they decide that a vegetarian diet is the way to go and that all meat is unhealthy? The trouble with this is that they don't know when to stop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slartibartfast Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 (edited) Aren't we already on the hook for subsidizing low quality food production in the first place? Yes, get rid of the subsidies and offer them to people growing healthy food. An apple costs more than a candy bar. Edited October 3, 2011 by Sis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aubrey Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 But where does it end? What if they decide that a vegetarian diet is the way to go and that all meat is unhealthy? The trouble with this is that they don't know when to stop. You misunderstand: I'm not saying this is a good idea! But the slippery-slope analogy also, imo, can impede good ideas. (And prevent bad ones--it just has to be carefully employed, I guess.) :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MSNative Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 Yes, get rid of the subsidies.. I agree. Get rid of subsidies. Slightly off topic, have y'all seen this http://www.100daysofrealfood.com/category/100-days-of-real-food-on-a-budget/ This mom fed her family of 4 whole foods and mainly organics for 150 a week. She has some interesting ideas. I am trying this, though it's a lot harder with three older boys rather than two adorable young girls like this woman has. Regardless, it's an interesting challenge. She also has some free meal plans and good recipes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snickerdoodle Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 (edited) A national food policy (the food pyramid and food plate) have a profound influence on diet in America. Many children and adults eat meals that have to be prepared by meeting those guidelines. Talk about influencing the palates of people. My question is, how are those guidelines prepared? Who are the people responsible for preparing the guidelines? Is it evidence based or are there other (corporate) influences? Edited October 3, 2011 by Snickerdoodle dude, ya'll are fast! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrs.m Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 it just has to be carefully employed, I guess.) :lol: that's why I think the gov't getting involved isn't a good idea. They aren't known for careful employment. They already are too tied in with the HFCS and it's messed up everything. They thought that was a great idea at one time too... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slartibartfast Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 A national food policy (the food pyramid and food plate) have a profound influence on diet in America. Many children and adults eat meals that have to be prepared by meeting those guidelines. Talk about influencing the palates of people. My question is, how are those guidelines prepared? Who are the people responsible for preparing the guidelines? Is it evidence based or are there other (corporate) influences? You are right, the influences of corporations have huge impacts on what people eat. Just look at commodities and the school lunch program, it is appalling. We don't need to tax unhealthy food but we should not be paying for it with our tax dollars! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slartibartfast Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 (edited) that's why I think the gov't getting involved isn't a good idea. They aren't known for careful employment. They already are too tied in with the HFCS and it's messed up everything. They thought that was a great idea at one time too... Yeah but look at Iowa and its impact on elections Edited October 3, 2011 by Sis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joker Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 I agree. Get rid of subsidies. Slightly off topic, have y'all seen this http://www.100daysofrealfood.com/category/100-days-of-real-food-on-a-budget/ This mom fed her family of 4 whole foods and mainly organics for 150 a week. She has some interesting ideas. I am trying this, though it's a lot harder with three older boys rather than two adorable young girls like this woman has. Regardless, it's an interesting challenge. She also has some free meal plans and good recipes. I love this website. I've made many things on there and they've all been hits ~ and haven't emptied my bank account. :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barb_ Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 An apple costs more than a candy bar. Wait...what? Where? A candy bar costs roughly a buck, even at Walmart. Apples are widely available in the US for 79-99 cents a pound. So that's 30-50 cents per apple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mom31257 Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 I've thought all along that they could tax junk food to help pay for the healthcare reform. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SquirrellyMama Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 How would they decide what to tax? How much sugar/fat is too much? On a funny note. My contact is kind of goopy today and I read the title as "Denmark Fart Tax". I need that tax in my house :D I would be wealthy by the end of the day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Margaret in GA Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 Wait...what? Where? A candy bar costs roughly a buck, even at Walmart. Apples are widely available in the US for 79-99 cents a pound. So that's 30-50 cents per apple. An organic, granny smith apple at my local Kroger was around $1 (just under) last week. I was shocked. I bought a few, but it hurt. And it's really ridiculous that I have to pay that much for something we need. It makes sense to pay more for luxury items that we don't need, but would like to have from time to time. In my opinion, ending the corn subsidies would be a good start. Margaret Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mirth Posted October 5, 2011 Author Share Posted October 5, 2011 Just popped back in to note something interesting in a recent related news item on junk food taxation: A soda pop tax is being considered by 20 US cities and states. http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/national/national/general/call-to-tax-soft-drinks-to-reduce-obesity/2311995.aspx Kelly Brownell is apparently pretty influential as a U.S. obesity expert. Let the self-implosion clean-up crew be on guard! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slartibartfast Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 (edited) Wait...what? Where? A candy bar costs roughly a buck, even at Walmart. Apples are widely available in the US for 79-99 cents a pound. So that's 30-50 cents per apple. They are usually 1.99 a pound here and many varieties are 2.99 a pound.I do have a flyer with apples for .68 a pound but...it's apple season here. Candy bars are often 3/$1 or 2/$1 Edited October 5, 2011 by Sis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snickerdoodle Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 I found apples yesterday at 99c a pound which was shocking. It must be apple season. I don't think I've ever seen them cheaper than 1.99 a pound. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slartibartfast Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 Yeah organics are way out of my price range. It depends on sales, sometimes they are as cheap as conventional. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Osmosis Mom Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 Well, when we emigrated to the US, the first thing out of dh's mouth was "Please don't end up like that", looking at an obese woman. Seriously, obesity here is unseen other places around the world. We have always had taxes on things in Denmark and if this kind of tax would make vegetables and fruit seem cheaper, then why not. The government also offers free dental care and medical care (out of your taxes), so it makes sense to want to look long-term... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stacy in NJ Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 (edited) behavior without addressing the causes of the situation (obesity). Our existing policies and ag subsidies were put in place when high fat/high calorie foods were desirable. I few generations ago, many people lived on the edge of malnutrition and worked jobs that required heavy physical labor. The ag subsidies, and the public school lunch programs, were put in place to give the poor and working class access to cheap, high calorie foods - for nutritional purposes. Unfortunately, like all government programs, we get rent seekers who aggressively shape and manipulate these programs to benefit themselves at the cost (both literally and figuratively) of the American public. Just another example of how government policies, initiated with the very best intentions, can have profoundly negative long term effects. Edited October 5, 2011 by Stacy in NJ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.