Would a Soda Tax Help Fight the Fat?
By: Jen Mueller,
SparkPeople Blogger
4/17/2009 6:13 AM
: 352 comments
With the increase in obesity rates among young people and adults, policy makers are always looking for ways to discourage the excess consumption of unhealthy foods. One idea that's getting been getting attention in recent months is food taxes. According to a new report in the New England Journal of Medicine, "Even if one quarter of the calories consumed from sugared beverages are replaced by other food, the decrease in consumption would lead to an estimated reduction of 8000 calories per person per year — slightly more than 2 lb each year for the average person."
Two states (Maine and New York) had proposed large taxes on sugary beverages like soda and energy drinks (a penny per ounce). Both proposals have since been dropped due to industry and voter opposition. But proponents could be onto something: studies show that increasing consumption of these kinds of drinks increases the risk of diabetes and obesity. Reduced consumption of these drinks appears to improve overall health.
To get an idea of how big the problem is, consider these statistics: In the past decade, per capita intake of calories from sugar-sweetened beverages has increased by nearly 30%. For each extra can or glass of sugared beverage consumed per day, the likelihood of a child's becoming obese increases by 60%.
Similar taxes on tobacco products have proved successful in reducing consumption. And as the price of carbonated soft drinks goes up, people tend to buy less. There are a lot of variables associated with doing something like this. It's hard to know if people would switch to drinking water, milk, or perhaps just a generic version of their favorite sugary soda. And what would this extra tax revenue go towards? It's likely to get more support if the revenue funds programs that promote physical activity and better nutrition. But at this point, it's unclear exactly how the money would be used.
What do you think? Are you surprised the proposals in Maine and New York have been struck down? Is a tax like this a good idea to help improve the health of our country, or should we find another way?
Two states (Maine and New York) had proposed large taxes on sugary beverages like soda and energy drinks (a penny per ounce). Both proposals have since been dropped due to industry and voter opposition. But proponents could be onto something: studies show that increasing consumption of these kinds of drinks increases the risk of diabetes and obesity. Reduced consumption of these drinks appears to improve overall health.
To get an idea of how big the problem is, consider these statistics: In the past decade, per capita intake of calories from sugar-sweetened beverages has increased by nearly 30%. For each extra can or glass of sugared beverage consumed per day, the likelihood of a child's becoming obese increases by 60%.
Similar taxes on tobacco products have proved successful in reducing consumption. And as the price of carbonated soft drinks goes up, people tend to buy less. There are a lot of variables associated with doing something like this. It's hard to know if people would switch to drinking water, milk, or perhaps just a generic version of their favorite sugary soda. And what would this extra tax revenue go towards? It's likely to get more support if the revenue funds programs that promote physical activity and better nutrition. But at this point, it's unclear exactly how the money would be used.
What do you think? Are you surprised the proposals in Maine and New York have been struck down? Is a tax like this a good idea to help improve the health of our country, or should we find another way?
 You will earn 3 SparkPoints |
NEXT ENTRY > Poll: One Exercise You'd Never Do in Public?
Comments
Maybe if people had to come up with more money they would not reach for the cheap .99 cent bottle of soda to give their kids.
There has to be some drastic wake up call to people on the effects of what they are feeding kids and themselves. - 10/12/2012 1:34:43 PM
I also agree with some others commenting saying no more taxes and no more governmental control we live a free society not a dictator ship and that is what you will have if you dictate to people what they can and can't eat. Besides there would be enough people to veto it in Congress they like their Jack and Coke. - 10/31/2010 9:21:06 AM
Look at the funding for state roadways--dependent on the gasoline tax. Look what's happening--less driving and more fuel efficient vehicles. Now government is having trouble keeping roads in good condition because the funding isn't there. So now, more taxes are being levied against workers/property owners to make up the difference as well as discussions on increase the fuel tax.
