Food taxes take a bite out of family budgets

Just as many families are struggling, many municipalities across the country are also facing economic uncertainty. To alleviate financial woes, many of these cities and states have already, or are considering, increased or exise food taxes disguised as "health initiatives" to reduce obesity. Most of these proposed taxes target sugar-sweetened beverages and "junk food." But while politicians argue that these taxes support efforts to promote healthier lifestyles by limiting unhealthy choices, the bottom line is that it's a government money grab – and they're stealing from the mouths of babes.

Currently 31 states exempt food for at-home consumption from the state sales tax, though many of those pay local food taxes instead. Eleven states tax groceries at a lower rate, and five tax at the full rate but offer rebates. Two states provide no off-set for food and tax at the full rate. According to the Center on Budget and Policy priorities,

For a family of four that spends the lowest amount considered necessary for a nutritious diet and lives in a typical state that taxes food, sales taxes on food cost some $350 a year. That amount is more than a week's income for a family at the poverty line.

That was in 1998. One can only imagine what food taxes cost families now that we've seen record taxes increases at every level. Additional taxes, like the soda tax, only serve to make already tight budgets even tighter.

One might argue that if the unhealthy foods are more expensive, people will buy less of them and more healthful foods. But the truth, according to a recent study, is that the cost of fruits and vegetables has increased by 200% since 1983, 3 times greater than the increase seen in sugars and sweets, and roughly 6 times the increase seen in carbonated beverages. Like it or not the reality is that if the cost of unhealthy foods goes up, people will just be spending more money buying less of any food – not ideal in these economic times.

Yes, sometimes I'm stunned and saddened when I see families at the grocery store with a cart full of "junk" food. There's nary a person out there who doesn't know that soda is full of sugar, that chips and Oreos are laden with fat, and that fruits and vegetables are good for you. So, I ask myself, why are they feeding themselves and their children junk and avoiding fruits and vegetables? And then I remember that those five seconds I spent looking at those people with that cart are just a snapshot of their lives –I have no idea what's going on at home or what food lands on the dinner table - and I'm in no position to judge.

The bottom line is that year after year, studies have shown that when it comes to what drives consumers to purchase certain foods, taste usually wins out (albeit just slightly) over price – and one could argue that chips are tastier and cheaper than spinach. But cost is still a huge factor. So why don't we cut the taxes and let people have more money to choose healthy foods?

Our national security depends on school meals - say what?

In my former life, B.C. (before children), I worked hard at "creating a healthy school environment". That was my job. I spent most of my time working with schools to improve school meals and incorporate more physical activity into the school day- a la Mrs. Obama's push with with her "Let's Move" campaign- with a mostly volunteer organization called Action for Healthy Kids. (I won't tell you about how much time I spent banging my head against the wall.) So I am not surprised when I see stories like "School Lunches are a Threat to National Security, Retired Officials Say " that focus national attention on the failings of school meals, as they seem to get the brunt of the blame when it comes to childhood overweight. According to this article, unhealthy school lunches are "leaving 27 percent of young adults 'too fat to fight'" and is jeopardizing military recruitment. The report, released by a non-profit group called Mission: Readiness, calls for more federal funding for school lunches in a time when funding for anything is clearly at a premium.

While I whole-heartedly support efforts to provide healthful school food and to get kids moving, I am skeptical when it comes to blaming the schools for our national security problems as they relate to obesity. Just as I believe teachers are not the reason that why we are apparently dumber than the rest of the world (a charge I've heard before), I think there is significant learning of behaviors that takes place in the home, outside the classroom or in cafeteria. The question is: when are we as Americans going to take responsibility for our children and stop blaming others?

In my visits to school cafeterias I often saw children with lunches packed at home that were nutritionally void. They often included fat-filled "Lunchables" and sugar-filled soft drinks. And for many of the students who had school-prepared meals, that lunch was unfortunately the main source of their nutrition for the day as it was likely their only meal of the day. Many of those students qualified for free or reduced-price meals. So for them, they were lucky to obtain 40% of their calories in a day from school food, as this article suggests. You see, there isn't a one-size-fits-all approach to feeding children, especially when it comes to school food. Some kids are underweight despite what they eat, and some overweight, too. We're all individuals with individual needs that are not going to be solely addressed through school lunch.

