Public Health in Oregon - Join The Conversation

I am not a big fan of the soda tax. We already pay taxes on so many other things. The only argument I can see is that soda is a bit unhealthy and it could discourage us from going in that direction so we don’t end up on a pulse oximeter. That’s just my two cents.

Thanks for the feedback on my article, and the link to my site. I agree that the two solutions (taxes and agricultural policy) are not mutually exclusive. However, soda taxes are easier to enact, politically, but changing agricultural policy is preferable. People who believe in personal responsibility and bootstraps more easily support taxing something that is bad for you. However, it is important to consider the effect of taxes on equity, rather than just jumping on the easiest solution. In addition, soda taxes don’t get at the root of the problem—the subsidies that create the situation in the first place by making the least healthy foods the cheapest foods and the foods most often bought and consumed by those with the fewest resources.

Creating a soda tax is not the solution. Putting a tax on this product is not going to fight the obesity epidemic, and money put into fund this program would be better spent on health care and education.

Two important point are raised regarding health care policies that may lead to unintended consequences. 
1. Where do we draw the line? What is considered junk food? Will taxing junk food lead to taxing other food products?
2. Will the tax be unevenly distributed, affecting primarily those with lower incomes, and allowing those with higher incomes to continue to consume junk food? Is the purpose of the tax to burden those with low incomes?

I’m glad that his article brings up the issue of unhealthy foods affecting a particular population.  It is sad that the lower class is usually affected by the taxes on junk foods, but also I feel that it is the governments responsiblility to provide healthier food choices for these people.  I understaned that it is cheaper to make processed food but the amount of damage it can cause in health problems can be worse.

I feel that there are much bigger problems out there other than putting a tax on soda.  This will not slow down the consumption of soda that we drink.  If someone really wants to drink and soda then they will buy one.  This is very similar to the cigarette tax because it hasn’t slowed down people at all.  If they want it, then they are going to get it.

Taxing junk food definitely wont solve the epidemic of obesity in our country.  Just because there is a tax on something bad for you doesn’t mean that your not going to still have it.  It might make some people think twice about having a soda or some junk food but wont solve the whole problem. There is a good point that taxing the junk food does mainly affect the lower class due to the prices on junk foods.

I’m glad this article points out that junk food taxes would affect the lower class the most. Initially I thought a junk food tax sounded like a good idea, but if ‘junk’ food is what someone can afford because it is cheaper than healthier food, then I don’t think it is right to tax them for it. Plus, putting a tax on something is not going to stop everyone from buying these products. There has got to be a better way to fight obesity.

I believe that putting a tax on soda is not going to solve our obesity trend in America at all. As prices go up, of course the quantity demanded in the market will fall,  but that demand will not fall equally for every individual. It won’t affect the consumption of soda, because it won’t guarantee to change bad habits. It will do little to curb the addiction to soda…and just make people a little bit poorer. Not much of a threat.

I believe that a junk food tax is not a solution to solving the obesity epidemic. This would directly affect low income families that can only afford unhealthy foods, creating a higher rates of food insecurity. Instead, an effort towards strengthening physical education programs in school’s and creating more access to healthier foods would be a more effective solution in the long run. Limiting peoples choices rather than providing better education and resources is not the answer to obesity.

I think that a junk food tax might help to slightly decrease the amount of people who regularly consume soda but it will not necessarily solve the obesity epidemic.  People who want to achieve a healthy lifestyle need to eat adequate diets in the right proportions and need to exercise regularly.  If the government is trying to reduce obesity they should also consider offering access to gyms and safe rec centers for people in the lower classes.  It seems that taking something away from someone, like money through taxes, may not be as good of a motivator as giving them something, like gyms or access to cheaper healthy foods. Schools would be a great place to change eating habits because children usually have few options and they are in the process of making health habits for the future.

