By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Tax Junk Food/Regulate Contents?

Tagged games:

 

Tax Food with high concentrations of Salt/Fat/Sugar/HFCS?

Yes, tax anything high fat 7 12.28%
 
Yes, tax anything high salt 0 0%
 
Yes, tax anything high sugar 1 1.75%
 
Yes, tax anything with HFCS 0 0%
 
Yes, tax a combination of... 5 8.77%
 
Yes tax all of the above 10 17.54%
 
Maybe, not sure 0 0%
 
No, just lift the Corn Subsidy 12 21.05%
 
No, we can read a nutrition label fine 16 28.07%
 
See Results 4 7.02%
 
Total:55
snyps on 04 April 2013
johnsobas said:

i still couldn't do that.  We basically get mostly veggies, then some potatoes, 1 kind of fruit, frozen chicken, milk, eggs, one kind of beans.  I'm already well over $30 at that point.  Then there are all kinds of other expenses though, like honey, rice, cooking oil, spices, yeast, flour.  Nothing is packaged, everything is cooked fresh from the sauces to the bread.  I would say my diet is very basic, i avoid all of the expensive veggies and fruit.  I only eat the frozen chicken which is barely over $2 a pound. 


well you are definitely doing it right!  I think the only difference between us is where you buy groceries.  I buy chickens for 96 cents a pound at winco (an employee owned store).  Everything there is cheaper.  Its only on the west coast and there's only one in my state and I am lucky to be next to it.  Where do you shop?  



Around the Network
Weedlab on 04 April 2013

To the OP, well in the interest of time I'll just address the core issue and respond to your lesser points later. Personally, I see this problem like the drug issue in some sense. There is strong demand from the consumers for these products, so suppliers will respond to this since there is a market. A lot of these companies are just reacting to people, and some people buy them because they're cheap, convenient, etc. So it is a vicious cycle. Plus, these companies benefit from scale economies, so they'll have a cost advantage, which will encourage people to keep buying. Some of the 'healthy food' (well by American standards) sold by some companies are still niche, and as a result they won't benefit from scale economies (the cost advantage). In effect, this whole issue is very complex, and I think a multi-pronged strategy is needed to effect any change. That's why I think the government's role is important, but how they respond is important too. Companies won't alter their forumla, especially since they're making money from it.


All in all, I don't find consuming healthy foods to be too taxing, nor is it expensive for me. I consume carrots, broccoli, kale, other vegetables, eggs, oats, chicken, almonds, fish and fruits that don't spike blood sugar levels too much. On occasion I use brown or wild rice. That's it really, and I don't spend much at all. No breads, no flour, nothing wheat related and no processed meats like bacon.The only oils I use are coconut for cooking and olive oil for everything else. I don't use sugar, but if I feel for a sweetener I'll use some buckwheat honey. I spend very little on a weekly basis and it is not time consuming for me, at all.

People need to know more about junk food and what it does to them. It's not just the fat issue. You have to consider things like the extremely high levels of omega 6 fatty acids found in them, which promotes inflammation and causes all sorts of problems in people. That's why I'd never encourage people to eat McDonalds, but at the end of the day it is their choice.



 

Playstation = The Beast from the East

Sony + Nintendo = WIN! PS3 + PSV + PS4 + Wii U + 3DS


Michael-5 on 04 April 2013
johnsobas said:

i still couldn't do that.  We basically get mostly veggies, then some potatoes, 1 kind of fruit, frozen chicken, milk, eggs, one kind of beans.  I'm already well over $30 at that point.  Then there are all kinds of other expenses though, like honey, rice, cooking oil, spices, yeast, flour.  Nothing is packaged, everything is cooked fresh from the sauces to the bread.  I would say my diet is very basic, i avoid all of the expensive veggies and fruit.  I only eat the frozen chicken which is barely over $2 a pound. 

It depends on where you shop (see post below), and what you get. What you buy is definatly healthy, but little things like Yogurt and cheese can bring up the price fast. Anyway you're still eating well it seems, my advice is google the premium store you shop at and find the name of the discount brand.

