TaxProf Blog

Editor: Paul L. Caron, Dean
Pepperdine University School of Law

Monday, July 25, 2011

NY Times: Tax Junk Food, Subsidize Fruits and Vegetables

New York Times op-ed, Bad Food? Tax It, and Subsidize Vegetables, by Mark Bitman:

Rather than subsidizing the production of unhealthful foods, we should turn the tables and tax things like soda, French fries, doughnuts and hyperprocessed snacks. The resulting income should be earmarked for a program that encourages a sound diet for Americans by making healthy food more affordable and widely available. ...

Simply put: taxes would reduce consumption of unhealthful foods and generate billions of dollars annually. That money could be used to subsidize the purchase of staple foods like seasonal greens, vegetables, whole grains, dried legumes and fruit.

We could sell those staples cheap — let’s say for 50 cents a pound — and almost everywhere: drugstores, street corners, convenience stores, bodegas, supermarkets, liquor stores, even schools, libraries and other community centers.

This program would, of course, upset the processed food industry. Oh well. It would also bug those who might resent paying more for soda and chips and argue that their right to eat whatever they wanted was being breached. But public health is the role of the government, and our diet is right up there with any other public responsibility you can name, from water treatment to mass transit.

Some advocates for the poor say taxes like these are unfair because low-income people pay a higher percentage of their income for food and would find it more difficult to buy soda or junk. But since poor people suffer disproportionately from the cost of high-quality, fresh foods, subsidizing those foods would be particularly beneficial to them. ...

Currently, instead of taxing sodas and other unhealthful food, we subsidize them (with, I might note, tax dollars!). Direct subsidies to farmers for crops like corn (used, for example, to make now-ubiquitous high-fructose corn syrup) and soybeans (vegetable oil) keep the prices of many unhealthful foods and beverages artificially low. There are indirect subsidies as well, because prices of junk foods don’t reflect the costs of repairing our health and the environment.

Forcing sales of junk food down through taxes isn’t ideal. First off, we’ll have to listen to nanny-state arguments, which can be countered by the acceptance of the anti-tobacco movement as well as a dozen other successful public health measures. Then there are the predictions of job loss at soda distributorships, but the same predictions were made about the tobacco industry, and those were wrong. (For that matter, the same predictions were made around the nickel deposit on bottles, which most shoppers don’t even notice.) Ultimately, however, both consumers and government will be more than reimbursed in the form of cheaper healthy staples, lowered health care costs and better health. And that’s a big deal. ...

It’s fun — inspiring, even — to think about implementing a program like this.

(Hat Tip: Ann Murphy.)

Tax | Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference NY Times: Tax Junk Food, Subsidize Fruits and Vegetables:


There are just so many things wrong with this it's hard to know where to start.

First and foremost tax should be used as a tool to raise revenue, not to control behavior.

Second, the absolute arrogance that Mr. Bitman should control what we eat, particularly the great unwashed, who would cling to their chips and soda. Poor fools - that's why we need philosopher kings.

Third, how about the recent article in Scientific America reviewing the studies of salt. That find NO link between salt consumption and high blood pressure. (Bloomburg better spend some money burying that study.)

The number of baseless health scares surrounding artifical sweetners, alar, coffee causes cancer until maybe it helps prevent some cancers, hair dye causes cancer etc., etc., and soforth.

Perhaps Mr. Bitman could see his way to having us all eat at government eateries, where are menus could be appropriately calory controlled. With exceptions, of course, for $100 wagyu beef at the White House and 1700 calorie cheeseburger, milkshake and diet coke lucnes for the first lady.

Land of the free indeed!

Posted by: Ed D | Jul 25, 2011 11:47:06 AM

"It’s fun — inspiring, even — to think about implementing a program like this."

Yes, it will be lots of fun to watch Mr. Bittman hog-tied to a fence rail, dipped in tar, and covered with feathers.

Posted by: Walter Sobchak | Jul 26, 2011 12:20:16 PM

Aside from the offensiveness of a nanny state, has he considered the problem of defining junk food? For example, in Colorado we have a sales tax on candy. What is candy? That Twixt bar? No, it has wheat in it and is, by definition, not candy.

Posted by: Susan Winchester | Jul 27, 2011 7:52:31 AM