• In the Spotlight:
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Tough love for fat people:tax their food

Posted by on Jul. 28, 2009 at 2:54 PM
  • 41 Replies

Tough love for fat people: Tax their food to pay for healthcare

2:33 PM, July 27, 2009

When historians look back to identify the pivotal moments in the nation's struggle against obesity, they might point to the current period as the moment when those who influenced opinion and made public policy decided it was time to take the gloves off.

 As evidence of this new "get-tough" strategy on obesity, they may well cite a study released today by the Urban Institute titled "Reducing Obesity: Policy Strategies From the Tobacco Wars."

In the debate over healthcare reform, the added cost of caring for patients with obesity-related diseases has become a common refrain: most recent is the cost-of-obesity study, also released today by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It finds that as obesity rates increased from 18.3% of Americans in 1998 to 25% in 2006, the cost of providing treatment for those patients' weight-driven problems increased healthcare spending by $40 billion a year.

If you happen to be the 1-in-3 Americans who is neither obese nor overweight (and, thus, considered at risk of becoming obese), you might well conclude that the habits of the remaining two-thirds of Americans are costing you, big time. U.S. life expectancies are expected to slide backward, after years of marching upward. (But that's their statistical problem: Yours is how to make them stop costing you all that extra money because they are presumably making poor choices in their food consumption.)

"Facing the serious consequences of an uncontrolled obesity epidemic, America's state and federal  policy makers may need to consider interventions every bit as forceful as those that succeeded in cutting adult tobacco use by more than 50%," the Urban Institute report says. It took awhile -- almost 50 years from the first surgeon general's report on tobacco in 1964 -- to drive smoking down. But in many ways, the drumbeat of scientific evidence and the growing cultural stigma against obesity already are well underway -- as any parent who has tried to bring birthday cupcakes into her child's classroom certainly knows.

Key among the "interventions" the report weighs is that of imposing an excise or sales tax on fattening foods. That, says the report, could be expected to lower consumption of those foods. But it would also generate revenues that could be used to extend health insurance coverage to the uninsured and under-insured, and perhaps to fund campaigns intended to make healthy foods more widely available to, say, low-income Americans and to encourage exercise and healthy eating habits.

If anti-tobacco campaigns are to be the model, those sales taxes could be hefty:  The World Health Organization has recommended that tobacco taxes should represent between two-thirds and three-quarters of the cost of, say, a package of cigarettes;  a 2004 report prepared for the Department of Agriculture suggested that, for "sinful-food" taxes to change the way people eat, they may need to equal at least 10% to 30% of the cost of the food.

And although 40 U.S. states now impose modest extra sales taxes on soft drinks and a few snack items, the Urban Institute report suggests that a truly forceful "intervention" -- one that would drive down the consumption of fattening foods and, presumably, prevent or reverse obesity -- would have to target pretty much all the fattening and nutritionally empty stuff we eat: "With a more narrowly targeted tax, consumers could simply substitute one fattening food or beverage for another," the reports says.

Of course, the United States also would have to adopt extensive menu- and food-labeling changes that would make "good foods" easily distinguishable from the bad ones subject to added taxes. Not to worry though: Several European countries, most notably Great Britain, have led the way in this area.

And here's the payoff: Conservatively estimated, a 10% tax levied on foods that would be defined as "less healthy" by a national standard adopted recently in Great Britain could yield $240 billion in its first five years and $522 billion over 10 years of implementation -- if it were to begin in October 2010. If lawmakers instituted a program of tax subsidies to encourage the purchase of fresh and processed fruits and vegetables, the added revenue would still be $356 billion over 10 years.

That would pay for a lot of healthcare reform, which some have estimated will cost as much as $1 trillion to implement over the next ten years.

There can be little doubt that lobbyists for the food, restaurant and grocery industries would come out swinging on any of these proposals. But the report cites evidence of a turning political tide for proposals that would hold the obese and other consumers of nutritionally suspect food accountable for their choices. A recent national poll found that 53% of Americans said they favored an increased tax on sodas and sugary soft drinks to help pay for healthcare reform. And even among those who opposed such an idea, 63% switched and said they'd favor such a tax if it "would raise money for health-care reform while also tackling the problems that stem from being overweight."

