Obesity tops tobacco as biggest health threat

[PainRack]

Somebody should. Will they? I doubt it. If they don't, and this tax is pushed through -- which seems far more likely than the alternative -- then the burden would be placed on the malnourished urban poor.

Will subsidies for the sale of healthier foods help turn convenience stores into supermarkets? What kind of subsidies are we talking about here? Green stuff -- fruits and vegetables -- requires refrigeration and frequent restocking. Can smaller stores survive according to that kind of business model? Can supermarkets thrive in city centers, where cars (and trunks) are comparatively rare? Have you honestly failed to take these obvious problems into account?

Farmer's market, coalitions of small business owners.... all of this are non tax money funded opportunities to increase the supply of fresh food to cities.

As it is, arguing that this is impossible when every other modern country in the world can do it is dumb. if its REALLY that bad, guess what? Build up your public transportation infrastructure so people can afford to make daily shopping trips to city centres.

[Broomstick]

The government should wring its way back to solvency at the expense of the average consumer. How else is it going to accomplish this feat?

As usual, you behave as if taxation is the only solution to cost overruns, and blame anybody who questions high taxes of favoring the wealthy. There are a number of methods for cutting costs, rather than raising tax. The government should balance its budget and work to curtail pork-barrel spending. Individual citizens should amend their expectations of the services government can, and should, provide.

On the other hand, if citizens do expect/require a particular service from government they shouldn't bitch about the required taxes, as you can't pay all the bills by cost-cutting, at some point you need to raise money.

That's idiotic. If poor people can only afford to buy junk food, then someone should change that situation rather than saying "let's make sure the poor can continue to buy cheap junk food!" Also, you're ignoring the fact that the proposal includes taking the junk food tax and using it to subsidize healthier foods, which would make the good food affordable for low-income families. The whole objective of this scheme is to get that shitty junk food away from poor people, and you're saying that if this happens, it will be a failure. Do you honestly not understand that?

Somebody should. Will they? I doubt it. If they don't, and this tax is pushed through -- which seems far more likely than the alternative -- then the burden would be placed on the malnourished urban poor.

Will subsidies for the sale of healthier foods help turn convenience stores into supermarkets? What kind of subsidies are we talking about here? Green stuff -- fruits and vegetables -- requires refrigeration and frequent restocking. Can smaller stores survive according to that kind of business model? Can supermarkets thrive in city centers, where cars (and trunks) are comparatively rare? Have you honestly failed to take these obvious problems into account?

Oddly enough, despite having been poor twice in my life, both times in large urban centers, I still managed to eat healthy. Of course, that did require that I do more than simply reach for the bag of chips next to the cash register.

If people will BUY fresh fruits and vegetables the storage/restocking problem becomes moot. The only reason spoilage is a problem is because the shitty junk food is cheaper and placed to catch people's eye, and people have been trained to eat junk instead of real food.

[Broomstick]

I still think that taxing restaurant portions above a certain caloric content makes sense.

The system doesn't have to be perfect in order to have a positive effect.

Its hard to enforce dear.... Who's to say that your sample meal submitted to the inspectors will tailor to the actual caloric content?

Who said anything about the restaurant choosing the sample? Use undercover people to purchase a typical meal, so the restaurant has no idea that the meal in question is the sample until after it is served.

Enforcing health and food safety laws requires effort, too. We manage to do it anyway.

[aieeegrunt]

Well, smoking is a similar sort of problem that we've been succesful at amelorating, so perhaps we could look at some of the methods used to discourage smoking and see how they can be applied to fatties.

There is of course the punative taxes driving up the cost of smokes, but I think that the other side of that equation that is needed was the social pressure; smokers were gradually driven from bars, restaurants, cafeterias, aircraft and trains, break rooms etc. etc. That was probably just as if not more effective than smokes becoming more expensive. Humans are social animals, if you start getting excluded from things because of a certain behaviour it is a powerful motivator to change or drop that behaviour.

So along with targeting fatty enhancing things like corn syrup and junk food, I think that there needs to be social pressure as well; having to pay for two seats on airplanes and in movie theatres, stuff like that. If it is effective on something as addictive as nicotine, it should work on potatoe chips.

[RedImperator]

The overwhelming majority of the overweight and obese still aren't big enough to require two seats on airplanes or movie theaters. The few that need them should be charged for them; that's only fair; but the same options just aren't available for smokers. Keep in mind, smokers themselves weren't kicked out of indoor public spaces, just their habit, on the grounds that secondhand smoke is a health hazard. A smoker is perfectly welcome to sit in a restaurant as long as he goes outside to light up. I don't know how you plan to enforce something like that with the obese.

[Axis Kast]

How does a non-balanced budget, pork-barrel spending and unrealistic expectations of the government's role in life increase obesity rates, and how would fixing those problems decrease obesity?

I was replying directly to Mike's general remark that governments should tax their way to solvency.

I don't know about the US, but in Australia, IGAs - stores that range from 1/8 to about 1/4 the size of a supermarket and stock a variety of foods including fresh fruit and vegetables - are relatively common and solvent. They usually just service people who live within easy walking distance, because if you had to drive for anything more than maybe a carton of milk, people would just go to a proper supermarket. They kept their prices competitive by being socialist commie traitors and basically collectivising their supply so that they could get bulk wholesale discounts. I imagine that if there was a proper push from the government to make unhealthy foods more expensive and healthy food less expensive, then they would be able to stock even more fresh fruit and vegetables, since more people would be buying them, which would decrease the issue of shelf-life immensely.

The convenience stores, delis, and bodegas which stand in for supermarkets in inner cities are at the lower end of that spectrum. Many are dingy, dirty, and lack more than a single wall of climate-controlled storage space. The average 7-11 has about two or three times as much capacity for keeping items hot or cold. Collective bargaining would be an excellent way for those stores to acquire stock, but doesn't take into account the investments that would have to be made to handle display and sale.

Farmer's market, coalitions of small business owners.... all of this are non tax money funded opportunities to increase the supply of fresh food to cities.

Farmer's markets depend on local organization; presumably, farmer's markets are already serving interested communities. Also, farmer's markets tend to occur one or two days a week.

On the other hand, if citizens do expect/require a particular service from government they shouldn't bitch about the required taxes, as you can't pay all the bills by cost-cutting, at some point you need to raise money.

Very correct.

Of course, whether the government should act to address obesity -- a lifestyle choice for most people -- is debatable.

One also needs to take into account the fact that subsidies as high as seem to be desired here -- high enough to push junk food into cost brackets that exceed those of fresh fruit and vegetables even in inner cities where transportation costs and infrastructure investment will drive prices up from the outset -- might spell ruin for many companies. I'm not one to say that we need to flatter sundown industry, but the social impact of this tax may be very significant, especially because, in order to actually address the problem, obesity, junk food needs to rise steeply in price.

If people will BUY fresh fruits and vegetables the storage/restocking problem becomes moot. The only reason spoilage is a problem is because the shitty junk food is cheaper and placed to catch people's eye, and people have been trained to eat junk instead of real food.

People cannot buy rotten or spoiled food. I'm also curious about how this program would work in "the real world," where the "tax" on junk food might not actually make it more expensive than fruits and vegetables.

[Darth Wong]

The government should wring its way back to solvency at the expense of the average consumer. How else is it going to accomplish this feat?

As usual, you behave as if taxation is the only solution to cost overruns, and blame anybody who questions high taxes of favoring the wealthy. There are a number of methods for cutting costs, rather than raising tax. The government should balance its budget and work to curtail pork-barrel spending. Individual citizens should amend their expectations of the services government can, and should, provide.

As usual, you're a dishonest sack of shit. I never said that any solution should be 100% tax increases. However, your position is that it should be zero percent tax increases. I am perfectly willing to entertain the idea of spending cuts in conjunction with tax increases. That's how Canada crawled out of a massive deficit hole in the 1990s after all. But you? Your dogma is apparently "no tax increases, ever, for any reason".

And your criticism was an example of a mindless knee-jerk anti-tax argument which could be applied (literally without changing a single word) to any kind of tax. It's a red-herring.

It wasn't a criticism. I shared with you a pair of objections that weren't consistent with the criteria you offered.

An objection that had nothing to do with the particular tax in question and which is therefore not a valid objection to that particular tax. If you're going to do that, you might as well throw in other generalized anti-tax objections as well, like the idiotic Kent Hovind one about how Christians shouldn't have to pay taxes because their money is owed to God.

That's idiotic. If poor people can only afford to buy junk food, then someone should change that situation rather than saying "let's make sure the poor can continue to buy cheap junk food!" Also, you're ignoring the fact that the proposal includes taking the junk food tax and using it to subsidize healthier foods, which would make the good food affordable for low-income families. The whole objective of this scheme is to get that shitty junk food away from poor people, and you're saying that if this happens, it will be a failure. Do you honestly not understand that?

Somebody should. Will they? I doubt it. If they don't, and this tax is pushed through -- which seems far more likely than the alternative -- then the burden would be placed on the malnourished urban poor.

The malnourished urban poor are more often than not malnourished by a lack of the proper food rather than a lack of food at all. A lot of the poor are actually fat. Malnourishment does not necessarily mean "skinny and underfed".

Will subsidies for the sale of healthier foods help turn convenience stores into supermarkets? What kind of subsidies are we talking about here? Green stuff -- fruits and vegetables -- requires refrigeration and frequent restocking. Can smaller stores survive according to that kind of business model? Can supermarkets thrive in city centers, where cars (and trunks) are comparatively rare? Have you honestly failed to take these obvious problems into account?

Have you ever walked through Chinatown, you ignorant fucktard? I have already mentioned that I have shopped at real small-scale hole-in-the-wall stores which stock fresh fruits and vegetables. The problem is partly cultural, and partly a lack of government-sponsored initiatives to push back against the junk food culture.

[PainRack]

[quote="Axis KastThe convenience stores, delis, and bodegas which stand in for supermarkets in inner cities are at the lower end of that spectrum. Many are dingy, dirty, and lack more than a single wall of climate-controlled storage space. The average 7-11 has about two or three times as much capacity for keeping items hot or cold. Collective bargaining would be an excellent way for those stores to acquire stock, but doesn't take into account the investments that would have to be made to handle display and sale.[/quote]
And? here's a hint, Singapore has the same mom and pop stores, and indeed, many of these stores DON"T store fruits and produce because of the distribution costs.

Some of these small stores DO store fresh produce/meat (not fruits though) via concentration of stores in neighbourhood markets. Their death in recent times is due to the increasing infiltration of supermarkets into the neighbourhoods.

ALL of which carry fresh fruit and produce. And a recent move by gas stations to have their stores become mini-supermarkets by FairPrice, and a counter-move by 7-11 has also seen fruits being sold in these areas.

You keep arguing that its impossible, but apparently, its only impossible in the United States of America.

Farmer's markets depend on local organization; presumably, farmer's markets are already serving interested communities. Also, farmer's markets tend to occur one or two days a week.

So? You miss the point entirely. There ARE already non government, non tax money financed movements to bring fresh food and produce TO the cities.
Arguing that this is oh, so impossible ignores the fact that you guys ARE already doing it successfully without the help of Big government.

One also needs to take into account the fact that subsidies as high as seem to be desired here -- high enough to push junk food into cost brackets that exceed those of fresh fruit and vegetables even in inner cities where transportation costs and infrastructure investment will drive prices up from the outset -- might spell ruin for many companies. I'm not one to say that we need to flatter sundown industry, but the social impact of this tax may be very significant, especially because, in order to actually address the problem, obesity, junk food needs to rise steeply in price.

Simple. Let's strangle big government. Its the subsidy of corn , meat industry that allows for the huge caloric consumption by Americans.

Remove said tax subsidies for the farmers then.

