Junk food tax misses the point
Posted: Feb 3rd, 2012
Read More:
The argument for taxing “high-sugar” junk food like soda pop has been brewing for years and is currently reaching a fever pitch. In a highly publicized article published February 1 in Nature journal, scientists claim that “sugar is a poison and should be as tightly regulated as cigarettes and alcohol.”
The original article is available to subscribers only. However, a quick Google search 24 hours later turned up 446 news results. Clearly, this issue has some teeth.
It’s pretty hard to make a case for the social benefits of consuming junk food at our current obesity rates. Especially considering that there are now more obese people than malnourished ones across the world. (Care to guess where the majority of them live? Hint: it ain’t China.)
The best the beverage lobbyists can come up with are rebuttals like “The causes of these diseases are multi-factorial and demonising food components does not help consumers to build a realistic approach to their diet.” Huh?
I can already hear well meaning food and health policy wonks wetting themselves at the prospect of a health tax on slurpees. I have to admit, when I heard rumblings about the issue a few years ago I got pretty excited myself.
But not this time. This time ‘round, I’m sensing a rip-off. A cover-up. A bait and switch.
Here’s my beef: If we decide that it’s in our best interest to consume less junk food (of course it is) then the first thing to do is STOP PAYING HUGE CORPORATIONS TO MAKE IT. (Duh, right?)
Ever wonder why twinkies are cheaper than carrots? Simple -- it’s because the ingredients in junk food (i.e. twinkies) are heavily subsidized, while whole nutritious foods (i.e. carrots) are not. Three main crops - corn, soy and canola - are ubiquitous in junk food products like candy and pop. They take the form of high fructose corn syrup (aka sugar), soy isolate and vegetable oil. Since 1995, $17 billion in subsidies for big agribusiness have gone to common junk food ingredients including high-fructose corn syrup.
Meanwhile, carrot farmers have to contend with the “free market.”
But being highly subsidized out of the taxpayers’ pocket isn’t the only dubious distinction these industrial crops at the bottom of the junk food pyramid share. They also happen to be produced largely with genetically engineered seed, with the profits funneling into the coffers of giant corporations like, you guessed it, Cargill and Monsanto.
And yet the authors of this sensational report apparently offer no recommendations to end these insane subsidies. What gives? This seems like too much of a no-brainer to ignore. Especially given that the lead scientist on the report Robert Lustig is known to be “particularly critical of the widespread use of high fructose corn syrup in the United States.”
Isn’t it kind of a scam to start taxing junk food while continuing to pay mega corporations to produce it? Wouldn’t it make more sense to cut off the corporate welfare that keeps junk food artificially cheap?
- 1
- |
- 2
- next ›
- last page »
(2) Comments
Justice Marshall
Justice Marshall is a father, husband, brother and son with an enduring passion for truth.
I recently began limiting sugar in my diet. After one week, things that tasted normal now taste uber-sweet. I think we'd all be shocked if we tallied teaspoons of sugar ingested daily.
Great article and I couldn't agree more. I would go a step further and say lets look at all subsidies and look at reducing them. The impact these have on 3rd world farmers is also well known and contributing to keeping them in the 3rd world.