Art & Commerce: Food Fight

Junk food kills. That's the message of an ad placed in the Washington Post last week by a public-health group pushing for a national snack tax. "Let's charge a penny or two tax on soft drinks or other junk foods to fund public-health campaigns," says the ad, produced by the Center for Science in the Public Interest. "The junk-food makers can afford it. They're living off the fat of the land." Critics of the idea snidely call it the Twinkie tax. Currently, 17 states tax soft drinks and snacks. Junk food has joined cigarettes and alcohol on the list of dangerous products. The real question is: Should the government be in the business of taxing products that cause harm? At a nutrition summit in Washington, D.C., last week, the Departments of Agriculture and Health and Human Services explored options to battle America's bulging waistlines. They are under pressure from public-health groups who want a tax. Clearly, Americans get more information from the snack-food industry than they do from the government. McDonald's spends more than $1 billion a year advertising burgers and fries loaded with salt and fat. The government spends a paltry $1 million urging Americans to eat five servings of fruits and vegetables a day. It's hardly a contest. In fact, more than half of all food ads in a dozen industrialized countries are for fast food, candy and sweetened breakfast cereals, according to a recent consumer study. The soft-drink industry spends more than $500 million marketing its products, and more than 5,000 American schools have contracts with fast-food companies to receive vending machines, lunch service or both. The statistics are scary, but let's be realistic. Americans don't relish the idea of more taxes. Individual freedom includes the right to snack on junk food or light up a cigarette, even if such habits can kill. Taxing the junk-food makers is a compelling idea, but the industry would only pass it along to consumers. Of course, advertisers shun any tax. They see it as one more threat to their bottom lines. "If anybody doubts there is a slippery slope in Washington, there are those out there greasing and icing it every day," says Dan Jaffe, executive vice president of the Association of National Advertisers. Why not focus on shifting around some of the hefty sums the government already collects in taxes to beef up the public-health messages? At the nutrition summit, CSPI asked Congress to give the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention $30 million to advertise good nutrition and exercise. CSPI wants the National Cancer Institute to spend $15 million a year pushing fruits and veggies. It also thinks the Food and Drug Administration can do everyone a favor by requiring nutrition labels to disclose refined sugars. These recommendations make sense. "The government needs to do more than just cross its fingers and hope that the obesity epidemic goes away," says Margo Wootan, CSPI's director of nutrition policy. "It needs to mount campaigns and implement policies that will make it easier for people to eat well." K

Brand Marketing

Art & Commerce: Food Fight

Wendy Melillo

About

Subscriptions

Events

Publications

WORK SMARTER - LEARN, GROW AND BE INSPIRED.

Subscribe today!

Wendy Melillo