Maybe it's unrealistic to believe that in this day and age parents still have "role model" status for their kids. I still believe they do and that's why I try to teach my child "all things in moderation" and introduce new foods and activities even at this young age. Now that I have a child, I see what a challenge it can be to get children to eat those vegetables. And I see what a mimic my toddler is - he picks up on everything and imitates me constantly. In fact, I've learned more about my unflattering traits in watching him grow than I ever knew - apparently I roll my eyes and say "umm" a lot more often than I thought.

Let's face it: with school and work demands, traffic, technology and the general safety issues that face us now, we all move less and we eat more. What's more is that schools can't afford to provide that activities time for kids to exert those calories and I certainly don't see the kids in my neighborhood running around outside, playing like we did when I was young (probably because they're racing from one after-school activity to another). But the key to maintaining a healthy weight is "calories in= calories out".

I wish that we could address our nation's security through healthy school meals but I think it's going to take a much more concerted effort on the part of parents to make sure this country is safe. This is just one woman's opinion but I'd feel much safer if we worked to set positive examples for our kids at home instead of relying on schools that already have endless child-rearing duties to do it.

Recommended readings on this subject: Your Child's Weight: Helping Without Harming by Ellyn Satter

"It is a true saying that a man must eat a peck of salt with his friend before he knows him." Miguel de Cervantes, 'Don Quixote'

Today, a red flag went up when I read this on the HHS web site: using $15M in stimulus funds "NYC will also work to set policies and create environments that reduce consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages and overly salted foods". Additionally, the FDA is considering regulating the amount of salt that can be added to processed foods like canned foods, cereal, and cheese, as well as the amount used in restaurants. I'm a registered dietitian and health and nutrition is my passion - logically I would support this. "So," you ask, "why the red flag?"

Well I'm also a self-proclaimed "foodie." And I like salt. A lot. Don't get me wrong - I'm aware of what happens when you eat too much of it (e.g. high blood pressure combined with obesity may lead to heart attacks, strokes, etc.) and I'm actually very salt-sensitive (I still blame Panera's soup for my "water-weight" gain during pregnancy). But since discovering Kosher and sea salt I've become a better cook, not to mention the umami factor in soy sauce. Salt is a flavor enhancer; food with salt just tastes better.

So it rubs me the wrong way when someone who doesn't know me wants to decide how much salt I can consume. And who decides what is "overly salted"? I'm in great health; I work out, eat a variety of foods and actually have very low blood pressure. Shouldn't I be exempt from salt restrictions? Shouldn't I be able to make that decision for myself, knowing the state of my health? And even if I was in poor health but my dying wish was to eat salty french fries, shouldn't I have that right? I recall, while working in a nursing home as a dietetic intern, the bland, tasteless, low sodium food that was served to residents who had deteriorating health conditions. Food is a simple pleasure and these folks, when faced with death, couldn't even enjoy that - it was out of their control. The food was beyond uninspiring.

Admittedly, I don't eat a lot of processed foods and that is really where these policies will have an impact. I am not going to preach about the demerits of processed and fast foods - I think people should have access to whatever food is available. I think we are lucky to have foods of convenience and so many choices (with salt and without). My job, as an RD, is to provide science-based education about nutrition and let people make their own choices accordingly. Interestingly, there is some doubt that the science backs up such policies. Dr. Michael Alderman was quoted in a recent Heartwire article as having some doubts that limiting sodium intake is the magic fix to the high blood pressure issues facing the U.S.:

"My stance is based on what I see of the science of the issue," he told heartwire. He argues that although there is no doubt that reducing sodium intake reduces blood pressure, salt also has a myriad of other biological effects. The clinical-trial evidence that reducing salt actually affects hard outcomes such as heart attacks and strokes "is all over the place; the whole thing is kind of a mess," he says. "Advocates of salt reduction believe the only thing that matters is the BP effect, but skeptics like me say, 'Wow, that's a stretch.' "

He maintains that a US policy to slash sodium intake at the population level would be "an experiment" and that there is no way of knowing whether it would be beneficial or indeed harmful: "There are many very committed, well-meaning, and zealous partisans for people's health who say, 'Let's go ahead and try it, let's get everyone to lower their sodium intake. We can't be sure what's going to happen—we don't have any direct evidence—but we are so firmly convinced that the BP effect will rule all that we will go ahead and do this,' " he continues. "This strikes me as kind of rash and is based on a firm belief in something that hasn't been proven.

