In USA Today's Forum section on the 14th of October, 2009 I came across a very interesting article. The author, one David Zinczenko, is the editor in chief of Men's Health and the editorial director of Women's Health and Children's Health magazines. Until reading this article I had no idea who the man was or any regard for those publications he supervises; as of the moment this has changed.
The suggestion of a Calorie Added Tax simply floored me. Here is a concept of stunning, simple elegance with subtle and far reaching effects which I can foresee no ill consequences to. Furthermore, it dovetails so very, very neatly with my own idea for establishing an energy-based global currency. Certainly the conversion between joules and calories would be slightly annoying but here is a perfect opportunity to not only improve our collective health, but to begin shifting to a stable and sustainable economic model in not one but two significant arenas; the model of currency and wealth and the future cost of health care.
Leaving my pet cause aside a moment, let me take up and dust off my MLT hat for a moment. The fact is, people, that no matter how many fad diets and clever chemical supplements society develops, the basic mathematical formula remains and is unchanging: you take in more calories than you burn and your ass is going to balloon. I can attest to this from personal experience; the best health I ever enjoyed was during a time when I was taking in about 1200 calories a day and burning a little more than twice that in my daily exercises. Additionally, the connections between obesity and debilitating, expensive ailments is clearly defined and demonstrated. Finally, it is an inescapable fact that the "food" we as Americans tend to eat the most of are absolutely packed with procedurally added calories, such via the HFCS mentioned by the Honorable Gentleman above. For the record, my current occupation has regularly found me consuming this crap as a regular part of my "diet"; I know whereof I speak.
With that established, let me take a moment to draw your collective attention to another inescapable and ugly fact; there are entirely too many of us buying and eating this "food" because, thanks to the aforementioned subsidies, it is cheap. We have little incentive to spend money on better choices, especially those of us who already live in at best fragile economic conditions. In other words, its cheaper and more convenient to buy and eat the same crap that is practically engineered to be addictive.
So, all that said, let me be the first to second the CAT motion; I don't like paying taxes any more than the next guy but for the sake of all our health, I'll bite that bullet.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Bravo!
ReplyDeleteThere is, of course, a well-publicized "movement" (pseudo-movement is more truthful) in opposition to this excellent idea, largely funded by the beverage industry. See "Americans Against Food Taxes" at sourcewatch.org
As you point out, the sad but simple truth is that fats and sugars are cheap, while proteins are expensive. As a result, the farther down you go on the economic ladder, the higher the consumption of manufactured, or at least heavily-processed, pseudo-food, which ultimately leads to a higher cost in health care and a tragically shorter lifespan.
While the added tax would impact the poor more than the rich, it would at least have the benefit of funding health care for those who need it and presently cannot afford it. For those at the marginal point, the tax would create a price differential that might be sufficient to encourage the healthier choices that would create lower long-term health costs (financial and otherwise.)