Junk Food Tax

In particular, we found that a subsidy on healthy food financed by a tax on carbonated drinks, fatty

food or alcoholic beverages would be poverty reducing [7]

Firstly, the Danish "fat tax" exceeds the boundaries of what can be commonly considered a "junk food" tax and as such, should be rejected from consideration. A closer inspection of the policy reveals that it was a tax on the presence of saturated food within products. While this doubtlessly includes items typically described as "junk food" such as chips and pizzas, it also includes meats, dairy products such as margarine, butter, milk and cheese as well as a kitchen staples such as cooking oils. Such items are out of the scope of what a "junk food" tax is, and hence it is not an accurate representation unlike the examples given in round one.

Secondly, while my opponent was quick to express the weaknesses of the policy, this does not address the outcomes of the policy in relation to the goals overall nor has it quantified how those weaknesses impacted the policy as a whole. In general, it has been shown that the "fat tax" had an impact on the consumption of saturated fat products, which is consistent with what is expected of a sin tax. [1]

Finally, while sin taxes may push consumers towards buying products in nearby untaxed regions, case studies such as the Philadelphia soda tax have indicated that regardless, consumption remains lower overall. [2]

But there's a catch. "We find a very large increase in sales of soda and other taxed products at stores that are located zero to four miles outside the city," she says.

Basically, it seems that a lot of people in Philadelphia are driving to stores right outside the city to buy their beverages. This is especially true in the case of sugar-sweetened drinks (and less so of artificially sweetened drinks). When you take that into account, sales in and around the city dropped about 20 percent, not 46 percent. And sales of sugar-sweetened drinks fell even less.

This is certainly true, however it does not directly address the benefits of a junk food tax on society, and only makes clear there will be challenges towards implementing an effective policy, which is true for all policies. It is clear however from round one that many examples of sin taxes have been implemented successfully despite the interference of their respective industries and hence this likely to be the case for a more comprehensive junk food sin tax.

Firstly, his choice of expert opinion should be immediately rejected. A quick google search reveals that the American Beverage Association, if it weren't already obvious by the name is a "government lobbying group that represents the beverage industry in the United States". [3] Any unsubstantiated opinion coming from a spokesman of such a group is invariably riddled with bias. They have a direct incentive to stop any sort of tax which would reduce their sales.

Secondly, the claim that obesity is too complicated to solve via a junk food tax is completely unsubstantiated. Some studies even take an opposite stance. [4][5]

Finally, this topic has nothing to do with eliminating obesity. No one has made that claim. It is entirely to do with a junk food tax being a benefit to society. My arguments have addressed reducing obesity, which is likely to occur with reduced consumption of junk food and hence, a junk food tax being beneficial towards society.

Firstly, I've already presented several studies on various implementations of taxes on food. I've presented several studies on sin taxes in general. I would argue that they aren't understudied at all.Secondly, even if I were to concede that such a tax is understudied, the studies otherwise provided have been promising and do not indicate any sort of significant risk. Con has not provided any evidences of risk and hence this point should be shelved until such a point otherwise.

Con concedes that junk food taxes reduce obesity/consumption of junk food.

Con argues that a junk food tax will make obese people poorer and that they will keep on buying junk food at a higher price. Whereas healthy food will remain at a high price as well.

Again, this argument seems to be mostly baseless conjecture. The studies provided from round one indicate that in general, there is a decrease in the amount of consumed junk food in response to a junk food tax. Additionally some studies have been shown that reinvesting the revenue from a junk food tax into healthy initiatives such as subsidising healthy foods is a promising avenue.

This is correct. However purchasing food items logically leads to consuming those food items later. And of course naturally, what you can eat is constrained by what you can acquire. Hence a reduction of purchasing goods directly leads to a reduction of consuming those goods

I would direct Con to round one in which I have listed sources proving the efficacy of the general idea behind sin taxes and more specific sources related food taxation. I argue that because the idea of a junk food tax is so similar to these other examples of sin taxes that have been successful, so too will a junk food tax.

Con has not substantiated his assertion that obesity is too complicated to solve via a junk food tax.

The thesis of this topic is "pro has to prove that JF tax is beneficial to society, Con has to prove it's not.". A junk food tax can be beneficial to society without eliminating obesity. Helping obesity is still beneficial to society in terms of public health and economics related to public health.

Con's argument was that such taxes are understudied, and hence present a risk. This is presumably due to any unknown factors that such a tax might present. Not only have I presented studies that show sin taxes are a well studied concept, I have also presented studies on specific implementations of various food taxes. Con has not denied that these studies do not indicate any risk. Apart from this, Con has argued that the taxes present a risk to the poor. And yet this is not an unknown risk such that Con argued might be present.

Part of this debate is on whether or not junk food taxes work. By admitting that the junk food tax functionally reduces obesity and/or junk food intake and/or also increases healthy food intake, Con has conceded that a junk food tax functions in that regard.

One of the strongest points of sin taxes are their flexibilities to accommodate for differing needs. Take the various food taxes for example. All implementations shown in previous rounds have their own set of parameters from which they operate. This includes the variety of goods taxed, the amount that each good is taxed, the municipalities in which the law is applied and ways in which the tax revenue is spent. This means that a junk food tax can be tailor fit to meet the requirements of a given community.

This may mean that a junk food tax is not appropriate where there are a lack of alternatives. And yet this does not mean a junk food tax is detrimental to society at large. It simply means that, as previously noted, all policies have their challenges in effective implementation. For example, a junk food tax is still likely to be beneficial towards those living in food deserts if revenue from a junk food tax is used to provide options that previously weren't available. And as indicated earlier, a junk food tax is likely to be poverty reducing if healthier options are subsidised with revenue from the tax.

In regards to helping the poor, apart from a well-constructed junk food tax likely being poverty reducing, it should also be noted that the impoverished also tend to be more obese. Hence a junk food tax is entirely oriented around helping the poor, both in terms of wealth and health. In terms of malnutrition, indicating that there might be bigger problems than obesity does not negate the benefits of a junk food tax in society. 

Whether a policy is fair or unfair to an individual or group of individuals is not an argument to whether a policy is beneficial or detrimental to society at large. For example, progressive tax rates can be described to be unfair towards higher wage earners, and yet the impact of tax dollars resulting from said tax rates is one of the pillars from which governments improve societies from which the benefits are incalculable.