"In folks with a diet like that in the US, there are some studies that show an inverse association—less salt, more heart attacks—so the data are conflicting, and it's a problem," he states. He was involved in some of the analyses he refers to, however, and they have attracted some criticism with regard to methodology.

The article continues to say the Finland has reduced incidents of stroke and heart attack through policies limiting salt. And while I have no doubt that consuming less salt could be beneficial for many Americans, the looming question is: do we need someone else to make that decision for us? And, if a decrease in salt is mandated, what's next? Where do we draw the line?

"With all thine offerings thou shalt offer salt."
Moses, Leviticus

Food in America: The Reality

A recent op-ed in the LA Times by Charlotte Allen brought to light the current challenges facing Americans when it comes to eating sustainable, organic foods in this country:

Just in time for the worst economic downturn since the Depression, here comes a new crop of social critics to inform us that we're actually spending too little for the food we eat, the clothes we wear, the furniture we sit on and the gasoline that runs our automobiles.

Never mind that U.S. job losses these days range from 200,000 to 500,000 a month, that foreclosures are up 32% over this time last year and that people are re-learning how to clip newspaper coupons so as to save at the supermarket. Dire economic circumstances don't seem to faze these spending enthusiasts, who scold us for shopping at supermarkets instead of at farmer's markets, where a loaf of "artisanal" (and also "sustainable") rye bread sells for $8, ice cream for $6 a cup and organic tomatoes go for $4 a pound.

As a dietitian, I appreciate this piece. I've encountered too many of these food critics, including a crop of dietitians, in the last several years who have a completely unrealistic perception of how the American people live. My beef with the push to eat foods with a marked-up price tag and the "organic" label is that often they are not truly organic. Like anything else, food processors and producers have seized the marketing opportunity to grab more sales... which is not a bad thing, as long as you know what's facing you at the supermarket.

Supermarkets aren't alone in this. I've been to my share of farmers markets that "import" their foods from wholesale warehouses like Costco and sell them at a premium as "local". Have you ever stopped to think about what can actually be grown in your neck of the "local" woods? Americans are easily taken advantage of because most of us have no idea what seasonal foods are or what different growing conditions are necessary. It's just impractical to think that you can get all your foods from within 100 miles of your house, especially living on the eastern seaboard like I do, or that all your food can be organic. This is not California.

In fact, last year when I purchased some "organic" New England" apples from Trader Joe's I found worms were still living in them. For some, that might be okay but I prefer to keep my protein separate from my fruit. Not to mention these foods often don't keep nearly as long - rotting food can be costly to families. I've come home with organic food that has gone bad 2 days from it's purchasing date, only to be thrown away along with my money. Visit any U.S. produce farm and you'll find that most "conventional" produce growers use very minimal pesticides (READ: pesticides = added cost to farmers) and instead opt for natural integrate pest management techniques whenever possible. The main difference is that these growers don't jump through the hoops and pay the added cost to become certified "organic" and pass that cost on to you.

As a new mom (and former food marketer), I see how especially susceptible moms are to the guilt that these "cheerleaders" impose. Unfortunately, you don't always get what you pay for. I often tell my friends to avoid falling into the trap of only eating "organic" and to shop smart. How do you shop for your family without feeling guilty if you don't spend $8 on a gallon of milk?

• Read labels carefully - here are the USDA guidelines for what those labels really mean.
• Do your homework - did you know that the hormones found in milk are naturally occurring? The same level of hormone can be found in conventional and organic milk, meaning there's no difference between the two but the price. Look for both sides of the story before you commit to one product.
• Look for what's in season - in-season produce is going to be more affordable, going to taste better and will have likely traveled less than if it's not in season. While some are grown in the U.S., many exotic fruits like bananas (yes, the number one fruit in the U.S.), pineapples and mangoes likely come from another country.
• Mix convenience with fresh - it's inevitable that we'll eat some processed foods no matter how hard we try not to out of sheer convenience. Canned and frozen fruits and veggies are often less expensive than fresh and keep for longer - and they have the same nutritional value as fresh. Keep them on hand when your favorite produce is out of season and feel good about the fact that your family is getting good nutrition! My favorite quick meal involves making a stir-fry of a micro-steamer bag of mixed veggies, rice, and frozen chicken - frozen meat is easier to slice then and can be thrown right into the wok with your favorite sauce. Toss the cooked veggies in at the end and serve with rice.
• Plan ahead - If you're making your favorite meal, double the recipe and freeze the rest in single-serve containers. Homemade "processed" foods always win out in taste!