Comments on: Fast-Food Trash

Fast-Food Trash

stbalbach — Wed, 08 Feb 2006 09:55:26 -0800

Recent surveys show that fast-food packaging makes up about 20 percent of all litter, with snack foods comprising another 20 percent. Oakland, CA is the first city to tax companies who create "Fast-Food Trash".

By: JeffK

JeffK — Wed, 08 Feb 2006 09:58:43 -0800

Could that be because the American diet consists of roughly 20 percent fast food and 20 percent snack food? We are a nation of slothful gluttons and I am ashamed of us.

By: billysumday

billysumday — Wed, 08 Feb 2006 10:04:39 -0800

Other states, including Washington, Virginia and Ohio, have levied such taxes against businesses "reasonably related to the litter problem," But the article doesn't say whether or not it works in those states. Do they now have less trash? The problem I have with this proposal is the suggestion to kids and to the other litterers that they aren't responsible for cleaning up their trash - it's the responsibility of the business they purchase the food from. However, I'm in favor of whatever works the best. So...does it work?

By: brundlefly

brundlefly — Wed, 08 Feb 2006 10:12:10 -0800

I'd be more supportive of this if businesses could earn exemptions by eliminating unneeded packaging.

By: stbalbach

stbalbach — Wed, 08 Feb 2006 10:14:05 -0800

It works because the money raised from the tax is used to pay crews to pick up the trash. Holding companies socially responsible for their products un-intended consequences has a long history, such as, tobacco. Big Oil is next.

By: Skygazer

Skygazer — Wed, 08 Feb 2006 10:16:14 -0800

I think that this is a good idea. There are wrappers and crap from the White Castle in my neighborhood strewn in a one mile radius. I think they should go further and impose "cigarette style" taxes on these establishments using the same justifications for imposing said taxes on Cigarettes (getting people to stop, and paying for the medical burden imposed on the system). I'm personally sick of paying $2.50 per pack in taxes (and soon to be more) just cos I like to smoke (yes I need to stop). But there are plenty of vices that can be taxed as well. Fast food being one of them. (Operating a Hummer being another, but I digress)

By: Skygazer

Skygazer — Wed, 08 Feb 2006 10:18:18 -0800

or what stbalbach said...

By: terrapin

terrapin — Wed, 08 Feb 2006 10:18:41 -0800

As correct as JeffK is about American's eating habits, I would also add that this isn't so much about fast food as it is about people's complete disrepect for the environment. I am ashamed that people still litter. Whether it is trash from a fast food restaurant or throwing cigarette butts (or the rest of the packaging) out of car windows, it is sad that people do not give any thought to what happens to their waste when they don't use a proper trash or recycling bin. However, I am not sure I agree with the plan outlined in the article. I do not think it will work. I can see where they might think that fast food sellers might try to reduce their packaging, or perhaps use advertising dollars to educate their clientelle, but I think the costs will more than likely be passed on to the consumer. In theory, this may be a good thing too, if it would raise the cost of their product to the point that people sought out alternatives, but the alternatives really aren't there. I don't know about anyone else, but I learned that pollution was bad when I was a small child. With the help of Schoolhouse Rock, Sesame Street, and Woodsy Owl. Please, people... Give a hoot, don't pollute.

By: billysumday

billysumday — Wed, 08 Feb 2006 10:21:54 -0800

stbalbach: I guess I was looking for facts, or, you know, documentation that shows that the amount of trash does indeed go down in a certain area - and, if it does, how much it goes down relative to the amount of taxation. The hope that taxes will rid the streets of litter does not make it so.

By: 2sheets

2sheets — Wed, 08 Feb 2006 10:22:25 -0800

How about jail time for littering? And that means you, mr. "flick the cigararette butt on the ground".

By: smackfu

smackfu — Wed, 08 Feb 2006 10:27:41 -0800

I think they should go further and impose "cigarette style" taxes on these establishments using the same justifications for imposing said taxes on Cigarettes Interesting choice of example, since 33% of litter in Texas is tobacco related. (Also interesting is that the Ohio stats are completely different. Only 4% fast food but 18% beer cans and bottles, while Texas is 29% food and 4% alcohol.)

