Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
"Could Taxes Or Food Stamp Restrictions Tame America's Sweet Tooth?"
I heard this story on NPR a couple days ago, and it got me thinking. What are you thoughts on a potential "sugar tax"? I'll post my opinion in a little bit.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/02/06/146481752/taxes-and-food-stamp-restrictions-proposed-to-tame-americas-sweet-tooth
Here's the text:
Sugar may be our favorite pick-me-up. I know I sometimes get the 4 p.m. urge for peanut M&Ms. But how much is too much?
The American Heart Association says women should not have more than 6 teaspoons, or 30 grams, a day, which is about 100 calories of added sugar (excluding fruit). And men should try not to exceed 9 teaspoons, or 45 grams.
But a lot of us are eating way more.
"The bottom line is our sugar consumption has gone through the roof," says Robert Lustig, a professor of pediatrics at the University of California, San Francisco. He says the typical American is eating nearly 450 calories of added sugar everyday.
In a commentary published in Nature, Lustig and his colleagues argued that this excessive consumption is linked to an increase in chronic diseases such as type-2 diabetes, fatty liver disease, metabolic disorder, heart disease as well as obesity. So, Lustig argues, we need to cut way back ? by about two-thirds ? on the amount of sugar we consume.
"That's a lot" to cut, he acknowledges. "And it can't be done unless there's a public health intervention of some sort."
A tax proposal on the table in Massachusetts could discourage sugar consumption a bit by making sugary foods more expensive.
Gov. Deval Patrick has proposed extending the state's 6.5 percent sales tax to include candy, soda and other sugar-sweetened drinks. (Currently, the tax law exempts all food.) The revenue generated would be used to pay for nutrition education and health promotion programs.
It's a proposal people may not have expected from a governor who once worked for Coca-Cola.
"Mind you, I worked in the soda-pop business," Patrick says. "So I know the arguments on the other side." But he says he thinks the proposal is gaining support. "It's popular," he says. "I hope the Legislature takes it up and acts on it this time."
A poll in the state found two-thirds of Massachusetts voters would support the tax on soft drinks and candy if the revenue were used to support programs that fight childhood obesity or other educational initiatives.
"People are willing to look at these things," says Alex Zaroulis, a spokeswoman with the Massachusetts Executive Office of Administration and Finance,
"because they understand that the cost of treating diabetes and other [chronic conditions] that can be impacted by unhealthy diet is having a serious impact on the state's finances."
Outside Massachusetts, a national survey found that a majority of taxpayers oppose the idea of a "sin tax" on soda and candy. According to a blog post from the American Beverage Association, people see these tax proposals as a "money grab" to fund more government.
"Taxes don't make people healthy," the ABA's Chris Gindlesperger told us.
"What helps people get to a place where they're leading a more healthy lifestyle is educating them on how to balance the calories they consume with the calories they expend through physical activity," he says.
The ABA also opposes a bill proposed in the Florida Legislature that would restrict the use of food stamps ? now called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program ? to buy soda, sugary treats or other unhealthy foods.
"Should we give hungry kids food? Absolutely," says Florida state Sen. Ronda Storms, who sponsored the bill. "But I don't think the goal is to provide Oreos and Mountain Dew." She says this is a misuse of public assistance dollars.
Storms says she's not suggesting that the government should dictate what we can have in our pantries. "I'm not telling people what they can eat," she says. They're free to eat chips and soda, she argues, on their own dime.
Storms says she's been visited by a steady stream of lobbyists from the snack food industry and beverage industries who are strongly opposed to her bill. They argue there's no fair way to implement it. For instance, if a food has a little bit of sugar, is it off the list for food stamp recipients? It's unclear.
"With tens of of thousands of items in stores, it's extremely hard for a grocer to separate out what's covered by the program and not covered under these rules," says Jim Weill, president of the nonprofit anti-hunger organization Food Research and Action Center. Industry groups have aligned with FRAC in their opposition to Storms' bill.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture denied New York's requestto enact similar limits on food stamp purchases. And as my colleague Scott Hensley reported, the state of Minnesota tried and failed as well.
Sen. Storm's Florida bill is scheduled to come before a state Senate Budget Committee today.
