Real Healthcare Reform Starts with Healthy Food
Published July 28, 2009 @ 12:49PM PT
Yesterday there was the startling report that 10% of all healthcare costs are due to obesity. That totals up to more than $147 billion a year. Considering that the current healtcare bills that are winding their way through Congress are wearing price tags in the $1 - $1.5 trillion range, it is clear that obesity is playing a large role in the spiraling costs.
While so many politicians wax poetic about keeping down costs, a sugar tax has been roundly panned as a non-starter. This is not surprising. As with tobacco, often public sentiment lags behind actual data. America still has a culture that believes that if you're fat, well it's your own damn fault:
Being poor in 21-st century America doesn’t mean not having enough to eat, but often it means being part of a culture where fattening, processed foods are not only relatively cheap and convenient, but socially acceptable. It also means having the kind of job that often isn’t all that rewarding, and you really just need to unwind after work instead of stopping at Whole Foods and whipping yourself up a nice tofu stir-fry.
This, perhaps, is what Bingaman really wants the USCO-OP ( United States Council on Overweight and Obesity Prevention) to change. Because let’s be honest: poor people know that green chile cheeseburgers will make them fatter than steamed salmon will, and they know that doing an hour of exercise will make them fitter than watching an hour of television. They know these things, but often they’ve had a long, hard day at work and they’re tired and hungry and just want to be left alone with their remote control and their burger and their Dr. Pepper.
This attitude is what is going to hold us back from really doing something obesity. Yes, people should exercise, but that's not the whole story. We also live in a society where children drink more soda than milk and soda is one third the price of milk. Until the cost of food reflects the ill side-effects, people will still reach for the green chile cheeseburger, which btw costs one fourth the price of the steamed salmon. And elitists who don't realize that should really shut their traps and not tell poor people how to eat.
So we have an attitude problem. Which is going to be a huge hurdle to clear. One the other side though, is greener pastures. Turns out that countries like Great Britain are already experimenting with sugar taxes. While we won't know for years what are the potential health affects, we do know it has the potential to raise some serious dough:
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.
Share this Post
Related Posts
-
Helping the Hungry Eat Well
-
Denny's Going the Way of Philip Morris
-
Nutritional Bang for Your Grocery Buck
Comments (6)
Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the ideas covered in the posts. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; that contain ad hominem attacks; or that are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion.
Author
-
Ali Savino runs GastroNomalies.com, a site that explores the policies and politics behind what we eat every day. Sometimes funny, often serious, the author is a some-what vegetarian, an urban gardener, and farmers market enthusiast who is learning to cook the basics. Like Jam.
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Email


















I just had a long conversation with a friend about this. He made the argument that any sugar or junk food sin tax would really be a tax on poor people, not fat people. After thinking about it a bit, I realized that he's right. At least partially.
Much of the food that the poorest in our society have access to is high fat, high calorie crap. But then again, it's food. If we tax this stuff, who are we really helping (and who are we really hurting)?
I agree with you though, we have to stop subsidizing corn to the degree that it makes soda a fraction of the price of milk and other healthy foods. If the government would support the production of healthier foods, and make them more price competitive with all the processed crap, we'd have a shot in the fight against obesity.
But right now, I'm slowly being convinced that a junk food sin tax is not the answer.
Posted by Greg Plotkin on 07/28/2009 @ 02:15PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
There shouldn't be a consumer tax on junk food but a tax on every supplier who uses MSG, bad additives, hydrogenated oil and an order for them to clean up their act, through the threat of tax and to not charge any more than they do.
Whatever happens, the poor will end up paying more and they will bear the brunt. Junk food is the addiction foisted upon people by manufacturers via the media. Then they say 'we are only providing what the customer wants'. Doh! The customer is hypnotized by TV and isn't capable of knowing what they want.
Meat should become a rare treat, expensive, all organic, and something we eat once a week instead of 3 time a day in the case of some.
People can keep healthy by being taught how to sprout for little cost and much added nutrition.. I can see it now..the hypnotic adverts that send people in a daze to the sprout seed section of the local Ingles or SaveALot or Piggly Wiggly.
Healthy, organic foods are right now only available to those with money. WE all need to learn to grow our own food, become more self-sustianing as the poor rural people round here do.. and when there's too much, they share it with the community.
www.pierresoleil.com/ourblog
Posted by Pierre Soleil on 08/21/2009 @ 11:30AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Maybe as opposed to a tax you simply get rid of the grain subsidies. That would eliminate a large part of the mcdonalds diet.
Posted by john weibel on 08/22/2009 @ 10:42PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Unfortunately in many parts of this country there are no big grocery stores in the poorest neighborhoods. Instead there are little corner stores that can only afford to sell processed, boxed, and canned food because it keeps much better than fresh produce.
The cost of taking a bus (or 3) to a full grocery with produce is prohibitive, plus the time involved for a person working more than one job is out of the question.
Until we find a way to make fresh healthy food affordable and accessible to everyone we should not be punishing those with less financial means by taxing the only food that is available to them.
Posted by Carole Brown on 07/29/2009 @ 10:58AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I completely disagree with a sugar tax. It' is NOT the government's place to tell you what to eat.
And furthermore, it wouldn't deter people from eating sugary foods. All it would do is increase taxes that Americans pay.
We need to look at the schools. Many schools have cut recess and P.E. from their cirriculum. Put those back in, teach kids how to play outside and exercise! (It also increases learning and test scores if children exercise throughout the day.) Studies show that your weight at puberty pretty much sets your weight for life, if you are overweight when you go through puberty, you're much more likely to be overweight when you're an adult.
A few comments about quotes in the article:
"We also live in a society where children drink more soda than milk and soda is one third the price of milk."
> What about good ol' water?! Water is almost free. Milk has nutritional value, soda doesn't. Those parents could replace soda with water and benefit both their wallets and their children's health. Soda is a treat, like a candy bar is, it isn't required.
"And elitists who don't realize that should really shut their traps and not tell poor people how to eat."
> What is taxing sugary foods going to do? Try to tell poor people (scratch that, try to tell ALL people) how to eat! That's like the pot calling the kettle black.
Posted by Abby J. on 08/02/2009 @ 05:58AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Poor people buy junk because they can't afford anything else. The answer is not to tell them what to eat, but for someone in the junk food busines to do a Tony Stark, Ironman, and decide to devote their resources to repairing the damage they've caused. Hmmm.
And talking of banning substances, the government hasn't banned aspartame - a dangerous additive to all 'diet' sodas. Why? because Coca Cola and other big junk food conglomerates have lots of $$$$ to pay for 'blind eyes'.
It's almost like a conspiracy. Junk food manufacturers inundate us with cr*p and then we have to spend money on healthcare and pharma that only works on symptoms, not the root cause.
Example of cheap healthy eating. A bag of dried whole lentils can be sprouted at home with a mason jar and a muslin top held on by elastic band. Truckloads of nutrition.
And by the way, I'm slipping into poor...no land, renting, yet preparing for a much simpler way of living. We grow some veggies and herbs, and sprout a lot of seeds...
with love and blessings
sunny soleil
Posted by Pierre Soleil on 08/21/2009 @ 12:19PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.