How do you figure? Can you provide objective evidence that backs that up?
Under my plan, it is the taxpayer who has the ultimate choice. If you don't want to pay tax on an item, you don't buy it. Done.
You're back to the absurdity of a tax break for caviar and champagne.
And who are you to decide if someone who has the money shouldn't be allowed to enjoy the same tax break on food that someone of lesser means enjoys? That sounds a lot like the justification used to raise marginal income tax rates, that they can just afford to pay more.