Bad Food? Tax It, and Subsidize Vegetables

"What will it take to get Americans to change our eating habits? The need is indisputable, since heart disease, diabetes and cancer are all in large part caused by the Standard American Diet. (Yes, it’s SAD.)" NY Times Op-ed by Mark Bittman - http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opini ... ref=dining

Can't he just leave people alone? I like his cookbooks, but that doesn't mean I want to hear him tell me how I have to subsidize some hipster fantasy about food.

I despise sanctimonious zealots.

The problem is not what people eat or drink, but the QUANTITIES of what they eat or drink.

Bittman is correct, that many ( especially ME ) will think that this smacks of Nanny-statism.

Go peddle your cookbooks, and don't suggest another tax---

This is clearly Obama's fault.

Where are my fellow tea baggers? Get your white wigs and black merkins ready...we're marching to Washington.

Ha - "Don't tread on my fritos" - bibi

We should all be outraged by this unoriginal proposal that will never become law. Loud noises!

chitrader wrote:Can't he just leave people alone? I like his cookbooks, but that doesn't mean I want to hear him tell me how I have to subsidize some hipster fantasy about food.

cito wrote:I despise sanctimonious zealots.

The problem is not what people eat or drink, but the QUANTITIES of what they eat or drink.

Bittman is correct, that many ( especially ME ) will think that this smacks of Nanny-statism.

Go peddle your cookbooks, and don't suggest another tax---

I'm amazed at the venom directed against this part of his article and the total silence about his suggestion to eliminate certain agricultural subsidies. Shouldn't intellectual consistency require that the government let the market dictate the price of both fresh vegetables and corn syrup?

I would love to only pay 50 cents per pound for produce. I would welcome subsidizing that versus corn for ethanol and HFCS (I know my tax dollars are going to subsidize something).

I suspect most folks on this page won't be bothered by the tax, if it were to come to that.

Thankfully Coke* and Frito-Lay** (and others) have way bigger lobbying pockets so you are right no need to march on D.C., it won't happen.

We already pay the health costs for those who can't afford their own. And we are adamantly opposed to Death Panels as featured on my beloved Logan's Run, so if this cuts that bill a bit I'm all for using my tax dollars that way.

I suspect this is Anti-American since it would interfere with the profits made by pharmaceutical companies manufacturing drugs for Type 2 Diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and services at the renal care facilities that are popping up everywhere.

* I adore both Mexican Coke & Coke Zero

** I really wish Frito-Lay still made the olestra sour cream & cheddar chips, sometimes regular olestra chips just don't do it for me

Habibi wrote:This is clearly Obama's fault.

Where are my fellow tea baggers? Get your white wigs and black merkins ready...we're marching to Washington.

Ha - "Don't tread on my fritos" - bibi

I'll definitely look at them differently now.

Darren72 wrote:

chitrader wrote:Can't he just leave people alone? I like his cookbooks, but that doesn't mean I want to hear him tell me how I have to subsidize some hipster fantasy about food.

cito wrote:I despise sanctimonious zealots.

The problem is not what people eat or drink, but the QUANTITIES of what they eat or drink.

Bittman is correct, that many ( especially ME ) will think that this smacks of Nanny-statism.

Go peddle your cookbooks, and don't suggest another tax---

I'm amazed at the venom directed against this part of his article and the total silence about his suggestion to eliminate certain agricultural subsidies. Shouldn't intellectual consistency require that the government let the market dictate the price of both fresh vegetables and corn syrup?

He's right about the subsidies, end them all. But he doesn't want that. He wants "experts" to tell us how we should price our food via subsidies for the "right" foods. I'd wager that's more important to him than cutting subsidies in general.

And speaking on behalf of teabaggers everywhere, I completely support eliminating all subsidies. And not just agricultural ones.

In the interest of a little accuracy, ethanol "subsides" aren't paid to farmers. They are paid to big oil companies so that big oil companies will build infrastructure that will accomodate alternative forms of fuel. And the ethanol subsidies aren't funded by taxes, they are funded by a tarriff on imported biofuels (primarily cane ethanol from Brazil).

The vehicle fuel market is monopolized by a few companies so if you buy a flex fuel vehicle the odds are that you won't be able to put anything in the tank but regular gasoline. Why would an oil company install a five figure pump for someone elses fuel?
If you've read a paper in the last month, the ethanol "subsidy" is going away entirely before year end."

Ethanol has added to the demand for U.S. corn which has resulted in farmers choosing to grow crops to sell at high prices versus accepting govt money and not growing. So the direct to farmer subsidy payments are going down.

What farmers would like and can't buy on the open market is crop insurance. Two bad years in a three or four year period can put a farmer out of business. No insurance company will insure against this.

Where are farm subsidies growing? Specialty crops which is vegetables is the fastest growing segment of the farm bill. They have added billions.

I'm not against all subsidies.

I'd like to see a vegetable growing belt around major metoropolitan areas subsidized by the gov't. I don't think it will happen with govt intervention.

And I'd like to see the govt continue to subsidize infrastructure that woucl create a pathway for alternative fuels to find a market. Big oil should pay for this but good luck getting the oil states to agree.

Finally, I'd like the gov't to help with crop insurance so that young farmers can see a future in the industry.

While I didn't enjoy Bittman's stereotypical characterization of farm subsidies which the NYT consistently only delves about an inch deep, I do enjoy his writing.