I believe that they should be case dependent as some may be able to afford it, some Might not. Let me know your opinion in the comments
I think if we cut corn subsidies, it would make high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) more ecpensive to produce. Then maybe it wouldn’t end up in almost every product from drinks to bread.
HFCS acts more like a hormone than a sweetner, causing proprtionally more weight gain than sugar. HFCS has been heavily subsidized for decades.
https://www.academia.edu/download/46838855/s11906-010-0097-320160627-31648-1cc4xmf.pdf
No. Sugars, fats, and salts are essential for the human body to function. Why do you think Pocari Sweat is sold all over the world? (Basically Gatorade) It’s because you need sugar and salts to absorb water more effectively.
Things like Red 40, TBHQ, BHA, BHT, modified starch(s), bleached flour, hydrolyzed oils, textured protein, emulsifiers, a long list of what should not be in food. Also that plant based fake crap should be off the shelf. You don’t crave bacon because you want to eat something with paragraph of “ingredients” shaped into something that looks like it and the same goes with cheese, I’ll pass on the orange soy slice ugh those are so nasty. Fried tempeh is so much better than fake bacon, and it’s even better fried in bacon grease.
My answer is having a less sit on your ass all day lifestyle is the actual solution. When I was very physically active I would consume 5000-10000 calories a day and couldn’t break 125 pounds until I got in my late twenties. You’re not going to function well in -30 to -40 climates well if you don’t eat right. So diets are situational. As well as accommodation to food allergies. I can’t eat wheat or lentils. And a cup of rice and beans is like 500 calories.
I think taxes like this are regressive as they target the individuals buying them, who usually have less money, than the companies manufacturing them who have much much more wealth.
In the US, there are some areas where it is flat out difficult to purchase produce that isn’t somewhat rotting at an affordable price. This is a far greater drive to bring people to buy processed and unhealthy foods than the temptation of a sweet or fatty treat.
Taxing the “bad thing” is a myopic solution. Improving access to and lowering the cost of the “good thing” is a far more progressive solution.
Also, this isn’t an unpopular opinion post, this is more of a question asking for potentially unpopular opinions, probably not right for this community.
That’s like saying people will stop driving pickups if you increased the price of gas over $4 a gallon.
If you track sales of new gas guzzlers vs economy cars over time, there is a clear correlation with the price of gas. It’s just not as effective as you might think. $4/gal isn’t the point where most people would get something more efficient. You’d probably need to get up to around $10 for there to be a significant cliff.
We’ve seen in work with cigarettes too
How exactly? Please elaborate
Yes
This has a long history under the term ‘sin tax’. I.e. taxing vices (sins) that no one needs for survival to discourage their use. Traditionally referring to things like alcohol and tobacco, but I’ve seen applied to movie tickets and even sugar. The fact that sugar kind of functions as food does make it a bit more complicated.
Interesting. May I ask in what way does it being food cause complications? I’m intrigued now
Most of the “sins” are luxuries you can do without, and will probably be better off. Food is not a luxury; it’s a necessity. Sugar is a terrible food, but it’s often a large part of the cheapest (most affordable) food items available. Taxing sugar puts an extra burden on those who can least afford it.
While they would be better off eating food without sugar, the real option might be not eating at all.
What’s the optimum here?
For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, elegant, easy to understand, and wrong.
Econ 101 doesn’t work in economics, how is it going to make us healthy?
I think before they start taxing us for what little pleasures we can still have, they should tax the rich so we can afford to exist.