If it's not the store, Dairy products are bringing your cost up. Cheese, Milk, Ice Cream, Yogurt, etc, they are all expensive. If you're spending $50-$60 a week because you eat a lot of Yogurt, I'd just enjoy the Yogurt lol. It's a nice luxury.

snyps said:
johnsobas said:


well you are definitely doing it right!  I think the only difference between us is where you buy groceries.  I buy chickens for 96 cents a pound at winco (an employee owned store).  Everything there is cheaper.  Its only on the west coast and there's only one in my state and I am lucky to be next to it.  Where do you shop?  

I was about to say the exact same thing. Stores in Canada are different then the USA, the premium grocery stores here are metro, Loblaws, and Sobeys, and the discount stores here are Food Basics, No Frills, and Freshco. Respectively, each of the 3 discount stores is owned by the premium chain and sell 80-90% the same stuff, but at 50-75% the price.

This makes a big difference, if you're spendings say $50 at metro, an identical shopping list would cost you $25-$38 at Food Basics.

Also, while I spend $20 a week on average for myself, this fluctuates. Some weeks I spend $50 because things like milk and cheese I buy probably every 2-3 weeks. Other weeks I only spend $10 because I just need some fresh veggies.



What is with all the hate? Don't read GamrReview Articles. Contact me to ADD games to the Database
Vote for the March Most Wanted / February Results

Michael-5 on 04 April 2013
Weedlab said:

To the OP, well in the interest of time I'll just address the core issue and respond to your lesser points later. Personally, I see this problem like the drug issue in some sense. There is strong demand from the consumers for these products, so suppliers will respond to this since there is a market. A lot of these companies are just reacting to people, and some people buy them because they're cheap, convenient, etc. So it is a vicious cycle. Plus, these companies benefit from scale economies, so they'll have a cost advantage, which will encourage people to keep buying. Some of the 'healthy food' (well by American standards) sold by some companies are still niche, and as a result they won't benefit from scale economies (the cost advantage). In effect, this whole issue is very complex, and I think a multi-pronged strategy is needed to effect any change. That's why I think the government's role is important, but how they respond is important too. Companies won't alter their forumla, especially since they're making money from it.


All in all, I don't find consuming healthy foods to be too taxing, nor is it expensive for me. I consume carrots, broccoli, kale, other vegetables, eggs, oats, chicken, almonds, fish and fruits that don't spike blood sugar levels too much. On occasion I use brown or wild rice. That's it really, and I don't spend much at all. No breads, no flour, nothing wheat related and no processed meats like bacon.The only oils I use are coconut for cooking and olive oil for everything else. I don't use sugar, but if I feel for a sweetener I'll use some buckwheat honey. I spend very little on a weekly basis and it is not time consuming for me, at all.

People need to know more about junk food and what it does to them. It's not just the fat issue. You have to consider things like the extremely high levels of omega 6 fatty acids found in them, which promotes inflammation and causes all sorts of problems in people. That's why I'd never encourage people to eat McDonalds, but at the end of the day it is their choice.

People like stability, and the problem with fruits and berries as snakc food is price and availability fluctuate based on the season. As for Veggies, most people don't eat raw veggies, and don't care to cook them, which is odd because when you go out for fast food, people buy fries.

Company's benefit from scale economics, but their profit margins would still be high if they say reduced the amount of salt in chips. I'm not sure what happened with trans fats, I think they just got a bad rep, but in the early 2000's and late 90's chips suddenly became trans fat free, but prices didn't change. If they are willing to eliminate trans fats suddenly, I think we can push them to reduce salt and fat levels in chips, salt levels in pop, etc.

At the end of the day it's still their choice, I agree, and I agree with you about your insentives logic. We need to discourage people from eating fatty foods, and encourage people to eat healthier stuff. The Nutrition Label is a good start, but did you know McDonalds puts a second nutrition label on their Big Mac Boxes? The values for fat and salt content are the same, but they put this random dotted line which stands for some random suggested max intake, and all their values magically are below it. Stuff like this should be banned, and nutrition labels should state how much more salt/fat/sugar is in fast food then the recommended intake suggests.