Shane made a good point when mentioning how it isn’t fair to tax cheap, comerical brand junk food but not high end branded junk food.  A soda tax would be slightly regressive, however if there were studies to show that charging comsumers higher prices for soda would decrease their consumption of soda I think it wold be worth it.  I don’t believe that charging an extra few cents for soda and other junk food will necessarily detract people from buying it, but I do think the extra money could help fund Medicaid, or prevention programs.

I actually just did a report on government junk food tax. I have to admit after reading quite a few articles on junk food tax that several things became very clean. Taxing won’t necessarily solve obesity, it isn’t necessarily the calorie intake but the lack of exercise, and as long as good food like fresh produce prices are kept high taxing junk food which is normally cheaper and higher quantity will only increase the amount of hunger and poverty among working class and low class families. So instead of worrying about who is eating what junk food shouldn’t we worry more about what kind of food is available to people,increasing Physical Fitness programs in the public school system, and making healthy foods what is available on food stamps.

Drinking soda pop is absolutely a unnecessary choice that could cost the consumers much more financial problem later on in life. Gum erosion, obesity, teeth decaying, along with many other diseases that soda pop can contribute to weight heavily on our health care system as the people age and enter national health care (Medicare, Medicaid, etc.)

Taxing the soda pop industry would not be sufficient enough if we want to create a healthier generation. This is only the first step, and so far we are still not moving forward.

I feel that taxing soda in general is a much better idea than the proposed policy that would make obese people to purchase two airline seats when traveling to account for their size. I think that this policy is very discriminatory and does blame the victim rather than treating the real issue. Although the arguements are great as to why taxing junk food and soda only affect the lower socioeconomic status groups in America, it can be one way to recieve more funds to help pay for nutritional education in schools and the community.

I think at first the junk food tax seems like a good idea but in reality the people who struggle the most in our country will feel the repercussions the most. When you look at it in terms of fighting obesity and bringing more attention to how bad that food might be it is a good thing. Then looking at it in terms of who will be affected it becomes a whole different issue. Although there is an inequality there are certain steps that we will eventually have to take to reduce the rate of obesity and this might just have to be one of them.

Before reading this article i thought it would be a great idea to tax junk foods, but now i don’t think this is what should happen. low income people obviously don’t have the money to be buying expensive organic food like the rich do. This would be herd on them because they would not have the money to buy “good food”. I think the the companies should be taxed for providing junk food with nasty fatty products.

I have always been a believer in sin taxes. Why not discourage people from buying things that have a negative effect on their health? But after reading this article, I have mixed feelings about taxing junk food. I feel that there is an ethical issue involved when considering who the junk food tax would be effecting. By taxing junk food, those who have a lower socio-economic status will be suffering more financially than others of higher standing. As it said in the article, lower income people are the primary consumer group of junk food, so I think that one thing should be considered before implementing the tax: is it more important to discourage people from eating unhealthier items by increasing the price than allowing them to buy the food that low income families can afford?

I personally think it is a great idea to tax junk food. High sugary foods are addictive and then in turn, cause people to want more and more of these unhealthy foods.  If we can put a tax on cigarettes, I think a tax on junk food is equally needed.  It may not reduce the amount of junk food consumed, but at least it would be another money maker to help lessen the deficit.

At first it seems like a good idea to tax junk food because there is a huge obesity problem in the United States. And it does target lower income people, which might help them stop eating the junk food, and spend less money but I believe that they would still continue to eat it.  Taxing soda is a better idea because countless number of people from every class drinks soda. It could potentially decrease the gap between the rich and the poor. Ending corn subsidies is a good idea because it can also help promote the prevention of obesity.

When first hearing about the proposal for taxing “junk food” I was in full support; however after reading the full details of the proposal and who is most affected, I must oppose the idea of a tax on “junk food.”  The solution to the obesity crisis is not by continuing to tax the poor, of which purchase mostly preserved “junk foods” but instead offering other solutions.  Could it be possible by offering tax breaks for those who take the initiative of purchasing a gym membership, or decide to invest in growing a garden, or those who decide to ride a bike instead of driving a car.  I feel that continuous taxes will not solve the obesity problem, because people will purchase unhealthier foods regardless, especially if that is solely the only thing they can afford.  I’m a strong healthy eater advocate but I must disagree with the idea of taxing junk food.  I fully promote the idea of teaching those how to prepare a garden, which can supply endless amounts of nutritional benefits.

