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.