Nutrition and healthy eating

Free

E-Newsletters

Subscribe to receive the latest updates on health topics. About our newsletters

• Housecall
• Alzheimer's caregiving
• Living with cancer

• July 29, 2010 9:43 p.m.

  What are you thinking. The American people have become such lazy, mindless slobs. This is further proof that we, having choice will make a bad choice out of pleasure and then figure out how to fix the problem created by that choice later. I don't want the government taxing my choices. Why? Because once it starts down the path of taxing based on the governments decision about whats good and bad there is no end to the taxing and policing. It's already started. It's already getting worse. You who think this kind of government taxing of your choice is good had better stop and think of the worst place the government could regulate and decide if you want them regulating it. If you keep supporting this kind of government oversite and regulation that place you think is impossible for them to be in is exactly where they will be in years to come.

  - Kevin

• July 27, 2010 9:11 a.m.

  Tax processed foods heavily at the consumer and the manufacturers end and sell unprocessed foods tax free. The consumers are lazy about educating themselves about what is healthy and what is not. Type II diabetes has escalated since the 1970's because of transfats, fructose sugars, processed foods and portions getting bigger. If people want to be unhealthy then they need to pay for it we all are paying for it now with medical through the roof. We are a lazy fat society and it is time to change. Europeans banned transfats and fructose sugar, why are we so dumb about it? Lack of education as in all things

  - Cindy

• July 7, 2010 8:55 p.m.

  Proving that sugar-laden soft drinks are a major contributor to the obesity epidemic is difficult. I believe they are, as well as many other processed foods that contain high-fructose corn sweetener. IF that association can be established then we would have evidence that food producers are responsible, in some way, for the health problems that result. Of course human responsibility is also an issue, but there is plenty of evidence that advertising increases consumption. In that case I think it is the food and beverage producers who need to foot the bill, not the public. They should have to pay directly into a fund that is applied to the public health problems associated with obesity, e.g., type 2 diabetes. Of course this increased cost will be passed on to the consumer but it is more appropriate than taxing the consumer.

  - Winslow

• June 14, 2010 9:48 p.m.

  Absolutely not! That is too much government intervention into private lives. Into private decisions. If government wants to play "big brother," then put the squeeze on the producers of these harmful chemicals (artificial sweetners) or substances (high fructose corn syrup and other "manufactured" sugars) so that manufacturers don't use them, not the consumers. We have laws on the quality and safety of electrical or electronic gadgets that limit their availability to us. Poorly made or unsafe ones are not allowed to be sold here. Use that same concept to limit or ban the use of harmful chemicals or substances known to not be good for human consumption. Stop it at the source, not at the end user. Don't tax the user while still allowing these mega-companies to make billions from their unhealthy products. Stop it at the source! If it's known to be unhealthy, then limit its distribution. OR, follow the example from cigarettes. Put warning labels on products using high fructose corn syrups (and similar sugars) and let the companies manufacturing them pay the costs of educating the public on the detriments of their use. NO to taxing the end user.

  - Robert

• June 8, 2010 9:16 p.m.

  i agree! too many people just don't seek the information about how really dangerous sugar is for them and their children. i think it's a drug and should be taxed just as tobacco and alcohol are. and i think they should take it one step further and make it illegal to sell to minors.

  - Barbara

• May 23, 2010 1:03 p.m.

  Is that ridiculous... since so many have made themselves obese from over-eating perhaps they need to apply heavy taxes to all foods and then they can increasing the amount of welfare offered to those who can no longer afford food. We have so many more serious problems in this country, and our leaders waste their time on foolish issues like this? Education and responsibility would solve so many problems, making good choices in life, diet, paternity, fiscally... not more tax money to waste. Pathetic.

  - Wednesday

• April 20, 2010 7:35 p.m.

  Politicians should stay out if it. THERE taxation is not for the good of the people but a chance to grab more money and power.

  - Allan

• April 4, 2010 4:57 p.m.

  why should the goverment have any say in our life style. all this is about is insurance company not wanting to pay for the health car of people who are over weight.

  - bob

• March 25, 2010 9:43 p.m.

  Taxing sugary beverages, in my opinion, does not address the root of the problem--the profit driven industry that produces them in the first place! Obesity and adult onselt type-2 diabetes was not nearly as prevelant in the 50's or 60's prior to factory farming and fast food. Soda's were sold in small glass bottles and "32 ounce supersized options simply did not exist." The busiinesses that produce and market these glutenous portion sizes and "non-fat with added sugar" products make trillions at the expense of the consumer. If the products are available in the market, many people will buy them--regardless of the health implications. I think that regulating the industry to provide healthier serving sizes would make a big difference in consumption. Perhaps we could consider holding the makers of these offendiing foods partly accountable for their disease causiing impact.

  - Terri

• March 18, 2010 6:41 a.m.

  I do not think any beverages should be taxed. The government already taxes too many things.

  - Wanda

• March 14, 2010 9:08 a.m.