I don’t think that the solution to obesity or healthy promotion of eating is taxing junk food or soda. I feel once an individual consumes that in their diet, it is up to that individual to halt their behavior. If a tax is placed on soda, this will not stop people from buying sodas. Thus, in reality, this tax will only be hurting the lower income population, who is already having a hard time making ends meet in their daily lives, since it is stated that the lower income population are the ones that consume junk food more than a well off population.

I think that putting a tax on these foods is a good idea.  Yes these foods are more commonly eaten by people of lower income, but at least out here in Oregon we have stores like Grocery Outlet where healthy food is equal to the price of sugary, fat foods.  Maybe this tax will also encourage people on food stamps and things like the Oregon Trail card to spend their money on better things than Twinkies, and soda pop!

I think that yes junk food should be taxed BUT I also understand that it would not be entirerly fair. Maybe the group of people that tend to buy junk food should go about the increase by purchasing healthier food..just rearrange th budget bucasue when it comes down to it the health of your family should matter more than spending the extra dollars on healthy food.

Look around we have bigger problems to worry about then who taxing high sugar beverages is going to effect the most. The point of the tax is to help the obesity rates in America get under control and to help pay for all the medical bills associated with obesity. Anything that will help obesity rated decrease in anyway is a good thing!

I don’t believe that soda and other junk food should be taxed. Junk food is the lowest priced food on the market. Once the price of junk food goes up, how else are people of a lower economic status supposed to eat? I agree that people should be making smarter and healthier choices when it comes to eating, but it can be pricey. If junk food becomes taxed, than produce and health foods should be marked down. There needs to be a balance of prices for a balanced diet.

Although taxing foods that have high sugar content or junk food seems like it would be a good idea at first. But, there are many things that would have to be figured out before it could be imposed. Which foods/beverages would have the tax? How would this be decided? How would this effect the companys? How would the low-income families be affected by this? Etc.
So, I do think it is a good idea, but more information is needed for it to be successful.

Imposing a tax on “junk food” would cause a severe blow to already struggling families. The idea of increasing the price of junk food to decrease the amount of junk food bought seems like a good idea, but the true ramifications are less than appealing. The reason low income families buy junk food is not because they like it. Its because it is cheap readily available and quick. If you make it less cheap it will still be readily available and quick most likely not changing the food choices of low income families. Another problem of this tax is who and how do you classify food as junk food. Who decides what is fair to tax and not fair to tax.

The tax on junk food would be one attempt to fight obesity, however I do not think it would be beneficial for companies who make the junk food, it would ruin their businesses, decrease job opportunities and cause confusion on what should be taxed and what should not. Also healthy food would be in higher demand due to the tax reduction, which would increase the prices.

The junk food tax at first seemed a reasonable way to battle against obesity and cardiovascular disease. Since there are proven facts that lower income people tend to have more chronic diseases, but after reading the srticle she made a reaasonable point about hurting the people more rather than helping them.

When I first heard about a junk food tax, I thought it would be a good idea with out any doubt, now I am questioning if that is really the best way to deal with the problem. Junk food and soda for the most part are inexpensive and people that would suffer the most from a junk food or soda tax are already low income, so I don’t think it would be fair. Also it would be difficult to determine exactly what foods should be taxed. Healthy wholesome food is usually more expensive and not always available to all communities, if anyone should be taxed I think it should be the companies making the soda and junk food with bad ingredients such as fructose corn syrup.

