Can "Soda Tax" make America thin again?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Pat Coyle on October 14, 2009 at 9:34am

The following quote was taken from the NPR article (which I heard on the radio). To me, the logic behind taxing soda seems, well, ridiculous. Clearly, the tax would "generate a lot of money," as the "expert" is quoted as saying. But his recommendation for spending that money, on programs to make healthy food more available, is simply idiotic. We have running water in this country, don't we? People could choose to drink more water today - and pass on soda - if they wanted to, couldn't they? How will tax money get people to make better food choices? I don't see it. People don't want to change their habits, and typically, the won't. Want proof? Read Change or Die.

Here's the quote I lifted from the article:

But the director of Yale's Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity, Kelly Brownell, says the tax would have a big payoff.

"Using a tax, much as has happened with tobacco, to try to change consumption patterns in a way that would benefit overall public health and provide a very much-needed revenue for programs, seems like a home run," Brownell says.

In a New England Journal of Medicine article out this month, Brownell and several other public health experts argue that a soda tax could generate a lot of money. Brownell says a penny-an-ounce federal soda tax could generate $150 billion in the next 10 years.

"The list of ways you could use revenue from a soda tax is a mile long, but the best use of it would be to make healthy foods more available," Brownell says. "There could be price supports for fruits and vegetables at supermarkets. You could use the money to support farmers markets for inner-city neighborhoods."

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by PK Koduri on October 14, 2009 at 9:44am

Pat - in our house the only way we could stick to a plan was by limiting availability and by controlling portion sizes - didn't matter whether the food was organic or processed. My wife lost 30 lbs gained during her pregnancy by following a simple portion control regiment. The other problem is healthy food is not tasty - case in point the yet unopened bag of greens in my fridge :-)

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Pat Coyle on October 14, 2009 at 10:30am

So the only way to get thinner is to burn more calories than you eat. Kinda the opposite of getting rich, where you save more than you spend. Sounds simple. Why is it so tough? Maybe if the Gov raised taxes they could create a program to help me...wait, they want consumers to spend their money...just not on soda. OK. I think I get it.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Bill Bean on October 14, 2009 at 10:12am

I'll have to disagree with you, Pat. While I don't think this is an effective way to get people to be healthier, I like the idea of taxing consumption to support related costs. (like the gas tax)

If it helps a few people stop drinking the stuff that's an added benefit but assuming people aren't going to change eating habits related to obesity problems, we've got to fund the increasing costs.

What will be entertaining is to see how "soda" gets defined and what manufacturers end up doing to work around that definition.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by PK Koduri on October 14, 2009 at 10:28am

If it doesn't rot your teeth in under 15 minutes then it is not a soda - kind of like the FDA's version of "Organic"

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Pat Coyle on October 14, 2009 at 10:33am

What I especially didn't like (in the article) was how the "expert's" eyes seemed to light up at the thought of all the money that can be raised by the tax. I have serious doubts that such money would be applied over the long term to the problem at hand. Seems like piles of money collected for one purpose sometimes get diverted to other channels...the money just flows into Gov programs...and problems don't get solved. They just get fatter.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Patti Lee Corbett on October 14, 2009 at 1:30pm

Adding a tax to soda will not force people to make the right decisions. Case in point look at the expense of cigarettes and the number of people who "manage" to pay for those no matter the increase.
My grandmother drank Coca Cola in the 6 1/2 oz bottles every day of her life and weighed about 90 lbs soaking wet.
It was made with real sugar, real caramel, & carbonated water. Now we have artificial caramel, cola flavoring and to top it off High Fructose Corn Syrup is the sweetner of choice. It used to be a non consumable bi-product and now is used in everything from Ice Cream to Saltine Crackers.
You force the food & beverage industry to use "real" products and you'll see americans get healthier. And as far as healthy food not tasting good, 'au contraire mon frere' .
After getting the HFCS and processed foods out of your life for just two weeks, your body will crave the taste of fresh greens, wonderful fresh fruits and there are amazing spices and seasonings that we can't taste with our jaded taste buds. Try eating some real food, quit supporting companies who sell you chemicals and bi-products with artificial coloring and free toys! But here's the clencher, the companies who sell "real & fresh" foods will need to be controlled or subsidised in some manner to make these foods affordable for all!!

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Pat Coyle on October 14, 2009 at 2:13pm

You make some great points, Patti. Our family (thanks to my loving wife) has changed all kinds of food habits over the past few years, starting with eliminating processed, refined and genetically mutated stuff from our diets (as much as possible). Funny how this might all come down to CORN. Use more real sugar, and less corn based sweeteners and additives, and we might make a difference...but what would we do with all the Gov subsidized corn then? Hmm. If you're right, then the Gov is currently funding (subsidizing) the obesity problem by making corn cheap...if that's true, then isn't it even less likely that giving the Gov more money (with soda tax) will solve the problem?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Patti Lee Corbett on October 14, 2009 at 2:31pm

Exactly my point. Thanks for putting it in one sentence.
Now from our fingers to their in-boxes.
We can only hope.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Cissi Sherlock on October 14, 2009 at 3:36pm

Heck no.

If you know me, you know I am not fat. My problem is not with the fatness of the issue. It is with government intervention.

They have fat people in Washington, will this tax help them.? I bet they will still be fat even if you tax donuts (which they plan to do with cap and trade)!

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Steve Stuck on October 15, 2009 at 9:11am

Obesity is a cost to the system but not a major one. Many states abused their tax revenues collected from cigs and now we have unfunded liablilities like SCHIP that is future burdens. I believe Pat made my post the topic about that several months ago.

The money collected will be mismanaged and people will still buy pop. The anti-smoking groups are now morphing into other factions of judgemental hypocrites in society.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Cissi Sherlock on October 15, 2009 at 11:32am

Excellent point Steve makes about how tho money will be mismanaged. It always is.

▶ Reply to This