The "Fat" Tax

If I have an aneurism, blame it on Adam.

He told me that there was an article in the Saturday paper that I would be interested in reading. If, by "interested in reading," he meant "infuriated by," he was right. It's called Obesity Expert Backs Tax on Sugary Drinks. Apparently, society's trip to hell in a handbasket is due in part to the eeeevils of soda. I agree with Brownell's first point--when it comes to obesity, prevention and education are surely easier than correction after the fact. It's a lot easier to form good habits than to change bad ones after a person has already reached the morbidly obese stage; after all, it's not like he got there by swinging through McDonald's and getting a large soda on a single Friday night.

After this, though, our points of view diverged.

I do have to congratulate him on the term better defaults, though. That's the fanciest euphemism for brainwashing I've heard in a long time. And I don't have a problem, exactly, with removing soda and candy machines from schools. The ten-year-old kid isn't allowed to do the grocery shopping on his own, so limiting his choices is not a problem for me. However, removing the choices of voting adults is where I have a problem. Don't tax soda through the roof on the pretense of giving me better defaults; I already know that soda is not the healthiest choice I can make. In fact, show me an adult who doesn't know that water is healthier than soda. People know this already. Brownell wants to add a penny per ounce to the cost of soda. Will that twenty-cent tax really persuade a die-hard Coke drinker to switch to water?

Brownell's "fat tax" argument that really struck a nerve with me, though, is the argument that healthy food is more expensive that unhealthy food. "Look! If you go to McDonald's, it costs less to get a burger and fries than it does to get a salad! It's a conspiracy to MAKE US ALL FAT!" This is what's known as a false dilemma fallacy, though. He's presented you with these two options--a Big Mac or a salad--and ignored the existence of other options. The cheaper choice yet is not to eat at McDonald's at all. We as a family rarely eat out because it's far more expensive than eating at home. We went to Wendy's a few weeks ago, and for two adults and a toddler, it cost almost $18. For less than that, I can get ten pounds of rice and ten pounds of beans, and that will last us for months. Just like anything else, healthy eating costs as much as you want to spend on it. Sure, you can get the fancy organic and free-range foods that will jack up your bill, but the basics do not have to cost a fortune. I've been analyzing our budget more closely lately because I am not a shopping wizard by any means, but I know the basics of eating cheap and healthy: buy what's in season and cut down on meat. If you've got the means, grow your veggies at home--that can both cut down on costs and provide an organic alternative. (Plus, those sad, sad things they market as "tomatoes" in the grocery store don't hold a candle to a nice, ripe, fresh-off-the-vine Early Girl that you get out of your own backyard.) Brownell bemoans the availability and marketing of fast food, but he does not address eating at home at all.

I also can't get behind his argument for a "safe environment" for kids. Maybe things will change when my kids learn how to write, but in our house, the kids...don't make the grocery list. The kids don't do the shopping. Don't want your kids to drink soda? Then don't buy it for them. Not into candy for the little ones? I don't blame you. Don't let them have it. Think there's too much fast food marketing on TV? Turn it off. There is a way to give kids better defaults on the choices they make--it's called parenting. Just because your kid wants to eat at Taco Bell every meal--and I surely cannot fault her if she does--doesn't mean you have to comply. My dad had a saying when we started to whine about wanting something as kids: "You can want in one hand and piss in the other and see which one fills up first." I never understood it, but I knew what it meant: we weren't getting the Big Mac or My Little Pony or dog or whatever else it was that we were whining about.

Brownell didn't mention the last fat tax argument I hate: Obesity is a public concern because of all the health costs that the government has to absorb. There's an easy solution to that: don't nationalize healthcare! No worries about costs! If Joe Shmoe wants to eat himself into a heart attack, don't make me pay for.

It's all about personal responsibility and decisions, and I just don't buy most of the arguments about sin tax. I enjoy a bottle of Coke now and then. I love donuts. I could eat Taco Bell every single day (and did in college). But, as a rational adult, I understand that eating donuts and Taco Bell every day will make me fat, and I hate shopping for pants, so I'll keep the ones I have, thanks. I understand that forcing my heart to deal with a Big Mac every day is going to make it wear out sooner, so I'll stick to my beans and rice. I do enjoy a little bit of chocolate in the afternoons; the kids nap, I grade papers, and the M-n-Ms and coffee keep me awake. But I don't eat the whole bag, and I understand that I need to add a little more physical activity to my routine to balance out those candy-covered chocolates. It's basic math, really; if calories in is greater than calories out, weight goes up. It's not rocket science. But it is a personal choice, and I resent anyone who tries to coerce me into making the choice that they think is best for me.

I don't drink a lot of soda, but that doesn't matter. I'd like to buy the world a Coke and keep it company, and then we can all tell the government that if they want to tax us for enjoying a carbonated treat, they can want in one hand and piss in the other and see which one fills up first.