Great idea and here's some more... Jan 4. 2010 | Comments (2)
The best way to do this is to tax the raw ingredients at the wholesale level and those costs would affect retail. So food coloring/taste additives/chemicals/hydrogenated oils - anything, or any process, added to raw and fresh foods to make them taste better/different/increase shelf life/etc. and at the same time decrease nutritional values (i.e. - sugar: raw perhaps but bad for you) are TAXED. The FDA would have to decide what ingredient or process constitutes taxation and economists would have to decide what % tax to charge in order to pay for fresh food subsidies and healthcare. Year to year those %'s would change based on the overall health of our nation, how much consumers change their purchasing habits, etc. My gut says taxes would have to be high initially and that the cost of food would decrease over time due to the overall health of our nation increasing, but an aging population might negate that. And then what to do with all of the insurance companies if everyone has the same copay and level of benefit - which is what I'd lobby for. We'd have to decide how much insurance companies would profit, since in theory they'd all profit the same. We'd have to decide to what extent taxes will pay for health services (i.e. what criteria should a patient exhibit for a heart transplant and should that criteria be stricter than it is today?) And then there is the issue of how NOT to penalize doctors. As long as doctors are paying for med school and spending years in school - they better get paid very well, in my opinion. Otherwise, no one will want to go into the field of medicine. Right now, our "fee for servicing the sick" system isn’t cutting it and all the talk about preventative healthcare is a smoke screen. The only way to make EVERYONE pay for healthcare, like any successful insurance model out there that relies on everyone participating, is to tax FOOD - because FOOD is THE ONLY product that EVERY PERSON NEEDS and because food choices have the biggest influence on our health. A lot of people say "stress" is the #1 influence - I don't agree: If fresh foods are available locally at cheaper-than-processed prices, consumer choices will change for the better, we'll gain more health and fitness and so much stress and social ills will be averted. I haven't even started in with the CO2 emissions decrease. In a nutshell: processed foods, packaging and transport create HUGE environmental problems - stupid. If 500 calories per person per day could come from the local farmer, we'd cut food related Co2 emissions by around 25%. The idea of taxing food, no matter how politically unpopular or twisted that sounds, has to prevail with the American people. Until it does, we will be further along in unintended "(un)natural consequences". I hope my great-grandchildren know what a natural food is someday and how good it tastes when just left alone. I'm pessimistic that they will. I'm not as powerful as the "food" companies that currently control American politics and culture.
Isn't this essentially a tax on the poor?
I’ve gotten this argument and I argue the contrary: If we subsidize the cost of healthy food with unhealthy food taxes, we are aiding the poor, by bringing more nutrition (not more calories) and subsequent prosperity to them (Fact: Obese earners earn far less than no-obese earners when all other criteria is the same).
Currently, Americans of the lowest income bracket have 5 times the obesity rate as the highest income earners because unhealthy food is cheaper and more available than healthy food. We are essentially “writing off” our poorest Americans. Shame on us. We have a nation of obese-malnourished people! Would we provide our own small child with a lollipop vs. a carrot stick because a lollipop is cheaper? – of course not. Then why is it okay to throw cheap, unhealthy food to our poorest Americans? Why is it that only rich people can afford organic lean meats and broccoli for dinner?