This sort of thing can be blamed on almost all of us. I've always been a proponent of "sin taxes" on things such as cigarettes and alcohol. After all, I use neither so it affects me not at all. But it was only a matter of time before the nannies came for me, too.

What's a 'junk food'? Take a close look at the labels of so many commercially packaged foods in a grocery store and you see high fructose corn syrup as one of the main ingredients. And enormous quantities of fat and salt and preservatives and colors... practically have to be a chemist to read the label.

While I support sin taxes, this one will be hard to administer, especially with Big Food lobbying against it. But at the same time, things need to change. We're being poisoned from birth (or before).

I'd start from the other end - the consumer.

First, institute a national healthcare system, like every other advanced nation has on the planet.

Second, tax each healthcare recipient on a sliding scale for their proportion over BMI limits, if they use tobacco, if they engage in other unhealthy behavior. And reward them with a lower rate if they exercise, etc.

Third, use the proceeds to implement a education campaign. Call out the worst offenders by name. Convince consumers to boycott them.

I agree with Lat. It's a great idea in theory to tax unhealthy foods, but first of all, how do we define an unhealthy food? Many foods are only unhealthy in excess (butter, for example). And then, is it a flat tax for all unhealthy foods, or is it proportionate to how unhealthy it is? That would be hard to determine.

I would suggest, in lieu of a "sin tax," a "processing tax." The more processed a food is (and this IS easily definable), the higher a tax that goes into it. White flour, hydrogenated fats, refined sugars, TV dinners--all of these are the true cause of obesity and poor nutrition in the U.S.

This way, Twinkies are expensive, but collard greens are not. Subsidies for vegetables would be nice, too. We can pay for those by simply getting rid of CORN subsidies.

There should be tax breaks for those who maintain their own vegetable gardens, too.

How would you fund the program? Do not get me wrong, I am very much for national healthcare. I actually see this as a good funding source.

People lie. Their BMI may be a solid indicator. But we are all guilty of pretending to be healthier than we are. How would you calibrate your sliding scale to account for that?

I think charging the tax at the beginning rather than the end would be easiest, and least subjective. When a processor purchases sugar or syrup for their product, pay the tax. The consumer will pay for it down the line. The processor may even use less to reduce costs and increase profits.

I agree as well. HFCS is in so many things - all things that I put back on the shelf. I read labels almost obsessively, and if I see the product contains HFCS, I put it back right away. Even ketchup has HFCS, so I buy organic ketchup now. It took a couple of years, but I finally convinced my family that we don't need anything with HFCS in it.

Let's just say that once your BMI exceeds a certain point, Big Brother kills you? It would be really easy and think of the money he'd save. Sound resonable? And when the nanny state delivers your chicken and lemon for the month, it would be really easy to just increase the 'undesirables' rations and fatten them up so they could be whacked that much sooner.

Do you all see where this COULD lead?

This obsession with food control is another reason government should be only minimally involved in a person's health care.

It's creepy and in a democratic republic with free markets it's no ones business except the person feeding their pie hole.

@kara - aren't you glad that as an American citizen, when you go to the grocery store there are oodles of choices up and down each aisle? Sometimes it's a choice of how much you want to spend on groceries that particular trip - organic is usually more. Sometimes it's a health choice.

Choice - that's what makes our country great.

I want more business teachers like this guy in our universities.

I'd be more apt to agree with the premise of this guy's opinion piece if he didn't use the extremely trite and essentially meaningless phrase "nanny state" - and he capitalizes it, no less, as if it's a real entity.

In between the pathos-ridden language he uses, there lies one kernal of truth - we already subsidize the corn and sugar beet industries to the detriment of Americans, both in our wallets and our declining health. Instead of demonizing that practice, he blathers on about the 'nanny state,' which everyone knows is code for Democrats. In fact, there are several Rs that vote for these subsidies under cover of the Farm Bill because it keeps them in office. This author is either deceitful or an ignoramus. I don't care which - both are offensive coming from someone who is criticizing proposals without offering alternatives to a very real problem.

When the federal government tried to create requirements to make taxpayer-funded school lunches healthier, Congress responded by declaring pizza a vegetable. Hmmm, no mention of that idiocy. Oh well, apparently even food is partisan.

Move along, nothing to see here.

@AKlove: I am exceptionally well educated in health matters. HFCS is no better and no worse than white sugar. This doesn't mean it's GOOD, but it does mean that foregoing refined sugars in entirety is the way to go; replacing HFCS with sugar won't make you any healthier.

I would recommend you read more scientific literature and fewer random websites about health. People tend to believe most strongly the first information they hear on a subject, which is why myths persist so long after they've been debunked. It is your duty to overcome this bias and change your opinions to fit the facts, not pick and choose facts or ignore them to fit your opinions.