Bad Food? Tax It, and Subsidize Vegetables
By MARK BITTMAN
NYT
Mark Bittman writes about food for the opinion section.
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.)
Though experts increasingly recommend a diet high in plants and low in animal products and processed foods, ours is quite the opposite, and there’s little disagreement that changing it could improve our health and save tens of millions of lives.
And — not inconsequential during the current struggle over deficits and spending — a sane diet could save tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars in health care costs.
Yet the food industry appears incapable of marketing healthier foods. And whether its leaders are confused or just stalling doesn’t matter, because the fixes are not really their problem. Their mission is not public health but profit, so they’ll continue to sell the health-damaging food that’s most profitable, until the market or another force skews things otherwise. That “other force” should be the federal government, fulfilling its role as an agent of the public good and establishing a bold national fix.
(More here.)
NYT
Mark Bittman writes about food for the opinion section.
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.)
Though experts increasingly recommend a diet high in plants and low in animal products and processed foods, ours is quite the opposite, and there’s little disagreement that changing it could improve our health and save tens of millions of lives.
And — not inconsequential during the current struggle over deficits and spending — a sane diet could save tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars in health care costs.
Yet the food industry appears incapable of marketing healthier foods. And whether its leaders are confused or just stalling doesn’t matter, because the fixes are not really their problem. Their mission is not public health but profit, so they’ll continue to sell the health-damaging food that’s most profitable, until the market or another force skews things otherwise. That “other force” should be the federal government, fulfilling its role as an agent of the public good and establishing a bold national fix.
(More here.)
Powered by Blogger
2 Comments:
Here we go. Another criis that requires federal government to act, no doubt a new federal department will have to be create will hundreds of billions for a budget that will require us to eat what the government thinks we should eat. This will require still more IRS agents who will scour tax returns along which we will be required to submit our grocery purchases. Also, another agency dedicated to detecting fraud in food purchases will be needed and we will be required to purchase food items with a government debit card so they can track what sort of purchases we make.
I am sure the people at Vox Verax think this is a fine idea. Another centrist position of requiring the federal government to be involved in our diet.
If they can ban light bulbs and require us to buy health insurance, they can require us to buy apples instead of a bag of chips. All perfectly within the purview of the federal government, right Vox Verax?
of course I forgot to mention this movement is a consequence of ObamaCare. For sure, if the federal government has an interest in curing us, it certainly has an interest in us needing care in the first place.
More government is all that is required and no problem - or crisis - is too small for the federal government to step in and force us - its subjects - to do as the government sees fit.
Post a Comment
<< Home