What is with all the hate? Don't read GamrReview Articles. Contact me to ADD games to the Database
Vote for the March Most Wanted / February Results

Weedlab on 04 April 2013
Michael-5 said:
Weedlab said:

To the OP, well in the interest of time I'll just address the core issue and respond to your lesser points later. Personally, I see this problem like the drug issue in some sense. There is strong demand from the consumers for these products, so suppliers will respond to this since there is a market. A lot of these companies are just reacting to people, and some people buy them because they're cheap, convenient, etc. So it is a vicious cycle. Plus, these companies benefit from scale economies, so they'll have a cost advantage, which will encourage people to keep buying. Some of the 'healthy food' (well by American standards) sold by some companies are still niche, and as a result they won't benefit from scale economies (the cost advantage). In effect, this whole issue is very complex, and I think a multi-pronged strategy is needed to effect any change. That's why I think the government's role is important, but how they respond is important too. Companies won't alter their forumla, especially since they're making money from it.


All in all, I don't find consuming healthy foods to be too taxing, nor is it expensive for me. I consume carrots, broccoli, kale, other vegetables, eggs, oats, chicken, almonds, fish and fruits that don't spike blood sugar levels too much. On occasion I use brown or wild rice. That's it really, and I don't spend much at all. No breads, no flour, nothing wheat related and no processed meats like bacon.The only oils I use are coconut for cooking and olive oil for everything else. I don't use sugar, but if I feel for a sweetener I'll use some buckwheat honey. I spend very little on a weekly basis and it is not time consuming for me, at all.

People need to know more about junk food and what it does to them. It's not just the fat issue. You have to consider things like the extremely high levels of omega 6 fatty acids found in them, which promotes inflammation and causes all sorts of problems in people. That's why I'd never encourage people to eat McDonalds, but at the end of the day it is their choice.

People like stability, and the problem with fruits and berries as snakc food is price and availability fluctuate based on the season. As for Veggies, most people don't eat raw veggies, and don't care to cook them, which is odd because when you go out for fast food, people buy fries.

Company's benefit from scale economics, but their profit margins would still be high if they say reduced the amount of salt in chips. I'm not sure what happened with trans fats, I think they just got a bad rep, but in the early 2000's and late 90's chips suddenly became trans fat free, but prices didn't change. If they are willing to eliminate trans fats suddenly, I think we can push them to reduce salt and fat levels in chips, salt levels in pop, etc.

At the end of the day it's still their choice, I agree, and I agree with you about your insentives logic. We need to discourage people from eating fatty foods, and encourage people to eat healthier stuff. The Nutrition Label is a good start, but did you know McDonalds puts a second nutrition label on their Big Mac Boxes? The values for fat and salt content are the same, but they put this random dotted line which stands for some random suggested max intake, and all their values magically are below it. Stuff like this should be banned, and nutrition labels should state how much more salt/fat/sugar is in fast food then the recommended intake suggests.


Yes I’m in agreement with you about subtracting salt. That’s a good start. But it would be interesting to see the sales of products that have salted and non salted forms. I’m inclined to think the latter sells more, but we would have to verify. If so, then companies would just be responding to people’s 'wants' since they're choosing the salted versions over the non salted ones. I look at rice cakes in my local organic shop for instance, and people tend to go for the salted ones over every other version.

I’m not one to generalize, but I noticed a lot of Americans I encountered are more interested in the taste of their foods than anything else, and unfortunately some of the worst foods taste great. I’ve lived in Latin American, North America and Europe, and I notice people from the first two regions have deep reservations about their foods - sweet and salty food especially. Unless companies can duplicate the taste and make it healthier somehow, I don’t know how much good it would do, unless regulation is involved. Such policies are tricky in America since freedom of choice seems to be big with the people, and they’ll interpret it negatively instead of looking at the good behind the measures. Just look at some of the right wing leaning responses in this thread. xD

As for McDonalds … good point. I was thinking something along those lines recently.



