Journalist Kristin Wartman has an idea what to do with processed food taxes — pay people to cook at home:
Those who argue that our salvation lies in meals cooked at home seem unable to answer two key questions: where can people find the money to buy fresh foods, and how can they find the time to cook them? The failure to answer these questions plays into the hands of the food industry, which exploits the healthy-food movement’s lack of connection to average Americans. It makes it easier for the industry to sell its products as real American food, with real American sensibilities — namely, affordability and convenience. …
To get Americans cooking, we need to make it possible. Stay-at-home parents should qualify for a new government program while they are raising young children — one that provides money for good food, as well as education on cooking, meal planning and shopping — so that one parent in a two-parent household, or a single parent, can afford to be home with the children and provide wholesome, healthy meals. These payments could be financed by taxing harmful foods, like sugary beverages, highly caloric, processed snack foods and nutritionally poor options at fast food and other restaurants. Directly linking a tax on harmful food products to a program that benefits health would provide a clear rebuttal to critics of these taxes. Business owners who argue that such taxes will hurt their bottom lines would, in fact, benefit from new demand for healthy food options and from customers with money to spend on such foods.
HT Melissa.
Weight Maven is written by Beth Mazur. Beth believes that obesity is more symptom than cause and that the real problem is our Western diet -- especially sugar, refined grains, and industrial oils. Beth writes about nutrition, ancestral health, & food policy. And cats! 
Can we get real? This is not going to happen. “Processed food taxes” are just going to go to the state.
But it brought up an interesting thought (well, I think it’s interesting): cooking takes time, and nowadays, cooking is a hobby of the leisured classes. It’s a fact.
OK, having said that, is cooking really the issue? Buying a BBQ chicken (which are quite cheap) is as easy as buying crapinabag. Is cleaning and steaming vegetables that difficult?
Hey, sometimes you gotta get creative and daring and do whatever works (provided that it is helpful and/or healthy). Of course nobody would have all the details ironed out, but for heaven’s sake…in France new parents (with children who are one year and younger) have access to all kinds of state-sponsored assistance, including people who come and do laundry, dishes, etc, in the home so the parents have adequate time to spend forming those essential early bonds. So the notion is a bit radical. Jeez. What parents are attempting to cope with nowadays (depending on many different socio-economic factors, naturally) resembles nothing like the movie versions of reality. In truth, lack of time and much juggling leaves many parents feeling far behind in the whole parenting effort and exhausted almost before they get started. Nurse-family partnership programs, for example, have proven track records when it comes to helping parents learn the skills they need to improve their nurturing experiences.
I don’t see why the idea of helping families to improve their access to healthy and palatable foods is such a huge leap towards (OMG) socialist values. We need to demonstrate that we value families and children. What better way than to help the parents in their efforts to provide more nutritious meals? :)
‘Directly linking a tax on harmful food products to a program that benefits health would provide a clear rebuttal to critics of these taxes.’
So appealing in theory! But what (or who) informs this redistribution process? Tax the beef jerky in order to subsidize the wheat berries? ;)
Unlike the paleo-libertarians who would likely go apoplectic at the thought of yet more intervention by the powers that wield conventional wisdom, I agree that finding ways to encourage cooking would generally lead to much better health outcomes.
My main concern is that cash and time and desire are probably not as fungible as proponents of this tax-and-subsidize scheme would like to think. Parents don’t feed their children soda and candy to keep them from being hungry; it’s usually a way to mollify them. (So while soda and candy aren’t expensive, they are added atop other food expenses.) And as others point out, people manage to find time for television viewing on a regular basis; after a day’s work, the living room couch is more inviting than the kitchen.
What would it take for people to believe that health can begin with home cooking; and that home cooking can be very simple; and that while simple cooking may yield simple food, simple food can be perfectly fine? Could a food re-pricing scheme achieve that-or would we need some foundational shift in mindset, the starting point of which would itself be a challenge to identify?
Wow, every day i think i have heard it all, but this is one for the books. I am 68 and my youngest is going to be 40. no one paid me to feed my family right. I used to buy the Woman’s magazines to get ideas. I needed help but only because the only thing I could cook when I got married was salad.
Even when I had to go back to work and ended up with 2 jobs, I cooked on my time off so most of the meal was done. My husband died and my budget was slim but you can eat quite well. It takes a little planning and work but it can be done.
Yep, the issue with just about any nanny state proposal is the inherent difficulty in moving forward — libertarians and tea partiers are opposed because the government’s involved, conservatives and liberals will argue the details (goes too far, doesn’t do enough).
But what I like about the discussion is the focus on this as a societal issue. It’s curious how easily it is to slip into the narrative that this is just about individuals or families when the scale of the problem is national or global. Making meaningful cultural shifts? Not sure I’ll see it in my lifetime. But I’m wondering if what we need is the equivalent of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring.
I think we’re certainly going to need the equivalent (and coherency) of a large movement in order to get real change.
I’m really of two minds about this. Cooking from scratch, though much healthier than the alternative, definitely takes time and time is something many of us lack. I’m pretty lucky in that I am self-employed. There are times when I’m working every day (including weekends!), but yesterday, I was working from home, which is not usually the case. Anyway, being at home meant I could go out and buy the ingredients to make a nice home-cooked meal and make enough so that tonight we still have home made food to eat. Tomorrow, I finish work relatively early, so I’ll go out and get food to make a home-cooked supper again. During times when I’m extremely busy, the hubby and I try to cook on weekends and then freeze some meals.
But what scares me about this proposal is that we all damn well know who’s probably going to stay home: the women. And although I would not presume to tell any woman how to lead her life, there is much to be said for women doing things in addition to raising the kids, cooking the meals and keeping hearth and home. I know too much about violence against women to want to see the majority of women back at home with no income of their own. Honestly, I don’t want our society to go back to the “good old days” of Leave It to Beaver or Ozzie and Harriet. They weren’t all that good.