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.
Monday, November 23, 2009
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
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?
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
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
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
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
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
Friday, November 13, 2009
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!
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Pro-tax: Last resort
40 percent of early deaths are a result of behavior choices.
Many of these early deaths can be attributed to obesity. Along with obesity comes many health problems such as diabetes, and obesity and diabetes are the only major health problems in the country that are worsening very quickly. Health Affairs has deemed heath costs from obesity extremely expensive, and costs are increasing more and more each year.
There are many contributors to obesity. People have easy access to fast and fatty foods that lack many essential nutrients. Many do not take the time to exercise, and most people travel by car as opposed to walking or biking as most did decades ago. For these, and many other reasons, obesity rates continue to rise in the U.S.
This information tells us this: we cannot leave it to individuals to initiate good health habits in their lives.
Some have called the fat tax America's last resort. Individuals lack either the motivation, or in some cases, the means to eat well. Maybe it is about time the government took over in some aspects of life...
The link feature's not working.... here are the sites I got my info from:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/16/magazine/16FOB-wwln-t.html?_r=2
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204563304574314794089897258.html
Many of these early deaths can be attributed to obesity. Along with obesity comes many health problems such as diabetes, and obesity and diabetes are the only major health problems in the country that are worsening very quickly. Health Affairs has deemed heath costs from obesity extremely expensive, and costs are increasing more and more each year.
There are many contributors to obesity. People have easy access to fast and fatty foods that lack many essential nutrients. Many do not take the time to exercise, and most people travel by car as opposed to walking or biking as most did decades ago. For these, and many other reasons, obesity rates continue to rise in the U.S.
This information tells us this: we cannot leave it to individuals to initiate good health habits in their lives.
Some have called the fat tax America's last resort. Individuals lack either the motivation, or in some cases, the means to eat well. Maybe it is about time the government took over in some aspects of life...
The link feature's not working.... here are the sites I got my info from:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/16/magazine/16FOB-wwln-t.html?_r=2
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204563304574314794089897258.html
Pro-tax: Soda taxes then and now
And now for a brief, nostalgic look into the past and present of the soda tax...1776 | Adam Smith, in his landmark Wealth of Nations, states:
Sugar, rum, and tobacco are commodities which are nowhere necessities of life, which are become objects of almost universal consumption, and which are therefore extremely proper subjects of taxation. [An Inquiry into the Nature of Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776); New York: E. P. Dutton & Co., 1910; available on Google Books.]July 2009 | President Obama tells Men’s Health magazine that taxing soda is “an idea that we should be exploring.” This quote is taken from pages 7–8 of the article:
Would the president consider so-called sin taxes, on soda and other sugar-laden products, or on activities that sabotage the health of the masses? (When I suggest this, I’m picturing tollbooths on every point of access to Vegas.)Not bad when the father of modern economics supports your cause.
“I actually think it’s an idea that we should be exploring,” the president says. There’s no doubt that our kids drink way too much soda. And every study that’s been done about obesity shows that there is as high a correlation between increased soda consumption and obesity as just about anything else. Obviously it’s not the only factor, but it is a major factor.”
But even the most powerful man on the planet needs to keep an eye on what’s politically feasible: “Obviously there is resistance on Capitol Hill to those kinds of sin taxes,” he says. “Legislators from certain states that produce sugar or corn syrup are sensitive to anything that might reduce demand for those products. And look, people’s attitude is that they don’t necessarily want Big Brother telling them what to eat or drink, and I understand that. It is true, though, that if you wanted to make a big impact on people’s health in this country, reducing things like soda consumption would be helpful.”
Monday, November 2, 2009
Anti-tax: Soda tax not the answer
Whether the government likes it or not, there is simply no way they can construct a society that has perfect conditions for healthy living. People have the ability to make their own decisions, and creating a tax on sodas and sugary drinks will not eliminate obesity. Even if sodas were completely taken out of the market, people still would still have control over all other aspects of their life that determine if they live healthily or not.
Many have compared the soda tax to the previously employed cigarette taxes. However, those taxes were effective because they targeted the indented group of people: smokers. The fat tax, on the other hand, would affect everyone. Is it fair to tax everyone?
Many are obese due to genetics and it is extremely difficult for them to lose any amount of weight at all because they gain weight more easily than the average person. Granted, some are obese due to their food and/or beverage choices.
Furthermore, is it fair to tax the obese who already have to pay medical bills for weight-related medical problems?
The government can do more to encourage healthy eating, exercise, and prevention than deeming one category as the sole contributor of obesity.
Many have compared the soda tax to the previously employed cigarette taxes. However, those taxes were effective because they targeted the indented group of people: smokers. The fat tax, on the other hand, would affect everyone. Is it fair to tax everyone?
Many are obese due to genetics and it is extremely difficult for them to lose any amount of weight at all because they gain weight more easily than the average person. Granted, some are obese due to their food and/or beverage choices.
Furthermore, is it fair to tax the obese who already have to pay medical bills for weight-related medical problems?
The government can do more to encourage healthy eating, exercise, and prevention than deeming one category as the sole contributor of obesity.
Anti-tax: Is it really the soda's fault?
I found this article from the Wall Street Journal called "Coke Didn't Make America Fat: America Needs More Exercise, Not Another Tax." by Muhtar Kent, the CEO of the Coca-Cola Company.
I encourage you to read it. Meanwhile, here's a couple of highlights:
"If we're genuinely interested in curbing obesity, we need to take a hard look in the mirror and acknowledge that it's not just about calories in. It's also about calories out.
I encourage you to read it. Meanwhile, here's a couple of highlights:
"If we're genuinely interested in curbing obesity, we need to take a hard look in the mirror and acknowledge that it's not just about calories in. It's also about calories out.
"Our industry has become an easy target in this debate. Sugar-sweetened beverages have been singled out in spite of the fact that soft drinks, energy drinks, sports drinks and sweetened bottled water combined contribute 5.5% of the calories in the average American diet, according to the National Cancer Institute. It's difficult to understand why the beverages we and others provide are being targeted as the primary cause of weight gain when 94.5% of caloric intake comes from other foods and beverages."
Commentary: He makes a good point. So, if we're going to tax the sodas which only contribute to 5.5% of our calories, why not tax the other 94.5% as well?!
"Will a soft drink tax change behavior? Two states currently have a tax on sodas—West Virginia and Arkansas—and they are among the states with the highest rates of obesity in the nation."
Commentary: Hmmm, so if it hasn't worked in those two states, what's the likelihood it'll work for the nation as a whole?
Just something else to think about...
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Pro-tax: A real Halloween fright—junk food as addictive as heroin
Junk food elicits addictive behavior in rats similar to the behaviors of rats addicted to heroin, a new study finds. Pleasure centers in the brains of rats addicted to high-fat, high-calorie diets became less responsive as the binging wore on, making the rats consume more and more food. The results, presented October 20 at the Society for Neuroscience’s annual meeting, may help explain the changes in the brain that lead people to overeat.The study’s coauthors, Paul Johnson and Paul Kenny of the Scripps Research Institute, fed the control group a high-nutrient, low-calorie diet, and fed the other group standard “junk food” fare, including Ho Hos, sausage, bacon, and cheesecake. The results are shocking, even scary.
