Pro-tax: A real Halloween fright—junk food as addictive as heroin

Not only is junk food unhealthy for you, it may be addicting. A recently released study shows that the brain responds to a steady diet of junk food similar to the way it responds to heroin. As reported by ScienceNews:

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.

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?

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."

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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)

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?

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.

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!”

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.

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.

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.

Contact us

We want your feedback! Contact us by sending an e-mail to thesodatax@gmail.com.

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

Welcome to the blog

In our Media Advocacy and Social Change class, we were assigned a group debate project. Here are the instructions:

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?
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?

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.

Click here to view the post on our plans, our process, and our purpose.