NPR: Why making healthful foods cheaper isn't enough

I just read this interesting report from NPR about why taxing unhealthy foods is more effective than subsidizing or otherwise reducing the cost of healthy foods. Check it out.

Interview: Jessica Badger of the American Beverage Association

As part of our project, we are required to interview someone who is involved in the issue that we are campaigning for. I chose to interview someone from Americans Against Food Taxes (AAFT), a coalition spearheaded by the American Beverage Association (ABA). My interviewee is Jessica Badger, communications manager for the American Beverage Association.

Although the coalition is actively opposed to a soda tax—whereas I am actively supportive of a soda tax—I thought it would be interesting to interview someone from AAFT because they have been the most prominent in the debate over the issue. I appreciate that representatives at AAFT took the time to respond to my questions, and I hope you will find them as enlightening as I have.

What is your role or title in the organization? What are your primary duties?

I am a member of the communications team with the American Beverage Association (ABA), the organization spearheading the Americans Against Food Taxes coalition. In this capacity, our primary role is to inform and educate various stakeholders, including the media and the public, about the soda tax issue and why it is the wrong policy to address obesity.

How long have you been involved with Americans Against Food Taxes?

The AAFT coalition launched in June.

What motivated you to get involved?

ABA spearheaded AAFT to bring together individuals, businesses and community organizations who believe that beverage taxes are the wrong approach to reducing obesity and also are concerned that such taxes would have a negative impact on our consumers, employees and businesses.

Did you have any previous experience with public relations, advertising or campaigning?

I have worked as a communications professional for nearly seven years, almost four of which have been with the American Beverage Association.

You have implemented a variety of media, including press releases, TV ads, Twitter, YouTube and a Web site. What other forms of media have you chosen to use? What medium, in your opinion, has been most efficient or effective in getting your message across? Why?

We have utilized both traditional and non-traditional media in our proactive and reactive efforts around the soda tax issue. Reactively, our organization responds to negative articles and news stories on the soda tax through media outreach, rapid response efforts including letters to the editor and news releases/statements. ABA and AAFT also have proactively earned media through pitching media outlets and engaging them in discussion of the facts. Oftentimes, our perspective has earned AAFT equal time from networks, blogs and newspapers. One example of this was ABA President and CEO Susan Neely’s “Solutions, Not Soundbites” opinion-editorial which ran in The Huffington Post earlier this year and was pitched aggressively by our team to counter a previous opinion piece in support of a beverage tax.

All of these methods work to reinforce the message that we’re not going to solve the complexities of the health care system with a tax on soda pop.

Why do you think it’s important for citizens to get involved to promote a cause?

By joining a coalition such as AAFT, Americans can make their voice heard, which sends a powerful message to our elected officials.

How long has AAFT been around? How did it come to be?

AAFT was established in June 2009 in response to a proposed federal tax on sugar-sweetened beverages.

How many people are currently involved in AAFT?

AAFT is comprised of nearly 500 member organizations and more than 75,000 individual petition signers. In addition, individuals have sent more than 130,000 letters to their representatives in Congress, telling them to oppose food and beverage taxes.

Do you have a mix of professionals and volunteers? How have the professionals helped the cause? How have volunteers contributed?

The coalition is spearheaded by the ABA and works collectively to push out information and inform others about AAFT.

Since AAFT is closely linked with the American Beverage Association, have you faced criticism that you represent industry interests rather than the interests of the average American? How do you respond to that?

It is important to note that a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages would impact American families, not just our industry. Those involved in the coalition, petition signers and individuals who have written to their representatives are all echoing the same message: A tax on sodas will not work. A tax won’t make people healthier. And with the economic downturn, there could not be a worse time to ask people to pay more.

How do you feel that special-interest organizations, and AAFT specifically, benefit the public debate?

It’s important that lawmakers are informed on the issues. Soft drink sales have declined 9.6 percent since 2000, but CDC data shows that adult and childhood obesity rates have risen during that period. And the only two states that have excise taxes on soda in place, West Virginia and Arkansas, rank among the ten highest rates of obesity in the nation. Groups like AAFT allow their members to share information and to be heard, loud and clear, in a unified voice.

Pro-tax

Dropping all beliefs that the fat tax exists solely for the money, and exploring the idea that the government may simply want to instigate it for the benefit of the people, what is the effect a Soda Tax could have on our society?

It seems to be a last resort for a society that simply is not responding to earlier appeals that we make healthier choices in our diets. The CSPI (Center for Science in Public Interest), for example, has been around since 1971 working to educate the public on factual health information. American obesity continues to be on the rise and pop consumption is a major player in that.

In a CSPI pamphlet, it is stated, "In 2000, we helped found an impressive coalition of more than 300 health, professional, and other groups--the National Alliance for Nutrition and Activity--to press Congress to provide even greater funding. Still, the amount the government spends to promote nutrition is only a fraction of what industry invests in urging Americans to eat junk food and drink soda."

