Tax Junk Food and Subsidize Healthy Alternatives

Yesterday I stumbled upon an opinions article by Mark Bittman in the New York Times Sunday Review proposing a simple solution to America’s obesity crisis: tax junk food and subsidize fresh produce. Bittman compares the need to discourage Americans from eating junk food to the anti-smoking campaigns introduced in the 1990s, and emphasizes that eating a balanced diet is crucial for a healthy lifestyle.

He writes:

“The food industry appears incapable of marketing healthier foods. And whether its leaders are confused or just stalling doesn’t matter, because the fixes are not really their problem. Their mission is not public health but profit, so they’ll continue to sell the health-damaging food that’s most profitable, until the market or another force skews things otherwise. That ‘other force’ should be the federal government, fulfilling its role as an agent of the public good and establishing a bold national fix.”

Bittman cites examples of other countries implementing programs meant to promote healthful foods, including Denmark’s saturated fat tax and Brazil’s Fome Zero (Zero Hunger) plan, which “features subsidized produce markets and state-sponsored low-cost restaurants.”

The United States government indirectly subsidizes junk food through national corn and soy bean subsidy programs, which help keep down the cost of highly processed food items containing corn and soy. Subsidization is clearly possible: all we have to do is switch the focus of subsidy programs to more beneficial foods, making it easier for everyone to stock up on fresh fruits and veggies.

Bittman’s argument is simple, and it makes sense. Now the only thing to do is put the plan into action.

Wal-Mart Plans to Promote Healthy Food

America’s Subsidy Garden

Read more: health, obesity, real food, subsidy

Photo credit: PamelaVWhite

quick poll

vote now!

Loading poll...

no!
leaning no
leaning yes
yes!

no!
leaning no
leaning yes
yes!

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of
Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

Sarah M.

1:13AM PDT on Oct 26, 2011

Yes please!

send a green star

John T.

3:41PM PDT on Oct 11, 2011

We need to get Mark Bittman's plan into action!

Sisilie B.

2:40PM PDT on Sep 17, 2011

I so wish that this could be a reality

Abbe A.

5:49AM PDT on Sep 5, 2011

common sense

Ann G.

12:56PM PDT on Aug 19, 2011

Would somebody please make a petition? I'd love to sign one.

KS G.

5:34AM PDT on Aug 15, 2011

Thanks for the article.

MD L.

4:07PM PDT on Aug 13, 2011

Lindy, yeah, and something like Kale chips would probably be a fair improvement to white potato chips too. Potatoes are fairly healthy if you actually eat the skin, and don't soak them in saturated fat, it's the processing and skinning that make them junk food.

Some staple type foods are already cheaper than most junk food, apples, bananas, potatoes, rice, onions, lettuce, spinach are already pretty cheap, many under 99 cents a pound depending on the time of year. I even see organic apples as low as 69 cents a pound occasionally. I can get a big 16oz tub of organic spinach for around the same price as the same weight in name brand potato chips. They just don't appeal as much as processed junk foods. I would at least like to see less or no subsidies for meat/dairy, corn, and soy and sugar and maybe more subsidies for the healthier fruits and veggies. Maybe the saturated fat tax (on the bad type of saturated fat) is a good idea too. That and the preservatives and excess salt/sugar and heavily processed grains are most of what makes junk food bad.

Lindy E.

11:19PM PDT on Aug 8, 2011

MD L, you've got a good point - just because it started out as nutritious vegetables or fruit, doesn't mean that somebody can't (or won't) turn it into junk food. But at least the banana chips and sweet potato chips would have a fighting chance, price-wise, against the plain white-potato chip, not to mention the Twinkie.

Maudeline E - agribusiness uses chemicals because that enables them to produce food cheaper, which increases their profit despite lower supermarket prices. Organic will never be able to compete on price as long as chemicals are used. (Hmm...now there's a thought!)

11:03PM PDT on Aug 8, 2011

It's not good to tax a specific food or ingredient that seems a villain today, but may be exonerated tomorrow (like eggs!). It's better to just subsidize what we IS good for us.

I would rather see fruits and vegetables be subsidized, instead of wheat and corn. Twinkies would not be so cheap if the manufacturer had to pay the real price for the flour.

One thing I would favor, though, is to put a tax on refined foods (white flour, sugar, etc) and use that tax to subsidize whole foods. Here we are trying to get everyone to eat whole grains, and bleached flour (at regular price) costs less than unbleached flour, which is cheaper than whole wheat flour; and of the three, only bleached flour ever goes on special. The only way I can afford to feed my family whole wheat bread is to buy the wheat and grind it myself, and there doesn't seem to be a good, practical, easy-to-use kitchen mill out there.

Laurie G.

6:56PM PDT on Aug 8, 2011

This is a good idea. Wouldn't it be great if the tax had a positive effect on school lunches across the country? Right now, Coca-Cola "buys" the rights to school districts for big bucks and ketchup is considered a vegetable. Can't get much WORSE! GO FOR IT!