UNDER THE MICROSCOPE

“Junk Food” refers to food high in calories but low in nutritional value. The Departments of Finance (DOF) and Health (DOH) are pushing to tax junk foods with a bill in Congress, ostensibly to address health issues and to generate revenues for a cash-strapped government. It’s a “shooting two birds with one stone” approach. Let’s examine the proposal further. Oftentimes, a bill, when signed into law, is quite bare in details, and is usually fleshed out in its implementing rules and regulations (IRR). Since this will involve both departments, the IRR drafting will certainly be a complicated one. For one, which is the real priority of the bill? Is it health or finance? While it was the DOH that first proposed the measure, the DOF has stated that it stands to earn ₱76 billion a year if the bill is signed into law, and that’s a strong incentive to include a lot of foods in the definition of junk food. But it may not necessarily be what the DOH has in mind. Then comes the definition of what comprises junk food. Salty snacks and fast-food items are what the National Tax Research Center had in mind, which will target the lucrative fast-food business, besides soft drinks, desserts, and sweets — mainly packaged foods that are highly processed items bought off supermarket and sari-sari store shelves. These are what the majority of Filipinos consume daily, especially in the poorer population segment. The crafting of the IRR will be a decidedly controversial event. Fast-food companies will cite their products’ redeeming value, such as protein and other nutrients, in addition to the salty and sweet content of the items. Should pizza be considered junk food? The Italians will certainly contest that, since pizza crust contains wheat, and its toppings consist of vegetables, chicken, beef, or pork for protein.  Italians have been eating pizzas as a staple food for centuries. The fried chicken in fast-food stores are essentially what you would cook and serve at home. On a per-gram basis, it has a high protein content even if the frying process adds more fat content. Is its protein content enough redeeming value to not consider it as junk food? Burgers are another point of contention. Some burgers are almost pure beef, but cheaper options have some fillers made of carbohydrates. Where do you draw the line between the two? There are certainly other fast-food items that qualify as junk food, but to lump them all together is not so easy to do for taxation purposes, which seem to be just another measure to beef up the treasury than the people’s diet. (Disclosure: I certainly patronize fast-food outlets but not to the exclusion of good home-cooked food). Then there is the issue of unfairly targeting consumers who are too pressed for time to prepare their meals. Workers usually have to rush out for lunch within an hour or risk being late for the afternoon session. So they turn to fast food. Although most workers at the minimum-wage levels are exempted from income taxes, the junk-food tax will put a dent on their incomes as indirect taxation. And to think they’re already bearing the brunt of value-added taxes (VAT) on almost everything they buy. Bayan Muna is opposed to the proposed bill because it is anti-poor. The poor can’t afford nutritious meals, since their food budget cannot allow for more nutritious food. They resort to buying commercially prepared cup noodles to fill their stomachs. These are no more than dry noodles of primarily carbohydrate content, with seasonings that include lots of salt to make them palatable and satisfying. This measure strikes at the very core of being poor. With 14 million Filipino families considering themselves poor, there is a risk of alienating this population segment politically, which the lawmakers should consider before they pass this bill. I have no problem with more taxes being imposed on most highly processed packaged foods. Fresh is still best. But when you cannot afford to satisfy your hunger pangs by buying local fresh-food items, how else can you eat healthy? Amelioration measures must be taken to mitigate the effects of the junk-food tax if enacted into law. Some are proposing to give subsidies to the poor to augment their incomes, but dole outs are never effective, as they only induce dependency on the government. With its coffers nearly empty, if not in the negative, we can’t afford more subsidies. Our lawmakers need to tread carefully on this bill. It’s a Pandora’s box waiting to be opened.