ext_39051 ([identity profile] telemann.livejournal.com) wrote in [community profile] talkpolitics2010-04-03 02:42 pm
Entry tags:

Can I have a diet coke with that, please? Thanks!



[livejournal.com profile] 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.

[identity profile] merig00.livejournal.com 2010-04-03 06:54 pm (UTC)(link)
Have you ever met a person who looked at it and thought ooh let me order it, it's good for my health?

[identity profile] zebra24.livejournal.com 2010-04-03 07:26 pm (UTC)(link)
Damn, they don't want to eat what I what them to eat!!!
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.

[identity profile] prisoner--24601.livejournal.com 2010-04-03 07:37 pm (UTC)(link)
That sandwich is truly vile.

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.

[identity profile] hey-its-michael.livejournal.com 2010-04-03 07:45 pm (UTC)(link)
I am definitely a big supporter of a soda tax for non-diet sodas and certain other foods (high sugared / corn fructose products). For one, it hopefully will have a deterrent effect. Second, perhaps it can be used to put towards health care costs.

[identity profile] hey-its-michael.livejournal.com 2010-04-03 07:45 pm (UTC)(link)
And the image of that "sandwich" makes me want to vomit.

[identity profile] eracerhead.livejournal.com 2010-04-03 08:07 pm (UTC)(link)
The cigarette tax has caused smokers to purchase cigarettes out of town, out of state or on the black market. The reduction in sales is a phantom.

As far as the double-down. MMM BACON!

[identity profile] dzlk.livejournal.com 2010-04-03 09:04 pm (UTC)(link)
That... is not food. I'm not sure what it is, but, food, it is not.

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.
Edited 2010-04-03 21:05 (UTC)

[identity profile] devil-ad-vocate.livejournal.com 2010-04-03 09:12 pm (UTC)(link)
Can I get a deepfried Bag-O-Lard with that?

The Chaser

[identity profile] brockulfsen.livejournal.com 2010-04-03 10:15 pm (UTC)(link)
Australian satyrical team The Chaser had a running gag about a "family" grease dispensary called Fungry's.

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.

[identity profile] thies.livejournal.com 2010-04-03 10:16 pm (UTC)(link)
with the mandates imposed on insurers in the healthcare law high taxes on unhealthy food and lifestyle choices are inevitable to keep the system from collapsing. The first timid steps with a 10% tax on tanning saloons in the law point in that direction.

[identity profile] udoswald.livejournal.com 2010-04-03 11:40 pm (UTC)(link)
I know that's a heart attack in a bag, and I know it's horrible for my waistline, but man that looks good...

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.

Sadly...

[identity profile] sophia-sadek.livejournal.com 2010-04-03 11:45 pm (UTC)(link)
The people most likely to be suckered into buying the heart-attack in a pouch are people who either cannot read the food content information or are not inclined to do so. KFC targets their products at the poorest, least educated segment of the population. The tax will go a long way to deter such purchases.

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."

[identity profile] rainynights.livejournal.com 2010-04-04 12:14 am (UTC)(link)
Again this is just another move by the govt trying to force us to eat what they think we should by taxing it! The govt should have no say in what we eat or drink. It is none of their darn business..

[identity profile] girlspell.livejournal.com 2010-04-04 12:19 am (UTC)(link)
People will eat what they want to eat, and any food police is not going to change that. Every time I'm in the city, I have my lunch at Carnegie Del. And yes, I love the Woody Allen. All $16.00 plus tax of it.


Image (http://pics.livejournal.com/girlspell/pic/000a3e7q/)

[identity profile] ryder-p-moses.livejournal.com 2010-04-04 01:58 am (UTC)(link)
I had my doubts with the Baconator, but now this is clearly becoming a fetish thing. Like the Germans and eating shit, the defining American deviance is going to be joylessly stuffing our faces with as horrible-tasting and poisonous lumps of matter as we can find. The real hot stuff will show some homeless guy watching from outside, face all pressed up against the glass as the obese orgiasts moan and clutch their guts between force-feedings.

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.

[identity profile] sgiffy.livejournal.com 2010-04-04 05:29 am (UTC)(link)
I've seen shit worse at my local pub. Hell biscuits and gravy with bacon is about as unhealthy a breakfast you can get, yet is considered traditional.

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.

[identity profile] hannahsarah.livejournal.com 2010-04-04 06:48 am (UTC)(link)
If you want to tax fatty, greasy, salty foods, start with school lunch programs. That's where Americans get their tastebuds programmed for soda and crap.

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?
(deleted comment) (Show 7 comments)

[identity profile] fizzyland.livejournal.com 2010-04-04 09:19 am (UTC)(link)
That looks awesome and I get to skip all those carbs from buns.

[identity profile] dancing-supasta.livejournal.com 2010-04-04 01:56 pm (UTC)(link)
This looks so unappealing to me. I think it is foods like this, that are contributing to the obesity of adults and children. A tax is a good idea but I doubt it would be a strong enough deterrent to prevent people from buying this kind of food. If they want it, they'll buy it no matter the price or extra tax.

[identity profile] drcruel.livejournal.com 2010-04-04 03:02 pm (UTC)(link)
There is some evidence that higher prices for cigarettes do lower the rates of smoking. "Sin taxes" have also proven effective in Europe. Stupid government, helping us to live longer, healthier lives.

[identity profile] the-rukh.livejournal.com 2010-04-04 07:19 pm (UTC)(link)
It doesn't look *that* bad. I'd rather just have the chicken though. And it's not *that* bad for you either, that's actually fairly healthy considering all the cheese it appears to have. The problem is that people will probably eat this, a cup of mashed potatoes, mayo slathered cole slaw, and a giant soda. The soda is actually probably one of the worst parts.

[identity profile] abomvubuso.livejournal.com 2010-04-05 11:01 am (UTC)(link)
I have a healthy lifestyle (sometimes i go too far with the physical part), my wife has a healthy lifestyle (she sometimes goes too far with the food part), my kids have a healthy lifestyle, and most of the people i know, so...

...who cares :p