The article seems to be shittily written in my opinion but I figure if you watch the video (about a minute) it will get the point across.

My question lies in, do you think this will benefit the health of the people moving forward, or do you fear it being weaponized to endorse or threaten companies to comply with the mention of Kennedy being tied to its future as mentioned in the end of the article

  • BougieBirdie@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    2 months ago

    You know what would be way better than a symbol for “healthy” food would be requiring manufacturers to label food that fails to meet standards as “unhealthy.” Bonus points if you tax it to death so it’s no longer economically viable to sell garbage and label it “food”

    Like, shit, the public perception is that I can’t afford healthy food anyway. But at least if the unhealthy food was also labelled it’d be easier to avoid

    • intensely_human@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      But that’s like putting “do no chew or crush” on a bottle of prescription pills. That’s how you know it’s the good shit.

    • Anticorp@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Why is a Payday candy bar 1/3rd the price of a bag of peanuts with fewer peanuts than the Payday has?

      • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Because peanuts on their own have to be visibly pleasing as peanuts or people won’t buy them. When you put them in a candy bar, you can use the crap looking ones.

        Also, buying in bulk drastically decreases the price. If you had the purchasing power of Hershey, you could get your peanuts really cheap too. Join a food co-op as a starting point.

    • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      I don’t want more sin taxes. Sin taxes are anti choice. Subsidizing products that’s meet the healthy label I could agree with though

      Edit: aka subsidizing the crops that are used to produce and possibly writing laws to ban the taxation on foods labeled healthy. Thus making such food in states like I live cost 10% less just by banning the state taxes on them before even getting to the subsidization on the crops. Shit, forcing us to move off corn to things like sugar cane would be great. Dense, the crop cycles are better, water usage is less and overall would be easier to manage. As in if we are going to kill ourselves with gas powered cars using 10% ethanol from corn… Why not use 10% from sugarcane which is easier to acquire and better for the population long term

      • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Half of them are only cheap because of heavily subsidized corn being heavily processed into an inordinately cheap sugar substitute.

        Taxes aren’t really raising prices so much as undoing the subsidies distorting the market.

        • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          So your saying the sales taxes are like tariffs, as they are being used to spread the cost to all purchasers without reguard to income making them harm lower and middle class people more, without ever having to raise taxes back to reasonable levels for the high income members of society. (3 million a year+)

          • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            I’m not saying anything about sales tax.

            I’m saying that if you tax foods high in corn syrup, you’re just making it cost what it’s supposed to cost. You’re literally subsidizing the least healthy food at the moment.