Of course, you utterly ignore the second prong of the policy, which is to actually make distributing fresh fruit/produce in the cities cheaper. This could be done by oh.... subsidising said produce the same way you subsidy meat, or improving public transport, or zoning laws so farmer markets can reach a bigger market....

People cannot buy rotten or spoiled food. I'm also curious about how this program would work in "the real world," where the "tax" on junk food might not actually make it more expensive than fruits and vegetables.

Please educate yourself. Its not the rotten/spoiled food that's the problem, its the cost of distributing them. There are daily bread runs to some of these stores. Its not unfeasible if through tax incentives, producers will take up the slack, especially if demand is there.

[Axis Kast]

As usual, you're a dishonest sack of shit.

As usual, you're a small, small man who needs to get his kicks from playing e-thug.

[quote I never said that any solution should be 100% tax increases. However, your position is that it should be zero percent tax increases. I am perfectly willing to entertain the idea of spending cuts in conjunction with tax increases. That's how Canada crawled out of a massive deficit hole in the 1990s after all. But you? Your dogma is apparently "no tax increases, ever, for any reason". [/quote]

Your statement -- "The government should wring its way back to solvency at the expense of the average consumer" -- was no less sweeping than my own. I am perfectly willing to go on record stating that there is a time and place for higher taxation. When citizens demand additional services, the tax burden should be increased accordingly. However, the discussion that produces answers to the question of, "How do we achieve financial solvency as a nation?" mustn't exclude other options.

An objection that had nothing to do with the particular tax in question and which is therefore not a valid objection to that particular tax. If you're going to do that, you might as well throw in other generalized anti-tax objections as well, like the idiotic Kent Hovind one about how Christians shouldn't have to pay taxes because their money is owed to God.

You are free to reject the substance of the criticism. My objective was simply to provide some of the remarks I have heard which do not focus on the program or its objectives.

The malnourished urban poor are more often than not malnourished by a lack of the proper food rather than a lack of food at all. A lot of the poor are actually fat. Malnourishment does not necessarily mean "skinny and underfed".

If they can't get fresh foods, they will be no more likely to eat properly.

Have you ever walked through Chinatown, you ignorant fucktard? I have already mentioned that I have shopped at real small-scale hole-in-the-wall stores which stock fresh fruits and vegetables. The problem is partly cultural, and partly a lack of government-sponsored initiatives to push back against the junk food culture.

I am referring to a social phenomenon. Your experience "at real small-scale hole-in-the-wall stores" is not typical.

Some of these small stores DO store fresh produce/meat (not fruits though) via concentration of stores in neighbourhood markets. Their death in recent times is due to the increasing infiltration of supermarkets into the neighbourhoods.

Yes, some of those stores do sell produce. Many, however, do not. Kindly pay attention: making the choice to sell fruits and vegetables requires investment in refrigeration. I also wonder just how many different kinds of fruits and vegetables are to be found at gas station mini-marts. The 7-11 chain sells apples, oranges, and bananas, most of which are unappetizing at the best of times.

So? You miss the point entirely. There ARE already non government, non tax money financed movements to bring fresh food and produce TO the cities.
Arguing that this is oh, so impossible ignores the fact that you guys ARE already doing it successfully without the help of Big government.

No, you miss the point. Farmer's markets are weekly or semi-monthly for a reason: the amount of effort required to organize them.

Of course, you utterly ignore the second prong of the policy, which is to actually make distributing fresh fruit/produce in the cities cheaper. This could be done by oh.... subsidising said produce the same way you subsidy meat, or improving public transport, or zoning laws so farmer markets can reach a bigger market....

I'd need to see studies of the cost-effectiveness of those kinds of measures before I support a policy that could have unintended, and detrimental, side effects which overwhelm the benefits. You haven't even addressed the fact that obesity is already a costly life-style choice.

Please educate yourself. Its not the rotten/spoiled food that's the problem, its the cost of distributing them. There are daily bread runs to some of these stores. Its not unfeasible if through tax incentives, producers will take up the slack, especially if demand is there.

"Some of these stores." Key word: some. Many convenience stores carry a quarter- or half-size wall worth of foil-wrapped sandwiches, microwave meals-on-the-go, or frozen pizzas. The latter pair sometimes last for weeks or months before replacement. Fruits and vegetables have to brought in fresh, either daily, or every two days. They must be available in some variety, and they must be kept in cold and sanitary conditions. A gas station mini-mart is rarely sanitary.

[Broomstick]

"Some of these stores." Key word: some. Many convenience stores carry a quarter- or half-size wall worth of foil-wrapped sandwiches, microwave meals-on-the-go, or frozen pizzas. The latter pair sometimes last for weeks or months before replacement. Fruits and vegetables have to brought in fresh, either daily, or every two days. They must be available in some variety, and they must be kept in cold and sanitary conditions. A gas station mini-mart is rarely sanitary.

Not in this country.

Locally (meaning the greater Chicago area, which extends into parts of Indiana and Wisconsin as well as Illinois) such foods as you describe are all required to have a sell-by date and this is enforced by local health inspectors. Of course, this will not eliminate ALL chicanery, but it does mean that even in bad neighborhoods with shitty hole-in-the-wall stores there is a watchdog to make sure such foods remain edible.

Certain types of fruit and vegetables actually do not require refrigeration, although of course they don't last as long. Some, such as bananas, should not be refrigerated.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that gas station mini-marts are permitted to keep foods in unhealthy circumstances - the floors might get muddy in wet weather, but they're as clean as regular grocery stores in my experience (said experience largely encompassing Detroit, Michigan; Chicago, Illinois, and Gary, Indiana but also concerning those I encounter while traveling long distances).

Small urban convenience stores WILL stock fruits and vegetables IF people buy them. They absolutely have to satisfy their customer base. Of course, of necessity, what they stock need to be "durable" foods rather than some of the more delicate produce larger grocery stores stock.

[Axis Kast]

Locally (meaning the greater Chicago area, which extends into parts of Indiana and Wisconsin as well as Illinois) such foods as you describe are all required to have a sell-by date and this is enforced by local health inspectors. Of course, this will not eliminate ALL chicanery, but it does mean that even in bad neighborhoods with shitty hole-in-the-wall stores there is a watchdog to make sure such foods remain edible.