Unfortunately I think that having a tax on
junk food would ultimately hurt the poor in a financial stand point.  But I’m not really sure what is worse, increasing their debt or decreasing their health?  Decreased health means more doctors visits, and more doctors visits means more money spent from their pocket.  To me I see this as a huge problem because not only would those individuals be decreasing their health, they would also be losing money in two ways (“fat tax” and hospital bills.)  If I had it my way, I would like to see cheaper “healthy foods”, expensive “junk foods” and high taxes on companies who produce “junk food”.  Now, although that is highly unlikely to ever happen, I do believe that having a “fat tax” is a good thing.  It is at least a step in the right direction for making our nation a little bit healthier and hopefully preventing the rates of obesity to continue to climb in the future.

The argument that the poor can not afford healthier food may be somewhat true. There is one thing that is for sure however, the poor can not afford to pay for their hospital bills or medications that may come about from obesity or poor eating habits. I somewhat disagree with the belief that taxing junk food is unethical, because in my opinion,what is unethical is sitting back watching one of the already unhealthiest groups unknowingly sink themselves even deeper into an oppressive pit.
Taxing junk food will be a prolonged process to figure out what will be identified as “jink food”, but I think positive outcomes will come from it. Taxing soda companies doesn’t sound like a bad idea either.

Taxation of junk foods aims to reduce the consumption of them. In a population that is increasingly unhealthy because of poor diet choices I don’t see how this is a bad thing. People who don’t make healthy choices strain our healthcare system, create unhealthy social norms, and harm their own bodies. Asking them to pay a tad more to combat the problems caused by their own behaviors may seem paternalistic to the individual but it is fair to the population.

I think she has a very good point, and is 100% correct about it being unfair tax for the poor. That being said if the rich lead unhealthy behaviors they will most likely be able to pay for private medical insurance, and with unhealthy life styles it will be very expensive. So it reality they are paying more for their unhealthy life styles. If diagnosed with a chronic disease caused from a lifetime of unhealthy choices they will not be on medicare draining the system, they will be draining their own pockets. It might be offensive to some but I feel that if you are not going to affect the taxpayers money then you should be able to live and eat how you like.

I believe that it would be a very good thing to tax certain junk foods. The only hard part would be deciding exactly which foods are considered junk and which are not.  This tax in my opinion would benefit everyone because nobody should be consuming these foods anyway.

Putting a tax on soda and not other sugary drinks, such as the Martenelli’s which was mentioned, would be effective in decreasing the amount of empty calories Americans take in because so much more soda is bought than Martenelli’s. At the rate that it’s currently being consumed, Martenelli’s poses a very small threat to the health of Americans, especially when compared to soda. I can see how this argument came about, but closer inspection will show that it’s unfounded.

When I first about the proposal for taxing junk food I thought it was a good idea because it would promote healthy eating. Although, after reading this article, I feel more inclined to be against it.  I think it would be really difficult to decipher the nit-picky details of what is considered “junk food” and what isn’t.  I also think that it is unethical because, like the article says, the consumer group for junk food is primarily low income people and taxing the only food that these people can afford would make their financial situation worse.

I think that it would be a good idea to tax certain types of junk foods, because after all junk food is food that you can live with out. Placing a tax on certain foods may make its consumers more aware of the dangers of pop or energy drinks, and in turn make them consider other options. There are many different issues you need to consider when debating this issue. You need to decide what foods to tax and who this tax will effect, and in this case it would effect those who are in poverty or lower socio-economic statuses. This new tax idea can be argued either way, but taxing junk foods should be something that could eventually be implemented.

I think sin taxes are a good idea, but if we are going to tax junk food we need to be careful that we tax products that are used by all classes of people, not just the working class.

This is a very interesting topic. On one hand i feel like it is a good idea to be taking “junk food” but on the other hand we have to take into consideration who it would be effecting. In general it would be affecting people with less money who cannot afford fresh foods. Yes we should care about the types of food they can afford but i feel like they should also be aware of the harmful chemicals and nutrients that are in those packaged, unhealthy foods. Bottom line the tax should only happen once, whether it is directly with the consumer or with the company who is buying the corn syrup and sugar.