Re: "Could Taxes Or Food Stamp Restrictions Tame America's Sweet Tooth?"
To answer the question - no. At least I don't think so.
Do people smoke less in areas with increased cigarette taxes? (I don't know, thats a genuine question.) But that's hard to compare because in many of those states (NY for example) you are very limited in where you can smoke - my good friend stopped smoking bc she couldn't smoke in bars anymore, couldn't smoke here, couldn't smoke there, and when that was combined with the high tax on cigarettes, she quit (thankfully).
Anyway I digress. I think if people want soda, or candy, or whatever, they will buy them. A tax sounds like a good idea in theory but I dont think it will work for the purposes its supposed to (that is an AWFUL sentence ha.)
If the intent is just to provide more revenue for the state, then sure, this will work. But let's call it what it is then. The money won't go to help childhood obesity or fund diabetes research or whatever and I think we all know that, so let's be honest about it.
We don't need an intervention to help foster healthier eating habits. We need education.
I'm not implying that I'm a fatty because I don't know any better. I'm not blaming my own situation on anyone but myself. I know what's "good" and what's "bad". I get it. But there are a lot of people who truly don't grasp it. They don't have the nutritional education or the cooking skills to put together healthy, tasty food for themselves and their families.
Charging them more for a 2 liter of Coke isn't going to make them healthier.
You know what would encourage healthy eating, cut down on sugar consumption, help agricultural sustainability, boost local economies and save the government money? Ending ridiculous commodity crop subsidies. Soda and candy is cheap because high fructose corn syrup and related corn- and soy-based ingredients are cheap. Those ingredients are cheap because commodity crop producers (mostly massive corporate farmers, not Farmer John out on an International on his family's land) get big subsidies to grow them even though we don't need them.
If we took that money and subsidized small farms, ranches, orchards, farmers' markets and farm stands, helped small time growers get their wares into supermarkets, and educated people on how to prepare tasty meals with vegetables, fruits and lean proteins, then prices and availability would drive people to eat better. Those who want to drink soda can pay the non-subsidized price.
And I don't care if I get flamed to high heaven for this but I have no problem with limiting SNAP customers to more nutritious, higher quality food options. That more and more farmers' markets are accepting SNAP and WIC benefits is a big step in the right direction but it needs to be coupled to education on nutritious eating, meal planning and food preparation.
Our Share of the Harvest: One couple's take on farm-to-table cooking
Chocolate Whoopie Pies with Strawberry Filling
No. No no no.
On top of everything else that PPs have said (and I
everything that mrsbobcat said), do you know what happens when the government gets accustomed to a certain source of income? They come to depend on it. And do you know what happens then? You get a big, fat conflict of interest.
And yes, I understand the supposed economics behind taxing bad habits with negative societal costs. And that doesn't change my opinion one bit. You don't ingrain good habits by making them cost less.
lovelylittleworld
BFP#2 1/12/12 ~ Missed M/C 8w2d
also, wheeee, in response to the bolded, I'm assuming HFCS would be included? It should be at any rate. And if we go by how much HFCS is in foods, then a lot more things would be taxed at this higher rate than just candy and soda. I bet if HFCS was included the corn lobby would go nuts.
I totally agree with everything here.
THIS!
Sugar is in everything and there's more sugar in items than people care to think about. Most of your low-fat yogurts have over 30 grams of sugar in them to make them taste better. My go to yogurt is the Safeway brand reduced-fat (blue labels) vanilla yogurt because it ONLY 9gs of sugar in it.
Juice is another hidden sugar gem. I'll spend $5-$9 on a bottle of cranberry juice, and that's for the little bottles, because I refuse to buy the juice cocktails that have 35+ grams of sugar in them. The cranberry juice I get has less than 16 grams and the really good stuff has 8 grams. Sure, the stuff is so freaking tart that I have to water it down at home in order to be able to drink it, but I know it's better for me than the juice cocktails.
How are those items going to be handled with a sugar tax?
You said it better than I could. Thanks.
Yeah, I basically couldn't have said it better.
SOMETHING needs to change. The amount of sugar that American consumes is out of control.
~ Kelsey Jean ~
Cooking with Crouton: A Food Blog
quadruple ditto.