Taxing food is one of those third-rail issues that politicians rarely want to touch.

But in a time when lawmakers have tread through the hazardous realm of health-care reform, government bailouts, and raising taxes to fill massive deficits, why not go there?

That’s what the state legislature did this year.

During their last session, lawmakers implemented a business and occupation tax on certain food processors, such as those who make canned meat, frozen vegetables, dehydrated fruit, and pancake mix.

They also implemented a new excise tax on soda, and lifted the sales-tax exemptions on candy and bottled water.

Most of the early discussion about these “new revenue sources” centered on the “candy and soda taxes.” Proponents described them as “sin taxes,” because they dealt with luxury items that can cause obesity and other health risks.

Meanwhile, few people mentioned the phrase “food and beverages.” At least not until a powerful D.C. lobbying group got involved.

The American Beverage Association this year bankrolled an effort to put Initiative 1107 on Washington ballots for the November election. That measure would eliminate all the new taxes on food manufacturing, candy, soda, and bottled water.

The campaign calls itself “Yes on I-1107 – Stop the Food & Beverage Tax Hikes.” Notice how the word “food” crept into the debate.

That leads to the question of what we’re really dealing with here. Does Washington tax foods or not?

The argument can go either way, depending on who frames the issue.

Technically, the business and occupation taxes apply to food manufacturing, not food itself.

Complicating matters even more is the way legislators and lawyers have poured over lists of ingredients and preparation methods to determine what qualifies as food.

There is a simpler method. Food is something you put in your mouth and swallow to your stomach, whether the goal is to satisfy hunger, stop a sugar craving, or fulfill some kind of emotional need.

Those who want to argue nutrition should ask Uruguay’s 1972 rugby team about surviving on chocolate bars and toothpaste – among other things – while stranded in the Andes after a plane crash.

It’s easy to get lost in semantics, but what’s really important is the fact that lawmakers had to close a $3 billion budget deficit last session.

There were three options: cut programs, tax more, or try a little of both.

Legislators ultimately chose the latter, and voters will decide in November whether they found the right balance.

Rep. Ross Hunter, a Democrat from Medina, stands by his vote for the taxes. He says it was a choice between trimming the social safety net and asking for more money – although he initially opposed the beverage tax.

“We made what I think was a rational decision during the session,” he said. “We would have lost over $60 million in the budget for college aid and for single parents trying to go to work.”

Yes on I-1107 claims the taxes will raise $300 million over the next three years, but there’s no telling what programs that money will support. The funds are not restricted, so they could pay for the Seattle viaduct just a soon as college aid.

Republican Diane Tebelius, who is challenging Hunter in the general election, says the legislature should have focused more on cost cutting rather than new revenue sources.

“Raising taxes when they cannot reform the budget is the wrong way to go for Washington,” she said. “We’re going to look like California pretty soon.”

Something says Tebelius isn’t talking about sunshine and warmer weather.

Sen. Rodney Tom, who helped create the budget and then voted against it, says he supports the new taxes. The Medina Democrat even goes so far as to call them fiscally conservative.

“If you believe in fiscal restraint, then we need to get a handle on health care costs,” he said. “We’ve got to tackle issues like smoking and obesity, and this is a way to do that.”

The Yes on I-1107 campaign sees things differently.

“It’s a regressive tax, because the products involved are food products that are more likely to be purchased by lower income citizens,” said Kathryn Stenger, a spokeswoman for the group.

Stenger also says the tax on food manufacturing puts Washington processors at a competitive disadvantage, because their products can be made cheaper in another state.

For the record, both Hunter and Tom claim that legislators did not create a food tax, but merely fixed an old exemption that was meant to help a few struggling food processors during the Mad Cow scare. They say a court decision muddled things and ended up making too many manufacturers exempt.

“I think what legislators did was restore the law to the interpretation it had for decades,” Hunter said. “If people want to use that to pretend it’s a food tax, go ahead.”

The beverage lobby is doing its best to portray things that way. They know how unpopular food taxes can be.

And why exactly is that? Maybe because taxpayers want the necessities to be off-limits.

Then again, most states are willing to tax wages, and we need our earnings to survive.

Washington is a holdout – one of nine states without an income tax. At least that’s the case for now. Initiative 1098 would allow an income tax on “high-income earners.”

I only wish that one applied to me.

(This article first appeared on the Realpolitiks Bellevue blog)