You are responding to me fourth sentence, beginning, "The latter pair..." In that instance, I was referring to the fact that some packaged food products, like TV dinners or frozen pizzas, are very durable. That isn't to say that I've never seen food linger on shelves long past its expiration date.

Certain types of fruit and vegetables actually do not require refrigeration, although of course they don't last as long. Some, such as bananas, should not be refrigerated.

That is correct, but many do. If this program is going to simultaneously curb obesity and improve access to healthy foods in inner cities, refrigeration and freshness will be significant issues.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that gas station mini-marts are permitted to keep foods in unhealthy circumstances - the floors might get muddy in wet weather, but they're as clean as regular grocery stores in my experience (said experience largely encompassing Detroit, Michigan; Chicago, Illinois, and Gary, Indiana but also concerning those I encounter while traveling long distances).

I don't trust sandwiches at 7-11 or the gas station; fruit and vegetables from either location are equally uninspiring.

Small urban convenience stores WILL stock fruits and vegetables IF people buy them. They absolutely have to satisfy their customer base. Of course, of necessity, what they stock need to be "durable" foods rather than some of the more delicate produce larger grocery stores stock.

Or they will go out of business because they cannot sell what they stock, and cannot afford to satisfy new tastes. By and large, the kinds of additions we are talking about aren't durable.

[Axis Kast]

An additional consideration is whether smaller markets will be able to profit in the event of diversification. A friend who works at a small grocery store in Colorado offers some useful observations.

The suggestions offered in this thread presume that the tax imposed on junk food will drive up prices so that the consumer can purchase fresh food at the same cost, and still leave enough to cover subsidies or breaks for those that must then invest in refrigeration technology. There is no effort made to address demand. What about foods that don't sell? The markets will be eating the cost of whatever they can't move off shelves. Even in the event of collective bargaining, you're adding another step into the supply and distribution process: division of foods that must be bought in bulk, by the pallet or case, but for which there isn't enough demand at only one store. This process is now going to become a daily or thrice-weekly expense.

This also ignores the problem of stocking: under the model suggested, maintaining sufficient stocks of certain items will be very difficult. There will be little incentive for stores to purchase items they aren't sure whether they can sell, but with fruit and vegetables, consumers want to pick from the top of a large pile. They will very often avoid making a purchase if there are two or three of something left in the basket or on the shelf -- even if those items are healthy.

Farmer's markets don't prove that the co-op model will work in the inner city; farmer's markets already come to urban areas. There is a reason they don't come more often: demand won't support it.

[Axis Kast]

If people will BUY fresh fruits and vegetables the storage/restocking problem becomes moot. The only reason spoilage is a problem is because the shitty junk food is cheaper and placed to catch people's eye, and people have been trained to eat junk instead of real food.

Junk food is better-advertised on television, but anybody who has ever been to a supermarket in the United States knows that the fruits and vegetables are typically found immediately convenient to the entrance. Far more effort is spent on making unpackaged items appealing than on generating shelf displays with items that are already packaged for consumption by appeal-conscious producers.

The real appeal to junk meals like frozen dinners -- Twinkies and chips are not actually competing with apples and oranges -- is that they can be prepared in minutes. Buying fresh is always cheaper, but it presumes that one has time to spare on the cooking. Higher-end supermarkets already offer "homecooked meals," which, while not necessarily healthy, are still better than frozen dinners. The problem: one pays for the effort that already went into the preparation.

[Darth Wong]

As usual, you're a dishonest sack of shit.

As usual, you're a small, small man who needs to get his kicks from playing e-thug.

I even pointed out exactly how you had misrepresented my statement, and you play the Victim Card anyway.

I never said that any solution should be 100% tax increases. However, your position is that it should be zero percent tax increases. I am perfectly willing to entertain the idea of spending cuts in conjunction with tax increases. That's how Canada crawled out of a massive deficit hole in the 1990s after all. But you? Your dogma is apparently "no tax increases, ever, for any reason".

Your statement -- "The government should wring its way back to solvency at the expense of the average consumer" -- was no less sweeping than my own.

At no point does that statement say or imply that the solution must necessarily include no spending cuts whatsoever, liar. Just that it's not going to happen without the average person paying his share. But you don't want to hear that, do you? By the way, that's a nice rhetorical trick, quoting "wring its way back to solvency at the expense of the average consumer" line even though that was a verbatim copy of your previous statement.

I am perfectly willing to go on record stating that there is a time and place for higher taxation. When citizens demand additional services, the tax burden should be increased accordingly. However, the discussion that produces answers to the question of, "How do we achieve financial solvency as a nation?" mustn't exclude other options.

There you go again: not only do you pull the Victim Card the moment I point out that you misrepresented my position, but you brazenly misrepresent me again by repeating your accusation that I wish to "exclude other options" even after I explicitly said I demand no such thing. What are you going to do if I demand that you stop this strawman bullshit, eh? Pull the Victim Card again?

An objection that had nothing to do with the particular tax in question and which is therefore not a valid objection to that particular tax. If you're going to do that, you might as well throw in other generalized anti-tax objections as well, like the idiotic Kent Hovind one about how Christians shouldn't have to pay taxes because their money is owed to God.

You are free to reject the substance of the criticism. My objective was simply to provide some of the remarks I have heard which do not focus on the program or its objectives.

You know, normally when someone points out a serious problem with an argument, the person defends it instead of saying something to the effect of "well I just wanted to throw something out there and it doesn't matter whether it's garbage or not, or whether it's even related to the specifics of this proposal at all".

The malnourished urban poor are more often than not malnourished by a lack of the proper food rather than a lack of food at all. A lot of the poor are actually fat. Malnourishment does not necessarily mean "skinny and underfed".

If they can't get fresh foods, they will be no more likely to eat properly.

So why do you object to my proposal to make it easier for them to get fresh foods, by subsidizing them with taxes on junk food?

