Image by Jonas in China via FlickrBecause we are fat, a tax on soft drinks is being proposed to reduce consumption, in other words, to "help" Americans drink less soda. Studies show that increases in price reduce consumption. My personal experience shows that price hikes cause you to find someone who sells wholesale.
Did you know that you can buy soda with federal Food Coupons?
Maybe we should stop subsidizing soda with federal tax dollars meant to provide good nutrition to poor people. It might save a whole lot of money, certainly would reduce soft drink consumption, and should promote standards of proper nutrition.
Whaddya think?
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=8942e8f8-dea3-4def-aded-ded84b0f1722)
Posts
Dearest Bob,
ReplyDeleteWhat specifically do you refer to when you say that we subsidize soda? Do you mean we subsidize soda via corn subsidies which leads to h.f.c.s. production (I would venture to guess the main sweetener in soda drinks in this country at least, although I have no data), or do you mean we subsidize fuel which makes fertilizers and fuels vehicles that enables us to efficiently harvest corn? Or do we actually subsidize the production of sodas. That is unclear to me. However, you did ask what we think.
If you haven't already read this, see "The breeder's dilemma - yield or nutrition" (Nature Biotechnology 24, 1078 - 1080 2006). My argument to your question then is, on the grand scheme, American taxpayers should instead subsidize quality of crop biomass rather than biomass quantity (as is the old methodology in crops like maize). Quality being defined as nutritional value - as suggested in aforementioned article. Let me know what you think about that. I think there needs to be a major paradigm shift in this country, and others.
- bingethinkin'
Specifically I mean that we allow the purchase of soda with "food stamps", thereby subsidizing soda sales and bad nutrition for poor folks.
ReplyDeleteAs far as subsidizing nutritional quality rather than yield, that is a slippery slope. I have watched nutritional advice wax and wane for years. Butter is good, butter is bad. Eggs are good, eggs are bad, eggs are good again. Vegetable oil is better than saturated fat. Rapeseed oil is now canola oil 'cause it markets better.
The corn subsidy is out of hand, and I do not approve of corn based ethanol.
I would prefer a return to the buy, store and distribute model for surplusing and for food subsidies. Combine this with a program to teach folks how to use basic ingredients, and you'd have a powerful tool for modifying nutritional behavior and improving national health.
As far as fuel subsidies go, most of the oil subsidies are for royalties paid to foreign owners, which is just like similar tax deductions granted for business expenses. The most egregious subsidy in my view is the corn-ethanol subsidy. There are many good reasons to move away from the monoculture of corn, nutrition being foremost among them.
I would prefer a bigger commitment to diesel engines which can burn nearly anything and burn pretty cleanly, since the advent of fuel injection and computer controlled combustion. Using fallow or marginal-land to produce biodiesel specific crops can be an important part of our ag policy.
We need the NIH, the FDA, and the USDA working together rather than at counterpurposes.