 

Playstation = The Beast from the East

Sony + Nintendo = WIN! PS3 + PSV + PS4 + Wii U + 3DS


Around the Network
Kasz216 on 04 April 2013
Weedlab said:
Oh and ... personally, I think instead of implementing a ban focus should be placed on the type of foods available. Calories are cheap, but nutrition is expensive. People often complain about eating right because it is too expensive, especially when you can buy enough food to feed a family for under 10 USD in McDonalds. The gov should focus on making the 'right' food cheaper - be it through subsidies or other means.


It really isn't cheap though... calories effects on hunger are GREATLY overestimated.

A Candybar has far more calories then an entire jar of pickles.   The Jar of Pickles is going to fill you up faster.



Kasz216 on 04 April 2013
Michael-5 said:
snyps said:
Mr Khan said:
One way to get around this (which would only help at the bottom income level, but it could be a start) would be to limit what food stamps can buy. If the only "prepared foods" food stamps can buy are breakfast cereals, yogurts, and bread, and the rest is raw meats, fishes, and fruits and vegetables, that, i think, could accomplish something.

Food stamps let people buy crap? Good point, but comments like the make me realize that some USA policies are stupid. Food Stamps should only be for essential food items, stuff like bread and rice, eggs and vegetable. Rice is so cheap to make and easy to cook with, toss in a few veggies, and if you have to buy a sauce and there, done, healthy meal 101.


Crap?  Foodstamps let you buy SODA.

 

Pretty much anything to be designed to be eaten that isn't medicine or beer.  You can't buy some energy drinks either... but all you have to do to get around that is change "Supplment Facts" to say "Nutrition Facts" like Red Bull and it's covered.



Kasz216 on 04 April 2013
Weedlab said:

Well, there are many negative consequences related to people's bad eating habits, and unfortunately they can be externalized. Contrary to what some of them may think, their actions do affect others when you look at things at the macro level. I believe that is part of the reason for this ban in the first place. However, I do not support coercing people to do the 'right thing'. From my experience it just doesn't work. People need to discover legitimate reasons on their accord.

I used to consume copious amounts of the stuff when I was in undergrad, and then I was hit with acid reflux. That was the start of other health issues. I traced everything back to my diet and through trial and error I learned what was best for me. Now I do not consume any form of junk food - nothing processed, no fizzy drinks, and I check the label on everything I eat. If I can't pronounce it then I don't bother with it. That's just one example. Most people I know respond to incentives like what I mentioned, but coercion usually brings about the opposite effect.

Me being lazy and wanting to do something I like, rather then something I'm good at effects people on a macro level too.  It hurts the economy because somebody worse then me got the job i could be doing better.

Me playing videogames hurt people on a macro level, because i could be working to make society better or doing charity work.

There are plany of indirect effects to everything.

Said indirect effects however are meaningless. 



dsgrue3 on 04 April 2013

HFCS isn't bad for you, your body does recognize it, and it is 95% the same as table sugar. Do not trust the news, it's a propaganda machine. The Princeton study often cited involves rats with a human equivalence of consuming 3000 calories from HFCS alone per day; completely absurd amount. No one consumes anywhere near this amount of calories FROM HFCS in a day.

I don't understand why anyone is PRO-Tax anything. Just boggles the mind. Yeah, let's raise food prices for everyone because some people can't stop shoving pie into their mouths!

The food organization does some oddball things, and these need to be addressed in the manner JayWoods has with his threads about deceptive advertising and such.

It's like I've said before: personal responsibility. IF you want to avoid the salt, fat, you can.



JoeTheBro on 04 April 2013
kain_kusanagi said:
NO NO NO NO NO NO NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

We need less government interference not more. What kind of a country do you want to live in? I prefer the kind with real freedom and liberty. Taxation is just another form of control. If I had my way the only thing taxed would be income and it would be a flat 10% for everyone no matter what. No loopholes and no way out of it. If you make a dollar you pay 10cents. that's it. But if I had my way the government would be a lot smaller and spend less so we probably wouldn't even need a 10% tax.

Drop all subsidies, get rid of nanny laws and taxes, and go back to the basics of government.


Sadly freedom only works for people wanting it. If the whole country was just people like you and me then super small government would be fantastic! However, not everyone wants full out freedom. To the people that just work 9 to 5 and live every day the same a regulation on food would be beneficial.



Links