> B
It was tried and rolled back in chicago because it was deemed as unfairly targeting the poor.
It was tried and rolled back in chicago because it was deemed as unfairly targeting the poor.
[0] https://truthinitiative.org/research-resources/targeted-comm...
There's no reason why you couldn't pair taxing sugar with price-subsidies on non-sugary foods. The US already knows how to subsidize food production. Just stop subsidizing corn syrup and shift the subsidies to something less clearly destructive.
That makes a big assumption that people aren't buying more spinach because of price of spinach.
beans and rice are already super cheap. Much healthier and cheaper option than mcdonalds.
Why are you slyly shifting from "sugar" to "mcdonalds"? Minus drinks and desserts, McDonalds' offerings are not high in sugar.
> That makes a big assumption that people aren't buying more spinach because of price of spinach.
The price per calorie of spinach is extremely high. Micronutrients are great and all, but you can't live off micronutrients alone.
Aren't carbohydrates sugar though?
Why is the distinction between sugar in drinks and sugar is burger buns relevant to the discussion.
> Micronutrients are great and all, but you can't live off micronutrients alone.
Why did you slyly ignore 'beans and rice' in my comment. I wasn't suggesting people get their calories from spinach, what a weird interpretation.
my mexican family of 5 ate this combo every single day ,growing up. spinach + rice+ beans and occasional meat was afforable on one gardner's salary.
My general point is that the incentives today are all wrong. Many things need to be fixed and subsidies of corn syrup is one egregious thing.