Denmark Fat Tax

[mirth]

I also think this tax is a stupid idea and I would oppose it heartily. First of all, sugar production is highly subsidized in the U.S. The fed gov't is on record for paying more than $1 million/MONTH just to store surplus sugar. Yes world market prices for sugar are way lower and farmers are paid to make something that could be purchased much cheaper elsewhere. All of this already results in money lost for US households (tax dollars to pay farm subsidy and storage, and of course the administrators) and clearly, it has done zilch to diminish obesity. So let's add another tax. And then let's offer food assistance because people are broke as a result of all these taxes.

 

Give with one hand, take with another, keep every taxpayer in need and secure the votes of everyone who needs you.

[Crimson Wife]

I've thought all along that they could tax junk food to help pay for the healthcare reform.

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree:

 

The very groups that are disproportionate users of taxpayer-subsidized healthcare are the same ones that are disproportionate consumers of junk food. Make them pay $2 instead of $1 for the "value" items at McDonald's and use the proceeds to help offset the costs of the heart attacks, cancer, and diabetes treatment needed down the road...

[jplain]

This is moronic and based on behind-the-curve science. You're better off with saturated fats.

:iagree:

 

Aren't they going to feel stupid when they realize that they're taxing something that is probably at worst benign wrt to cancer and cardiovascular disease? (link)

Edited October 5, 2011 by jplain

[KristinaBreece]

:iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree:

 

The very groups that are disproportionate users of taxpayer-subsidized healthcare are the same ones that are disproportionate consumers of junk food. Make them pay $2 instead of $1 for the "value" items at McDonald's and use the proceeds to help offset the costs of the heart attacks, cancer, and diabetes treatment needed down the road...

 

If *junk* wasn't subsidized by the government, it wouldn't be cheaper to feed your family a "$5 for 4 cheeseburger meals" McDonald's dinner than to buy and prepare a healthy alternative. I think cutting off subsidies is a more logical first step than taxing the consumer at this point. JMO.

[Renee in NC]

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.

 

Well, when I take her budget and adjust it for family size, we could spend $250 a week. On just food. That would be glorious (and doable!) Our budget now is $800 a month and that includes all household goods, pet food, toiletries, etc.

[Renee in NC]

It depends on sales, sometimes they are as cheap as conventional.

 

This is true at Trader Joe's on some things. I've never seen organics on sale anywhere else, though.

 

Eating locally grown organics? INSANELY expensive. We went to the Farmer's Market here a few months ago and bought nothing because it was so far outside our price range.

 

I need space again to grow my own.

[Haiku]

I don't have a problem with it. I don't get all het up about stuff like this being an infringement on my freedom or whatever. I'd still be able to buy crap food if I wanted. I'd just have to pay more for it. So what. That's life. I don't have a problem with non-nutritive crap fillers being taxed more highly than actual food.

 

Of course, it would never happen here. The Libertarians would scream and the advocates for the poor would scream and anyone who felt like they needed something to scream about would scream. Generally we in this country would rather scream about something than do anything to deal with the problem. :D

 

If it's not economically productive to produce crap food, it won't be produced. But we continue to scream for it based on a misguided idea of "rights." And then we scream about the insane costs of healthcare. And fat kids. And heart disease. And cancer. But because we have a "right" to crap food, we do nothing to solve the problem.

 

I guess we get what we deserve. :D

 

Cigarettes are horrible for you and are highly taxed. Some people scream about it, and they are generally ignored because people know that cigarettes are horrible for you. Should be the same for crap "food."

 

Tara

[elfgivas]

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.

 

this is a fabulous site! thank you so much for sharing...... i am especially excited about the recipe section. real recipes that a real person tried and that her kids really liked! what's not to love?

 

:001_smile::cheers2::001_wub:

 

thanks again,

ann

[JeneralMom]

My only concern would be for people like my children who drink full-fat milk, need butter in their food, eat full-fat milk products, live on eggs, just to keep a little weight on them.

 

I have no problem with taxing "bad" forms of sugar (refined, HFCS, etc) but we use organic or raw honey and maple syrup and I wouldn't want those taxed. Bad fat like transfat, sure, go ahead, but leave my healthy fats alone. But then I understand that what I consider healthy (avocados, coconut products, full-fat dairy, eggs, etc.) so people consider bad. I personally consider low-fat and fat free horrible.

[Stacy in NJ]

If *junk* wasn't subsidized by the government, it wouldn't be cheaper to feed your family a "$5 for 4 cheeseburger meals" McDonald's dinner than to buy and prepare a healthy alternative. I think cutting off subsidies is a more logical first step than taxing the consumer at this point. JMO.

