Posts tagged with: junk food

cookie2Every so often your writer is reduced to scratching his head bemusedly at what leftist religious shareholder activists deem worthy of prioritization. Whether based on religious faith or not, it always seemed to me shareholders’ concerns should be maximization of return on investments rather than reshaping the world into a progressive utopia.

Yet here we have the religious shareholder activists of the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility and Boston Common Asset Management celebrating a victory that their press release practically equates with alleviating world poverty, hunger and disease. Yes, dear readers, ICCR and BCAM successfully convinced Mondelez International Inc. – the corporate bogeyman responsible for such crimes against humanity as the delicious snack foods Oreos, Cadbury, Ritz Crackers and Triscuits – to drop all advertising aimed at children under 12 years old:

While the company had a policy in place that prohibited any advertising to children under six, and called for any advertising to children 6-11 to meet specific nutritional criteria, the new policy will go even further. According to Mondelez’ website: (more…)

In his commentary, Matt Cavedon, communications associate at the Acton Institute, addressed new taxes that are being proposed to combat the high obesity rates in the United States and to provide financial support for health care reform.  The new taxes proposed to help fund health care reform will begin to tax what Congress deems junk food or unhealthy food.  Cavedon exposes the hypocrisy fostered by taxes on such junk or unhealthy food:

In “The Sin Tax: Economic and Moral Considerations,” the Rev. Robert A. Sirico, president of the Acton Institute, has argued against the idea of taxing sins to pay for public services. If the government relies on taxes on unhealthy foods to pay for health care programs, how can it both fight obesity and maintain steady revenue? Sirico says it cannot: “Under a sin tax, the state finds itself professing to discourage certain behaviors while relying on their continuance as a source of revenue.” The government may say unhealthy eating is bad, but it would rely on it for tax money.

The problem of hypocrisy leaves aside the question of whether government is qualified to be the moral police officer of our pantries in the first place. Sirico points out that “the government’s sense of morality, especially when it is influenced by excessive power, is often at war with traditional standards and common sense.” With food taxes, eating apple pie would become more of a punishable sin in the eyes of the government than cheating on a spouse.

Cavedon further explains the hypocrisy of taxes on junk and unhealthy food while also articulating the moral disorientation of such taxes.  “Obesity is a problem” Cavedon states, “but higher taxes are not the answer.”