Should processed foods be taxed to encourage healthy eating?

A	Yes, a tax and subsidy program like this would be achievable and beneficial to public health

B	No, it would be unfair, impossible or unhelpful to tax certain kinds of food

C	Maybe. It would be a great step toward increasing availability of quality food, but such a tax will probably never be approve by legislatures and citizens

In the United States, it's much cheaper to buy a meal heavy in fats, salt and sugar like a fast-food burger, fries and soda than it is to buy a meal of whole foods, including fresh vegetables, whole grains and healthier meats like fish. The ubiquity of cheap, poor quality, low nutrition food has led to health problems, medical costs and a lower quality of life for many Americans.

Although the government has encouraged healthier choices by providing educational resources and reformulating the food pyramid into a more intuitive "plate" graphic, these efforts neglect to address the economic factors of unhealthy eating. Lower-income Americans are unable to buy and eat more nutritious whole food because of its cost.

To address this problem, food journalists have proposed a tax on processed food and a subsidy on nutritious food. A New York Times article from last month explains that food companies are in it for the profit, not the health of their customers. If the government intervened with a tax and tipped the scales so that processed food was less profitable, food companies would follow the money and increase the quality of their products. The income from taxed soda and chips could go toward decreasing the cost of fresh greens, fruit and legumes.

This isn't a radical idea. The reason heavily processed foods like soda and French fries are so cheap is because the government subsidizes farming of corn and soy, the sources of almost all added sugar and fat. The process could, in theory, be reversed. States, cities and even the federal government are already considering a tax on soda, party for its public health benefits and partly for the revenue, and it seems just a matter of time before those go into action.

However, even if the political will were there, it may not solve all our problems. Studies have shown that year-to-year food prices won't change obesity rates, and taxation only goes so far toward changing behavior -- to bust Big Tobacco, the government not only taxed cigarettes but restricted advertising. Grist food writer Tom Laskawy brings up these points in a response to the NYT piece, and concludes, "The only thing more frustrating than the limited effect such a program might have is the utter political impossibility of enacting it."

Do you think a low-quality food tax would benefit public health? Would legislation like this get enacted, given the chance?

Eleanor Brown

Should processed foods be taxed to encourage healthy eating?

More public opinion polls: