The article seems to be shittily written in my opinion but I figure if you watch the video (about a minute) it will get the point across.

My question lies in, do you think this will benefit the health of the people moving forward, or do you fear it being weaponized to endorse or threaten companies to comply with the mention of Kennedy being tied to its future as mentioned in the end of the article

  • BougieBirdie
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    80
    ·
    14 hours ago

    You know what would be way better than a symbol for “healthy” food would be requiring manufacturers to label food that fails to meet standards as “unhealthy.” Bonus points if you tax it to death so it’s no longer economically viable to sell garbage and label it “food”

    Like, shit, the public perception is that I can’t afford healthy food anyway. But at least if the unhealthy food was also labelled it’d be easier to avoid

    • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      14 hours ago

      I don’t want more sin taxes. Sin taxes are anti choice. Subsidizing products that’s meet the healthy label I could agree with though

      Edit: aka subsidizing the crops that are used to produce and possibly writing laws to ban the taxation on foods labeled healthy. Thus making such food in states like I live cost 10% less just by banning the state taxes on them before even getting to the subsidization on the crops. Shit, forcing us to move off corn to things like sugar cane would be great. Dense, the crop cycles are better, water usage is less and overall would be easier to manage. As in if we are going to kill ourselves with gas powered cars using 10% ethanol from corn… Why not use 10% from sugarcane which is easier to acquire and better for the population long term

      • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 hours ago

        Sin taxes are an incredibly effective way to reflect externalities of actions… sin taxes on offensive goods with no healthy malady are dumb as fuck - but we should be making sure that consumers are seeing a more accurate cost for expensive consumption habits. In an ideal world those revenues would be earmarked for programs to counter the societal harm (i.e. buying a pack of cigarettes would come with essentially a payroll style tax that’d fund smoking cessation programs) but America is currently deeply dysfunctional.

      • b34k@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        12 hours ago

        I think sin taxes are absolutely acceptable if the government is also fully paying for the healthcare of all citizens (which we should totally be doing).

        The combination of the two would make America a much healthier place overall.

      • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        28
        ·
        14 hours ago

        Half of them are only cheap because of heavily subsidized corn being heavily processed into an inordinately cheap sugar substitute.

        Taxes aren’t really raising prices so much as undoing the subsidies distorting the market.

        • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          14 hours ago

          So your saying the sales taxes are like tariffs, as they are being used to spread the cost to all purchasers without reguard to income making them harm lower and middle class people more, without ever having to raise taxes back to reasonable levels for the high income members of society. (3 million a year+)

          • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            15
            ·
            14 hours ago

            I’m not saying anything about sales tax.

            I’m saying that if you tax foods high in corn syrup, you’re just making it cost what it’s supposed to cost. You’re literally subsidizing the least healthy food at the moment.

      • jonne@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        13 hours ago

        Denmark instituted a sugar tax and that seemed to have very positive effects (manufacturers reduced the sugar content in various products, better health outcomes). It makes sense in countries with socialised health care systems that you’d make the people that end up costing more due to behaviours pay more into it.

      • BougieBirdie
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        12 hours ago

        I’d be okay with that. The key thing is we need to do more than we’re currently doing because the system is broken