The case for a soda tax
The way a group of leading nutritionists and economists sees it, taxing sugar-sweetened beverages could lead to smaller waistlines, expanded government coffers and big savings on health care costs.
In a report published in today's New England Journal of Medicine, the group, led by Yale's Kelly D. Brownell, tries to make the case for a 1 percent per ounce excise tax on caloric sodas, fruit drinks and other beverages containing high-fructose corn syrup. They say that these drinks are a major culprit in the nation's obesity epidemic and costs associated with overweight and obesity issues are estimated to be 9 percent of all health care expenditures in the U.S.
"The science base linking the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages to the risk of chronic disease is clear," they write.
They say the tax would increase the cost of a 20-ounce soft drink by 15 to 20 percent. And based on the economic principle of price elasticity, when the price of soda has risen by 10 percent, consumption has dropped by an average of 8 percent. People who cut out those calories are likely not to replace many of them, the researchers said, and could lose a significant amount of weight.
A national tax of the sort they recommend could raise $14.9 BILLION in the first year, money that could go toward nutrition or obesity prevention programs. They estimate such a tax would generate $284.5 million in Maryland in the first year.
Some have argued a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages would be regressive. The beverage industry has objected when individual jurisdictions have proposed such taxes.
"PepsiCo threatened to move its corporate headquarters out of New York when the state considered implementing an 18% sales tax on sugar-sweetened beverages," they write.
While the idea shocks some, they figure people will get used to the idea, just as they warmed to tobacco taxes: "Much as taxes on tobacco products are routine at both state and federal levels because they generate revenue and they confer a public health benefit with respect to smoking rates, we believe the taxes on beverages that help drive the obesity epidemic should and will become routine."
Photo/flikr
Comments
So, the Federal Gov't should tax me for enjoying a coca cola because someone who can't push their self away from the food table can get medical treatment? What do you want taxed next, air !!!! Oh, they should tax air because people won't stop sniffing cocaine instead of natural air. Liberals and self-righteous people really are something else.
Posted by: Dave | September 17, 2009 9:59 AM
This is ridiculous. I don't drink soda but I know many many people who do most of them are skinny. To claim that a tax on soda is going make people lose weight is just an obese bunch of stupidity! Additionally, to claim that soda kills people is a giant leap - obesity kills yes - but do all obese people drink soda - no - what next a tax on cake and pie - how about ice cream or frozen yogurt - next cheeseburgers - they must make people fat - or french fries and onion rings - I know a fried chicken tax and macaroni and cheese and wait don't forget frapaccinos and salads! oh yes some salads are so full of calories you might as well pay the tax and eat a cheeseburger - wait I know.. working makes you fat if you sit at a desk all day so let's tax all jobs where you have to sit and watching tv must make you fat so lets tax everything we do!
I am sick of folks trying to control my behavior with taxes. Hey, instead of trying to bully people into eating healthy How about finding a way to make healthy food more affordable - I bought 1 apple yesterday for $1.28 and 1 1/2 pounds of grapes for $5.58, a cantelope for $4.00 and salad greens for $4.35 - maybe I was charged a healthy tax!
Posted by: idiotproof | September 17, 2009 10:14 AM
Comparing cigarette taxes and soda taxes are not the same, and public support will not be the same if this idea is taken seriously.
Tobacco taxes are popular because the additive nature of the product makes it a reliable revenue raiser and the fact most people don't smoke make it politically easy. People always support taxes on what they don't use.
Most people drink sodas occasionally or often, and don't consider it a "sin."
Tobacco tax hikes were rare until the tobacco lobby became less powerful due to social anti-smoking pressure.
I don't see that happpening with Pepsi consumers anytime soon.
Posted by: Mike | September 17, 2009 12:32 PM
I completely agree with the notion that we should make healthy food more affordable instead of taxing unhealthy foods. The fact that you can almost get two 2-liter bottles of soda for the price of a gallon of milk...if the goal is really to get people to make healthier choices, then maybe healthy foods should all be tax free. I personally find soda gross as a beverage, but if I knew that fruit juices were tax-free I would definitely choose that over soda any day.