Have you ever walked through Chinatown, you ignorant fucktard? I have already mentioned that I have shopped at real small-scale hole-in-the-wall stores which stock fresh fruits and vegetables. The problem is partly cultural, and partly a lack of government-sponsored initiatives to push back against the junk food culture.

I am referring to a social phenomenon. Your experience "at real small-scale hole-in-the-wall stores" is not typical.

It doesn't matter whether it's "typical"; you claimed that there are inherent economic factors which make such a thing impossible. I'm pointing out that this is obviously not true, because if it were true these stores would be unable to stay in business. The real problem is cultural: people in Chinatown buy dirt-cheap fresh fruits and vegetables while people a few city blocks away in white town are loading up on processed garbage, in stores the same size.

[Axis Kast]

At no point does that statement say or imply that the solution must necessarily include no spending cuts whatsoever, liar. Just that it's not going to happen without the average person paying his share.

Neither did I ever suggest that taxes must never be raised. Pot, meet kettle.

By the way, that's a nice rhetorical trick, quoting "wring its way back to solvency at the expense of the average consumer" line even though that was a verbatim copy of your previous statement.

Which you readily adopted, with modification.

There you go again: not only do you pull the Victim Card the moment I point out that you misrepresented my position, but you brazenly misrepresent me again by repeating your accusation that I wish to "exclude other options" even after I explicitly said I demand no such thing. What are you going to do if I demand that you stop this strawman bullshit, eh? Pull the Victim Card again?

Did you, or did you not just accuse me of refusing to entertain the idea of higher taxation under any circumstances whatsoever?

You know, normally when someone points out a serious problem with an argument, the person defends it instead of saying something to the effect of "well I just wanted to throw something out there and it doesn't matter whether it's garbage or not, or whether it's even related to the specifics of this proposal at all".

It wasn't my argument. I posted it for the edification of your curiosity. Try reading twice next time before you post.

So why do you object to my proposal to make it easier for them to get fresh foods, by subsidizing them with taxes on junk food?

Because I don't believe that the architecture of any such program, as offered here, is likely to achieve the intended result.

The real problem is cultural: people in Chinatown buy dirt-cheap fresh fruits and vegetables while people a few city blocks away in white town are loading up on processed garbage, in stores the same size.

And, in some neighborhoods, such as Spanish Harlem, supermarkets are few and far between. Where there is a cultural preference for food that is not fresh, I agree that it should be addressed, but I think that the larger issue is related to access.

I have also laid out some of the problems which small stores face when they sell produce. Please do address those arguments.

[Darth Wong]

At no point does that statement say or imply that the solution must necessarily include no spending cuts whatsoever, liar. Just that it's not going to happen without the average person paying his share.

Neither did I ever suggest that taxes must never be raised. Pot, meet kettle.

I guess you're hoping nobody will bother reading back through this thread to realize that you use this argument as a generalized attack against any form of tax increase, since it does not say anything whatsoever about the specific details of said increase.

By the way, that's a nice rhetorical trick, quoting "wring its way back to solvency at the expense of the average consumer" line even though that was a verbatim copy of your previous statement.

Which you readily adopted, with modification.

How does that address the point? You're trying to wring semantic meaning out of a particular word choice which was not actually my own.

There you go again: not only do you pull the Victim Card the moment I point out that you misrepresented my position, but you brazenly misrepresent me again by repeating your accusation that I wish to "exclude other options" even after I explicitly said I demand no such thing. What are you going to do if I demand that you stop this strawman bullshit, eh? Pull the Victim Card again?

Did you, or did you not just accuse me of refusing to entertain the idea of higher taxation under any circumstances whatsoever?

By using a generalized anti-tax argument against the junk food tax, that's pretty much what you're doing, yes. This argument of yours, if it can be applied to the junk food tax, can logically be applied to any tax. Explain why this argument would not apply equally well to any conceivable tax increase, not just this one.

You know, normally when someone points out a serious problem with an argument, the person defends it instead of saying something to the effect of "well I just wanted to throw something out there and it doesn't matter whether it's garbage or not, or whether it's even related to the specifics of this proposal at all".

It wasn't my argument. I posted it for the edification of your curiosity. Try reading twice next time before you post.

It doesn't matter whether it's your argument. If you post it, you're saying that it meets the criteria, and it doesn't.

So why do you object to my proposal to make it easier for them to get fresh foods, by subsidizing them with taxes on junk food?

Because I don't believe that the architecture of any such program, as offered here, is likely to achieve the intended result.

There's one way to find out for sure: someone should try it. Or are you saying we should just forget it and not do anything?

The real problem is cultural: people in Chinatown buy dirt-cheap fresh fruits and vegetables while people a few city blocks away in white town are loading up on processed garbage, in stores the same size.

And, in some neighborhoods, such as Spanish Harlem, supermarkets are few and far between. Where there is a cultural preference for food that is not fresh, I agree that it should be addressed, but I think that the larger issue is related to access.

I have also laid out some of the problems which small stores face when they sell produce. Please do address those arguments.

I addressed them by pointing out that Chinatown here is full of small stores which have been selling fresh produce since I was a kid, thus proving that you're full of shit.

[Axis Kast]

I guess you're hoping nobody will bother reading back through this thread to realize that you use this argument as a generalized attack against any form of tax increase, since it does not say anything whatsoever about the specific details of said increase.

If anybody read back through this thread, they'd discover that I made remarks in reply to your statement that government should wring its way back to financial solvency at the expense of the average consumer. If I supplied the original language, you nonetheless offered your full endorsement of the idea. You then accused me of opposing all tax increases all the time, presumably because I did not say explicitly that I thought there should be other means of achieving solvency than cutting services or reducing operating costs.

How does that address the point? You're trying to wring semantic meaning out of a particular word choice which was not actually my own.

If you adopted the words, you stood by them.

By using a generalized anti-tax argument against the junk food tax, that's pretty much what you're doing, yes. This argument of yours, if it can be applied to the junk food tax, can logically be applied to any tax. Explain why this argument would not apply equally well to any conceivable tax increase, not just this one.

