
malasadas had a
great post recently about making good food choices, especially when consumers have informed choices. In the spirit of that post, I was amused when I saw this today (via the "The Consumerist")
KFC's "Double Down": it's bacon and cheese sandwiched between two pieces of fried chicken. The "Original Recipe" sandwich will set you back about 540 calories, 32g of fat and 1380mg of sodium. The not-as-bad-for-you Grilled Double Down totals 460 calories, 23g of fat and 1430mg of sodium. This doesn't even look appealing to me. Luckily here in New York City, restaurants are required to post nutritional information like this to give us some informed choices. But what if consumers insist on making the wrong choice even with all the information? New York City is considering a "bad food tax," and when you see fare like this, you have to wonder if heavy taxation would have an impact. Such taxation reduced cigarette consumption (a carton of cigarettes by law can not be lower than 72.00 here in New York). True, the case can be made taxation like this is rather ineffective because people order cigarettes online, or just buy them in other states, but with a lot of hungry tourists and citizens, it's unlikely everyone is just going to leave, and eat in New Jersey.
no subject
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
It's terrible, we have to send them into the jail to force them make a healthy food choice.
Tax is really not enough...
BTW hunger is another decision. North Korea is much advanced compared to USA it this way.
Seriously:
It will end-up as badly as dry law.
You want to criminalize smokers? You will do it.
It became even worse since you will have all medicine nationalized:
then healthy choice is not more just your choice, you have to be healthy, otherwise government will refuse to pay medical bills for you.
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
Look, if someone insists on eating shit like that a tax isn't going to stop them. Neither is requiring disclosure of nutritional information. Surely our government has far more important things to worry about than the fact that some people are idiots about what they eat.
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
As far as the double-down. MMM BACON!
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
Then again I quite like kitfo tire, so maybe I shouldn't be too quick to criticize others' definitions of "food"...
I have no principled objection to bad food taxes. If we're going to socialize the costs of providing and insuring health care (and I think we should) then for better or worse the taxpayers do have a right to decide what care we're willing to pay for and what risks we're willing to pay to cover.
Where my anarchist streak manifests is that I do take a hard line that taxation according to "lifestyle" choice is justifiable on that basis but no further. If people have genuine choice and full information and really want to have Cardiopathy in a Bucket three times a day, then, as long as they're willing to pay their own way, it is their right. I don't understand but I don't have to.
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
The Chaser
They did a greasy beef patty burger just like the one featured as one of their pseudo-commercials (although I think the "bun" patties were raw).
Once again life imitates art.
no subject
no subject
But then, as Meri said, that's why I'm fat...
But I do support a type of "sin tax" on food like that just as I support sin taxes on alcohol even though I drink. Otherwise, you're pushing the cost of the healthcare you require, when you have a heart attack eating that thing, off on other people.
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
LOL
Re: LOL
Re: LOL
Sadly...
How about those high fructose corn sweetener products? One impoverished, obese victim of sweet drinks said he didn't want to drink water because "it doesn't taste good."
no subject
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
The real key question here:
Re: The real key question here:
Re: The real key question here:
no subject
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
On the other hand a punitive bad food tax is like some Demolition Man parody of insane rightwing nanny-state paranoia so I'm not really sure which possibility is more horrible at the moment.
no subject
I am all for menu labeling and making sure people have information about what they are eating, but lets not pretend that somehow more refined restaurants are any more healthy.
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
I don't think that the government wants us to stop eating soda and fast foods, or even to stop smoking or drinking. I think they want us to keep doing it, so they can collect the taxes. Otherwise, where would they be able to push all of their corn syrup and soy products?
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
no subject
no subject
(no subject)
no subject
no subject
...who cares :p
(no subject)