If that bag of chips cost 25% more, would you still buy it?
If a bottle of soda ran you more than a bottle of water, would you opt for the healthier drink on a hot summer's day?
If the cost of a drive-thru dinner for a family of 4 jumped to $50, would you head home for soup and sandwiches instead?
I would. But I'm cheap frugal.
This is the idea behind the so-called "junk food tax" that's been proposed and supported by various organizations and health professionals.
On Tuesday, a computer-based study of 200 U.S. college students was released. This study, conducted at Maastricht University in the Netherlands, found that the students generally "bought" (or would buy, as real purchases were not actually made in this study) lower-calorie lunch items when sugary, high-fat fare was taxed 25% or more.
"The most important finding of our study is that a tax of 25% or more on (high-calorie) foods makes nearly everyone buy fewer calories," says the study's leader, Janneke Giesen.
The exception in this study: about 50% of the students were given nutrition information, including calorie counts, on the foods being offered in the hypothetical "lunch". Those who were aware of calorie counts (and especially those who identified as already being conscious of their calorie consumption on a daily basis) were not swayed by the tax. They chose lower-calorie meals regardless of price.
Not all of us are so virtuous. If we can't motivate ourselves intrinsically to choose lighter fare, can we be motivated by financial cost?
And what does it say about our society that we are better motivated by a cost-savings than by our own physical wellness?
Truly, food is a terribly addictive thing. Maybe, like cutting off a drug addict from financial support, forcing a junk food addict to absorb an increased cost could be just the thing to get them off the crack. And by "crack" I mean McDonalds.
I think we'd be hard pressed to find a person willing to sell his/her body to support a Big Mac addiction. But you get the idea....
Money talks.
Proponents of the junk food tax suggest the revenue could be used to offset the enormous healthcare costs resulting from obesity-related illnesses. In 2010, the Fédération 
des médecins spécialistes du Québec (Federation of Medical Specialists of Quebec) started an online campaign to raise a 15% junk food tax which they suggested would raise $350 million per year for Quebec. Imagine the scale on a national level.
In Canada, where more than 50% of us are overweight or obese, the direct and indirect cost of obesity is estimated at $ 2-5 billion per year.
Per year.
I'm going to leave it at that, except to give you my honest opinion:
Tax the crap out of junk food. And before you tell me that lower income households are forced to choose unhealthy fare for financial reasons, let me pre-empt you. When times have been tight in my life, junk food and prepared food have been the first thing to go from my grocery list. Lower income households around the world do not, on average, exist on a diet of french fries and boxed macaroni and cheese. They eat vegetables, beans, rice, grains. Less meat? Yes. Less dairy? Probably. Fewer total calories? Definitely. But we North Americans could stand to consume less meat, dairy and calories - especially of the fried and wrapped in paper variety. We need to learn how to cook again. We need to spend time preparing and eating meals. We in Canada have a social welfare state - a government whose purpose is to serve the collective socioeconomic needs of the population. I think it's about time they did their job and help us stop killing ourselves. Clearly, we need the help.
Don't eat junk food, don't pay tax. It's that simple.
What do you think? Would a tax on junk food change your family's eating habits? Do you think a junk food tax is an appropriate response to the "globesity" crisis? Or does the idea of another tax make you want to bury your face in a bag of Doritos?
Printer-friendly version