According to the ScienceNews article, rats on the junk food diet “soon developed compulsive eating habits and became obese.” They also took in twice the amount of calories as the control rates. And “after just five days on the junk food diet, rats showed ‘profound reductions’ in the sensitivity of their brains’ pleasure centers. . . . As a result, the rats ate more food to get the same amount of pleasure.” This is similar to heroin addicts, who become habituated to the drug and need to take increasingly larger doses to feel good.
The most shocking result of the study, however, was how strong the drive to eat junk food became for the rats:
The researchers exposed the rats to a foot shock when they ate the high-fat food. Rats that had not been constantly exposed to the junk food quickly stopped eating. But the foot shock didn’t faze rats accustomed to the junk food—they continued to eat, even though they knew the shock was coming. “What we have are these core features of addiction, and these animals are hitting each one of these features,” Kenny says.This study has implications for all of us. It is a cautionary tale of sorts, revealing the dangers of a diet full of processed foods. I know it has caused me to reflect more seriously about my diet, which often consists of highly processed foods from campus vending machines. Also, the study provides valuable insight into the neuroscience of junk food. I was reminded of an interview of Dr. David Kessler, former commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration and author of The End of Overeating: Taking Control of the Insatiable American Appetite. He and several other colleagues did a study that also evaluated the neuroscience of eating, which found that what he calls “hypereating” is a “behavior that is both conditioned and driven.” We can say to millions of Americans who have a hard time resisting their food in front of them, it’s not their fault,” Kessler says. “There’s a biological reason for why it’s so hard to resist.”
At first I thought it might be too strong to say “it’s not their fault,” because people can choose what to eat, right? But as I thought about it, I considered how difficult it is to avoid food that contain fat, sugar, and sodium, or anything that doesn’t have a list of a dozen incomprehensible ingredients. And as I mentioned in my blog post last week, U.S. food policy makes ingredients like high fructose corn syrup practically inescapable. So unless you have the time and resources to grow and cook all own food, you are vulnerable to becoming addicted to processed foods. I’d say we need to change some things.
As was mentioned in previous blog posts, Shepard Smith argued that taxing a product means it “will be with us till the end of the world.” Smith’s argument, however, was that we would become addicted to the tax revenues. As it turns out, the real problem is that we can become addicted to the product itself. So, is regulation a better solution than taxation? And how much regulation is necessary? If junk food really is as addictive as heroin, it seems that completely banning it would be necessary. We often say that junk food is okay every so often, but we wouldn’t say the same of heroin. But the food and beverage industry would probably have enough power to squelch any movement toward that, and it would probably be unpopular with Twinkies-loving (and possibly Twinkies-addicted) consumers as well. Also, it would be difficult to decide on what counts as a junk food and should therefore be banned—would we base it on how much sugar, or fat, or cholesterol, it has? would we base it on the processing it goes through?
If you ask me, the real solution to this problem is serious reform of U.S. food policy to make processed foods less ubiquitous and make healthy, local food more possible. However, the farm bill isn’t up for renewal until around 2013, so I think that a soda tax would be worthwhile—but it should be implemented with more long-term strategies in mind. Also, I think the food and beverage industry and the agricultural industry has a serious responsibility to create and sell products prudently. In the aforementioned Kessler interview, Kessler said, "Have they [the food industry] understood the neuroscience? Have they understood how fat and sugar work? I don’t think so. But we now have that science. But what’s important is the fact that they have figured out—they’ve learned it experientially—what works, and they construct food to stimulate us to eat more." Now that there is further evidence to suggest that food can be designed and packaged to be addicting, I hope that company leaders choose to be responsible and ethical rather than manipulative and destructive.
Finally, a quick note on media coverage. In my research, I was amazed to see how many news sites reported on the study's findings (I first read this article from Grist, which was well-written, and even the U.K.'s Telegraph reported on it). Then I decided to search the phrase "junk food rats" on Twitter and was amazed to find pages upon pages of people tweeting and retweeting the study's findings. Although many articles get tweeted, it's impressive that a study that hasn't even been published yet—it was only presented at an academic conference—has already received so much media attention.
Friday, October 30, 2009
What'll be the impact on you?!
I've been watching all my usual sources of news or ads trying to find more instances where they talk about this soda tax issue. So far I've only been able to find one.
A few weeks ago, when I was watching TV, a commercial came on. The commercial starred a mom talking about how the government wants to place a tax on her and her family's soda consumption. As she empty's her groceries, which include a bag with a 2-liter bottle of soda in it, she talks about how the government states that it will only add a very small amount to the actual price of the soda, but she says that that small amount adds up and her family cannot afford it. She worries that while government can easily look down and say its small, for everyday people like herself, that's just not true.
So, what do you think? Will an extra tax on sodas curb your family's ability to buy it like you do now? How much of an impact will it have on your wallet?
A few weeks ago, when I was watching TV, a commercial came on. The commercial starred a mom talking about how the government wants to place a tax on her and her family's soda consumption. As she empty's her groceries, which include a bag with a 2-liter bottle of soda in it, she talks about how the government states that it will only add a very small amount to the actual price of the soda, but she says that that small amount adds up and her family cannot afford it. She worries that while government can easily look down and say its small, for everyday people like herself, that's just not true.
So, what do you think? Will an extra tax on sodas curb your family's ability to buy it like you do now? How much of an impact will it have on your wallet?
Monday, October 26, 2009
Pro-tax
On Tuesday, October 20, 2009, Brian Lehrer addressed Governor Patterson of New York on WNYC. Brian Lehrer is known for working to "maintain a balance between issues as the affect listeners, and "horse-race" pundit discussions of politics." Tuesday he initiated a conversation with the governor pertaining to New York's dire financial situation.
After a long discussion about the tightening budget and huge cuts the state would have to make before mid-December, Lehrer suggested the solution of the Soda Tax. The Governor agreed wholeheartedly that trying new revenue enhancements would substantially help their situation. Patterson stated that he had presented the idea of a Soda Tax earlier for this year's budget which legislation declined. He says that New York's situation today has passed the point where the Soda Tax can help them this year, and that budget cuts must be made instead.
The opening sentence of a New York Times article posted on the 14th of this month reads, "Deteriorating economic factors have propelled New York State's projected budget deficit to $4.1 billion, according to the state's comptroller, who warned on Wednesday that state leaders needed to do more to address an increasingly dire situation."
The public must be informed that we have to make a decision one way or another on how these payments will be made. A tax on something as highly consumed as soda could utterly change our financial situation. As Governor Patterson put it, "You can't keep voting down the ways to create revenues and then saying that you don't want to make cuts."
After a long discussion about the tightening budget and huge cuts the state would have to make before mid-December, Lehrer suggested the solution of the Soda Tax. The Governor agreed wholeheartedly that trying new revenue enhancements would substantially help their situation. Patterson stated that he had presented the idea of a Soda Tax earlier for this year's budget which legislation declined. He says that New York's situation today has passed the point where the Soda Tax can help them this year, and that budget cuts must be made instead.
The opening sentence of a New York Times article posted on the 14th of this month reads, "Deteriorating economic factors have propelled New York State's projected budget deficit to $4.1 billion, according to the state's comptroller, who warned on Wednesday that state leaders needed to do more to address an increasingly dire situation."
The public must be informed that we have to make a decision one way or another on how these payments will be made. A tax on something as highly consumed as soda could utterly change our financial situation. As Governor Patterson put it, "You can't keep voting down the ways to create revenues and then saying that you don't want to make cuts."