 

article from about just this topic:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/25/opinion/sunday/is-junk-food-really-cheaper.html?ref=markbittman

 

 

THE “fact†that junk food is cheaper than real food has become a reflexive part of how we explain why so many Americans are overweight, particularly those with lower incomes. I frequently read confident statements like, “when a bag of chips is cheaper than a head of broccoli ...†or “it’s more affordable to feed a family of four at McDonald’s than to cook a healthy meal for them at home.â€

 

This is just plain wrong. In fact it isn’t cheaper to eat highly processed food: a typical order for a family of four — for example, two Big Macs, a cheeseburger, six chicken McNuggets, two medium and two small fries, and two medium and two small sodas — costs, at the McDonald’s a hundred steps from where I write, about $28. (Judicious ordering of “Happy Meals†can reduce that to about $23 — and you get a few apple slices in addition to the fries!)

 

In general, despite extensive government subsidies, hyperprocessed food remains more expensive than food cooked at home. You can serve a roasted chicken with vegetables along with a simple salad and milk for about $14, and feed four or even six people. If that’s too much money, substitute a meal of rice and canned beans with bacon, green peppers and onions; it’s easily enough for four people and costs about $9. (Omitting the bacon, using dried beans, which are also lower in sodium, or substituting carrots for the peppers reduces the price further, of course.)

[Jennifer3141]

I don't have a problem with it. I don't get all het up about stuff like this being an infringement on my freedom or whatever. I'd still be able to buy crap food if I wanted. I'd just have to pay more for it. So what. That's life. I don't have a problem with non-nutritive crap fillers being taxed more highly than actual food.

 

Of course, it would never happen here. The Libertarians would scream and the advocates for the poor would scream and anyone who felt like they needed something to scream about would scream. Generally we in this country would rather scream about something than do anything to deal with the problem. :D

 

If it's not economically productive to produce crap food, it won't be produced. But we continue to scream for it based on a misguided idea of "rights." And then we scream about the insane costs of healthcare. And fat kids. And heart disease. And cancer. But because we have a "right" to crap food, we do nothing to solve the problem.

 

I guess we get what we deserve. :D

 

Cigarettes are horrible for you and are highly taxed. Some people scream about it, and they are generally ignored because people know that cigarettes are horrible for you. Should be the same for crap "food."

 

Tara

 

 

Tara for president!!!!!!!! :D

[Haiku]

This is just plain wrong. In fact it isn’t cheaper to eat highly processed food:

 

In general, despite extensive government subsidies, hyperprocessed food remains more expensive than food cooked at home.

 

I don't find this to be true at all. We are vegan, and we eat only a minimal amount of processed food. We don't live on Boca burgers and veggie dogs. We eat fresh fruits and vegetables, whole grains, some tofu, lots of beans, etc.

 

If I shopped at Sav-a-Lot instead of Kroger and bought a bunch of canned foods and processed meals, I could save money. I know. I've compared.

 

Plus you have to factor in the calorie content. Yes, a head of broccoli might be cheaper than a bag of chips, but that bag of chips has more calories, meaning more people can eat from it -or- one person can feel fuller from it.

 

Even if we ate meat and dairy, it would still be more expensive to eat quality foods than crap ones. Crap foods filled with added fat, sugar, HFCS, etc, are more calorie dense. You need less of them to feel full, and many of them are, in fact, cheaper.

 

Tara

[Stacy in NJ]

eating fresh, unprocessed foods, not a vegan diet. Protein and meat offer tons of calories and quite the bang for the buck.

 

I don't find this to be true at all. We are vegan, and we eat only a minimal amount of processed food. We don't live on Boca burgers and veggie dogs. We eat fresh fruits and vegetables, whole grains, some tofu, lots of beans, etc.

 

If I shopped at Sav-a-Lot instead of Kroger and bought a bunch of canned foods and processed meals, I could save money. I know. I've compared.

 

Plus you have to factor in the calorie content. Yes, a head of broccoli might be cheaper than a bag of chips, but that bag of chips has more calories, meaning more people can eat from it -or- one person can feel fuller from it.

 

Even if we ate meat and dairy, it would still be more expensive to eat quality foods than crap ones. Crap foods filled with added fat, sugar, HFCS, etc, are more calorie dense. You need less of them to feel full, and many of them are, in fact, cheaper.

 

Tara

 

ETA: with regards to your last paragraph, he's basing his article on actual research not anecdotal experience.

Edited October 5, 2011 by Stacy in NJ

[Virg]

They could tax us all they want but Americans would do what they always do: complain about it as they pay more for it :lol: For instance gas prices going up has just caused (most) people to drive as much as they possibly can afford to while complaining about it. If they cut back it was only the smallest amount possible and still be able to afford their bills. We aren't known for moderation or accepting being told what to do.

