Tucked away on page 455 of the 906-page health care reform act (Public Law 111-148) is a provision for listing calorie counts on the menu boards of chain restaurants or adjacent to
each food offered in vending machines and in retail stores. Establishments with 20 or more
locations nationwide must post calories “in a clear and conspicuous manner,” along with “a
succinct statement concerning suggested daily caloric intake” — presumably the 2000-kcal-per-day standard that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) uses for the “Nutrition Facts” on packaged foods.
When the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990 went into effect in 1994, it required that nutrition labels be placed on food products but exempted restaurants. The new law removes that exemption. The advocacy group Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) organized support for this measure after having issued a 2003 report arguing that nutrition labeling would help to control the rising rates of obesity.
The report summarized evidence that more people eat meals away from home than ever before, that U.S. children consume twice as many calories at restaurants as at home, and that nearly everyoneunderestimates the calorie content of restaurant meals. In 2004, an FDA Obesity Working Group report, “Calories Count,” recommended providing nutrition information at the point of sale in restaurants. The FDA asked the nonprofit Keystone Center to review the status of such information.
As we have argued there is truly a need to drop the obesity problem by one way or another.
We are near completion on a short book on Obesity and Type 2 Diabetes. We argue in its conclusion as follows:
The intent of this document was to demonstrate that the research and knowledge to date is adequate to show that obesity is primarily caused by excess carbohydrates, that obesity in turn is the primary cause of Type 2 Diabetes, and that Type 2 Diabetes has sequelae of chronic diseases that resulting long term and high intensity care and thus costs, and that the total costs of these sequelae are now more than 12% of the total health care expenditures and are growing at an almost exponential rate for the foreseeable future in the US and worldwide.
We believe that we have achieved that goal, by use of primary research, and that the conclusion is both obvious and readily extensible.
We started this task because of recent assertions regarding the tax on soda and that such a tax would have de minimis effect on the costs resulting therefrom. In addition the Professor asserts that we should be taxing fuel as a means to control both consumption and reduce green house gases, yet taxing or in some way obtaining related costs from kcal consumption is inappropriate, if I read him correctly.
We contend that to the contrary, the costs of controlling Type 2 Diabetes far exceed those of all energy usage and indeed the costs of Type 2 Diabetes are growing at a substantially greater rate. Furthermore we contend that the taxing of carbs, in reality the establishment of a fee on carbs which will then be used to pay for the sequelae of excess use, is a more fair tax and in fact can be done extra the Government as agent and furthermore can be done in a pure Coasian manner, in direct contrast to Pigou and the Professor.
Let us compare the two "taxes" that the Professor discussed in light of what we have demonstrated about Type 2 Diabetes. We compare a tax on Energy paid to the Government versus a fee on carbohydrates paid to a fund to pay the expenses for Type 2 Diabetics and their sequelae. This comparison is highly enlightening in view of the current cap and trade proposals as well as how the new health care plan functions in its total disregard for demand control. The approaches by both parties seem to be one of having the Government control everything either directly or via a tax. Both are excerpts from the Progressive movements of a century ago. One can see this by comparing the proposal herein for Type 2 Diabetes control and the Cap and Trade type tax on energy.
Posts