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Pro-tax: The U.S. farm bill—of subsidies and soda
One person who commented on an article I read suggested that it “seems silly to subsidize a product on one end, and tax it on the other, but that’s what we’ll be doing with a soda tax.” I thought this was an interesting insight, and decided to investigate further.This comment was referring to the U.S. farm bill, which covers a variety of issues, including the food stamp system and agricultural research, but is best known for its subsidies for farmers who grow crops like corn, wheat, and soybeans. (Farmers of fruits and vegetables are not eligible.)
As the argument goes, the corn subsidies make it cheap to produce high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), a common ingredient in processed foods and drinks of negligible nutritional value. And while I certainly wouldn’t argue that HFCS alone has caused the obesity epidemic, I would argue that it is unwise to continue with legislation that makes HFCS cheap and ubiquitous. (It is important to realize that the corn refiners that produce HFCS do not directly receive farm bill subsidies; however, the farm bill, by subsidizing corn crops and encouraging overproduction, does make it cheaper for corn refiners to purchase the corn.)
One writer notes that HFCS supporters stick with arguments like “corn sweetener isn’t any worse than regular sugar,” when the real issus is not so much the nutritional value—“empty calories are empty calories”—but that HFCS is so ubiquitous in our food supply. As Michael Pollan points out in his book The Omnivore’s Dilemma, of the 45,000 products in the average supermarket, more than 25 percent contain corn (p. 19).
It will probably take a full blog post to describe the dangers of the high-HFCS American diet (groups like the Corn Refiners Association would have you think it’s fine). For now, I’ll just mention a few studies that show that HFCS-laden soda affects our health. In an article published in the April 2007 issue of the American Journal of Public Health, a meta-analysis of 88 studies revealed “clear associations of soft drink intake with increased energy intake and body weight.” The article also showed that “soft drink intake was also associated with lower intakes of milk, calcium, and other nutrients” and that “studies funded by the food industry reported significantly smaller effects than did non–food-industry studies.” In a study of 548 schooldhildren, researchers found that for each additional serving of sweetened drink, the likelihood of a child’s becoming obese increases by 60 percent. And in a well-publicized policy report from the New England Journal of Medicine, proponents of a soda tax cite several other studies that confirm the link between soft drink consumption and risks for obesity, diabetes, and heart disease.
A 2006 report from the Insititute for Agriculture and Trade Policy summed it up well:
Within the U.S., the real cost of fresh fruits and vegetables has risen nearly 40 percent in the past 20 years. The real costs of soda pop, sweets, and fats and oils, on the other hand, have declined. Is it any wonder that people are eating too many calorie-dense foods high in added fats and sugars and not enough fruits and vegetables? Our misguided farm policy is making poor eating habits an economically sensible choice.Although it is often referred to as the farm bill, its current official name is the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. This bill does not simply affect farmers—it affects the way we eat, the national economy, and even the environmental impact of our amber waves of grain. So what does the future of the farm bill look like?
In April President Obama proposed significant cuts to crop subsidies, and although it’s hopeful that he’s open to change (isn’t that a nice rehash of his campaign slogans?), the farm bill is a complicated piece of legislation, and simply slashing subsidies won’t necessarily solve the problem of ubiquitous, cheap junk food. It does, however, need significant restructuring. I highly recommend this fact sheet and report from the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy. The institute recommends a number of changes to the bill, including the following: create incentives to grow crops that can be consumed locally; provide risk management and support for produce crops (rather than for commodity crops only); enhance the existing Conservation Security Program to promote crop rotation and other sustainable farming practices; support small and medium farms; provide incentives for grass-fed livestock instead of grain-fed livestock; and expand farm-to-cafeteria opportunities. I believe all of these are wise recommendations.
Most importantly, however, we need to stop using policy to keep corn prices artificially low. You could say the prices are about as artificial as the processed foods corn is used to produce. I think it’s time to get real.
Friday, October 23, 2009
Anti-tax: A bunch of wasted effort
It has been estimated that for every 8-10 percent increase in the price of sodas, consumption will experience about a ten percent decrease. While this could potentially help address some obesity issues, most would still remain unresolved. Solving obesity does not only consist of cutting down on the calories; Someone who is overweight must replace junk food with something healthy to lose weight.
Everyone knows it is more expensive to maintain a healthy diet than a poor one, and healthy foods are becoming increasingly more expensive each year. As one source in the New York Times said, "Vegetables and fruits are rapidly becoming luxury goods."
Rather than raising soda prices, the government would do better to find some way to aim subsidies at producing more fruits and vegetables. Then, the cost of healthy eating would decrease, and people would be more motivated to buy healthy foods. Also, the poor who normally eat low nutrient foods because of their low cost would also have opportunities to have a better diet and standard of living.
The soda tax does little to create an incentive for people to eat healthily. Prevention through lower produce costs would be more effective.
Everyone knows it is more expensive to maintain a healthy diet than a poor one, and healthy foods are becoming increasingly more expensive each year. As one source in the New York Times said, "Vegetables and fruits are rapidly becoming luxury goods."
Rather than raising soda prices, the government would do better to find some way to aim subsidies at producing more fruits and vegetables. Then, the cost of healthy eating would decrease, and people would be more motivated to buy healthy foods. Also, the poor who normally eat low nutrient foods because of their low cost would also have opportunities to have a better diet and standard of living.
The soda tax does little to create an incentive for people to eat healthily. Prevention through lower produce costs would be more effective.
Monday, October 19, 2009
Pro-tax: It’s a win-win
We can predict what is going to happen all day long, that this tax will or won’t decrease obesity, but the truth is experts in this field are all in disagreement. But for me, the bottom line is if there is a chance that we can help this increasing health issue of obesity, why not? Why not do something about it!
Dr. Thomas Frieden, the former New York City health commissioner, current head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and co-author of an article supporting tax on “sugared beverages” said in a conference on obesity that took place earlier this year:
"I think anything that increases the availability and decreases the relative price of healthy foods and anything that decreases the availability and increases the price of unhealthy foods is likely to be effective. The challenge, I think, is a political one of getting that approved as well as there are very important administrative and operational issues with implementation of such a tax."
We can only hope that this tax will cause people to re-think their choice in beverage and if it doesn’t work…which is a possibility…at least this money will be put towards things that will help the problems those beverages have caused.
"A tax on sugar-sweetened beverages is really a double-win," said Dr. David Ludwig, a co-author of the paper and director of the Optimal Weight for Life program at Children's Hospital, Boston. "We can raise much-needed dollars while likely reducing obesity prevalence, which is a major driver of health care costs, the paper states. Ultimately the government needs to raise more money to cover the deficit, and in terms of ways of raising that revenue, a tax on sugar sweetened beverages is really a no-brainer."
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/WellnessNews/leading-researchers-propose-tax-sugared-drinks/story?id=8594299
Dr. Thomas Frieden, the former New York City health commissioner, current head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and co-author of an article supporting tax on “sugared beverages” said in a conference on obesity that took place earlier this year:
"I think anything that increases the availability and decreases the relative price of healthy foods and anything that decreases the availability and increases the price of unhealthy foods is likely to be effective. The challenge, I think, is a political one of getting that approved as well as there are very important administrative and operational issues with implementation of such a tax."
We can only hope that this tax will cause people to re-think their choice in beverage and if it doesn’t work…which is a possibility…at least this money will be put towards things that will help the problems those beverages have caused.
"A tax on sugar-sweetened beverages is really a double-win," said Dr. David Ludwig, a co-author of the paper and director of the Optimal Weight for Life program at Children's Hospital, Boston. "We can raise much-needed dollars while likely reducing obesity prevalence, which is a major driver of health care costs, the paper states. Ultimately the government needs to raise more money to cover the deficit, and in terms of ways of raising that revenue, a tax on sugar sweetened beverages is really a no-brainer."
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/WellnessNews/leading-researchers-propose-tax-sugared-drinks/story?id=8594299
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Pro-tax: Choosing what to eat and U.S. food policy
One major argument of soda tax opponents is that the tax would deny Americans the right to choose what they eat and drink. Most notably, Coca-Cola CEO Muhtar Kent stated: “I have never seen it work where a government tells people what to eat and what to drink. If it worked, the Soviet Union would still be around.”
First, your “right” to choose what to eat and drink is nowhere in the Bill of Rights or the Constitution. You do, of course, have a wide array of wonderful rights, such as the freedom of speech and the right to due process of law. Perhaps you could argue, on the grounds of Amendment X, that the federal government does not have the right to tax you on soda, but still, the power of the states to tax soda is not prohibited therein.
Second, Americans would still be able to choose what they eat and drink. This soda tax is simply making it easier for us to choose healthier options. As the chart above shows (click on the picture for a clearer view), since the late eighties the price of fresh fruits and vegetables has been substantially higher than the price of sugary foods and carbonated drinks. Taxing soda would “level the playing field” as it were, allowing Americans to choose between healthy and unhealthy rather than expensive and inexpensive. However, it should be noted that taxing soda would be counterproductive unless we change another aspect of U.S. food policy: farm subsidies. This brings me to my final point. . .
Soda tax or not, the fact is that legislation and government policy is already dramatically affecting the American diet. According to the Farm Subsidy Database, “Over the past twelve years, taxpayers have spent $56 billion on corn subsidies paid to over 1.5 million recipients, making it the top crop for federal assistance. Wheat subsidies ranked second, which paid $22 billion to more than 1.3 million recipients, followed closely by cotton subsidies, which provided $21 billion to over 247,00 recipients over the period.”
Corn is commonly used in high fructose corn syrup, a primary ingredient in a variety of über-processed products, including Coke, Pepsi, Chips Ahoy cookies, Ritz crackers, Wonderbread, and (somewhat surprisingly) Campbell’s tomato soup.
Although Muhtar Kent opposes government intervention in the form of a soda tax, he certainly hasn’t complained of the generous corn subsidies which make it much cheaper to produce his products. Next week I’ll discuss the feasibility of reducing or eliminating corn subsidies, and whether it would be complementary to the aims of the soda tax.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Anti-tax: What are the potential consequences of income in relation to the Fat Tax?
It looks like in some articles that they are attempting to raise money through this “fat tax” in order to assist with obesity. The first problem or challenge they will face along with many other challenges is how and who defines what it unhealthy and deserves to be taxed. In this article their final statement is: “Taxes never made anyone healthy."
In an article I found online it shared some examples of the “fat tax” already being proposed and debated on in certain states. First in California there is a soda tax act introduced in the state senate that would impose a nine-cent tax on every two-liter bottle of soda sold in the state. Secondly, lawmakers in Nebraska proposed a measure to tax candy, soda, chips, popcorn, pretzels, pastries, donuts, cakes, pies, bars and cookies. And lastly, a legislator in New York proposed a tax not only on fatty foods but movie tickets, video games, and DVD rentals all under the idea that it would help people trim down. The results of these proposed “fat taxes” are:
“The only thing this kind of taxing would reduce is the size of our wallets.”
I agree.
I will pay and people in general pay and will continue to pay for what pleases them no matter the price.
In an article I found online it shared some examples of the “fat tax” already being proposed and debated on in certain states. First in California there is a soda tax act introduced in the state senate that would impose a nine-cent tax on every two-liter bottle of soda sold in the state. Secondly, lawmakers in Nebraska proposed a measure to tax candy, soda, chips, popcorn, pretzels, pastries, donuts, cakes, pies, bars and cookies. And lastly, a legislator in New York proposed a tax not only on fatty foods but movie tickets, video games, and DVD rentals all under the idea that it would help people trim down. The results of these proposed “fat taxes” are:
“The only thing this kind of taxing would reduce is the size of our wallets.”
I agree.
I will pay and people in general pay and will continue to pay for what pleases them no matter the price.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Pro-tax
Fat Tax? I Doubt It.
Quite frankly, I agree in part with Shepard Smith in the news clip below. If we tax something so loved and consumed as the American's soda, we're ensure ourselves it will be "with us till the end of the world." We will become dependent on that tax, unable to operate without it. I think the beautiful revenue that fat tax promises us is the sole reason this solution has even been suggested. If obesity is the problem, those risky foods should be controlled and not taxed, right?
After all, if fat (or health in general) was the true concern, the real question would be how we can make something so available become suddenly restricted. And even more: will setting laws limiting Americans' soda intake even made a difference? A recent study on that exact topic answered "not likely." There's simply no way, especially when such products are available all over the world, to keep soda from its cravers. Thus, soda is with us "till the end of the world" whether we tax it or not.
If it's true that the tax is implemented with the hope of reducing obesity, it is a false hope. One newspaper article stated, "Gentlemanly behavior [once] protected women from coarse behavior. Today, we expect sexual harassment laws to restrain coarse behavior." So what is to be done when human appetite supersedes the existing laws? The answer to obesity is not in this tax. This tax answers another question.
As stated in this article from the New England Journal of Medicine, "A penny-per-ounce excise tax would raise an estimated $1.2 billion in New York State alone." Even if public obesity does not decrease through this tax, public debt can. And public debt is something worth addressing:
I doubt the effectiveness of fat tax as a tax to reduce obesity, but why provoke our financial state when the means to revise this crisis are so readily available?
Quite frankly, I agree in part with Shepard Smith in the news clip below. If we tax something so loved and consumed as the American's soda, we're ensure ourselves it will be "with us till the end of the world." We will become dependent on that tax, unable to operate without it. I think the beautiful revenue that fat tax promises us is the sole reason this solution has even been suggested. If obesity is the problem, those risky foods should be controlled and not taxed, right?
After all, if fat (or health in general) was the true concern, the real question would be how we can make something so available become suddenly restricted. And even more: will setting laws limiting Americans' soda intake even made a difference? A recent study on that exact topic answered "not likely." There's simply no way, especially when such products are available all over the world, to keep soda from its cravers. Thus, soda is with us "till the end of the world" whether we tax it or not.
If it's true that the tax is implemented with the hope of reducing obesity, it is a false hope. One newspaper article stated, "Gentlemanly behavior [once] protected women from coarse behavior. Today, we expect sexual harassment laws to restrain coarse behavior." So what is to be done when human appetite supersedes the existing laws? The answer to obesity is not in this tax. This tax answers another question.
As stated in this article from the New England Journal of Medicine, "A penny-per-ounce excise tax would raise an estimated $1.2 billion in New York State alone." Even if public obesity does not decrease through this tax, public debt can. And public debt is something worth addressing:
I doubt the effectiveness of fat tax as a tax to reduce obesity, but why provoke our financial state when the means to revise this crisis are so readily available?
Anti-tax: "Don't drink yourself fat"
The New York Times has released an ad from NYC health experts that discourages consuming sugary drinks. These experts began a campaign to stress their belief that soda has a direct correlation with weight gain.
One ad shows soda being poured into a glass which contains what appears to be lard and it says, "Are you pouring on the pounds?"
Some say these ads will hopefully shock those who view them and get them to make the connection that the calories they intake from sugary drinks turn into fat later. Of course, the American Beverages Association says that these ads would do more harm than good.
Although the ads would undoubtedly make you think twice about drinking soda, the feelings evoked from ads only work for so long. I took a health class in eighth grade where I learned that in order to burn off one M & M, you would have to walk/run a lap around our gym (which was probably about 300 meters long). Although this information shocked me at first, the effects of this knowledge were very short lived. I'm proud to say that yesterday I had three peanut-butter/chocolate bars and a snicker doodle. And I have no idea how many calories that is.
This campaign is a good idea, but I feel that the effects will also be short lived.
One ad shows soda being poured into a glass which contains what appears to be lard and it says, "Are you pouring on the pounds?"
Some say these ads will hopefully shock those who view them and get them to make the connection that the calories they intake from sugary drinks turn into fat later. Of course, the American Beverages Association says that these ads would do more harm than good.
Although the ads would undoubtedly make you think twice about drinking soda, the feelings evoked from ads only work for so long. I took a health class in eighth grade where I learned that in order to burn off one M & M, you would have to walk/run a lap around our gym (which was probably about 300 meters long). Although this information shocked me at first, the effects of this knowledge were very short lived. I'm proud to say that yesterday I had three peanut-butter/chocolate bars and a snicker doodle. And I have no idea how many calories that is.
This campaign is a good idea, but I feel that the effects will also be short lived.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Anti-tax: Another tax?
Amber's REAL opinion on the FAT TAX (or soda tax, or whatever)
Although the side I took for the debate was in favor of the tax, I'm actually quite against it. I don't see how this will help us at all.
Honestly, I have issues giving the government money at all. Considering the rather unimpressive way they've handled money so far. (Need evidence? Kash for Klunkers or those wonderful bailouts.)
As for the tax itself, it's just an invitation for more taxation and less personal freedom financially. It's pretty clear that raising the price on soda won't do much to solve the obesity problem. Several factors go into causing a person to be obese, and they range from huge portion sizes to simply genetics. So if this tax is implemented, what is stopping the government from implementing taxes on fried foods or candy?
I laugh when people compare this to smoking. All the tax on cigarettes did was make our economy as dependent on them as those that use them. Those that smoke will keep smoking, and the government will keep raking in the money for it. Yeah, those kind government officials who care so much about our health are really sad about that.
I am personally not a soda drinker, because I choose that, not because water happens to be the cheaper beverage. I choose not to drink soda because I think it is a waste of calories. However, I love chocolate, and I would continue to buy chocolate even if the price doubled. The only difference is that the government would benefit from my weight gain. That doesn't really make me happy.
Do you have any thoughts on the issue? Our blog is lacking comments and I'd love to hear your thoughts, whether you agree or not. (The more controversy the better, I say. But keep it classy)
Although the side I took for the debate was in favor of the tax, I'm actually quite against it. I don't see how this will help us at all.
Honestly, I have issues giving the government money at all. Considering the rather unimpressive way they've handled money so far. (Need evidence? Kash for Klunkers or those wonderful bailouts.)
As for the tax itself, it's just an invitation for more taxation and less personal freedom financially. It's pretty clear that raising the price on soda won't do much to solve the obesity problem. Several factors go into causing a person to be obese, and they range from huge portion sizes to simply genetics. So if this tax is implemented, what is stopping the government from implementing taxes on fried foods or candy?
I laugh when people compare this to smoking. All the tax on cigarettes did was make our economy as dependent on them as those that use them. Those that smoke will keep smoking, and the government will keep raking in the money for it. Yeah, those kind government officials who care so much about our health are really sad about that.
I am personally not a soda drinker, because I choose that, not because water happens to be the cheaper beverage. I choose not to drink soda because I think it is a waste of calories. However, I love chocolate, and I would continue to buy chocolate even if the price doubled. The only difference is that the government would benefit from my weight gain. That doesn't really make me happy.
Do you have any thoughts on the issue? Our blog is lacking comments and I'd love to hear your thoughts, whether you agree or not. (The more controversy the better, I say. But keep it classy)
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Pro-tax: How has the media covered these two issues? Has one side received more attention than the other?
We all know the media to cover something heavily one-sided, this issue is no exception. Information can be found in any medium; from newspaper articles to YouTube and the majority of the time, proper allowance is not given to the amount of revenue this tax could accrue.
Understanding the scientific idea behind the tax
The media features the scientific research in their mention of the proposed tax, but usually briefly. An article in the Los Angelos Times is one that used the science behind the tax as the focus of it's article. Katie Couric from CBS News also mentions the information coming from "leading health care experts" and states the facts given by researchers.
The media has been able to identify health concerns that exist due to high soda consumption and attribute it as one of the reasons for the obesity epidemic in this country. Dr. Nancy has brought both a health concerned Dr. Kelly Brownwell and a caloric-intake conscious guest, Dr. Elizabeth Whelan to hear both sides of the tax and the possible effect it would have on the health of this country.
How the tax is portrayed
My personal favorite example of the media being one-sided on this issue is Shepard Smith on Fox News. Usually outspoken, in this segment Shepard Smith will barely allow for Deborah King to get out a sentence. He focuses heavily on the tax and it very, very against it. In this case, the media puts down the opponent, talks over the issue and become very emotional and heated over it.
Where the President stands
President Obama has said that this soda tax is, "an idea worth considering," but has not directly said that it's something he proposes to do. It could help raise the revenue that's missing from the health care debate and has been looked at as a way to curb the consumers appetite for sugary drinks.
An interesting comment
In doing this media background search I spent a lot of time on Google look for articles from newspapers and blogs and on YouTube zeroing in on the news network's portrayal of the issue. For the most part, it's safe to say that the media does not support this taxing issue. However, as you look over videos on YouTube (try entering 'soda tax' on the search line), look down at the comments on some of the videos. Of course, people agree with some of the commentators, but it's interesting to me how many people leave their comments in favor of this kind of tax while the media is not portraying this option as at all viable.
After reading some of these comments on these videos, tell me how effective these people are in swaying your opinion about the side you just heard. Some of them use the excuse, "I'm not a heavy soda drinker but..." or others use, "I drink soda daily, I'm sixty pounds overweight and..." How do you think their personal comments affect the issue of the tax? Do you trust the media or the personal comments below, and why or why not?
Understanding the scientific idea behind the tax
The media features the scientific research in their mention of the proposed tax, but usually briefly. An article in the Los Angelos Times is one that used the science behind the tax as the focus of it's article. Katie Couric from CBS News also mentions the information coming from "leading health care experts" and states the facts given by researchers.
The media has been able to identify health concerns that exist due to high soda consumption and attribute it as one of the reasons for the obesity epidemic in this country. Dr. Nancy has brought both a health concerned Dr. Kelly Brownwell and a caloric-intake conscious guest, Dr. Elizabeth Whelan to hear both sides of the tax and the possible effect it would have on the health of this country.
How the tax is portrayed
My personal favorite example of the media being one-sided on this issue is Shepard Smith on Fox News. Usually outspoken, in this segment Shepard Smith will barely allow for Deborah King to get out a sentence. He focuses heavily on the tax and it very, very against it. In this case, the media puts down the opponent, talks over the issue and become very emotional and heated over it.
Where the President stands
President Obama has said that this soda tax is, "an idea worth considering," but has not directly said that it's something he proposes to do. It could help raise the revenue that's missing from the health care debate and has been looked at as a way to curb the consumers appetite for sugary drinks.
An interesting comment
In doing this media background search I spent a lot of time on Google look for articles from newspapers and blogs and on YouTube zeroing in on the news network's portrayal of the issue. For the most part, it's safe to say that the media does not support this taxing issue. However, as you look over videos on YouTube (try entering 'soda tax' on the search line), look down at the comments on some of the videos. Of course, people agree with some of the commentators, but it's interesting to me how many people leave their comments in favor of this kind of tax while the media is not portraying this option as at all viable.
After reading some of these comments on these videos, tell me how effective these people are in swaying your opinion about the side you just heard. Some of them use the excuse, "I'm not a heavy soda drinker but..." or others use, "I drink soda daily, I'm sixty pounds overweight and..." How do you think their personal comments affect the issue of the tax? Do you trust the media or the personal comments below, and why or why not?
Pro-tax: Is this tax an effective way to address the obesity issue?
Let's start with an overview of what proponents of the soda tax are asserting:
Tax soda & sugary drinks >> Reduce consumption of said drinks >> Reduce obesity rates >> Reduce health care costs (which are affected by high obesity rates—$90–100 billion) AND raise revenue
It may sound too good, and too simple, to be true, but I argue that it really does add up.
Reducing consumption
The first concern with the diagram above is whether a tax will effectively reduce consumption of sugary drinks. Economics tells us that, in general, a tax on any good will lower the amount people consume. The amount of that change, however, depends on the elasticity of demand for that good.
Now, for a quick explanation of elasticity. The more substitutes there are to replace the taxed good, the more people will use those substitutes instead of the now-more-expensive good. An example of a good with low elasticity is gasoline—if the price increases, although people may make small changes (like do their errands all in one trip or carpool) they would have to make drastic changes (like move closer to work or buy a new hybrid car) to significantly reduce consumption of gasoline. So even though prices increase, demand and consumption remain fairly steady. Sugary drinks, however, are more elastic goods. Because there are plenty of substitutes, consumption is likely to be significantly reduced when prices rise.
Okay, so sugary drinks are elastic. Now we need to determine how much pricier the drinks need to be before people start choosing other (hopefully more healthful) goods.
In May, the Senate Finance Committee discussed a variety of options to fund health care reform. One of the considerations was a tax of one cent per ounce on sugary drinks. This was estimated to raise about $16 million per year in revenue, and for consumers, it would mean about a 20 percent increase in price. (Note: Energy drinks and sports drinks would be included; diet sodas would be exempt.)
Interestingly, the Baucus plan does not mention a tax on drinks.
So is this proposed tax high enough to reduce consumption? Most news stories cited an April 2009 article in the New England Journal of Medicine, stating that a penny-per-ounce tax could reduce consumption of sugary beverages by more than 10 percent. The article itself cites several studies that showed price increases could indeed reduce consumption.
Why single out soda?
Sure, the tax can reduce consumption, but we also need to prove that reducing consumption of soda can actually help reduce obesity. A common argument against the tax is that soda is not the only contributing factor to obesity, so it is unfair and ineffective to single it out for taxation. Kevin Keane, senior vice president for public affairs of the American Beverage Association, stated, “When it comes to losing weight, all calories count, regardless of food source.”
All calories do count, but calories aren’t the only thing that counts when it comes to weight and well-being. Nutritional value matters too, and soda offers very little of that. Instead, numerous studies show that regular consumption of soda is linked to weight gain (like this one and this one) as well as tooth decay.
One study from the National Cancer Institute found that soft drinks provide a larger percentage of calories to overweight youths than to other youths. For the teenage boys surveyed, soft drinks provided 10.3 percent of the calories consumed by overweight boys, but 7.6 percent of the calories consumed by normal weight boys. Both groups had a similar overall caloric intake.
In an intervention study of British schoolchildren ages 7 to 11, researchers studied the effect of strongly encouraging children in half the classes to drink less “fizzy” drinks. After one year, the percentage of overweight and obese children in the “drink less” group remained the same, but increased by 7.5 percent in the control group.
Also, as one New York Times columnist puts it, Keane’s argument is “akin to saying that when I have only partial responsibility, I have no responsibility. . . . Assuredly, many factors affect our weight. But it doesn’t follow that because a policy fails to address all of them, it should not address any.”
I think that the soda tax is definitely a good start, but of course it would be most effective if it were implemented in conjunction with other policies and campaigns. These measures will make it more likely that people will substitute their taxed soda with more healthful things. Here are some possible policies:
--Use revenues to fund obesity prevention/treatment programs, particularly for children.
--Reduce or eliminate corn subsidies, which primarily subsidizes high fructose corn syrup, which is a major ingredient in soda, and which is pretty bad all-around.
--Subsidize healthy foods. (Fresh produce is still significantly more expensive than sweets and soft drinks.)
--Reduce advertising of sugary drinks to children.
A matter of responsibility
Some people have also criticized the idea of a tax on soda because, they argue, people should just take personal responsibility and eat right without being nudged along by an invisible hand.
But as one writer argues, we live in a “toxic food environment” that “pushes self-control and long-term planning beyond what the average mind can handle.” Because unhealthy food is cheap, appealing, and readily available, we constantly have to avoid the temptation to indulge. And when you add in complications like food addictions, it gets even messier. Overall, it’s an uphill battle for even the most conscientious consumer. It’s about time we asked the beverage industry to take some responsibility.
Tax soda & sugary drinks >> Reduce consumption of said drinks >> Reduce obesity rates >> Reduce health care costs (which are affected by high obesity rates—$90–100 billion) AND raise revenue
It may sound too good, and too simple, to be true, but I argue that it really does add up.
Reducing consumption
The first concern with the diagram above is whether a tax will effectively reduce consumption of sugary drinks. Economics tells us that, in general, a tax on any good will lower the amount people consume. The amount of that change, however, depends on the elasticity of demand for that good.
Now, for a quick explanation of elasticity. The more substitutes there are to replace the taxed good, the more people will use those substitutes instead of the now-more-expensive good. An example of a good with low elasticity is gasoline—if the price increases, although people may make small changes (like do their errands all in one trip or carpool) they would have to make drastic changes (like move closer to work or buy a new hybrid car) to significantly reduce consumption of gasoline. So even though prices increase, demand and consumption remain fairly steady. Sugary drinks, however, are more elastic goods. Because there are plenty of substitutes, consumption is likely to be significantly reduced when prices rise.
Okay, so sugary drinks are elastic. Now we need to determine how much pricier the drinks need to be before people start choosing other (hopefully more healthful) goods.
In May, the Senate Finance Committee discussed a variety of options to fund health care reform. One of the considerations was a tax of one cent per ounce on sugary drinks. This was estimated to raise about $16 million per year in revenue, and for consumers, it would mean about a 20 percent increase in price. (Note: Energy drinks and sports drinks would be included; diet sodas would be exempt.)
Interestingly, the Baucus plan does not mention a tax on drinks.
So is this proposed tax high enough to reduce consumption? Most news stories cited an April 2009 article in the New England Journal of Medicine, stating that a penny-per-ounce tax could reduce consumption of sugary beverages by more than 10 percent. The article itself cites several studies that showed price increases could indeed reduce consumption.
