The question “Is Candy A Food?” might seem simple, but it opens a complex discussion about nutrition, morality, and even taxation. With states like Washington grappling with defining “candy” for tax purposes, it’s time to delve into what makes this seemingly straightforward question so difficult to answer.
Last week, Washington state implemented a sales tax on candy, joining other states with similar legislation. The challenge lies in defining what exactly constitutes “candy.” Is a chocolate-covered pretzel considered candy? What about yogurt-covered raisins? The Washington law attempts to draw a line, defining candy as anything containing sugar, honey, or artificial sweeteners combined with chocolate, fruits, nuts, or flavorings formed into bars, drops, or pieces. However, anything containing flour is considered food and therefore exempt. This leads to some curious distinctions: a Nestle Crunch bar is not candy, but a Hershey Bar is. Gummy Bears are candy, but licorice is not. Milky Way Midnight? Candy. Milky Way? Not candy.
To further explore the complexities surrounding candy, Salon spoke with Samira Kawash, also known as the “Candy Professor,” a professor emerita at Rutgers University and author of a forthcoming book on the cultural history of candy in America.
The Elusive Definition of Candy
According to Professor Kawash, the difficulty in defining candy stems from the fact that no substance is purely candy. “Candy” is less about the ingredients and more about our feelings and perceptions, often colored by moral judgments.
The Morality of Candy: Pleasure and Sin
Candy represents pure pleasure, but it’s often associated with a sense of sin or guilt. This “dark side” of candy has manifested in various forms throughout history. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, concerns arose about adulteration, with fears that candy was contaminated with impure ingredients like artificial coloring or clay dust. Despite investigations proving the safety of commercially-produced candy, the perception of danger persisted.
Even today, we see this moralism in concerns about sugar content, cavities, and diabetes. While candy can contribute to these health issues, it’s not the sole cause. This underlying moral judgment influences our willingness to accept a candy tax, viewing it as a “sin tax” aimed at discouraging consumption.
Candy as a Cultural Dividing Line
Culturally, candy serves as a demarcation between “food” and “not food,” allowing us to feel better about other processed items in the grocery store. Michael Pollan’s concept of “food-like edible substances” applies to the numerous processed, sweet, and fatty items that line supermarket shelves. We categorize these items as “food,” despite their similarities to candy.
A balanced perspective might group all these items together, acknowledging that a Snickers bar is as much “food” as a chewy granola bar. Alternatively, one could argue that neither qualifies as real food. However, powerful commercial interests within the processed food industry ensure that this doesn’t happen.
The “Liquid Candy” Argument
Soda, often considered as detrimental as candy, wasn’t always viewed that way. The Center for Science in the Public Interest has worked for years to reframe soda as “liquid candy” to garner support for a soda tax. This renaming has been crucial in changing public perception and driving the idea that soda consumption should be limited and taxed.
The Wholesomeness of Flour
The Washington state candy tax law hinges on the presence of flour. But why is flour considered so wholesome? The association of baked goods like cookies, pies, and cakes with home and comfort plays a role. Historically, candy was among the first commercially produced processed foods, creating a distance between homemade and store-bought versions. Baked goods, on the other hand, were more closely associated with the purity and domesticity of home cooking. This led to suspicion surrounding candy: “Where is it coming from? Who is making it, and what are they making it out of?”
In the early 20th century, when the food industry debated the merits of processed food, they discovered that white bread lacked nutritional value unless fortified with vitamins. Despite the similarities between white flour and white sugar, the baking industry successfully associated flour with wholesomeness and nutrition.
The Future of Candy: More Flour?
Professor Kawash predicts that candy manufacturers might start adding flour to their products to avoid the candy tax. The fact that some candies, like Milky Way, already contain flour is surprising. The rule makers likely didn’t realize how many types of candy would qualify as “food” under their definition.
Ultimately, the question of whether candy is a food remains complex and multifaceted. It touches upon our perceptions of pleasure, health, and the very definition of what constitutes “food” in our modern world.
