There are some U.S. states that have a variation of a "junk food tax" as well. Same thing with cigarettes and alcohol.
So the idea is that if unhealthy items cost too much, people will stop buying them and move toward cheaper (and presumably healthier) options. In my opinion, it just isn't that simple and you can't change a person's diet- much less the diet of an entire culture or country of people- just by making certain foods more expensive. Food is closely tied to geography and socioeconomic class, for instance... many people do their "grocery shopping" at corner stores and gas stations because they can't afford to go to Whole Foods or because there isn't even a decent grocery store anywhere near their home. And if you were raised on junk food from the time you were a kid- like many people are nowadays- what is the likelihood that you'll suddenly switch to spinach just because candy bars became more expensive? Most likely, you'll keep eating what you've always eaten, and the only people who benefit are the government or the junk food companies (depending on how the taxes/profits are divided up.)
The better solution is to educate people about nutrition and health, lower the cost of fresh/healthy food and make it more available to everyone, and target the kids and make sure they have access to good food so they develop a taste and appreciation for fruits, vegetables, and grains early in life.
Long story short - I think increasing taxes is a stupid way to "fix" obesity. It won't work in Mexico or anywhere else. It *will* bring in a ridiculous amount of money to governments and big businesses, though, so I wouldn't be surprised if this tax becomes more and more common.
Increasing tax on junk food will only piss people off. If they want to fight obesity, they'll have to find another solution which is actually effective and not a plot to take money from people for the benefit of the government. People will still keep buying junk food inspite of the tax, they'll just curse the government while buying it. People should have enough common sense that eating junk food at all times is not good for the health. Everyone knows this. Banning junk food won't help either because there's the black market which would sell banned foods. It would be advisable to educate people about the effects of consuming too much junk food and a basic study in nutrition. If they still don't bother to change their habits, then it's their problem, not anyone else's.
i didn't vote because I'm not sure it's a very good idea. I'd say it's a good idea or at least well intentioned but I always am a bit weary of government controlling people's personal decisions
i think it is smart to educate and then let people make decisions and potentially penalize them for their poor decisions... I think that is the best way to go about governing.
we teach kids killing is wrong, if they go and kill they are penalized
we teach kids that stealing is wrong, if they steal hopefully they are penalized
But it's very different with eating...we teach kids about healthy eating, hopefully they will learn and apply it, but the penalty here is isn't as black and white. unhealthy eating leads to obesity, diabetes, poor health, organ failure, heart and respiratory issues, or even cognitive issues. so should a government pre-emptively try and protect people from themselves I think becomes the issue (like NYC Mayor Bloombergs soda tax).
I do think the government is responsible for protecting its people and I think in certain scenarios that means pre-emptively doing things to try and curb behavior. so I think a tax is a good idea. it doesn't ban obtaining the bad food it just penalizes you for not making better decisions. you still have the right to do what you want but there is a greater cost to do so
I was about to jump to voting 'A' when Anon's opinion caught my eye and inspired an instant rethink.
Why, he's right. What about the poor, those who can't afford stuff?
Most healthy foods are a tad more expensive than high cal ones in many countries.
SO UNLESS the govt makes provisions that way this legislation will be in bad light :)
For any decisions a government should not be unilateral but take into consideration all aspects and this is a valid point :)
On the whole it's an awesome thing to do but again a lot of things to be considered especially those that can't afford everything.
I don't agree wholly with @onemoreplease on educating people cause through eons everyone has tried educating on more controllable things but with little effect. Society tried educating, didn't work so they made laws, partially worked so came religion (with faith & fear), worked a lot more but not 100$ and likewise even taxes will work but not 100$ :D When I want to do something then I raise the money for it rather than give up the idea, few that way but we exist :D ;)
Opinion
11Opinion
I think it's a good idea. The problem is defining junk food. Companies who make food won't want their food being put in the junk food category, so they'll fight to keep it from being classified that way.
Defining it as 275 calories per 100 grams is one way. But there can be a big difference between foods that fall in that category. Some can be fairly nutritious and others are pure junk.
Even though it's hard to define and companies will fight against it, it's still a step in the right direction.
I approve. People don't realize what their health is worth. You can't really blame them though, the drink companies have somehow made soda cheaper than water so people are more inclined to drink it.
When I see a tiny child drinking a 600mL of Pepsi, I feel like it's a form of child abuse. That's got to be like 10% of his body weight and it's pure sugar.
No I don't approve. Government needs to stop taking over everyone's lives and telling them what they can say, what they can do, what they can eat, and what their ideal weight should be. Barack Obama will eventually implement a tax like this in America since with socialized healthcare in America, they will not be able to afford to cover fat people and their health problems. I don't think that this is the best way to combat obesity and I find it quite abrasive. Fortunately I am of good weight and health, but I know many who aren't. Government is out of control and I feel the less government, the better.
I disapprove. Mexico should try to sell cheaper healthier food instead just attacking junk food which most people have to buy because its cheaper. I sounds like they're following the same hate filled script that the GOP is following in the United states.
I approve.
Especially as WHO has identified obesity as a disease recently.
After it was just a cause of disease.
Actually this law isn't just in Mexico.
It has been applied in some other countries.
In America, junk food is cheap, healthy food is expensive. A bag of carrots, totaling a couple hundred calories tops, costs more than two dollar menu items plus fries and a soda from McDonald's. Which totals like what a thousand calories? And a bag of chips is cheaper than fruit. Go to health food stores- everything is wildly expensive.
Which is why one out of two children living under the poverty line born after 2000 will develop type two diabetes.
God bless America. ...
The goal of fighting obesity is admirable, but a tax is not going to do anything, people will keep buying it regardless. All it's going to do is piss off the people who dislike higher taxes.
Personally I am usually against that type of government intervention. I feel that telling people what to eat far exceeds what I believe the scope of over meant should be.
its a very good idea. fast food is a huge problem, look how unhealthy Americans are because of it.
If you were forced to pay more youd probably go eat a healthier meal at a restaurant instead
I like it, junk food is poison and shouldn't be thrown at people, I think it's a good motivator to not buy brownies and soda everyday, they can put there money towards less processed, cheaper foods
I think it is. Because in mexico mostly the poor are eating junk because it is cheap and fills them up.
But, I think that the goverment should also fight poverty instead f only imposing taxes.
That's horrible lol it's not going to make a difference.
I do not support any taxation to control people's behavior.
Its intention is good, but its not going to work. If people want junk food, they're still gonna buy it. It would be a better idea to make healthy foods cheaper.
You cannot legislate one's behavior. This is just another way to keep the poor poor.
I won't stop them from eating it, but it will hurt the poor even more.
It's a good idea
Well they need to make money somehow
You can also add your opinion below!
Most Helpful Opinions