Posted by: Brent | September 17, 2009 1:16 PM
I'm tired of the government/s trying to tell me what I can or cannot eat, drink, breathe, do, etc. This country seems to be controlled by any little "anti" group that speaks up. What if I do like soda, trans-fat, fruit drink, steak, chicken, salad, cake, pie, donut, coffee, --- you name it. It's not the government's business to tell me I can't have it but they seem to think it is. Air? Now there's a real winner, Next I have to carry oxygen and a mask for no reason? Come on folks, get a grip. It's life, Live it. If you don't like it - move to the middle east or far east and try to control things there.
Posted by: RM | September 17, 2009 1:38 PM
I personally drink mostly water, tea and coffee, but I can see how such tax would be unfair to the soda drinkers. If it's about health then tax twinkies, donuts, fries, etc. If it's about money then don't pretend it's about our health.
Posted by: Jelena | September 17, 2009 2:07 PM
This report seems more political than scientific.
Think about it...
First, the powers that be identify a villain that everyone can rally against...Obesity (see also terrorism and communism)
Then they prove their case with "facts"...scientific research (see sat photos of WMDs)
Then they provide a solution...soda tax (see Gulf War 1 & 2)
Soda Tax = Tax Grab
http://healthhabits.wordpress.com/2009/09/17/soda-tax-tax-grab/
Posted by: Doug | September 17, 2009 2:16 PM
Manufacturers of corn sweeteners do not receive government subsidies. Our industry buys corn on the open market at the prevailing market price.
High fructose corn syrup, sugar, and several fruit juices are all nutritionally the same.
High fructose corn syrup is simply a kind of corn sugar. It has the same number of calories as sugar and is handled similarly by the body.
According to the American Dietetic Association, “high fructose corn syrup…is nutritionally equivalent to sucrose. Once absorbed into the blood stream, the two sweeteners are indistinguishable.”
Consumers can see the latest research and learn more about high fructose corn syrup at www.SweetSurprise.com.
Audrae Erickson
President
Corn Refiners Association
Posted by: Audrae Erickson | September 17, 2009 5:30 PM
Obesity is a serious and complex problem that requires thoughtful and comprehensive solutions. But a tax on soda is simply the wrong approach. A tax will not teach children healthy lifestyles. Education, exercise and balanced diets do that.
Furthermore, science shows that all calories count – regardless of their source. Thus, soft drinks are no greater a contributor to obesity than any other caloric food or beverage.
As we look for ways to improve healthcare, the focus should be on solutions that work. A tax on soda won’t make a dent in paying for improved healthcare or addressing obesity. In fact, obesity rates for adults and children have risen since 2000, while soft drinks sales dropped annually since that time due to industry’s product innovation.
For more information, visit the American Beverage Association at www.ameribev.org.
Posted by: American Beverage Association | September 17, 2009 6:22 PM
First of all, will the tax apply to diet varieties of soft drinks, which contain no HFCS? How about Pepsi Throwback?
Secondly, congrats to Ms Erickson for altering the boilerplate comment just a little bit. It's nice to see some variety! It would appear as though even you tired of the copy/paste approach to posting comments? For anyone who finds this statement cryptic, see: Audrae Erickson Patron Saint of HFCS
The authors propose not extending the tax to diet soda. -- Stephanie
Posted by: Ban HFCS | September 17, 2009 7:10 PM
As long as people are not drinking alcohol than no one has the right to object. Too bad the government cannot concentrate on solving the real problems in this country instead of wasting time on something that is none of their business. If people feel soda is unhealthy then they are not forced to buy it or drink it.
Posted by: PC | September 19, 2009 9:38 AM
this is so cool cuz im doin a report on this nonsense right now! :)
to respond to somebody, yes, soda tax would act much like a cigarette tax becaue the elasticity of demand of both products is relatively inelastic (meaning people arent readily going to stop buying the stuff in large enough amounts to make soft drink companies lose money). and it turns out 87% of people who are obese consume soft drinks on the regular. US consumption last year of soft drinks was about 57 gallons PER PERSON!!! and in a nation of almost 300,000,000 thats almost 20,000,000,000 gallons of sweetened empty calories! :) THIS IS SO COOL THAT I KNOW WHAT IM TALKING ABOUT! im actually deriving a demand curve for this indistry right now and it seems like the revenue would actually increase for the industry if they were taxed :D BOOYAH
Posted by: Chris :) | March 9, 2010 2:19 AM