[KristinaBreece]

article from about just this topic:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/25/opinion/sunday/is-junk-food-really-cheaper.html?ref=markbittman

 

 

THE “fact†that junk food is cheaper than real food has become a reflexive part of how we explain why so many Americans are overweight, particularly those with lower incomes. I frequently read confident statements like, “when a bag of chips is cheaper than a head of broccoli ...†or “it’s more affordable to feed a family of four at McDonald’s than to cook a healthy meal for them at home.â€

 

This is just plain wrong. In fact it isn’t cheaper to eat highly processed food: a typical order for a family of four — for example, two Big Macs, a cheeseburger, six chicken McNuggets, two medium and two small fries, and two medium and two small sodas — costs, at the McDonald’s a hundred steps from where I write, about $28. (Judicious ordering of “Happy Meals†can reduce that to about $23 — and you get a few apple slices in addition to the fries!)

 

In general, despite extensive government subsidies, hyperprocessed food remains more expensive than food cooked at home. You can serve a roasted chicken with vegetables along with a simple salad and milk for about $14, and feed four or even six people. If that’s too much money, substitute a meal of rice and canned beans with bacon, green peppers and onions; it’s easily enough for four people and costs about $9. (Omitting the bacon, using dried beans, which are also lower in sodium, or substituting carrots for the peppers reduces the price further, of course.)

 

So, you think that we should start taxing food choices, rather than cutting the extensive government subsidies that contribute to the excessive junk food? Doesn't it just make more sense to stop spending money on bad food than to keep subsidizing that food and then taxing it? And I wasn't talking about an "average" family of 4 who's spending $23 at McD's. I'm talking about (and there ARE people like this, even if they're not in that average you're thinking of) a family of 4 who might go to McDonald's and but they family meal of 4 cheeseburgers and 4 fries for $5. Those are the people I'm speaking of. Poor people that are really saying, "I can't buy and prepare a home cooked meal for my family for $5, but I CAN get them McDonald's for $5. Gotta go the cheaper route." I'm not saying it's the smartest way to eat, but I know people who eat like this because they really have to weigh every dime they spend and it is pocketbook cheaper for them to buy the junk.

[Stacy in NJ]

So, you think that we should start taxing food choices, rather than cutting the extensive government subsidies that contribute to the excessive junk food? Doesn't it just make more sense to stop spending money on bad food than to keep subsidizing that food and then taxing it? And I wasn't talking about an "average" family of 4 who's spending $23 at McD's. I'm talking about (and there ARE people like this, even if they're not in that average you're thinking of) a family of 4 who might go to McDonald's and but they family meal of 4 cheeseburgers and 4 fries for $5. Those are the people I'm speaking of. Poor people that are really saying, "I can't buy and prepare a home cooked meal for my family for $5, but I CAN get them McDonald's for $5. Gotta go the cheaper route." I'm not saying it's the smartest way to eat, but I know people who eat like this because they really have to weigh every dime they spend and it is pocketbook cheaper for them to buy the junk.

 

Did you click through to the article? It addresses your question about about cost. It really isn't cheaper to eat fast food - really.

[KristinaBreece]

Did you click through to the article? It addresses your question about about cost. It really isn't cheaper to eat fast food - really.

 

I did. And it didn't show me how to make dinner for 4 people with $5.

 

I'm not saying that I think it's smarter, or more cost effective in the long run, or that there are no other factors to be considered. I just understand how someone can look at one meal, and say, "It's less to feed my kids this hamburger and fries than it is to cook dinner tonight."

 

ETA: I'm not going to post here any more. My whole original point was that if we cut those unnecessary subsidies to unhealthy foods, fewer people will be reasoning their way into eating McDonald's because it won't be cheaper any more. I wasn't trying to argue with you, or anyone else. I just think before we start taxing people for one more thing, that we should look at a way to cut spending to achieve the same result-- less people eating fast food because it won't be as cheap. More revenue to put other places because a penny saved is a penny earned. (Until you get into governments who are spending money that isn't there like it's water.)

Edited October 5, 2011 by KristinaBreece

[cathmom]

This is true at Trader Joe's on some things. I've never seen organics on sale anywhere else, though.

 

Eating locally grown organics? INSANELY expensive. We went to the Farmer's Market here a few months ago and bought nothing because it was so far outside our price range.

 

I need space again to grow my own.

 

'cause you don't have enough to do! :tongue_smilie:

[Slartibartfast]

This is true at Trader Joe's on some things. I've never seen organics on sale anywhere else, though.

 

Eating locally grown organics? INSANELY expensive. We went to the Farmer's Market here a few months ago and bought nothing because it was so far outside our price range.

 

I need space again to grow my own.

 

Whole Foods has organics on a good sale sometimes, though they are generally so expensive I rarely go into the store. They have 5 lbs of oranges for $5 right now. I bought some, we blew through them so fast I am going to buy more. We have some local stores that carry some organics.

 

I check sale flyers and coupons for 5 different stores before I make my grocery list. Since some of the stores are near one another it is pretty common for me to go to three different stores. Usually it is costco, TJs or WF (I have a special diet due to allergies so I usually hit at least one of them every two weeks or so) and then a normal store.

Edited October 6, 2011 by Sis