undefined | Better HN

0 pointsacoustics4mo ago0 comments

Mountain Dew and Twinkies are bad for your health regardless of your income level. We should tackle unhealthy eating by going after the supply, not by going after a class-segmented group of consumers.

Like many Americans, I grew up in a town where unhealthy eating was a major part of the social rhythms of life: a bag of buttery popcorn at the movie theater, an ice cream at the zoo, things like that. Not having the means to participate in these simple pleasures is a kind of social deprivation. I view redistributive programs as a tool to lessen the gap between families. Food regulators can handle the junk food problem.

0 comments

moduspol4mo ago

The moral calculus is not the same.

I don't think we have an obligation to legislate everyone's health, but I do think it's a higher ask when we're talking about explicitly subsidizing bad choices for people most vulnerable to making them. I don't think we should subsidize cigarettes for poor people, either, even if that means they are still accessible to rich people in a way that's perceived as unfair.

And besides: people of high incomes already disproportionately avoid these highly processed foods, so it's not like we're hoarding the wealthy pleasures of Mountain Dew and Twinkies just for them.

acousticsOP4mo ago

I agree that we should not provide targeted subsidies for Twinkies, Mountain Dew, or cigarettes. The whole premise of food stamps is flawed. We should provide cash instead.

If there is an objection that giving cash is equivalent to subsidizing Twinkies, I would push back. Child tax credits are in many ways economically equivalent to cash transfers, but we don't usually see arguments that this is a subsidy for Mountain Dew.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse