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

[telemann.livejournal.com]

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.

Comments

[prisoner--24601.livejournal.com]

How do they measure that data? Do they take into account all of the people who run across the state line, order from Indian reservations online, etc... to get their smokes? Or are they just measuring the amount of smokes sold legally in the city? Also what kind of "positive effect" are we talking about here? Is the drop in smoking significant enough to warrant the cost? And is there actually a causal link shown?

You might be right for all I know, but I'm skeptical until I see what it is that's actually being measured first.

Second, considering two-thirds of Americans are overweight, I would say the government now has a role to try and change the market from one of terribly unhealthy products to one that is more conducive to smart choices.

I don't agree, because I don't think it's the role of the government to try and fix every damn problem our society faces, and frankly right now with the recession they've got bigger problems to deal with than this. But let's assume you're right, that that the government should get involved.

Then how about the government clean it's own house first and stop promoting bad nutrition through subsidies and tariffs before we start slapping taxes on fast food? Like getting rid of subsidies to corn farmers which keeps the unhealthy corn products that keep getting shoved into our foods at an artificially low price? Or abolishing the sugar tariffs that encourage food makers to put cheaper corn syrup into everything?

[telemann.livejournal.com]

from Indian reservations online,

They've been closed down since the state has gone after back taxes owed by the people that purchased the cigarettes. There are studies that support what Michael stated too. Here's one. (http://www.springerlink.com/content/95218k2t3w146327/)

[hey-its-michael.livejournal.com]

I am not referring to sales, I am referring to surveys of surveys of people.

http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2008/01/03/New-York-City-teen-smoking-rate-down/UPI-82021199383115/

That's on teen smoking from a couple of years ago.

Separately, there have been a decrease in smoking-related deaths in NYC: http://www.healthyaging.net/articlelive/articles/127/1/MAYOR-BLOOMBERG-AND-HEALTH-COMMISSIONER-FARLEY-ANNOUNCE-LIFE-EXPECTANCY-FOR-NEW-YORKERS-HAS-INCREASED-TO-794-YEARS---AN-ALL-TIME-HIGH-/Page1.html


Is the drop in smoking enough to warrant the costs? Yes. Billions of dollars because of lung cancer, heart disease, etc. Not to mention the basic worth of living lives without the pain and suffering smoking, being overweight from diet, etc., results in. Perhaps you disagree. Well, fine, but at some point I think the majority of people agree with some level of involvement. If people disagree, they can vote for people who are against such taxes.

Of course, I would suggest that those people who seem skeptical actually research the issue.

Then how about the government clean it's own house first and stop promoting bad nutrition through subsidies and tariffs before we start slapping taxes on fast food? Like getting rid of subsidies to corn farmers which keeps the unhealthy corn products that keep getting shoved into our foods at an artificially low price? Or abolishing the sugar tariffs that encourage food makers to put cheaper corn syrup into everything?

I don't disagree with any of that. I think corn ethanol, for one thing, is an abomination and should be rid of for something that is genuinely clean and energy-efficient as an alternative source of fuel. I think farm subsidies are bloated and need to be rethought completely. Sugar tariffs -- same, I am fine eliminating / reducing them.

Just to add, these taxes did not come from nowhere. We have been confronting the problems associated with smoking, in particular, for decades. It has only been in the last ten / fifteen years that taxes have been used to try and discourage smoking. Separately, we have known about the bloating American's waistline for a good 20 years at least. I see nothing wrong with localities experimenting with taxation to try and improve the health of their citizens.

After all, isn't that what many conservatives support -- local laws and experimentation, blah blah blah? :o)

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

"After all, isn't that what many conservatives support -- local laws and experimentation, blah blah blah? :o)"

As opposed to total government take over? Yeah!