sean

As disgusting as it is to consistently feed oneself on fast-food, it still can provide adequate nutrition, although it may be in relatively small doses.

The concept of this may actually be promising (particularly to those who seek to enforce a healthier America). Yes, I stated “enforce”, not “build”. And no, I don’t advocate the idea that healthy living be crammed down our throats. I would like to see people take a better stance on their personal health, but it is not my job to make them do so. Ok…I’m a tad off-topic…

If this tax were created, what programs would it subsidize?

As I understand it, low density high calorie food with copious amounts and salt, fat and sugar with little inclusion of vitamins or minerals are generally to be avoided in bulk. I think I read that somewhere. Yet lots of people still eat this food in mass. I suppose it’s easily attained, comforting, and pretty darn cheep. I can see the appeal and why it trumps the aforementioned rational on avoidance for the majority of Americans. I’m basing that statement on US obesity rates. So what does the civilized society at large do to stop the fattening of the red white and blue… If anything? Is there in fact added cost to Medicare for the treatment of illnesses linking to obesity? I’ve read studies that suggest that public health care is exercised more by conditions with low mortality rates that linger in the aging population like arthritis, mental health issues, osteoporosis, cancer and Type 2 diabetes. It’s rather cold to say but dying early of a heart attack costs a lot less than 30 years of pills and doctors appointments. Isn’t that the real problem, the people who’s lives are affected by those who treat their bodies poorly. Seems like a personal matter. Our government, representing the will of the people, could step in to lend a helping hand but I’m not sure a tax is the right demotivator. An interesting idea though. The commenters above have explained this better than I could. However, I do have another idea.

Fast food places are in business to make as much money as they can. They don’t care what they serve, just if people eat it and their margins are large. In order to drive prices lower, satisfy the expectations of Wall Street as well as their shareholders, fast food companies need cheep labor and even cheaper materials. In the case of FF burger establishments, mass consumption is taking its toll on the environment in the form of deforestation of the Amazon River Basin. Bet you didn’t think I was going environmental here. Check out this site to get an idea of what’s happening… http://news.mongabay.com/2009/0215-beef.html. “Brazil’s rise to become the world’s largest exporter of beef has come at the expense of Earth’s biggest rain-forest.” Apparently close to 80 percent of the deforestation is due to cattle ranching. I won’t get into scientific detail here but forests like this are the lungs of the planet and the planet needs to breath to survive. If we cut down all the trees… you see where I’m going with this. A vast majority of Scientists have been warning us about this for decades.

Ok, what to do. Personally, I’ve been writing my Congressman and recommending a little nighttime reading that sheds some light on the subject. But if we’re talking about taxes, we can levy a liability on corporations that import beef from ranches that promote deforestation. And hug a tree while you’re at it. Can’t hurt. I would actually just settle for a change in attitude towards protecting the environment instead of harming it in pursuit of the abundance of cheep consumable products.

Seth, people are not forced to eat fast food. You need to hit the dictionary and look up the meaning of that word.

The perception that people eat fast food because it’s cheap is wrong. Yes, there are some cheap items and sales. But as a whole it’s not less expensive than other options. For example, It’s less expensive for me to make myself a cup of coffee to take on the road and eat a bowl of Cheerios and a banana or toast and yogurt, and takes no more time, than for me to hit the road and stop at the McDonald’s drive thru. For $4, I can buy the entire box of Cheerios.

The overall problem here though is the assumption that health and fast food have any sort of a direct connection. It’s a similar one we make between obesity and health. First show that fast food, each and ever time it’s consumed, causes any sort of a health issue, then let’s talk about what to do.

re: the metric used to define fast food- it’s definitely over-simplistic to think it could be based sheerly on calories, hence the proposal for a “panel of nutritionists” to figure out the right formulaic way of quantifying the detrimental quality of foods. something like ((sugars + calories)-(antioxidants + nutrients))/volume = FoodQualityScore

The more I think about this, the more Max’s plan makes better sense. It’s way too complex a problem for a top-down strategy to work and it would open up too many loopholes to be exploited. Plus the extra burden on the small businesses alone is reason enough to scrap this idea in favor of a different approach. It was a fun thought experiment and got some interesting dialogue going but I’ll retract this proposal now and give my support towards a plan more along the lines of what Max proposed.

sean

As for the caloric content metric, even that can be cheated: for example, no calorie artificial sweeteners. So instead of getting all natural can sugars, you now get chemicals, and the fast food companies would jump on board to avoid the tax.

@Seth – Do you really believe that the government can actually lower the price of anything simply by passing a law?