Taxing bad behavior isn't the way to solve the problem. Plus personal responsibility needs to make a come back. I don't know about anyone else, but the soda is in the same isle as bottled water in my grocery store. All anyone has to do is look across the isle!! - 9/3/2010 10:46:55 AM
2009/pr057-09.shtml - 12/4/2009 12:48:22 PM
Honestly, I'd rather see soda, alcohol and candy be taxed than see more cuts and rate hikes in the public transit that I ride every day. Lawmakers are smart - they target the products that they know people cannot/will not live without, and will pay any price for. Now soda joins the ranks of cigarettes and alcohol in this respect. I think even states like New York and Maine, while touting the health of their citizens, are really thinking of their bottom lines when considering taxes/increased taxes on these items. - 9/2/2009 9:31:07 AM
No, I don't think soda should have a sin-tax. It's a slippery slope to allowing Uncle Sam to arbitrarily decide what foods are "sinful" enough to be taxed.
I think the cigarette tax is fine, because cigarettes don't just hurt the smoker. They hurt the people around the smoker, some of whom cannot walk away (dependent children, elderly, etc.). A sin tax on alcohol is okay by me too, because again, the affects of too much alcohol aren't just on the drinker.
I suppose one could argue that the affects of too much pop on my husband have been a contributing factor to his kidney stone surgery, and therefore; they've contributed to the rising cost of health care, and we've all suffered. This would make my husband's soda consumption everyone's problem and you could justify a sin tax that way, but that's a pretty big stretch.
I will say that even diet soda robs your bones of calcium, and when he drinks his sodas, I walk by him hunched over, like I'm holding a cane, and say in a feeble voice, "Enjoyin' yer soda, Sonny?" He gets it. Before you decide I'm a jerk...I've tried the nice, loving approach. Remember...he's had one surgery already. The guy drinks 2 liters a day. He's unstoppable and I don't want to see him in that predicament again! - 9/2/2009 8:22:22 AM
hmmmmm.... - 8/19/2009 9:36:23 PM
(stepping down off the old soapbox and tucking it under the old armpit) - 8/12/2009 7:23:34 AM
1) I am all for taxes you can 'choose' to pay. I choose not to buy soda, which is no good for me anyway, so I would never see this tax.
2) Make the revenue generated go towards health care, and then the tax dollars I have no choice but to pay might go towards something other than supporting someone else's soda habit...and ensuing health problems.
It only makes sense to me. It's a 'poor choice' tax. Poor choices should cost you more. - 8/11/2009 6:21:23 PM
The link between sugary drinks and health problems is clear. How much does the consumption of sugary drinks impact the public healthcare system? The Obama administration is extremely concerned about the vast amount of money from the public treasury that is being funneled into Medicare and Medicaid. A tax on soda pop shifts some of the burden of paying for unhealthy behaviors to those that exhibit those unhealthy behaviors.
- 7/3/2009 8:41:20 AM
Here in Poland, most everyone smokes and drinks.
They, and their families, go without to support their habits.
I went to have breakfast out the other morning.
Not only was it hard to find a place that servers what American me thinks of as breakfast, but most everyone was having Polish Breakfast, BEER.
The point being, there is a "luxury" tax on things like beer, and coffee, etc. It does not stop anyone.
People do not like to be told what to do, i.e. "cut your nose off to spite your face" is common behaviour..
It has to be a FREE choice. - 6/13/2009 7:25:23 AM
Quit this TAX for our own good.
You may not drink soda,or smoke; I don't, but it is MY choice.
Education is the solution.
Not TAXation.
We should stay FREE to chose.
True our bad choices can cost the taxpayer in medical care, down the road.
If they, soda drinkers, paid taxes. They are intitled.
Stop caring for thoes who never paid taxes. - 6/13/2009 7:01:16 AM
While it doesn't always deter from buying the processed stuff (which is taxed), it is a total incentive to buying fresh and making things yourself! It's cheaper to begin with and the tax savings is a bonus! Buying unprocessed food is the rebellious Canadian's way of sticking it to the man. Haha... - 6/11/2009 12:22:32 PM
Please Log In To Leave A Comment: Log in now ›