Smokers and drinkers have long had to bear the brute of their questionable habits in the form of hefty government taxes. And with the new health care plan, those who frequent tanning salons can expect to be financially penalized for their decision to fry themselves. But what about those who nosh on aspartame, trans-fats, and MSG? Should their destructive behaviors go unnoticed by a policy that attacks the vices of their neighbors? Though it’s been hailed as undemocratic, I propose that a federal junk food tax would strengthen the existing health care system by generating revenue while simultaneously encouraging Americans make healthier food choices.
With a price tag of $147 billion per year, obesity related illnesses make up over 9% of all medical spending in the United States. It is the second cause of preventable death, killing up to 365,000 people a year. But while the leading cause of death, tobacco, is levied with a hefty tax to compensate for its financial burden on the health care system, the causes of obesity remain uncompensated. There is no public policy to address one of the main causes of obesity—the overconsumption of high-calorie, low nutrient foods. Junk foods are laden with sugar, fat, and high fructose corn syrup—all of which have been linked to obesity. Soda is particularly dangerous, and has been directly linked to obesity.
In response to this, several states have proposed imposing a soda tax to reduce consumption as well as to pay for public health programs. The most visible is New York’s. New York Mayor Bloomberg estimates that the tax cold raise $1.2 dollars to help contribute to the $7.6 the state spends annually to treat obesity- related diseases. Such a tax is expected to reduce healthcare costs by about $50 billion over 10 years and raise $150 billion in revenue over the same period. Last year, however, this proposed soda tax was rejected by legislators. In this year’s plan, the same tax is now being met with protests from bottlers and vendors. Citizen groups, such as Americans Against Food Taxes, have also spoken out against the tax increase. Opponents claim that the tax would be inefficient in improving public health and would harm business. “New Yorkers know that taxes don’t make people healthy, they cost jobs and hurt working families. This is a job-killing tax that will devastate grocers and other retailers,” said Nelson Eusebio, the chairman of New Yorkers Against Unfair Taxes, in a statement supported by a number of state senators.
However, a recently published study by the University of North Carolina suggests otherwise. The study followed 5,115 patients from 1985 – 2006 and found that a 10% increase in the price of soda was associated with a 7.12% decrease in calories consumed from it. The same increase in the price of pizza lead to an 11.5% drop. The team estimates that an 18% tax on these foods could cut daily intake by 56 calories per person, resulting in a weight loss of 5 pounds (2 kg) per person per year, along with reductions in the risks of most obesity-related chronic diseases. With a junk food tax, junk food will no longer have the financial advantage over health foods. Consumers will no longer be swayed solely by the low prices of junk food. A junk food tax would level the playing field.
Other countries have also recognized the value in this. Norway currently has an excess tax on sugar and chocolate, and Romania recently became the first country in the world to propose a comprehensive junk food tax. The tax applies to products that are high in fat, salt, or sugar. There has been some public outcry that the tax would disproportionately affect the poor, but the government remains firm that the overall effect of the tax will be a positive one. It is expected to lower obesity rates while generating $1.3 billion in revenue.
Other European countries are carefully watching Romania, as it could be a model for future policy. The U.S. should be observing Romania as well. Romania has a much larger lower class than America, so if this tax is successful in reducing obesity rates while not adversely affecting the lower class, it could be a model for America to follow as well.
A junk food tax would be a triple win. It would increase the likelihood that consumers would make healthier food choices. When consumers make healthier food choices, they are less likely to suffer from obesity related diseases—the same diseases that make up 9% of medical spending. And to put the icing on the cake, in this process the government would be bringing in billions of dollars which could be used to fund public health programs. It’s a win- win – win.