I shared with you a point of opposition that was not founded on actual perceptions of how well -- or how badly -- the program would function. That point need not be valid in order to exist.

Also, I think you miss the point that the opposition stems from the perception that the government is being fundamentally dishonest: there is a sense that the "junk food" and "soda" taxes are inventive new ways for the state government to avoid confronting its own financial mismanagement and to hide the fact that everybody is paying more taxes. Whether that is true or not, I don't care.

It doesn't matter whether it's your argument. If you post it, you're saying that it meets the criteria, and it doesn't.

I said it met the criteria of an argument not based on whether or not the tax would completely eliminate obesity or not.

There's one way to find out for sure: someone should try it. Or are you saying we should just forget it and not do anything?

Someone should try it. However, I'd hope there would be studies conducted ahead of time to determine the best way to push the pilot.

I addressed them by pointing out that Chinatown here is full of small stores which have been selling fresh produce since I was a kid, thus proving that you're full of shit.

And culture will play a part in that. I'm going to take a few guesses. Tell me if I'm right or wrong. First, I imagine that the stores in Chinatown stock what would be considered exotic fruits or vegetables outside the Chinese (or pan-Asian) communities. Second, I imagine that there is strong demand for these foods, but only within that community. Third, I imagine that, outside of Chinatown, it is very difficult to obtain the same products. In short, you have a captive, ready market. Some of the cause is cultural. You're right: it would do us all good to receive mandatory courses in home economics. Every child should learn in school that cooking with fresh produce is healthy, and cheaper than buying frozen items. However, the captive market, while based on a culture or ethnicity in the Chinatown case, isn't going to apply elsewhere.

[wolveraptor]

Support for the idea that the Asian American community has a cultural inclination towards fresher, home-cooked foods. Though according to the article that's changing (tellingly, in the lower-income populations), presumably due to the 2nd generation and their cultural assimilation. Soon they'll learn to shut the fuck up and eat their Baconaters like the rest of us.

[Terralthra]

Your statement -- "The government should wring its way back to solvency at the expense of the average consumer" -- was no less sweeping than my own. I am perfectly willing to go on record stating that there is a time and place for higher taxation. When citizens demand additional services, the tax burden should be increased accordingly. However, the discussion that produces answers to the question of, "How do we achieve financial solvency as a nation?" mustn't exclude other options.

I'm sorry, in what universe are "social service and spending cuts" exclusive with "at the expense of the average consumer"? Almost any service the US could conceivably cut at the federal level, in the current political climate, would end up hurting the average consumer.

[LaCroix]

Lots of correct things.

I concede. I had my 'asshole day' that day.

[bobalot]

Lots of correct things.

I concede. I had my 'asshole day' that day.

No worries. We all have those days.

[Broomstick]

Locally (meaning the greater Chicago area, which extends into parts of Indiana and Wisconsin as well as Illinois) such foods as you describe are all required to have a sell-by date and this is enforced by local health inspectors. Of course, this will not eliminate ALL chicanery, but it does mean that even in bad neighborhoods with shitty hole-in-the-wall stores there is a watchdog to make sure such foods remain edible.

You are responding to me fourth sentence, beginning, "The latter pair..." In that instance, I was referring to the fact that some packaged food products, like TV dinners or frozen pizzas, are very durable. That isn't to say that I've never seen food linger on shelves long past its expiration date.

Is there a problem with "durable" food products properly stored? You do realize that food preservation is something dating back millenia, yes?

Expired food is a problem in wealthy areas as well as poor. That is why inspectors go to both such areas. This is a problem common to ALL places that sell food, and the solutions are likewise universal. It is not a valid reason to say small stores won't be able to sell fruits and vegetables.

Certain types of fruit and vegetables actually do not require refrigeration, although of course they don't last as long. Some, such as bananas, should not be refrigerated.

That is correct, but many do. If this program is going to simultaneously curb obesity and improve access to healthy foods in inner cities, refrigeration and freshness will be significant issues.

In some neighborhoods apples, oranges, bananas, carrots, and iceberg lettuce by themselves would be actual improvements. We can start there.

There are also some urban areas where street vendors are still common and those might be a viable option for distributing fresh foods as well. I'm sure that the vendors on State Street in Chicago, with their piles of fresh fruit in the summer, are making enough to keep their business viable.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that gas station mini-marts are permitted to keep foods in unhealthy circumstances - the floors might get muddy in wet weather, but they're as clean as regular grocery stores in my experience (said experience largely encompassing Detroit, Michigan; Chicago, Illinois, and Gary, Indiana but also concerning those I encounter while traveling long distances).

I don't trust sandwiches at 7-11 or the gas station; fruit and vegetables from either location are equally uninspiring.

Oh, I see - because you, personally don't like or trust something, because you, personally are "uninspired" it couldn't possibly work for anyone else. That's a bullshit defense.

Small urban convenience stores WILL stock fruits and vegetables IF people buy them. They absolutely have to satisfy their customer base. Of course, of necessity, what they stock need to be "durable" foods rather than some of the more delicate produce larger grocery stores stock.

Or they will go out of business because they cannot sell what they stock, and cannot afford to satisfy new tastes. By and large, the kinds of additions we are talking about aren't durable.

No, fucktard, read what I said - If people will buy it they will stock it. I'm not talking about forcing small stores to stock exotic delicacies, I'm talking about small businessment trying to please the people who buy stuff.

Look at the Aldi busines plan - Aldi is international but the stores themselves are small-scale. They are bare bones and they often will be found in disadvantaged neighborhoods. The one I go to actually does stock a range of fruits and vegetables that are comparable, in some cases better, than what you get at big mega-stores. The one I go to somehow manages to stock carrots, mushrooms, tomatoes, celery, 2 kinds of lettuce, 4 varities of bell pepper, 2 hot peppers, zucinni, broccoli, eggplant, rubarb (seasonal), onions, 3 kinds of potato, oranges, grapefruit, mangos, bananas, strawberries (seasonal), blueberries (seasonal), lemons, and likely one or two others I've forgotten or that are also seasonal. That's in an area of white trash, urban blacks, and far too many people who, like myself, are on food stamps. They don't stock vast quantities of any one item, but what they have is fresh and in good condition. In addition, they also stock 1 pound bags of frozen vegetables such as peas, several varities of greens like spinach and collard, brocolli, and mixed vegetables. From time to time they'll stock a new item in a small quantity - if it starts to sell they'll stock it, if not, they'll discontinue it.

