Noble acts always come with a price-- and sometimes, it is too high of a price to pay. Contemporary government subsidizes only the unhealthy portion of the food industry. This is terrible for the obesity epidemic sweeping through America. It is, however, very profitable for both the government and the food industry. Indeed, change is possible as Mark Bittman proposes. Taxing unhealthy foods and subsidizing healthy ones would turn the tables around. Unfortunately, it is not so simple. Americans are currently sitting very comfortably on their extra-large chair labeled "fast food." Our current economy is built upon a heavy foundation consisting of decades of unhealthy, mass-produced food processing. Change is possible, but not easy. If healthy eating was profitable, then it would be simple. As it currently stands, Agriculture only produces $136 billion whereas food retail revenue rounds to a whopping $5.36 trillion, making it clear which portion of the industry is more profitable. Decision making is centered around money. Additionally, the food retail industry contains the convenience factor. Healthy eating is time consuming; Fast food is, well, fast. It's convenient for Americans on the go. But as I mentioned earlier, change is possible. Taxing unhealthy foods-- everything from donuts to burgers-- would be quite profitable for the government. It would also be a step towards the shifting of the industry towards healthy eating. However, taxes by themselves will not be enough. Contrary to Bittman's statement, a 20% increase in price is unlikely to cause a 20% decrease in consumption.
https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/ag-and-food-statistics-charting-the-essentials/ag-and-food-sectors-and-the-economy/
https://www.statista.com/topics/1660/food-retail/
It is clear that a switch to an economy based on agricultural food would be difficult. However, there have been many agricultural advancements in history, and there could be more to come. Also, there are cities like LA that have so much vacant land. With this in mind, if more people began to grow their food, there may be some chance that Bittman's idea could be effective(however, I can't say I'm certain). This would also have serious health benefits for the people that can't AFFORD to eat healthy but want to.
ReplyDeleteEven though we do not know for sure how much consumption would drop with a sin tax, I do think that there could be more revenue to be made if we did tax fatty foods and subsidized vegetables. Like Bittman said, once the government sees the revenue stream flowing in from having such a tax it would be quite successful in curbing many problems like obesity, heart disease, etc.
ReplyDelete