In order to determine if we should be observing Romania, we need more information than you provided. “a much larger lower class…” is very subjective. Based on what?/US equivalent income?/amount of farmers? I have no doubt you are correct, I just need more definition
I agree in a junk tax by the way
Sure, if we want to increase the health of all citizens you can penalize them in order to get them to stop doing whatever is making them unhealthy. If we want to increase the amount that goes to public programs, we can increase taxes. But are these proper functions of the government?Are you saying that the governments proper function is to cause physically healthier citizens, lower medical costs, and get as much money as possible for health programs? If so, why not ban all harmful foods and increase income taxes?
One reason socializing healthcare is wrong is because it punishes you for the self-destructive choices of others. If someone wants to be able to eat McDonalds every day, they should be able to, but you should not be forced to pay for their harmful consequences. That is their responsibility.
In our current healthcare system, it makes total sense to make smoking, eating unhealthy foods, and doing all things that make health worse illegal because it would result in less of a burden onto everyone else. But sacrificing peoples freedoms in order to decrease the financial burden onto others is not the right answer.
Everyone should be responsible for their own actions and health (even if it may be unfair) Charity will always exist to help those in need, and will increase when people actually have more money (and taxes are decreased).
Taylor,
This post is not advocating socialized healthcare. Rather, I’ve accepted the fact that we now have a socialized healthcare system and we will be “forced” to pay for the unhealthy actions of others. In response to this, as a way to try and negate some of the oppressive effects of this plan, i propose a junk food tax. A junk food tax would discourage people from making unhealthy food choices. These unhealthy choices, in our socialized healthcare system, will result in you having to pay for someone’s triple bypass sugery. So condsidering that socialized healthcare is our reality, the best way to go about maintaining our freedoms is to create a society where there is less of a need for healthcare. This can be accompished by ensuring that people make healthier lifestyle choices. A junk food tax can help with this.
I have many issues with this post.
I have no doubt that obesity and obesity-related illness and deaths are issues that need to be addressed. But I don’t think that this tax would be a fair way to counter it.
You mention the tax on tobacco as a comparable example. However, every pack of cigarettes that someone buys will most likely be purchased by someone who uses them habitually and the result is likely going to be destructive to their respiratory system and overall health.
However, if I buy a Coke (I generally drink 1-2 per day) or a slice of pizza occasionally, why should I be paying taxes on something that is not making me obese because I take other measures to ensure that my body is healthy? Sure, high fructose corn syrup isn’t great for you and neither are foods that are high in fat, but there are far more consumers of these foods and drinks out there who are not obese than there are chronic smokers without health problems.
There are other ways to make healthy lifestyle choices. Frequent and consistent exercise is arguably more important in maintaining a healthy body weight than what you eat. The effects of cigarettes are undeniable. The effects of junk food are much more varied. I am not arguing that there are not negative effects, just that they are much more easily countered.
Next, what should and should not be considered junk food? Should Dominoes pizza and an organic flatbread be grouped together? Should Coca Cola and a natural sugar soda be? The line will be very difficult to draw.
Next, you cite the study from UNC which states that an 18% tax could reduce calorie intake by 56 per day and 5 pounds per year. If the daily recommended calorie intake is 2,000, a 56 calorie reduction would be 2.8%. I find it unlikely that this would make a significant difference, just as I believe a 5 pound loss per year is essentially negligible.
And if the government feels that soda consumption is such an issue, maybe they should consider ending the protectionism of the corn farmers by lowering or eliminating tariffs on sugar from Brazil and other Latin American countries. While sugar soda is not quite a healthy option, it is more so than high fructose corn syrup soda.
I also agree with the previous comment that comparing the US and Romania needs to be considered further. The truth of the matter is that the US has a larger fast-food industry which is both cheap and convenient for people with lower incomes. While working as a legal secretary and documenting client’s bank statements, the charges for those of the lower classes were coming from Carl’s Jr., not Whole Foods. I do think that a junk-food tax would unfairly affect those who have a lower income.
Finally, I believe that a revamped program of education in public schools on eating well, and most importantly, on exercise, should be the main approach to combating obesity in America. I don’t believe a junk-food tax would be effective, nor would it be prudent.