Bottle tax could help fight obesity, study says
At the same time Baltimore City Council was voting down the controversial bottle tax , out comes a study that confirms sales would drop -- but it also says making sugary sodas a little more expensive could mean a dip in the nation's alarmingly high obesity rate.
According to a study in the June 17 American Journal of Public Health, soft drinks are the nation's biggest contributor to caloric intake, accounting for 7 percent of all calories consumed each day from 1999 to 2001. That's up from 2.8 percent from 1977 throught 1978.
The study set out to see just how much consumption would go down as the price went up. Researchers from Harvard set up shop in hospital cafeterias in Boston. They increased the price by 35 percent on regular soft drinks. Sales dropped by 26 percent. They dropped another 18 percent during a time when researchers initiated an effort to educate consumers about the ill effects of the drinks.
They found education had no independent effect on sales. It was all price.
The researchers concluded that price increases may be an effective means to cut consumption of potentially harmful beverages.
Public health officials have believed this for a while, and have called for higher taxes on sodas. There have even been other studies that have had similar results -- on snake foods and on cigarettes.
And there have also been studies on the effects of sugary soda on health. This study cited, for example, a Nurses’ Health Study on women who increased the number of soft drinks they consumed from one or fewer a week to one or more a day. The women gained a mean of 10 pounds over 4 years and increased their risk of developing diabetes by 83 percent.
City Council members still could change their votes on the bottle tax. Should they? Should government seek to influence public health through taxation?
Associated Press photo
Comments
This study fails to provide real evidence that reducing sugar-sweetened beverage consumption will reduce obesity or prevent other negative health outcomes. It simply measures impact on sales in one specified location through price increases, as well as misleading educational materials. In fact, the authors themselves acknowledge that their study has several limitations and that future research is needed.
The fact remains that price increases on specific products don’t make people healthier – a balanced diet and exercise do that. A report by researchers from the Mercatus Center at George Mason University showed that a 20 percent tax on a soft drink would decrease Body Mass Index (BMI) for an obese person by just 0.02, an amount not even measurable on a bathroom scale. For more information please visit www.ameribev.org.
Posted by: American Beverage | June 18, 2010 1:54 PM
So the tax would not apply to sugar-free soda right? How about bottled water? Increased hydration is good for your health--so the tax should not apply to bottled water? Stop trying to trick people into supporting your tax. How about the City spends less money…how novel a concept!!!!!
Posted by: Thomas, J.D. | June 19, 2010 6:00 PM
Using the logic that increasing the cost of soda may combat obesity applying the bottle tax to beer, wine and whiskey should combat alcoholism. Alcoholism is as big if not a bigger problem.
Posted by: MarkP | June 24, 2010 8:46 PM
People who are overweight and on welfare will just protest for a higher entitlement check (which means my taxes will be subsidizing their obesity!) and the people who are not on welfare will not care about the two cents...
These studies are not worth the tax money spent for them.
The real issue of government overspending is being ignored.
Posted by: Mike | June 25, 2010 6:33 AM
So is the point to raise money or prevent obesity? I think it would be great if it resulted in less soda drinking and less money for City Hall.
Posted by: Bill | June 25, 2010 8:24 AM
There have even been other studies that have had similar results -- on snake foods and on cigarettes.
Posted by: roger | June 25, 2010 9:05 AM
That study raised prices by 35%. A tax of $0.02/bottle comes out to a raise of 2-3%. That's not going to change anyone's behavior. It's just going to nickle-and-dime people who can least afford it.
Posted by: Direwolfc | June 25, 2010 9:19 AM
Then ban McD's and all fast food outlets!
Legislate just WHAT we can and cannot consume, isn't that the goal of the nanny staters?
Posted by: Anonymous | June 25, 2010 10:47 AM
I was watching a news story this morning, and I noticed that a representative from Santoni's Super Market mentioned that they plan to absorb the bottle tax by cutting some of their business costs. I'm not sure how true that statement is, or if other area super markets will follow suit with absorbing the tax. If they do, then I highly doubt that this tax will help figh obesity since the super markets are picking up the tab.
Posted by: Rebecca | June 25, 2010 11:07 AM
Seriously,
Can we please delete the post from lobbyist?
In the words of Thank You for Smoking
"Our scientists were so good, they could disprove gravity"
Posted by: Cody | June 25, 2010 1:25 PM
I'd support a tax on snake food.
Posted by: Annie | June 25, 2010 1:50 PM
The ban is on little bottles. I'll just bulk buy and get fat twice as fast with my 2-liter bottles.
Oh wait? I drink diet?
The city will not ever get 2 cents from me.
Posted by: Call me 2-liter man | June 25, 2010 2:00 PM
snake foods and on cigarettes?
Posted by: Anonymous | June 25, 2010 2:23 PM