Whitney Houston's Final Performance (VIDEO)
Funny Valentine's Day Poems to Give Your Kids
Modamily Site Helps You Find Someone to Have a Baby With
Perfect Chocolate-Covered Strawberries
‘No Child Left Behind’ Screeches to a Halt
Brave Girl Won't Let Rare Disease Steal Her Childhood (VIDEO)
Pink Ribbons Hide the Real Truth About Breast Cancer
Would You Wear These Fang Shoes?!
Mom Delivers 15.5 Pound Baby Boy (VIDEO)
Heart Cookie Pops Perfect for Valentine's Day
Obama's Marshmallow Fight at the White House (VIDEO)
7 Things You Can Do Right Now to Prevent Cancer
Beyonce Trademarks 'Blue Ivy' & Starts a Celebrity Trend
5 Great Gifts for Your Techie Valentine
Angelina & Brad Are Letting Maddox Do What?!
Here's a terrifying thought: Are our tax dollars being used to subsidize the spread of the obesity epidemic here in America?
Rep. Dennis Kucinich certainly thinks so. And he's determined to change that with a new bill that would prohibit food companies from writing off junk food advertising aimed at kids.
Here's how it all breaks down:
Currently, companies can claim a tax deduction for food advertising expenses, which is a seemingly innocuous business expense write-off ... until you remember that recent studies have shown that 50 percent of all advertising during children's programming is food-related -- and mostly unhealthy food at that.
As Kucinich, Michelle Obama, and others see it, junk food advertising is directly contributing to childhood obesity: Experts show that marketing to kids establishes long-term brand loyalty, which, when we're talking about junk food, can go hand in hand with unhealthy habits and lifestyles. To make matters worse, the companies get to write off the expenses used to hook kids on unhealthy food. So, in effect, you could argue that taxpayers are subsidizing the spread of childhood obesity.
But not for long, if Kucinich gets his way. His new bill would prohibit companies from claiming a tax deduction for expenses derived from advertising to children any fast food or food of limited nutritional value. The goal of this measure? To reduce soaring rates of obesity in our kids.
Can you even imagine how this would change advertising during kids' programs?
Do you think Kucinich's bill could be effective in making our kids healthier?
Image via Alfie / cuban/Flickr
Comments (22)
YES, I would totally support that bill. Why should food advertisers get to write off advertisement? That's absolutely ridiculous - ESPECIALLY when it's unhealthy foods!
Except advertising a legitimate business expense. Period. Why should it be taken away from the food industry but left as one for Wall Street investment firms that screw people or basically any other company?
We can't just pick and choose on these issues or it becomes a discrimination issue. Sure, I hate fast food advertising to my kids, but it's MY job to keep my kid out of Mickey D's and our jobs as consumers to cease eating at these establishments, to make their advertising worthless.
jeannseager, I am with you. I am all for cutting down the advertising of such crap for our kids but when are parents going to step in & quit feeding their children all of this fatty junk that is not good for them. People say "oh I don't have time to cook at home". Well with a little planning it doesn't take long to prepare a healthy meal at home which is not only cheaper but better for you & your kids. It's time people start taking responsibility for their actions & quit blaming companies like Mcdonalds for them being fat.
Advertising junk food to kids is definitely on my list of things I don't want my tax dollars supporting!
I disagree Jeanne, because I don't feel corporations NEED these breaks - food, junk or not, aside. Smaller businesses, sure but you can't honestly believe that General Mills' (who shares breakfast cereal profits 50/50 with Nestle) entire business hangs on the thread of that advertising tax rebate? ;)
It's like the Joe Camel advertising. If the FDA can control Camel's (and other tobacco companies) advertising practices, why not crap food that's making people sick?
Rana, how do you separate which company deserves to write off advertising and which doesn't? As a small business owner myself, I can cop to having written off advertising. So how do they determine whether advertising is necessary ENOUGH?
Because if you're going to say it's based on the size of a company, what about the bakery around the corner that makes chocolate cupcakes filled with high fructose corn syrup? Or the porn store down the street that might offend someone's Christian sensibilities but is a legitimate business enterprise and still needs to court customers?
It's either a legitimate business expense or it isn't. There really can't be a gray area. And it's not your tax dollars going TOWARD their advertising. To be clear, a tax write-off diminishes the amount of tax they pay, but does not take your tax dollars and put it into that company's coffers.
Uncle Sam never sent me a check to pay for my advertising my photography business (nor should he have).
I didn't say MY tax dollars, so I'm not addressing that because I agree with you there.
I think CORPORATIONS get way too much help. Period. I also agree with April that we've already limited the advertising of a lot of unhealthy things so it's not like this is new. I don't see why McDonald's has any right to write off their advertising towards children when it's all unhealthy AND they're a HUGE business who doesn't need a PENNY of help from the government.
Do I think an unhealthy small bakery needs tax breaks? Yes, I do.
I don't have the perfect solution to this, so I'm not even going to pretend I do, but I do agree with Kuchinich that McDonald's doesn't deserve any tax breaks for advertising whatsoever.
And your last two bits are contradictory. They don't pay you so of course Uncle Sam wouldn't have written you a check. ;) But I DO think small businesses deserve breaks.
Of course Uncle Sam wouldn't send me a check -- that was my point, they don't pay you so therefore our tax dollars aren't going into McDonald's coffers (I'm referring to what Adriana said). And I'm not complaining at all -- I don't want gov't money!
I agree McDonald's doesn't need government help. In all I think corporate America gets too many breaks - not too few! But I worry on a number of levels with this particular issue -- one as a writer who realizes that advertising may stink but it also pays my salary regardless of where I work or who I work for.
And two that I don't think you can separate the small business from the big business. What a lot of people don't realize is often with these franchisee type companies is that the small business advertises in a local paper . . . and they get a portion of their advertising supplemented by the major corporation for using the logo. So attacking McDonald's as a whole doesn't just affect the major corporation . . . it affects the small business owner who owns a franchise.