6 ms·

Initiatives like this has always appeared to me as a cheap way for societies to improve the health of their population. Perhaps better done in the form of a ta

by olau 6y ago

Initiatives like this has always appeared to me as a cheap way for societies to improve the health of their population. Perhaps better done in the form of a tax - in the sense that junk food causes an externality in the form of health problems, that does seem warranted. The underlying problem is that the incentives are not aligned.

epmaybe 6y ago
I feel like we were always taught that taxes were significantly better at curbing usage compared to bans or limits - the classic example being the cigarette tax
- pm90 6y ago
  The difference here is that the ban is applicable to minors. We already ban minors from a slew of products, this is only extending that list.
- inerte 6y ago
  To be fair, cigarettes have additional restrictions like where and to whom it can be sold, and also advertisement. Or even being explicitly called out on media ratings: PG-13, contains smoking! I don't know if anyone has quantified the effects on sales of each measure, but they certainly add up with the additional taxes.
- teknopaul 6y ago
  Cigarette tax is a scam to raise money from selling drugs. Cigs have inelastic demand. In Germany they hit a point where a price rise (in the name of health) resulted in reduced smoking and less tax collected and they immediately wanted to reduce tax. That caused a scandal so they changed tack to homogonize tax across the eu which, incidentally of course, would reduce tax in Germany. Tax is charged on cigs because it works and no other reason, its regressive tax too. I prefer that to a ban, but let's not pretend selling cigs at high prices is in the interest of cig smokers. The only place it works is where there are nicotine alternatives.
  - mschuster91 6y ago
    > I prefer that to a ban, but let's not pretend selling cigs at high prices is in the interest of cig smokers. I'd prefer if the fight against smoking was not dealt with in a classist way (the ones suffering the most from this tax are poor people, who don't have either the money or the mental energy to fight off an addiction)! The best way to fight smoking is to get rid of advertising... where Germany (and Bulgaria) are the only EU countries left where it is still legal to advertise for tobacco products on billboards.
  - jules 6y ago
    * Cigs have inelastic demand. * In Germany they hit a point where a price rise (in the name of health) resulted in reduced smoking and less tax collected and they immediately wanted to reduce tax. Can't both be true...
thisisnico 6y ago
We tax alcohol and cigarettes because they are bad for you, but are totally fine with binge eating as much junk food as you like. Obesity is a massive epidemic. Heart attack and stroke are the number one killers, with obesity the highest cause. I'm all for putting warning labels on food showing the potential problems of overconsumption.
- Dirlewanger 6y ago
  Warning labels aren't going to do anything aside from trigger busybody soccer moms when they go to buy their kid's cereal because they won't stop screaming for it. Taxing it is better, but still ultimately is not going to solve the root problem, which I think is the government's over-subsidization of corn and the overabundance of HFCS. Ban HFCS/similar garbage sweeteners in all food products, and incentivize farmers to grow something other than corn. Give them grants to build all-year-round hydroponic farms to grow vegetables or something. And then from there, I think we can start to address other ailments like school lunches and the like.
  - mschuster91 6y ago
    > And then from there, I think we can start to address other ailments like school lunches and the like. No need to wait for anyone for fixing school lunches as this is squarely a financial issue, the key thing there is that cities need some form of politically untouchable budget for education - because as soon as it gets politically touchable, it's the first thing to be axed when a budget crisis looms.
  - Antipode 6y ago
    Subsidies are the reason HFCS is used in everything in the US, but sucrose is also cheap and isn't healthier than HFCS. I'm not convinced that the price difference between the two would significantly affect manufacturers' decisions of whether or not to include a sweetener.
- jachell 6y ago
  I bet if you ask any random person in the US if McDonald's is bad for you, they will say yes. I don't think the obesity epidemic is from lack of information.
Reedx 6y ago
Yeah, I think we'll eventually get to the point where junk food prices in the externalities and it'll go back to being a relatively rare treat (i.e. sustainable). Currently sugar is artificially cheap. The cost is just being kicked down the road, coming back in the form of health problems and hospital bills. That sugary drinks are similarly priced or even cheaper than a bottle of water is completely backwards. Soda, juice, etc should be the expensive option (which they are in the long-term!) and water the default, smart choice both in terms of health and immediate cost at the counter.
- teknopaul 6y ago
  Seems like a good idea on paper but somehow the poorest of the poor smoke.
dfxm12 6y ago
I think if the goal is that you want kids to eat less of this stuff, then just don't let kids buy it. If the goal is to raise money, then maybe some sort of tax is the better bet, but you have to keep in mind who benefits from the raised money vs how much of their money you're taking. This would be a regressive tax & poorer people tend to eat more junk food and have more health problems, too. I mean, don't discount the externality that such a tax would disproportionately punish poor people for buying certain snacks.
edgarvaldes 6y ago
In Mexico we have a tax on sugary drinks.

