Carole Estabrook: Making sense of ‘fat tax' concept

By Carole Estabrook

Saturday, February 21, 2009 12:13 AM EST

Gov. Paterson has backed off a proposed tax on sugary soft drinks and juices that contain less than 70 percent fruit juice. Commonly known as a ‘fat tax,' the plan was intended to discourage consumers from abusing unhealthy products.
Though Gov. Paterson has conceded that the Legislature will never spring for his ‘fat tax' proposal, he feels that the scheme has raised awareness about weight related health issues such as diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure and strokes.

Gov. Paterson's main objective was to increase awareness of the high caloric food and drink consumed by children, who don't have the wherewithal to make their own dietary decisions.

In the end, people are responsible for their own dietary decisions. And parents are responsible for their own children, for the most part.

If the state is to have any influence on future generations, it should closely monitor and investigate the food that the state supplies for school lunches. And what items are available for purchase with food stamps.

I know what I used to eat in school, and I can say that tremendous strides have been made in the last decade to promote farm to school programs, nutrition education and to encourage healthier choices. But there is obviously much more work to be done.

As it stands right now, one in four Americans is obese. As a result, health care costs are rising and everyone must share in the financial burden. But healthy foods are extremely expensive.

And if the state wants to eke even more out of an already lean budget, it makes no sense to make unhealthy food unaffordable as well.

One solution would to be to place heavier restrictions on food stamps and to what can and can't be purchased with them.

Another solution is to better educate people about the importance of a healthy diet and exercising together.

I personally believe that the Food and Drug Administration should ban trans fats altogether and stop leaving it up to local and state governments.

In the meantime, it makes no sense to penalize the product makers, especially in a tight economy. Besides which, just about any product can make you obese if you abuse it.

Carole Estabrook's column appears Mondays can be reached at estabrookcarole@yahoo.com.

The Citizens' Say

Post your comment - click here

There are 5 comment(s)

drivebytrucker wrote on Feb 16, 2009 6:08 PM:

" “In the end, people are responsible for their own dietary decisions” – Ok.

“I personally believe that the Food and Drug Administration should ban trans fats altogether and stop leaving it up to local and state governments.” – Huh?

But what about people being responsible for their own dietary decisions? Seriously, what the heck are you trying to say? Because you are all over the map here.

For example, you offer two “solutions”, but never state what the problem is that they are a “solution” to!

Paterson was dead serious about trying to get this tax passed. He is now pretending that he wasn’t serious so he doesn’t look like a loser.

The only awareness that he has raised concerns the meddling of the nanny state in our lives. It is disturbing. "

sabrina5487 wrote on Feb 16, 2009 4:37 PM:

" I think Gov. Paterson was trying to find any way to get more money and thought that maybe taxing sugary drinks would fly. I don't think government should be involved in making america healthier. Actually I'm a little disappointed that taxes are placed on items where a limited amount of people will pay the tax. I thought our constitution said that taxes shouldn't be placed on special interest groups. I don't see how anybody can justify in Constitutional terms the excessive taxation geared towards steering behaviour "

cc57 wrote on Feb 16, 2009 1:21 PM:

" Am all for banning trans-fats, and let's add high fructose corn syrup, MSG in all its forms, and perhaps canola oil. These actions would render almost all processed foods reasonably safe. There are other items to remove before processed foods stop slowly killing people, but no sense starting a riot here. Besides, this was about state mandates. "

qwerty1234 wrote on Feb 16, 2009 10:24 AM:

" That's nothing. I once saw a woman try to buy soda with her WIC checks. When she was told she couldn't use them, she started screaming at the cashier. "

irritated wrote on Feb 16, 2009 9:21 AM:

" If they tighten the items allowed to be purchased under food stamps, then how will the lady I saw at Wegmans afford her 5lb bag of Hershey Kisses, and her 2-12 packs of Mt. Dew? Yes I wouldnt believe it if I didnt see it myself, the only items she bought, and yes she used food stamps to purchase them! "

REGISTRATION IS FREE.
Registered users sign in here:
*Member ID:
*Password:
Remember login?
(requires cookies)
 
Unregistered users can register here:

Do not use usernames or passwords from your financial accounts!

Note: Fields marked with an asterisk (*) are required!

*Create a Member ID:
*Choose a password:
*Re-enter password:
*E-mail Address:
*Year of Birth:
 

(children under 13 cannot register)

First Name:
Last Name:
Company:
Home Phone:
Business Phone:
Address:
City:
State:
Zip Code:
 
E-Citizen
E-Edition
Wheels Etc.
Find a vehicle
Hot Jobs
Find a Job
Homes Etc.
Find a Home
TV Week
Find a program
Search Classifieds
Find, Buy
Place a Classified Ad
Sell
Skaneateles Journal
The Journal
New! Best Bridal
Here comes the bride. . .
Liven Up the Holidays
Fa-la-la-la-la-la-la-laaaaaa
Logo HereNew! Off the Menu
Good Eatin'!
Newspaper Ads
See it again
CNY Boats Etc.
Achors aweigh!
New! School Project
A breakdown of the new school project.
Sections
Special Sections

Top Jobs

The Citizen Copyright ©2009
A division of Lee Publications, Inc.
25 Dill Street
Auburn, NY 13021

Contact Us

Add to My Yahoo!