The Aldi I go to is within walking distance of several rundown trailer parks. Without it, many of those people would have to travel miles to get to a grocery store, and many of them don't have reliable transportation and would be relying on high-priced, shitty "corner stores". Funny - some of those corner stores are out of business now, but Aldi's is doing just fine and in fact they expanded their hours and are open on Sunday, now, too. They did hire a security guard... do you know what food people were trying to steal? It wasn't the frozen dinners, it was the fruit. It's kinda funny how many homeless people eat oranges, you know? A handy little fruit that comes with its own protective wrapper, doesn't require constant refrigeration, doesn't require preparation, easily carried...

The other small urban store that seems to be enduring are the small scale Hispanic stores. When I lived in Chicago I used to go to one which, although Spanish was the primary language, always had at least one cashier able to speak English because poor whites and blacks would also show up and buy their fruits and vegetables because, for some odd reason, the Spanish-speaking immigrant small business folks in poor neighborhoods always managed to stay in business while stocking fruits and vegetables.

So actual reality indicates that it IS possible to stock and sell good food in poor neighborhoods. Even in the US, even today.

An additional consideration is whether smaller markets will be able to profit in the event of diversification. A friend who works at a small grocery store in Colorado offers some useful observations.

The suggestions offered in this thread presume that the tax imposed on junk food will drive up prices so that the consumer can purchase fresh food at the same cost, and still leave enough to cover subsidies or breaks for those that must then invest in refrigeration technology. There is no effort made to address demand. What about foods that don't sell?

Don't stock them. If the locals don't want arugula don't stock it. You're actually like someone is dictating that small scale stores stock exotics no one ever heard of.

Again - look at Aldi. If sufficient people request a new item it will run as a special. If it sells well they'll continue to stock it. If it doesn't they'll discontinue it. There is usually one novel item every time I go into the store, but what that is changes frequently.

The markets will be eating the cost of whatever they can't move off shelves. Even in the event of collective bargaining, you're adding another step into the supply and distribution process: division of foods that must be bought in bulk, by the pallet or case, but for which there isn't enough demand at only one store. This process is now going to become a daily or thrice-weekly expense.

In other words no different than now. What, you don't think this is a problem with junk food? A flavor of potato chip/crisp that never sells loses money by taking up shelf space that could go to a profitable item, it's just as much a liability as rotten fruit.

This also ignores the problem of stocking: under the model suggested, maintaining sufficient stocks of certain items will be very difficult. There will be little incentive for stores to purchase items they aren't sure whether they can sell, but with fruit and vegetables, consumers want to pick from the top of a large pile. They will very often avoid making a purchase if there are two or three of something left in the basket or on the shelf -- even if those items are healthy.

Farmer's markets don't prove that the co-op model will work in the inner city; farmer's markets already come to urban areas. There is a reason they don't come more often: demand won't support it.

Yet Detroit's Eastern Market is a major source of fresh produce for the urban poor in that city, they've even developed programs to allow food stamps to be used there (which is highly unusual). The initial program was so successful they expanded it - so there must be a significant number of poor folks showing up to buy things. Sure, it's more convenient if you can drop into a store any day or any time, but historically MOST people have done their food shopping at farmer's markets or market days and just adjusted their schedules accordingly. It's not a perfect solution but you're never going to get a perfect solution anyway. A bunch of mediocre to good solutions are better than a perfect solution that never arrives.

The real appeal to junk meals like frozen dinners -- Twinkies and chips are not actually competing with apples and oranges -- is that they can be prepared in minutes.

Not all frozen/packaged meals are created equal. If you categorize them all as "junk" then it tells me you've never actually looked at what's available. It is precisely in that area that a HCFS tax could have a significant effect, by making "non-junk" ingredients more competitive with HCFS, salt, and cheap fats.

[PainRack]

Kast, its clear that you object to the proposal on ideological grounds. May I suggest that you actually address it on those grounds?

Your attempt to argue that its "impossible" because of various factors is ludricious, because it assumes that this is only impossible in the US. You could had argued in the form that this is a matter better suited for the State which can suit local conditions to the proposal or whatever..

So, here's the big question. Do you or do you not agree with the use of social engineering to manipulate health behaviour in the general public?

[Axis Kast]

Kast, its clear that you object to the proposal on ideological grounds. May I suggest that you actually address it on those grounds?

I would advocate a vigorous public debate prior to any decision about whether or not to impose a "fat" tax of any kind. I think that American society in general has begun to expect too much of government, at too low a cost. It is important, however, to separate my concerns about the role of government in advocating specific lifestyles, and those related to the problem of malnutrition. I think that the government can, and should, act now to ensure that all Americans have access to healthy foods.

Your attempt to argue that its "impossible" because of various factors is ludricious, because it assumes that this is only impossible in the US.

I'm not arguing that it is impossible. I am arguing that the proposed architectures found in this thread seem likely to fall flat.

Is there a problem with "durable" food products properly stored? You do realize that food preservation is something dating back millenia, yes?

We are talking about small, "convenience"-style shops and delis -- the kind that stock a limited selection of items, most of which are chips, candies, cookies, cakes, and artificially sweetened drinks.

Expired food is a problem in wealthy areas as well as poor. That is why inspectors go to both such areas. This is a problem common to ALL places that sell food, and the solutions are likewise universal. It is not a valid reason to say small stores won't be able to sell fruits and vegetables.

What kind of inspectorate are you talking about? The current raft of responsible agencies are far from the sweeping or effective regulators which you seem to imagine.