by olau 6y ago

epmaybe 6y ago

I feel like we were always taught that taxes were significantly better at curbing usage compared to bans or limits - the classic example being the cigarette tax

pm90 6y ago
The difference here is that the ban is applicable to minors. We already ban minors from a slew of products, this is only extending that list.
inerte 6y ago
To be fair, cigarettes have additional restrictions like where and to whom it can be sold, and also advertisement. Or even being explicitly called out on media ratings: PG-13, contains smoking! I don't know if anyone has quantified the effects on sales of each measure, but they certainly add up with the additional taxes.
teknopaul 6y ago
Cigarette tax is a scam to raise money from selling drugs. Cigs have inelastic demand. In Germany they hit a point where a price rise (in the name of health) resulted in reduced smoking and less tax collected and they immediately wanted to reduce tax. That caused a scandal so they changed tack to homogonize tax across the eu which, incidentally of course, would reduce tax in Germany. Tax is charged on cigs because it works and no other reason, its regressive tax too. I prefer that to a ban, but let's not pretend selling cigs at high prices is in the interest of cig smokers. The only place it works is where there are nicotine alternatives.
- mschuster91 6y ago
  > I prefer that to a ban, but let's not pretend selling cigs at high prices is in the interest of cig smokers. I'd prefer if the fight against smoking was not dealt with in a classist way (the ones suffering the most from this tax are poor people, who don't have either the money or the mental energy to fight off an addiction)! The best way to fight smoking is to get rid of advertising... where Germany (and Bulgaria) are the only EU countries left where it is still legal to advertise for tobacco products on billboards.
- jules 6y ago
  * Cigs have inelastic demand. * In Germany they hit a point where a price rise (in the name of health) resulted in reduced smoking and less tax collected and they immediately wanted to reduce tax. Can't both be true...

thisisnico 6y ago

We tax alcohol and cigarettes because they are bad for you, but are totally fine with binge eating as much junk food as you like. Obesity is a massive epidemic. Heart attack and stroke are the number one killers, with obesity the highest cause. I'm all for putting warning labels on food showing the potential problems of overconsumption.

Dirlewanger 6y ago
Warning labels aren't going to do anything aside from trigger busybody soccer moms when they go to buy their kid's cereal because they won't stop screaming for it. Taxing it is better, but still ultimately is not going to solve the root problem, which I think is the government's over-subsidization of corn and the overabundance of HFCS. Ban HFCS/similar garbage sweeteners in all food products, and incentivize farmers to grow something other than corn. Give them grants to build all-year-round hydroponic farms to grow vegetables or something. And then from there, I think we can start to address other ailments like school lunches and the like.
- mschuster91 6y ago
  > And then from there, I think we can start to address other ailments like school lunches and the like. No need to wait for anyone for fixing school lunches as this is squarely a financial issue, the key thing there is that cities need some form of politically untouchable budget for education - because as soon as it gets politically touchable, it's the first thing to be axed when a budget crisis looms.
- Antipode 6y ago
  Subsidies are the reason HFCS is used in everything in the US, but sucrose is also cheap and isn't healthier than HFCS. I'm not convinced that the price difference between the two would significantly affect manufacturers' decisions of whether or not to include a sweetener.
jachell 6y ago
I bet if you ask any random person in the US if McDonald's is bad for you, they will say yes. I don't think the obesity epidemic is from lack of information.

Reedx 6y ago

Yeah, I think we'll eventually get to the point where junk food prices in the externalities and it'll go back to being a relatively rare treat (i.e. sustainable). Currently sugar is artificially cheap. The cost is just being kicked down the road, coming back in the form of health problems and hospital bills. That sugary drinks are similarly priced or even cheaper than a bottle of water is completely backwards. Soda, juice, etc should be the expensive option (which they are in the long-term!) and water the default, smart choice both in terms of health and immediate cost at the counter.

teknopaul 6y ago
Seems like a good idea on paper but somehow the poorest of the poor smoke.

dfxm12 6y ago

I think if the goal is that you want kids to eat less of this stuff, then just don't let kids buy it. If the goal is to raise money, then maybe some sort of tax is the better bet, but you have to keep in mind who benefits from the raised money vs how much of their money you're taking. This would be a regressive tax & poorer people tend to eat more junk food and have more health problems, too. I mean, don't discount the externality that such a tax would disproportionately punish poor people for buying certain snacks.

edgarvaldes 6y ago

In Mexico we have a tax on sugary drinks.