-- Melissa Healy

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/booster_shots/2009/07/tough-love-for-fatties-tax-their-food-pay-for-healthcare.html


a wedding website

by on Jul. 28, 2009 at 2:54 PM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-10):
norahsmommy
by Silver Member on Jul. 28, 2009 at 3:00 PM

taxing certain unhealthy foods is already done in some countries.  It could be done here, fast foods would be a good one to do it on. When we were in the military overseas coffee and cigaretts were rashioned.  You had a little punch card and could only buy so much a month.  If you didn't have a card or yours was all punched out you couldn't buy it.  They could do that with certain foods as well.  That would help some people.  I think they should start with fast foods and things like chips, cookies and soda.  Also non 100 juice drinks. 

"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is also a government big enough to take from you all that you have." - Gerald Ford

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety  deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.  We didn't pass it on to our children in the bloodstream.  It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free."  - Ronald Reagan

peanutsmommy1
by on Jul. 28, 2009 at 3:02 PM

 I don't have a problem with that, but the tax would apply to ALL people, not just "fat" people

 

chairhead28
by Silver Member on Jul. 28, 2009 at 3:04 PM


Quoting peanutsmommy1:

 I don't have a problem with that, but the tax would apply to ALL people, not just "fat" people

This. Do you know how much discrimination would be made if just 'fat' people were taxed on 'extras'?

              
I'm Kristina. I'm a married (to my high school sweetheart, Bobby), breastfeeding (and child-led weaning), semi co-sleeping, baby wearing, ERF, solid delaying, vegetarian (for over 16 years), semi-CIO, vaccinating, disposable diapering, gentle disciplining, full-time college student, House MD loving, anorexia, self-injury and sexually abuse recovering, Fibromyalgia suffering SAHM to a handsome boy (Daniel Matthew 5.5.07) and my darling little boobie monster (Ryleigh Madison 9.13.08).
                  

erin_suzy
by on Jul. 28, 2009 at 3:05 PM

 Not all obesity is caused by food! I knew a girl who suffered from a car accident where a semi truck ran her off the road and got away. She constantly went to therapy for back problems and could not exercise. She gained weight from it over time but mostly because she connot do much with all her back problems. My cousin is suffering the same fate because she fell in a hole and hurt her knee and just had surgery for it a year after it happened. It is a case by case basis.

JSKA980405
by on Jul. 28, 2009 at 3:07 PM

how rude, "fat" people have to eat just as much as skinny people need to eat. That is simply a huge fricking wrong thing to say,

jeweldog
by on Jul. 28, 2009 at 3:09 PM

So you support discrimination?  Not everyone can be a size 2 or 4... doesn't mean you can treat us like crap.  Obesity is a problem but not allowing them food is cruel!  Why not pass a bill to make insurance company cover obesity care and treatments.  I was once  very overweight and lost over 100lbs by simply watching what I ate and exercise... I was ridiculed and put down as I tried to make a life change... sneered at and made fun of.  This idea would only hurt those you are "trying" help. 

norahsmommy
by Silver Member on Jul. 28, 2009 at 3:10 PM

oh yes, I agree, the tax or whatever should apply to certain unhealthy foods. So it would affect everyone, not just 'fat' people.  We shouldn't go after individuals, just certain foods to either get them off the market or get all people to make better choices. 

Quoting chairhead28:


Quoting peanutsmommy1:

 I don't have a problem with that, but the tax would apply to ALL people, not just "fat" people

This. Do you know how much discrimination would be made if just 'fat' people were taxed on 'extras'?


"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is also a government big enough to take from you all that you have." - Gerald Ford

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety  deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.  We didn't pass it on to our children in the bloodstream.  It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free."  - Ronald Reagan

FoxyLady42
by on Jul. 28, 2009 at 3:12 PM

What is the purpose of posting this on here?????????????

CullenLover
by on Jul. 28, 2009 at 3:13 PM

this si funnier than the health bill post ! if someone told me to ration my coffee HA! they would be in for a rude awkening, not eveyrone can be a size 4 geez! just sounds to me like more GOVERNMENT CONTROL and LESS RIGHTS !  @ this rate we would need permission to shower. whats next ?

swizzlefiz
by on Jul. 28, 2009 at 3:15 PM

How is it taxing "fat people" if you are taxing foods, not people?!  I am "fat" and I have no problem with taxing certian foods, I think its a good idea.  But to generalize that only "fat" people eat unhealthy foods ... Thats not right.

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)