Taxing "bad" foods to discourage consumption is an issue now being debated in some Western countries because of the harmful effects these foods are supposed to have on the health of their citizens. The obesity pandemic that is responsible for the creation of a class of people grossly over sized and bloated in appearance is caused by over consumption of cheap foods which are nutritionally unbalanced containing high calories from sugar and fat. Obesity is also responsible for the uncontrolled growth of unhealthy people suffering from CVD, Diabetes and other diseases. Therefore logically it makes sense to make these foods costlier by imposing punitive taxes. This debate is now sought to be expanded and there is a suggestion as reflected by the news report quoted below that authorities must also think of subsidizing healthy foods which generally cost more.
"Simply put: taxes would reduce consumption of unhealthful foods and generate billions of dollars annually. That money could be used to subsidize the purchase of staple foods like seasonal greens, vegetables, whole grains, dried legumes and fruit. We could sell those staples cheap — let's say for 50 cents a pound — and almost everywhere: drugstores, street corners, convenience stores, bodegas, supermarkets, liquor stores, even schools, libraries and other community centers. This program would, of course, upset the processed food industry. Oh well. It would also bug those who might resent paying more for soda and chips and argue that their right to eat whatever they wanted was being breached. But public health is the role of the government, and our diet is right up there with any other public responsibility you can name, from water treatment to mass transit. Some advocates for the poor say taxes like these are unfair because low-income people pay a higher percentage of their income for food and would find it more difficult to buy soda or junk. But since poor people suffer disproportionately from the cost of high-quality, fresh foods, subsidizing those foods would be particularly beneficial to them. Right now it's harder for many people to buy fruit than Froot Loops; chips and Coke are a common breakfast. And since the rate of diabetes continues to soar — one-third of all Americans either have diabetes or are pre-diabetic, most with Type 2 diabetes, the kind associated with bad eating habits — and because our health care bills are on the verge of becoming truly insurmountable, this is urgent for economic sanity as well as national health".
How far such a radical proposal can be effective remains to be seen. The past examples of alcohol and tobacco industries going through this route do not give any hope that this will work. But subsidizing healthy foods can definitely be an encouraging and citizen-friendly act that deserves consideration. If in a country like India there is no mass starvation due to economic reasons, it is mainly due to the subsidized food grains being supplied at fraction of a rate compared to market prices. It is a tragedy that protective foods like fruits, vegetables, milk etc cost much higher than processed foods which are mostly made from cheap food grains like corn subsidized heavily by governments. The proposal of taxing unhealthy foods is at least justified if there is cross subsidization of healthy and protective foods.
V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com
"Simply put: taxes would reduce consumption of unhealthful foods and generate billions of dollars annually. That money could be used to subsidize the purchase of staple foods like seasonal greens, vegetables, whole grains, dried legumes and fruit. We could sell those staples cheap — let's say for 50 cents a pound — and almost everywhere: drugstores, street corners, convenience stores, bodegas, supermarkets, liquor stores, even schools, libraries and other community centers. This program would, of course, upset the processed food industry. Oh well. It would also bug those who might resent paying more for soda and chips and argue that their right to eat whatever they wanted was being breached. But public health is the role of the government, and our diet is right up there with any other public responsibility you can name, from water treatment to mass transit. Some advocates for the poor say taxes like these are unfair because low-income people pay a higher percentage of their income for food and would find it more difficult to buy soda or junk. But since poor people suffer disproportionately from the cost of high-quality, fresh foods, subsidizing those foods would be particularly beneficial to them. Right now it's harder for many people to buy fruit than Froot Loops; chips and Coke are a common breakfast. And since the rate of diabetes continues to soar — one-third of all Americans either have diabetes or are pre-diabetic, most with Type 2 diabetes, the kind associated with bad eating habits — and because our health care bills are on the verge of becoming truly insurmountable, this is urgent for economic sanity as well as national health".
How far such a radical proposal can be effective remains to be seen. The past examples of alcohol and tobacco industries going through this route do not give any hope that this will work. But subsidizing healthy foods can definitely be an encouraging and citizen-friendly act that deserves consideration. If in a country like India there is no mass starvation due to economic reasons, it is mainly due to the subsidized food grains being supplied at fraction of a rate compared to market prices. It is a tragedy that protective foods like fruits, vegetables, milk etc cost much higher than processed foods which are mostly made from cheap food grains like corn subsidized heavily by governments. The proposal of taxing unhealthy foods is at least justified if there is cross subsidization of healthy and protective foods.
V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com
No comments:
Post a Comment