No, I think we should de-subsidize the meat industry, expand plant based industries, make good food freely available to all, and make the levels of sugar we see illegal.

People eat healthier when good food is availablr to them. It's just overpriced. Making the cheaper food more expensive will just mean people will eat less food. We need to make good food convienient and affordable (or free, preferably)

Edit: this came off meaner in tone than intended. I disagree with your solution and think it won't work but understand your viewpoint

I think if we cut corn subsidies, it would make high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) more ecpensive to produce. Then maybe it wouldn't end up in almost every product from drinks to bread.

HFCS acts more like a hormone than a sweetner, causing proprtionally more weight gain than sugar. HFCS has been heavily subsidized for decades.

https://www.academia.edu/download/46838855/s11906-010-0097-320160627-31648-1cc4xmf.pdf

No. I believe they should impose higher taxes on the rich, wealthy, and corporations.

Quit having poor people foot the bill for the goddam rich people's handouts.

No. Sugars, fats, and salts are essential for the human body to function. Why do you think Pocari Sweat is sold all over the world? (Basically Gatorade) It's because you need sugar and salts to absorb water more effectively.

Things like Red 40, TBHQ, BHA, BHT, modified starch(s), bleached flour, hydrolyzed oils, textured protein, emulsifiers, a long list of what should not be in food. Also that plant based fake crap should be off the shelf. You don't crave bacon because you want to eat something with paragraph of "ingredients" shaped into something that looks like it and the same goes with cheese, I'll pass on the orange soy slice ugh those are so nasty. Fried tempeh is so much better than fake bacon, and it's even better fried in bacon grease.

My answer is having a less sit on your ass all day lifestyle is the actual solution. When I was very physically active I would consume 5000-10000 calories a day and couldn't break 125 pounds until I got in my late twenties. You're not going to function well in -30 to -40 climates well if you don't eat right. So diets are situational. As well as accommodation to food allergies. I can't eat wheat or lentils. And a cup of rice and beans is like 500 calories.

No. These foods are very cheap and therefore disproportionately consumed by lower-income people. This is effectively another tax on the poor.

Instead, tax the profits of companies that make billions of dollars by selling us poison disguised as food; charge them to make it, don't charge us to buy it. Tax the profits of the entire company, not the products, or they'll simply raise the price of the products and achieve the same result.

Only when it's more profitable to feed us healthy food will we be fed healthy food.

I think taxes like this are regressive as they target the individuals buying them, who usually have less money, than the companies manufacturing them who have much much more wealth.

In the US, there are some areas where it is flat out difficult to purchase produce that isn't somewhat rotting at an affordable price. This is a far greater drive to bring people to buy processed and unhealthy foods than the temptation of a sweet or fatty treat.

Taxing the "bad thing" is a myopic solution. Improving access to and lowering the cost of the "good thing" is a far more progressive solution.

Also, this isn't an unpopular opinion post, this is more of a question asking for potentially unpopular opinions, probably not right for this community.

That's like saying people will stop driving pickups if you increased the price of gas over $4 a gallon.

This has a long history under the term 'sin tax'. I.e. taxing vices (sins) that no one needs for survival to discourage their use. Traditionally referring to things like alcohol and tobacco, but I've seen applied to movie tickets and even sugar. The fact that sugar kind of functions as food does make it a bit more complicated.

Yes

"Curb", not "curve".

What a capitalistic take on health concern...

What's the optimum here?

I think before they start taxing us for what little pleasures we can still have, they should tax the rich so we can afford to exist.

For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, elegant, easy to understand, and wrong.

Econ 101 doesn't work in economics, how is it going to make us healthy?

Reportedly, the sugar tax has worked quite well in the UK (though the details could be improved, don't let companies pump everything full of sweeteners until the drinks are sweeter than before despite lower sugar content). Fat isn't categorically unhealthy like sugar is, so that wouldn't make sense, and AFAIK salt has no relationship at all with obesity.

Yes.

Depends on if the taxes pay for universal healthcare or not. But who needs to eat unhealthy food when the rich are available to eat.

To an extent yes and they already do that for sweets for example.

So we should tax everything other than water and soylent?

That's your premise.

Alternatively, who gets to decide what's "bad for you"?