There are also some urban areas where street vendors are still common and those might be a viable option for distributing fresh foods as well. I'm sure that the vendors on State Street in Chicago, with their piles of fresh fruit in the summer, are making enough to keep their business viable.

That is because they sell fruits and vegetables; their business model is already based on that activity.

Oh, I see - because you, personally don't like or trust something, because you, personally are "uninspired" it couldn't possibly work for anyone else. That's a bullshit defense.

Do you buy fruit from 7-11? How about sandwiches?

No, fucktard, read what I said - If people will buy it they will stock it. I'm not talking about forcing small stores to stock exotic delicacies, I'm talking about small businessment trying to please the people who buy stuff.

The question is whether these stores will be able to do anything but go out of business. The assumption here is that many of these smaller stores will switch out to selling healthier alternatives when the prices of their primary goods are artificially inflated. That's not necessarily the case.

As I suspect, Aldi is a supermarket chain, not a smaller store. Your example is inappropriate to the argument. The policy of a "fat tax" may make room for more Aldi's. It may also ruin hundreds or thousands of smaller convenience shops and delis which suddenly cannot compete. It is unlikely to solve the problem of obesity.

In other words no different than now. What, you don't think this is a problem with junk food? A flavor of potato chip/crisp that never sells loses money by taking up shelf space that could go to a profitable item, it's just as much a liability as rotten fruit.

Except potato chips can keep for a while on the shelves, and people will buy the last bag on the shelf; most fruit doesn't have the same properties.

Not all frozen/packaged meals are created equal. If you categorize them all as "junk" then it tells me you've never actually looked at what's available. It is precisely in that area that a HCFS tax could have a significant effect, by making "non-junk" ingredients more competitive with HCFS, salt, and cheap fats.

Frozen food is almost invariably less healthy due to the inclusion of preservatives.

[Broomstick]

I think that the government can, and should, act now to ensure that all Americans have access to healthy foods.

You want the government to "act now" but refuse to consider a tax to pay for that action?

Your attempt to argue that its "impossible" because of various factors is ludricious, because it assumes that this is only impossible in the US.

I'm not arguing that it is impossible. I am arguing that the proposed architectures found in this thread seem likely to fall flat.

You do this despite evidence that exists right now that some of these "architectures" can and even do work.

Is there a problem with "durable" food products properly stored? You do realize that food preservation is something dating back millenia, yes?

We are talking about small, "convenience"-style shops and delis -- the kind that stock a limited selection of items, most of which are chips, candies, cookies, cakes, and artificially sweetened drinks.

We're talking about food - some types of which require preservatives to remain wholesome.

Expired food is a problem in wealthy areas as well as poor. That is why inspectors go to both such areas. This is a problem common to ALL places that sell food, and the solutions are likewise universal. It is not a valid reason to say small stores won't be able to sell fruits and vegetables.

What kind of inspectorate are you talking about? The current raft of responsible agencies are far from the sweeping or effective regulators which you seem to imagine.

I'm talking about health inspectors - which, at least in my area, can and do shut down stores due to health violations. Said violations are also posted in the local papers. Store owners absolutely want to avoid that publicity.

There are also some urban areas where street vendors are still common and those might be a viable option for distributing fresh foods as well. I'm sure that the vendors on State Street in Chicago, with their piles of fresh fruit in the summer, are making enough to keep their business viable.

That is because they sell fruits and vegetables; their business model is already based on that activity.

Yes, and it's PROOF poor, urban people will buy such things if they are available.

Oh, I see - because you, personally don't like or trust something, because you, personally are "uninspired" it couldn't possibly work for anyone else. That's a bullshit defense.

Do you buy fruit from 7-11? How about sandwiches?

Yes and yes. I don't know why you think it is such an inconceivable notion.

No, fucktard, read what I said - If people will buy it they will stock it. I'm not talking about forcing small stores to stock exotic delicacies, I'm talking about small businessmen trying to please the people who buy stuff.

The question is whether these stores will be able to do anything but go out of business. The assumption here is that many of these smaller stores will switch out to selling healthier alternatives when the prices of their primary goods are artificially inflated. That's not necessarily the case.

Could go either way, but because it might not happen you refuse to even try.

As I suspect, Aldi is a supermarket chain, not a smaller store. Your example is inappropriate to the argument. The policy of a "fat tax" may make room for more Aldi's. It may also ruin hundreds or thousands of smaller convenience shops and delis which suddenly cannot compete. It is unlikely to solve the problem of obesity.

Oh, total bullshit - more small grocery stores is exactly what is need in the "food desert" regions, not expanded "convenience stores". And there are not "hundreds of thousands" of convenience stores, nor is their business likely to be "ruined" if an Aldi's moves in next door because, really, they can serve two different niches.

So, in order to save a few marginal corner stores you reject the notion of putting in a real grocery store, with actual adequate food choices? What a load of horseshit.

In other words no different than now. What, you don't think this is a problem with junk food? A flavor of potato chip/crisp that never sells loses money by taking up shelf space that could go to a profitable item, it's just as much a liability as rotten fruit.

Except potato chips can keep for a while on the shelves, and people will buy the last bag on the shelf; most fruit doesn't have the same properties.

If it takes months to sell that last bag then it's not worth the overhead. And maybe you never noticed, but potato chips have expiration dates, too.

Not all frozen/packaged meals are created equal. If you categorize them all as "junk" then it tells me you've never actually looked at what's available. It is precisely in that area that a HCFS tax could have a significant effect, by making "non-junk" ingredients more competitive with HCFS, salt, and cheap fats.

Frozen food is almost invariably less healthy due to the inclusion of preservatives.

Read the fucking labels, will you - the bags of frozen vegetables I buy have no preservatives whatsoever. And some foods actually should have preservatives in order to keep them wholesome, are you ignorant of that fact? A balanced frozen dinner with vegetables and an appropriate level of preservatives is not inherently unhealthy, and if it reduces caloric consumption compared to, say, fast food then it will help reduce obesity.