I have done some research on the junk food tax, and I have mixed feelings on whether we should or shouldn’t have the tax put into place. there is a lot to consider about the tax. The poor people cant afford to buy the most nutritious food, so by putting a tax on the food they can afford would only make it harder for them to make ends meet. I think the junk food tax has some good ideas by trying to make the nation think twice before buying unhealthy food and hopefully cause obese population to go down. There are lots of things to think about both good and bad before deciding if you are for or against the junk food tax.

I think that if we taxed “junk” food then those of lower socio-economic status are going to be taxed more than those higher with higher statuses.  This would be unfair and poorer people would have to pay more for food that they can really only afford to get.  Middle and upper class people can afford to buy healthier foods.  This would increase the gap between the wealthy and poor as well and the poor will become poorer.  I think we should have some campaigns to show how unhealthy “junk” food is to persuade people to eat healthier, but I do not think we should necessarily tax this unhealthy food because it will not be fair in the end to those who can only afford the more unhealthy foods.

This is a very intersting blog because to talk about eliminating corn subsidies is saying we are getting ride of almost all of our processed foods. Which is both good and bad because for those who want to keep eating those foods, or that’s all they can afford, what will they go to instead? Making healthier food cheaper is defenitly the way to go, because i needs to be cheaper in the first place if america wants to change the shape of their population.

I have mixed feelings I believe that overall it’d be beneficial and maybe a wakening for most. But what about for those of us who work out and work hard and like to eat your occasional junk food? Also you can’t change someone; that someone has to want to change. So even if we tax that junk food, if they want to bad enough there going to get it. But maybe instead of taxing junk food, making healthier food cheaper, more reasonable. Although in some cases it’s cheaper instead of eating out and eating all that junk but what it boils down to is people are lazy and they don’t want to try and you can’t force them to try and make changes.

I never considered the idea of horizontal/vertical equality when considering a tax on soda and junk food, but it seems logical. The wealthy like to indulge just as much as anyone else, maybe even more so due to their socio-economic status. I am a big fan of luxury taxes so why not tax luxury food items like foie gras? I also agree with doing away with federal subsidies on corn. Corn products are found in almost every kind of junk food in the form of starch or syrup.

I think increasing tax on “junk foods” is a good place to start. It’s not specifically aimed at low-income people…but it might help them find other, more healthy foods out there that are equally as cheap. For example, broccoli, bananas, and eggs are all VERY cheap!!! We have already seen that increasing the tax on cigarettes decreased cigarette use. This may help lower the rates of obesity in the United States. However, I agree that this is not going to solve the problem. We do need to get more to the root of the source and re-examine our corn subsidies and things like that.

I think a tax on junk food is unreasonable. Its not fair to tax people for eating these when people from a lower economic status are one of the greater consumers. I do believe however that there should be a tax on soda because people from all levels of income drink soda. I believe that its a pretty equally consumed beverage on all tiers of the economic ladder.

I can see how taxing sugary and fattening foods could sound like the solution to all of our “fat” problems, but I highly doubt that it would. The idea that it isn’t fair to only tax the foods that lower income folks eat is kind of stereotyping them, and doesn’t make much sense either. Consider the amount of money that everyone pays in medical bills for those that are uninsured and have diabetes from eating unhealthy foods… does it make much sense to say that it is unfair to divert those same people from eating sugar and fat filled foods? While taxing those types of foods may make an impact on some level, people will still eat what they want to eat. If a tax like this was put in place, we would have to make sure that there are healthy foods in the same price range for low-income families to be able to afford.

I feel like we are beginning to tax people on absolutely everything. But I also feel like taxing sugary and unhealthy foods and beverages isn’t going to prevent people from buying them. If someone wants to drink a soda, they are going to purchase the soda. The biggest problem we have here is the growing rate of obesity and we need to determine what we are going to do to stop it in its tracks. Is the cure to obesity jacking up the prices of sugary foods? I don’t think so. They are still going to eat them.
Everyone is in charge of their own choices, if they want to eat “bad” foods, so be it. Telling people not to, isn’t going to stop them.