Smart SpendingSmart Spending

Junk-food tax: The readers speak out!

Many readers of Cheap Healthy Good said they are vehemently opposed to a tax on food that is bad for us.

By Karen Datko Mar 25, 2010 2:47PM

This guest post comes from Kris at Cheap Healthy Good.


Last week, we discussed the prospect of a junk-food tax, a hypothetical federal tariff that would be placed on ostensibly unhealthy edibles like soda, pizza and more. Ideally, it would curb obesity and prompt buyers toward making healthier grocery choices. Probably, it would make a lot of people angry.

I asked readers their opinions of the potential tax. Responses were voluminous, wonderfully thoughtful, and chock full of good points. Perhaps unsurprisingly, many were vehemently opposed to a junk levy. Of about 40 commenters, only eight were firmly in support, though many of them had reservations. Those favoring the tax did so mainly for two reasons:

  • It would help regulate national health care expenses.
    • “Rip” wrote: High sodium and sugar junk-food diets cost the U.S. far more than smoking or alcohol, in terms of health costs.
    • “Sister6”: Decreasing consumption would also decrease the incidence of health problems, and health care costs.
  • It’s not unlike taxing alcohol and cigarettes.
    • Lori: I see snacks and desserts as luxuries, and, as such, I'm fine with taxing luxury items.

Incidentally, I really liked one of commenter Mike’s solutions: “Good behaviors like gym attendance should be subsidized.” Some health insurance companies already do this (note: not mine), and it can only be a good thing.

Still, the vast majority of readers seemed uncomfortable with a junk-food tax. Many expressed a deep distrust in elected officials, particularly in their abilities to apply the taxes objectively and morally. Here’s a sampling of the responses from those who were not in favor:

  • There’s no way to regulate the regulators.
    • Amanda: The idea of who would be in charge of drawing the lines, what is "junk" and what is not, and the inevitable lobbies … scares me to death.
    • Alice: Can anyone tell me what happens to the tobacco and alcohol taxes in the U.S., and where they're proposing the revenues from the new "fat tax" will end up?
  • There are no clear guidelines on what would be taxed.
    • Anonymous: Where do you draw the line? Why soda and not candy bars?
    • Lisa: If the government-designed USDA Food Pyramid is used … then Wonder Bread and Rice Krispies will be health food, but we'd be taxing salmon and olive oil for the high fat content.
    • Elizabeth: Our understanding of what constitutes unhealthy food evolves so quickly that it's hard to know where to draw the line in a tax like this, or how often to update it.
  • It’s another symptom/indication of a growing nanny state.
    • JuLo: They can educate, they can advise, but they absolutely cannot tell me not to drink soda, and taxing specific foods over others sure feels that way.
    • "Anon": We need to start looking inward and taking responsibility for the things we do, eat, and say in this country.

Though readers disagreed on the concept overall, three alternatives to the junk-food tax were mentioned repeatedly, by people of every opinion, across the board. And those solutions were freakin' sweet.

  • Subsidize healthy foods.
    • "The Happy Domestic": Here in Ontario, Canada, all prepackaged, processed foods are taxable, and all whole-food staples are nontaxable. Now that's a tax scheme that makes sense to me.
    • "AmandaLP": [I’d] be for a tax on junk food if it were used to subsidize healthier whole-food options .... Making apples or lettuce a cheaper option than candy or chips is the way to do it.
  • Decrease or eliminate subsidies for corn, soy and unhealthy foods.
    • "KarenL": Cut the subsidies, then we'll talk about taxes.
    • "Shesasering": End corn/soy subsidies. The logic is better: We're fat because we eat at Mickey D's and drink soda, right? And we eat that because it's cheap. And it's cheap because corn/soy/wheat are produced at the government's expense. So it makes no sense to subsidize it on one end and tax it on the other.
  • Invest in long-term education.
    • Kristen: I'd rather see encouragement toward and education about good foods rather than taxation of bad foods.
    • Jennifer: Teach people how to garden and give them room to do it. Get some brilliant advertising people to develop ad campaigns that show home cooking from scratch as fun, easy and quick and full of those family values we're so fond of.

Finally, a few readers made a very important point: When we’re considering food and health on a national level, we can’t make the overweight into scapegoats. Not only is it discriminatory, but it’s a misdirection of anger that should be pointed elsewhere, like corporations that make bazillions off stuffing our 4-year-olds.

Sweet readers, I want to thank you very, very much for responding in such a spectacular way. It's been a pleasure and an education reading your thoughts. If you have anything more to add, the comment section is open.

Related reading at Cheap Healthy Good:



Copyright © 2014 Microsoft. All rights reserved.

Fundamental company data and historical chart data provided by Morningstar Inc. Real-time index quotes and delayed quotes supplied by Morningstar Inc. Quotes delayed by up to 15 minutes, except where indicated otherwise. Fund summary, fund performance and dividend data provided by Morningstar Inc. Analyst recommendations provided by Zacks Investment Research. StockScouter data provided by Verus Analytics. IPO data provided by Hoover's Inc. Index membership data provided by Morningstar Inc.


Smart Spending brings you the best money-saving tips from MSN Money and the rest of the Web. Join the conversation on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.