  The sugar in soda is less harmful than the artificial sweetners is diet soda. They have been proven to increase the risk of cancer. The government has no constitutional right to dictate what we eat. That infringes on our personal freedoms.

  - Tricia

• March 11, 2010 10:28 a.m.

  We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debt, as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our calling and our creeds... [we will] have no time to think, no means of calling our miss-managers to account but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers... And this is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for [another ]... till the bulk of society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery... And the fore-horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression." Thomas Jefferson

  - DJ

• March 10, 2010 8:55 a.m.

  I'm for the soda tax, since I seldom buy soda with sugar. Part of the problem is that sodas seem to be made to really not quench your thirst..

  - Paul

• March 9, 2010 5:47 p.m.

  It has been mentioned before but I want to stress that there are those of us who can't use artifical sweetners. In AZ there is a tax on food as well as other products. Food isn't taxed in MN so maybe that would help the budget. I Don't believe you can tax people to a healthy diet. We make out own decisions right or wrong. I mentioned budget before....that is what I think the taxes are all about. Tax what you can under the guise of stressing healthy living.

  - Flo

• March 9, 2010 5:47 p.m.

  So where's the money going towards anyway?

  - Betty

• March 8, 2010 1:34 p.m.

  It is amazing how many people have no problem taxing the things they do not like or use. How about taxing perfume instead of cigarettes? I hate the smell of many of the fragrances and it infiltrates MY Space. The so called sin taxes are most likely unconstitutional but no one will complain because it makes them appear to condone smoking, drinking etc. I support taxation of everything I do not like or use. That includes all lipsticks other than pastels; all body piercing, tatoos and multi-colored hair. No tax on sporting events or food other than cauliflower and fish products. Thanks

  - al

• February 28, 2010 4:52 p.m.

  Anything to get more money from us for politicians to waste. While you're coming up with more taxes, why not charge an exorbitant tax to everyone who patronizes a fast food restaurant too? Most of what they serve isn't healthy either.

  - Sharon

• February 23, 2010 8:19 a.m.

  yes! I dont agree with taxes but either way if it might help people have a healthier lifestyle then by all means tax them on all non needed things only

  - Nick

• February 18, 2010 4:18 p.m.

  A totally socialist idea!

  - dottie

• February 15, 2010 6:44 a.m.

  Taxation is theft! Still think it is a good idea?

  - Rich

• February 14, 2010 1:06 p.m.

  Yes,soft drinks are as destructive as any other addictive items it should include diet soda.The tax may help defray the costs of these conditions attributed to this addiction to sugar and sodas.

  - Mark

• February 13, 2010 10:04 a.m.

  ABSOLUTELY! We should tax soda and any other consumer products or services that have been staticstically shown to cause health problems. The tax revenues generated should be used to subsidize our out of control healthcare costs (e.g., Medicaid and Medicare). Healthcare costs are totally out of control and this is already impacting our economy. One of the most promising ideas to reduce long-term healthcare costs is prevention. We should tax unhealthy lifestyle choices heavily enough that it will make people think long and hard about their choices. In addition, there is evidence suggesting that a signficant part of employment costs have been redirected to pay for rising healthcare insurance costs. This is money that employers might have otherwise paid their employees directly through pay raises. Want to stimulate our economy, put more money in consumers' pockets, and also make people healthier and happier? Then tax unhealthy choices heavily. Someone is going to have to pay for our out of control healthcare costs in the US and we might as well start with the people who make poor personal choices that have been shown to lead to preventable causes of disease and death. Make no mistake, these costs are real and we are alreadying paying for this through higher overall healthcare insurance costs and taxes. Just my humble opinion.

  - Rick

• January 15, 2010 12:03 a.m.

  yes

  - dick

• January 12, 2010 9:18 p.m.

  Definitely! Have thought for a long time that they are as bad as tobacco. Make certain diet pop is included!

  - Barbara

• January 5, 2010 8:04 p.m.

  "Revenue generated by the soda tax would fund health initiatives such as childhood nutrition and obesity prevention programs." Really? What makes Katherine think that politicians will spend this money on such programs? Why are so many people willing to accept the notion of living in a "nanny state?" History shows that tax revenue from these products will likely decrease. Liberal politicians are already proposing unreasonable tax hikes for such products. If these are passed, people stop buying these products. Revenue decreases, companies suffer and layoff workers so they can remain in business. The price of living in a free society is that we must be willing to accept the consequences of those who exercise their freedom to make bad choices. Other countries have taken the path suggested by the New England Journal of Medicine and they pay a severe economic price for their punitive tax codes and their health care systems remain in shambles. I see so many posts of people complaining about our broken health care system and out of control costs, yet almost 80% of Americans are satisfied with their health care. Raising taxes will not create these programs. Politicians will spend the money on their pet projects. Articles like this one are irresponsible because the author does not understand enough about the economics and politics of the issue. Public policies like these sound great until you think them through and realize the damage they do.

  - Rich