FoodSupply

On average we in the UK eat too much food, and of the wrong sort too. To reduce consumption we could simply increase food prices, perhaps by adding VAT of 20% to all food. BUT, but… I hear you scream, how to provide for the needs and wants of those earning less and for whom such a tax move would be catastrophic? There are probably many approaches and here I propose one that meets the @SageAndOnion moralomics criterion of maintaining freedom but with an intervention to reduce the power of the supermarkets to even out the bargain between buyer and seller. The proposal would also reduce the costly side effects, the externalities, of poor nutritional food and also ensure that most needs are satisfied before wants (a moral issue).

Our business, it would be ours, would sell to outlets like supermarkets or corner shops too. It could be branded, “Peoples’ Pride” or “National Nutrition”. Supermarkets could stock it if they want and crucially the brand sold at 0% VAT. That way these thirty items are probably going to be the cheapest food on the shelves and also a guaranteed quality and ethics.

If people still want to buy a chocolate bar, fizzy drink or pizza (assuming these fall outside the National Nutrition brand) then they can, but all other products will attract VAT, the VAT helps pay for the side effects they cause and enables funding of their eventual care by the NHS, the VAT would support the National Nutrition brand, transition arrangements and reducing overall food demand. This could be viewed as unfair trade but isn’t for example the manufacture of pizzas with damaging levels of salt and sugar and harmful welfare and production practices also unfair, it’s just that they are unfair to a less powerful group of people with less lobbying power.

Those of us who are richer are free to buy National Nutrition products or the more expensive alternatives even with fat and sugar, so no bans unless the harm is so severe. The harm is paid for via the increased VAT.

Current attempts top solve the problem include a sugar tax, unfortunately this is doomed to failure, technology will develop non sugar alternatives that still cause obesity, maybe less tooth decay but possibly add other side effects we don’t know about yet. Alternatively there are subsidies for good food, but these are open to accusations of unfairness and actual fraud. Whereas I suggest a state company run for all our benefit and for the farmers and food manufacturers too is an opportunity. Growers and makers of good quality food are free to sell to National Nutrition and if they wish also to sell their own product direct to supermarkets but then it would attract VAT. Each company’s choice would depend on which gives them the best profit and the most satisfaction.

The existing food chain causes enormous harm to the environment and long term human health, that is evidence enough to justify state intervention to rebalance the use of the four resources (the silos)…And what industry to look at next? Housing might seem a popular choice. Or maybe something else.....see next application