Why single out soda?
Sure, the tax can reduce consumption, but we also need to prove that reducing consumption of soda can actually help reduce obesity. A common argument against the tax is that soda is not the only contributing factor to obesity, so it is unfair and ineffective to single it out for taxation. Kevin Keane, senior vice president for public affairs of the American Beverage Association, stated, “When it comes to losing weight, all calories count, regardless of food source.”
All calories do count, but calories aren’t the only thing that counts when it comes to weight and well-being. Nutritional value matters too, and soda offers very little of that. Instead, numerous studies show that regular consumption of soda is linked to weight gain (like this one and this one) as well as tooth decay.
One study from the National Cancer Institute found that soft drinks provide a larger percentage of calories to overweight youths than to other youths. For the teenage boys surveyed, soft drinks provided 10.3 percent of the calories consumed by overweight boys, but 7.6 percent of the calories consumed by normal weight boys. Both groups had a similar overall caloric intake.
In an intervention study of British schoolchildren ages 7 to 11, researchers studied the effect of strongly encouraging children in half the classes to drink less “fizzy” drinks. After one year, the percentage of overweight and obese children in the “drink less” group remained the same, but increased by 7.5 percent in the control group.
Also, as one New York Times columnist puts it, Keane’s argument is “akin to saying that when I have only partial responsibility, I have no responsibility. . . . Assuredly, many factors affect our weight. But it doesn’t follow that because a policy fails to address all of them, it should not address any.”
I think that the soda tax is definitely a good start, but of course it would be most effective if it were implemented in conjunction with other policies and campaigns. These measures will make it more likely that people will substitute their taxed soda with more healthful things. Here are some possible policies:
--Use revenues to fund obesity prevention/treatment programs, particularly for children.
--Reduce or eliminate corn subsidies, which primarily subsidizes high fructose corn syrup, which is a major ingredient in soda, and which is pretty bad all-around.
--Subsidize healthy foods. (Fresh produce is still significantly more expensive than sweets and soft drinks.)
--Reduce advertising of sugary drinks to children.
A matter of responsibility
Some people have also criticized the idea of a tax on soda because, they argue, people should just take personal responsibility and eat right without being nudged along by an invisible hand.
But as one writer argues, we live in a “toxic food environment” that “pushes self-control and long-term planning beyond what the average mind can handle.” Because unhealthy food is cheap, appealing, and readily available, we constantly have to avoid the temptation to indulge. And when you add in complications like food addictions, it gets even messier. Overall, it’s an uphill battle for even the most conscientious consumer. It’s about time we asked the beverage industry to take some responsibility.
Anti-tax: Can an effective health care plan be created without addressing obesity?
You like the picture? You'll have to read on to get the explanation.
Until then think about this…
“The current health-care system gives insurance companies all the power. They get to pick and choose who gets a policy. They can deny coverage because of a preexisting condition. They can offer coverage only at exorbitant rates — or offer coverage so thin that it's no coverage at all. Americans are left to worry about whether they'll get laid off and lose their insurance or wake up from surgery with a $10,000 bill because they didn't read the fine print on their policy.” -HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius
People who suffer with obesity deserve the right to health care. The health care they need is to lose weight. Only a physician can best diagnose your weight issue and give you the options according to your health and lifestyle. It is important to work with your doctor in this journey. So without directly addressing obesity, health care can still be effective because it eliminates any pre-existing condition clauses.
Think about…CAPITALISM
Capitalism is America’s baby and if messed with ugly heads will be raised. With health care reform the government is backed by many large Fortune 500 companies to lend its support. Tackling health care reform with the addition of addressing obesity directly gets more complicated. “Cheap food is going to be popular as long as the social and environmental costs of that food are charged to the future. There's lots of money to be made selling fast food and then treating the diseases that fast food causes. One of the leading products of the American food industry has become patients for the American health care industry.” Including obesity directly into health care could befuddle it to be enacted.
Think about…ALTERNATE SOLUTIONS
Michelle Obama has planted a garden. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints promotes its members to not eat anything that would harm the body. Tobacco companies are targeted in anti-smoking ads on television. There are many ways that people can hear the message about obesity without it being included in the health care bill. PETA's billboard at the top of the post is a perfect example of how obesity, a crucial issue, can be addressed by an organization other than the government. Health care is already such a sensitive subject, why clutter it with ideas that can be expressed through other channels.
Anti-tax: What are the potential consequences of income (and obesity) in relation to the fat tax?
There are many reasons the “fat tax” would not be beneficial. Here I will state a few in relation to income and obesity. “Why are we going to be taxed for the 'fatty' foods we choose to eat?”, “Where will that [tax] money go?”
SOME OF THE CONSEQUENCES THAT COME FROM THE “FAT TAX” ON INCOME:
There is an argument “that this fat tax would not be ineffective as it would AFFECT the income of the poor relatively more than the rich.” (From Ben Mahilum, a writer for the OECD Observer.)
The reason being is that the people with poor income usually tend to buy more of the processed, sweet, fatty, un-healthy foods, because they are able to afford it; more so than purchasing a diet full of fresh fruits and vegetables that cost a higher price.
Not only would this fat tax raise significant challenges – it would affect EVERYONE. The government may be attempting to use this “fat tax” in order to help society with the obesity issue or it may be using this “fat tax” to assist with the health care reform, either way it’s not getting down to the real issue! A quote of the “Fat Tax” debate online says, “Regardless of the decisions that politician make on taxation, taxes along CANNOT begin to address the larger problems – health-related, social and ECONOMIC!”
SOME OF THE CONSEQUENCES THAT COME FROM THE “FAT TAX” ON INCOME:
There is an argument “that this fat tax would not be ineffective as it would AFFECT the income of the poor relatively more than the rich.” (From Ben Mahilum, a writer for the OECD Observer.)
The reason being is that the people with poor income usually tend to buy more of the processed, sweet, fatty, un-healthy foods, because they are able to afford it; more so than purchasing a diet full of fresh fruits and vegetables that cost a higher price.
Not only would this fat tax raise significant challenges – it would affect EVERYONE. The government may be attempting to use this “fat tax” in order to help society with the obesity issue or it may be using this “fat tax” to assist with the health care reform, either way it’s not getting down to the real issue! A quote of the “Fat Tax” debate online says, “Regardless of the decisions that politician make on taxation, taxes along CANNOT begin to address the larger problems – health-related, social and ECONOMIC!”
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Pro-tax: Can an effective health care plan be created without addressing obesity?
Whether or not you agree with the fat tax, obesity is a growing problem in America--pun intended. These obese related issues don't help our pathetic health care problems either... If Obama thinks that his new health care plan will be effective without addressing America's rapidly growing waist band, then his hope for change will end up trashed. Buried beneath a pile of good intentions along with the thousands of 'get skinny quick' diets America promotes every week.
With $2.3 trillion devoted yearly to health care issues, and $263 billion spent to treat obesity and other ‘over-weight’ related problems, it is no surprise that Americans are looking for a restructured health care situation.
Recent studies show that an estimated 30 percent of the increase in health care spending over the last 20 years can be attributed to the soaring rate of obesity. With nearly a tenth of all the multi-trillion dollar investment every year going into obese related issues, it is something that is not easily overlooked. Yet upon being asked if the existing health care issues would change, Obama stated that if "you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan." Which is exactly what America needs to hear to get into shape-- just keep eating what you've been eating. I don't care how much charisma you have, people need motivation to change or they are going to keep getting fatter.
