Sugar and soda taxes don't go far enough - we need a genuine intervention into the food system that will not only improve diets, but also protect food stamp benefits for the long term.
Current trends in political consciousness are fixated on food, particularly the diets of poor and working class people. We are too fat, live in "food deserts", and lack access to supermarkets that have the foods that upper middle class people eat. We need a soda or sugar tax. At least that's the message I'm getting.
There's also a panic around defunding of food stamps (EBT), and of reduced price or free school lunches.
At the other end of the economic spectrum, there's worries about GMOs, factory farming, and Monsanto.
Meanwhile, hipsters are drinking bacon and eating copious amounts of alcohol, but they don't seem to be getting too obese, at least not on their blogs. Maybe they're bulimic. You don't hear about a bacon and booze tax, either, because gentrifiers like NYC's mayor Bloomberg don't want to scare away the hipsters.
All the activity seems to be around passing taxes and regulations, but nobody is considering a solution that would allow the government to apply real pressure to change peoples' diets.
That solution is food stamps, for everyone.
Every single person in the country should be entitled to a food subsidy per week, on their EBT card. ( is the current rate of EBT food stamp benefit for single people.)1
To fund this, we could raise income taxes.
Once a fraction of everyone's diet is purchased through EBT, the government can restrict what can be purchased. Today, you must purchase food with food stamps. For example, you cannot purchase alcoholic drinks, toilet paper, or prepared foods.
Tomorrow, we could see regulations on what kinds of food could not be purchased with the EBT.
For example, if you want to reduce soda consumption, disallow purchases of soda with the EBT card.
If you want to discourage eating meat, limit how much of the benefit can purchase meat. (This won't happen - keep reading to find out why.)
In this theoretical future, you could still purchase soda and meat, but it would be an out-of-pocket expense.
This is the "nanny state" in full effect, and it would be good. Don't worry about the USDA turning us into a vegan nation, because the decisions regarding what can be bought are made by Congress, so it's political, and most foods would not be disallowed.2 Imagine if the USDA decided to disallow chips, ramen, cookies, salad dressing, or meat. Food industries would be in an uproar.
In fact, the EBT can now be used to purchase fast food, if the recipient is disabled. They can get a burger and fries, or a taco at specific restaurants. So, there is a precedent for expansion - even if that expansion is somewhat questionable.
It's progressiveEconomically, a universal EBT would be funded progressively from income taxes, so it would benefit the poor by taxing the rich, while people in the middle would tend to be paying into the system and getting the same amount back out.
At worst, it would be funded by a regressive flat tax.
Presently, the political movement to pass taxes on sugar and fats is regressive, but it's actually worse than regressive because it targets the behaviors of working class people. The health benefits are worth it - but there is a bias. You can see this in the tobacco tax; it's worth it, but the hit is going to be felt by the people.
Food and health activists should still support these taxes, but it would be better if there were a larger vision to create a food system that more directly controls what foods would be discouraged.
ReferencesAverage monthly food stamp benefit, at Kaiser Family Foundation
Food stamp eligible foods, at USDA
Original: A Fix for Food Security and Obesity: Food Stamps for Everyone