By: three blind mice

three blind mice — Wed, 08 Feb 2006 10:28:54 -0800

Holding companies socially responsible for their products un-intended consequences has a long history, such as, tobacco. Big Oil is next. Or, as usual, the tax is passed on to the consumer and the company suffers not even a tiny bit. Are there not laws against littering in California? If I'm paying the clean-up tax, what is my incentive not to throw my trash on the ground?

By: weretable and the undead chairs

weretable and the undead chairs — Wed, 08 Feb 2006 10:28:56 -0800

Around here, it seems like I see more cigarette butts and plastic bags (Wal-Mart bags in particular) than anything else. But fast food litter is noticable as well. Sometimes I see a roadside that looks like it is littered with confetti and when you look closer it is hundreds of cigarette butts. Amazing we haven't had more fires around here as dry as it has been.

By: carter

carter — Wed, 08 Feb 2006 10:28:58 -0800

It'll work if the city pays enough attention as to when peak littering hours are. If I were a fast-food manager, I'd rather pay a tax and have the city do it, than have to chase up my minimum-wage employees all the time to do it.

By: sfts2

sfts2 — Wed, 08 Feb 2006 10:42:21 -0800

Brundlefly has it right. Regardless of who is picking it up, the customer will pay, and the shit still ends up in land fills or in the ocean. While its better to have the customer pay than the population at large, it still doesn't solve the real problem. Next up, fucking bottled water.

By: Crash

Crash — Wed, 08 Feb 2006 10:46:36 -0800

I don't think it will work on reducing litter. I see this as permission to go ahead and litter, since you already paid to have it cleaned up. And since there's now a budget to clean it up, does that mean they won't fine you for littering fast food containers? On the odd chance it does work, will the tax be repealed once the litter goes down? Most likely, this is a thin excuse to add another sin tax. First they came for the smokers, and I did not speak out because I was noy a smoker. Then they came for junk food addicts, and I did not speak out because I was not a junk food addict. Then they came for the slackers who read metafilter all day instead of working, and there was no one left to speak out for me.

By: elendil71

elendil71 — Wed, 08 Feb 2006 11:03:19 -0800

I heard this on NPR the other day (couldnt find a link). The tax is on businesses who produce such litter, like fast food places and convenience stores, and will be used to fund clean-up efforts. According to the lady they talked to, an official from the city, it amounts to some infintesimal daily charge and will be almost certainly be passed on to the consumer. Also it will be reviewed in a year to see if it has had any effect, after which time the City Council will decide whether to continue or not. The city representative interviewed also said they would be cracking down on littering and leveling some (relatively) high fines. Hope it works.

By: scratch

scratch — Wed, 08 Feb 2006 11:17:17 -0800

As the saying goes, you can't legislate morality. You also can't legislate respect for the physical environment (especially where respect for, y'know, humans is also lacking). That said, any more taxes on fast food companies are ok with me, and I hope Oakland's plan works.

By: JekPorkins

JekPorkins — Wed, 08 Feb 2006 11:20:18 -0800

Yes, clearly the reason that Oakland is full of garbage is because fast food and snacks are too affordable.

By: incongruity

incongruity — Wed, 08 Feb 2006 11:20:24 -0800

On the face of it, I don't completely mind such taxes -- it makes sense that if a product inevitably leads to more expenditures on the part of the city/state/federal/taxpayers then yes, it makes sense to throw in a bit more tax on those products so that the users of those products pay for the consequences of their use. The problem comes in that rarely, if ever, when new taxes or fees are added are they actually put aside (i.e. in a special account) for their intended purposes and used *only* for such purposes. Most of the time they just go into the general funds thereby making them less focused and more ripe for misuse. Moreover, it makes it harder to be easily sure that we're not over-collecting taxes, that is taking in significantly more than we need to remedy whatever specific ill the product causes -- it isn't as simple as checking the balance in a given account... That sort of simplicity/straightforward accounting is lacking in government and thus I fear any additional taxes will simply go to the mass of economic inefficiency that are our local, state and federal governments and not really solve the problems they're supposed to be solving.

By: jbelkin

jbelkin — Wed, 08 Feb 2006 11:40:06 -0800

Oakland not the first city - some city in Illinois attempted it - ruled unconstitutional. As fast food & restuarnts point out, why are they responsible and where's the city money to clean up now? What's next - newspapers? They are always blowing everywhere.

By: slatternus

slatternus — Wed, 08 Feb 2006 11:43:41 -0800

Taxation is the answer!

By: smackfu

smackfu — Wed, 08 Feb 2006 11:45:14 -0800

They are always blowing everywhere. Hehe.

By: eddydamascene

eddydamascene — Wed, 08 Feb 2006 11:50:10 -0800

My $0.02 -- Oakland has a violent crime rate approaching three times the national average, and can't afford its cops babysitting kids outside the Jack in the Box. The solution is not going to come out of enforcement.

By: anastasiav

anastasiav — Wed, 08 Feb 2006 12:10:45 -0800

Also interesting is that the Ohio stats are completely different. Only 4% fast food but 18% beer cans and bottles I've never been able to suss out why most other states do not have a nickle deposit on all their cans and bottles like we do here in Maine. Sure, you pay an extra nickel when you buy the beverage, but you get the nickel back when you return the bottle for recycling. Its very, very rare to see cans or bottle of any type sitting around as trash -- and if any do get "littered" there is always some enterprising person (often low income or homeless) who will snatch up that litter to return it for a profit.

By: Miles Long

Miles Long — Wed, 08 Feb 2006 12:22:52 -0800

The problem I have with this proposal is the suggestion to kids and to the other litterers that they aren't responsible for cleaning up their trash They already think they aren't responsible for their own trash. or they just don't give a shit. That's the whole problem. i live here and yeah, it's a big mess. It's so stupid. like my girlfriend says, even animals are smart enough not to shit their own nest. WTF? i don't think more laws are the solution. Education is the solution, even if it's on cartoons on saturday morning. Yknow, that's it. Those cartoons aren't on anymore either.QED.

By: Miles Long

Miles Long — Wed, 08 Feb 2006 12:29:01 -0800

Could that be because the American diet consists of roughly 20 percent fast food and 20 percent snack food? We are a nation of slothful gluttons and I am ashamed of us. posted by JeffK at 9:58 AM PST on February 8 [!] no, that's not the issue at all. and god, what a whiner you are.

By: Gungho

Gungho — Wed, 08 Feb 2006 12:59:40 -0800

You're making Indians cry.

By: drezdn

drezdn — Wed, 08 Feb 2006 13:35:28 -0800

You're making ~~Indians~~ Italians-posing-as-Indians cry.

By: Lockjaw

Lockjaw — Wed, 08 Feb 2006 16:21:05 -0800

I think businesses and landlords should be fined for failure to keep their properties clean. I'd rather see McDonald's have to post an annual tally of its littering infractions than have them promote some bogus "we care for our community" campaign, holding up their tax bill as proof of their commitment. I used to live in San Francisco, which is one of the most filthy, littered cities I've ever seen in this country. Even after all these years of living in this area, it still blows my mind when I see people -- business people in suits -- toss trash on the street in the Financial District or when I see what broken junk the residents have put out on the sidewalks in front of their homes. Don't even get me started on the astonishing amount of litter on California's highways. I think it's a matter of education and learned respect. I would love to know what methods other states have used to curb litter.

By: Goofyy

Goofyy — Wed, 08 Feb 2006 23:24:47 -0800

Funny, to me. No one mentioned or asks about the existence of trash barrels, which are kept ready to accept more trash, in locations where littering is a problem. I've seen too many places where the problem is either the absence of bins or over-flowing bins. I'm not all upset over the proposed tax, but I think the wrong parties are being held responsible. If the litter problem is so large, it seems to become affordable to catch the real perps and make them clean it up. Litter is the easiest form of pollution to counter.