RALEIGH – Here’s a helpful hint for policymakers wondering if they are spending their time – really, our time, since we taxpayers are paying them – in a productive manner. If you find yourself haggling over the proper definition of food, you are wasting time better spent on an issue of greater substance and more relevance to the proper workings of a limited, constitutional government.
The food-definition issue comes up with surprising frequency. For example, during a recent meeting of a tax-reform panel, I was regaled with the story of how North Carolina had taken the necessary step of redefining soft drinks as something other than food. This was purportedly an attempt to address a bias in the sales-tax system: sodas bought one way carried the full sales tax rate of 7 percent (7.5 percent for all those lucky Mecklenburgers) while sodas bought another way carried only the local share of sales tax, since the state sales tax on food had been phased out in the late 1990s. The General Assembly “fixed” that problem by declaring that sodas weren’t food.
Which is, of course, absurd. Sodas are consumed on purpose by human beings (and possibly other animals, inadvisably). They contain carbs and calories. They are beverages. Are beverages not food? Would such a ruling include juice and milk? On what planet?
More generally, states have struggled for years with the issue of whether to define certain kinds of food – excuse me, edible substances – as “snacks” instead of food so as to subject them to higher taxation. The debates have involved pretzels, chips, cupcakes, and other munchies. Politicians’ motivations range from the fiscal (to maximize the revenue grab) to the paternalistic (to discourage their citizens from eating fatty foods). None of these motivations is legitimate from the standpoint of sound policymaking that respects individual liberty.
Here’s another example of the food-definition test for whether government is wasting time. According to U.S. News & World Report, two federal agencies have begun battling out the pivotal issue of how much meat a “meat product” must have before it is considered a “meat product.” The Food Safety and Inspection Service, under the Department of Agriculture, exercises by federal statute regulatory responsibility over meat and poultry products. The Food and Drug Administration, an independent agency, exercise authority over all other food.
The flashpoint of the controversy is the wiener – by which I am not referencing any particular agency administrator. I mean actual hot dogs. If we’re talking a run-of-the-mill hot dog on a bun, the meaty cylinder is the proper subject of FSIS regulation. If we’re talking about a corn dog, same deal. But if it is a bagel dog, the FDA claims regulatory oversight. I’m not sure yet what the rule is for Beanie Wienies.
The dispute is now the subject of costly meetings and, I suppose, potential litigation. I simply cannot imagine how the benefits of resolving this issue, however it is resolved, would be worth the costs of resolution. This is the kind of government time-waster that, from the taxpayers’ point of view, just doesn’t cut the mustard, frankly speaking.
Hood is president of the John Locke Foundation and getting rather hungry.