Even if the most efficient health care system was developed and implemented, it would not attribute to confront the rising tide of chronic disease that is directly linked to poor diet without addressing fat tax related issues.
Now I am not proposing that the fat tax is the only way, or even the best way for that matter, to address America's obesity problem. But it is absurd to think that an effective health care plan can be created without addressing America's obesity problem.
There is no magic wand, or quick fix to get healthy or to decrease the amount of spending on obese related issues. If America really wants a health care plan that is going to work, they need to lay off the donuts, ease up on the soda, and do some exercise-- it's not going to kill you.
With $2.3 trillion devoted yearly to health care issues, and $263 billion spent to treat obesity and other ‘over-weight’ related problems, it is no surprise that Americans are looking for a restructured health care situation.
Recent studies show that an estimated 30 percent of the increase in health care spending over the last 20 years can be attributed to the soaring rate of obesity. With nearly a tenth of all the multi-trillion dollar investment every year going into obese related issues, it is something that is not easily overlooked. Yet upon being asked if the existing health care issues would change, Obama stated that if "you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan." Which is exactly what America needs to hear to get into shape-- just keep eating what you've been eating. I don't care how much charisma you have, people need motivation to change or they are going to keep getting fatter.
Even if the most efficient health care system was developed and implemented, it would not attribute to confront the rising tide of chronic disease that is directly linked to poor diet without addressing fat tax related issues.
Now I am not proposing that the fat tax is the only way, or even the best way for that matter, to address America's obesity problem. But it is absurd to think that an effective health care plan can be created without addressing America's obesity problem.
There is no magic wand, or quick fix to get healthy or to decrease the amount of spending on obese related issues. If America really wants a health care plan that is going to work, they need to lay off the donuts, ease up on the soda, and do some exercise-- it's not going to kill you.
Anti-tax: Is this fat tax an effective way to address the obesity issue?
The average person consumes 120 calories more per day from sugary drinks today than three decades ago. That being said, one might think a tax on soda would help cut down on increasing obesity in the U.S. Would a tax really make a difference though? I doubt it.
Taxes do reduce demand, there’s no doubt about that. However, the fat taxes that are being proposed would not pertain to all sugary foods. In fact, Gatorade, lemonade, other juice fruits, and chocolate milk all have many calories as well. If a person wanted to get a sugar fix, he would not have to get it from soda. The tax would reduce soda sales but would do nothing to reduce obesity, since soda is not the only cause.
“Fat taxes” have been trialed in many states, but most have repealed them. In the states that did keep these taxes, however, there still was no noticeable difference in the obesity of their citizens.
Having a tax on soda seems like a good idea, but unfortunately there are a lot more components to weight problems than carbonated beverages. These taxes would most likely not yield the results they were intended for.
Taxes do reduce demand, there’s no doubt about that. However, the fat taxes that are being proposed would not pertain to all sugary foods. In fact, Gatorade, lemonade, other juice fruits, and chocolate milk all have many calories as well. If a person wanted to get a sugar fix, he would not have to get it from soda. The tax would reduce soda sales but would do nothing to reduce obesity, since soda is not the only cause.
“Fat taxes” have been trialed in many states, but most have repealed them. In the states that did keep these taxes, however, there still was no noticeable difference in the obesity of their citizens.
Having a tax on soda seems like a good idea, but unfortunately there are a lot more components to weight problems than carbonated beverages. These taxes would most likely not yield the results they were intended for.
A look at our plans, our purpose, and our process
Purpose
-To gain real-world experience as media advocates for social change.
-To engage in a form of civic journalism--to provide to our classmates, and anyone else who stumbles upon our blog, with a thoughtful, responsible gathering of information on the soda tax issue.
Process
-Set up blog (check!).
-Publish blog posts covering the four required debate questions.
-Present debate in class.
-Set up social media (Facebook and/or Twitter).
-Spread the word!
-Update blog (one post per person per week) and social media (two posts per person per week).
-Comment on articles relevant to the topic and link back to this blog (one comment per person per week).
-Write group paper towards the end of the semester to reflect on what we learned.
Guiding Principles
-Does it help readers/followers understand the issue better?
-Is there evidence and logic to back up your statements?
-Is your media advocacy ethical and responsible?
-Blog posts: Should be at least 200 words; must cite at least two other sources (and link to them if possible); must be on topic.
-Social media posts: May be a link back to a new blog post, a link to a related article, or just an interesting thought.
-To gain real-world experience as media advocates for social change.
-To engage in a form of civic journalism--to provide to our classmates, and anyone else who stumbles upon our blog, with a thoughtful, responsible gathering of information on the soda tax issue.
Process
-Set up blog (check!).
-Publish blog posts covering the four required debate questions.
-Present debate in class.
-Set up social media (Facebook and/or Twitter).
-Spread the word!
-Update blog (one post per person per week) and social media (two posts per person per week).
-Comment on articles relevant to the topic and link back to this blog (one comment per person per week).
-Write group paper towards the end of the semester to reflect on what we learned.
Guiding Principles
-Does it help readers/followers understand the issue better?
-Is there evidence and logic to back up your statements?
-Is your media advocacy ethical and responsible?
-Blog posts: Should be at least 200 words; must cite at least two other sources (and link to them if possible); must be on topic.
-Social media posts: May be a link back to a new blog post, a link to a related article, or just an interesting thought.
Monday, October 5, 2009
Recommended links
We promise, this list will get more extensive as we do more research!
Pro-tax links
Yale University's Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity
Liquid Candy
Anti-tax links
Americans Against Food Taxes
Pro-tax links
Yale University's Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity
Liquid Candy
Anti-tax links
Americans Against Food Taxes
Saturday, October 3, 2009
Welcome to the blog
In our Media Advocacy and Social Change class, we were assigned a group debate project. Here are the instructions:
Click here to view the post on our plans, our process, and our purpose.
Students will get the opportunity to suggest their final groups of 6-8 students. After I have finalized the groups, during the semester you will have the opportunity as a group to divide in two. One side will play President Barack Obama and one side will play the Republican opposition. In about 30 minutes, the debates will follow such topic areas as the economy, social policy, international policy, and military intervention. The questions will be prepared beforehand consulting with me, and the oral answers in class will be graded on depth and thoroughness in responding to the questions. Fellow students will have evaluation forms that will count as quizzes for them and will be used in the follow-up class discussion. PowerPoint or other audio-visual materials may be used if desired. Each individual team member will submit a paper for grading on their individual question with rebuttal from the class session. You will also have an opportunity to rate your fellow group members’ participation that will affect the final participation grades.Our group decided to debate the proposed tax on fatty/sugary foods and drinks. Both groups will be addressing the following questions:
1. What are the potential consequences of income and obesity in relation to this tax?We will present our debate in class, but we also wanted to take the debate beyond the classroom and disseminate our ideas using this blog, social media, and anything else we come up with. So, we hope you'll take a look at what both sides have to say, and we hope you will find both sides useful in helping you better understand this issue.
2. Is this fat tax an effective way to address the obesity issue? Is it an effective way to raise revenue?
3. Can an effective health care plan be created without addressing obesity?
4. How has the media covered these two issues? Has one side received more attention than the other?
Click here to view the post on our plans, our process, and our purpose.