The fact remains that junk food and soda are a huge part of the American diet. Earlier, CSPI worked to address that by threatening certain companies. Their pamphlet also states, "The threat or filing of lawsuits is spurring major brands, such as Tropicana, Aunt Jemima, and Quaker, to stop deceiving consumers and pressuring soft drink companies to pull sugary sodas and other high-calorie drinks out of schools. Partly as a result of CSPI's efforts, soft-drink makers voluntarily removed soda from elementary schools."

So in many cases soda was removed from public schools, but did that move make any real difference? Obesity is one of the leading factors that instigate other illnesses and injuries, filling our hospitals and draining our Medicare and Medicaid plans. When a people are unable to govern themselves in a safe manner, isn't it right that their leaders step in?

Anti-tax: All calories count

One proposed purpose of the Soda Tax is to help Americans become healthier and fight the growing obesity problem in our country. However, Kevin W. Keane, senior vice president for public affairs of the American Beverage Association, says it is wrongheaded to single out soda “when it comes to losing weight, all calories count, regardless of the food source.” If we are targeting soda as the source of extra fat why not go straight to the super sweet stuff, candy. But then again meat can also be healthy depending on how much is eaten. Everything can cause weight gain if eaten out of proportion. What is lacking in our society is not more restrictions but self-control. Government restriction should not be extended to what we can and can’t eat. “I have never seen it work where a government tells people what to eat and what to drink,” Muhtar Kent Coca-Cola CEO told the Rotary Club of Atlanta last month. “If it worked, the Soviet Union would still be around.”

The University of Illinois also did a study of the relationship between fat taxes like the soda tax and food consumption, obesity and weight gain. According to a press release from the University of Illinois "Previous economic studies suggest that food prices do change consumption. However, the researchers want to determine if, for example, consumers will seek out another high-sugar drink such as Kool-Aid if, say, soda is too expensive. If they do, then a tax on soda may reduce soda consumption but will not necessarily reduce weight, improve diet quality, or reduce overall sugar intake."

Written by Bekah

Anti-tax: One big band-aid?

One of the biggest problems with the proposed Soda Tax is that in essence it is a solve-all solution with a complex problem. It is a band-aid for a tummy ache, or in this case a growing tummy. Kelly Brownell, a professor of psychology and director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale University argues that MORE than just the Soda Tax will lead to real change. Community programs to fight obesity and encourage active lifestyles are needed as well as a major re-haul on the way food is marketed. “Until healthful foods routinely cost less than unhealthful ones, getting people -- especially low-income people -- to eat them will remain a challenge, he says.”

From everything that Brownell and many others are pushing for in lieu of the Soda Tax argument one thing stands out, government involvement. Shouldn’t weight problems, exercise and diet be a matter of personal responsibility? Should the government influence what kind of food you buy?

Jennifer LaRue Huget, a columnist for the Washington Post argues that the entire “band-aid” of the Soda Tax “smacks of paternalism and over-reliance on government intervention . . . Brownell counters that the ubiquity and marketing of fattening food stack the deck against individual willpower, and their allure is more than many people can resist on their own, no matter how responsible they are.” Two major problems with the Soda Tax are brought up here- it is a solve-all solution for a complex problem and it requires TOO much government intervention.

Written by Bekah

Pro-tax: Existing state soda taxes

Opponents of a soda tax often argue that dozens of states already have taxes on soda, and none of them have effectively reduced obesity. In particular, some have cited that Mississippi, the most obese state in the Union (at 32.8 percent of the population), has a tax on soda; therefore, they say, the soda tax must be ineffective.

Indeed, these state soda taxes have had little effect on obesity rates. Fortunately these state taxes have, at the very least, raised more than a billion dollars a year. However, as the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) states, "Unfortunately, existing state taxes are too small to significantly reduce consumption and almost none of the revenues are earmarked for health promotion." I have emphasized these points in earlier blog posts: the tax must be significant enough to reduce consumption, and the revenues are best used promoting health and preventing obesity, particularly with children.

As I mentioned in an early blog post, an article in the New England Journal of Medicine stated that a penny-per-ounce tax could reduce consumption of sugary beverages by more than 10 percent. Assuming that an average 12-ounce can of soda costs 60 cents, and that my math is right, this means about a 20 percent tax on soda. But according to my analysis of this data for state soda taxes in 2008, the average tax rate for soda sold in vending machines was 3.981, and the average tax rate for soda sold elsewhere (e.g., convenience stores and grocery stores) was 3.319. The 2008 highest tax rate for vending machine soda was 8 percent; the highest tax rate for non–vending machine soda was 7 percent. (Feel free to comment if you have questions about my calculations.) These are less than half of the recommended 20 percent; therefore it is no surprise that these taxes have had little effect on the consumption of soda and on obesity rates. In this case, the tax must be significant to have any effect on consumption.

I recommend checking out CSPI's Liquid Candy website. I found information for this blog post there, and it has a great compilation of resources related to the soda tax issue. Also, this is where I got the picture for this post. Enjoy!