Saving the world one tax at a time might sound like a silly notion. Not to those who want a soda tax to control people's consumption habits in the name of fighting obesity.
On ABC's April 8 "World News with Charles Gibson," John Berman reported that soft drinks were making people fat - something you don't see in soft drink advertisements.
"If you watch the commercials, soft drinks make us sing, soft drinks make us smile," Berman said. "But researchers say they also make us fat."
So, to address this problem, Berman consulted Kelly Brownell, director of the Rudd Center for Obesity at Yale University who agreed.
"There are many contributors to the obesity problem," Brownell said. "But if you look at scientific studies - consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages would be at or near the top of the list."
According to Berman, the average American drinks 50 cans of soda a month - more than any other beverage, but did not differentiate between sugar-sweetened and artificial-sweetened soft drinks. Nevertheless, he suggested controlling widespread soda consumption might be reduced by taxation.
"Today's editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine says one of the best ways to reduce this intake is to tax it," Berman added.
Brownell described the suggested tax as a "public health homerun." However, neither Brownell nor Berman emphasized people's right to consume what they want.
"A one-penny-per-ounce tax on sugared beverages could lead to about a 10 percent reduction in consumption, which could be a public health homerun," Brownell said.
Berman compared a proposed soda tax with the effectiveness of a cigarette tax. However, even with a tax on cigarettes, it only reduced smoking in adults by 2 percent and teens by 7 percent and not the 10 percent as he reported a soda tax might. Nonetheless, Berman blamed "lobbying" by the beverage industry for preventing this "public health homerun" from becoming law and the ensuing windfall that would come from it.
"There is a historic precedent - look at cigarette taxes," Berman added. "Studies estimate a 10-percent hike in cigarette prices led to a 2-percent reduction in adult smoking rates and a 7-percent reduction in teen smoking. But a recent effort to tax sugared drinks like soda in New York and raise more than $400 million in revenue died after fierce lobbying from the beverage industry."
Susan K. Neely, president of the American Beverage Association, explained that soft drinks didn't play a role in the obesity epidemic - that consuming too much is the problem.
"Soft drinks don't play any role in the obesity epidemic," Neely explained. "Soft drinks are just a fun beverage along with a lot of other beverages and foods that we like to eat or drink. It's eating too much of something that is a problem."
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
How about a mainstream news
Thu, 04/09/2009 - 09:43 ET by mattmHow about a mainstream news tax to combat ignorance?
dittos
Thu, 04/09/2009 - 10:58 ET by 10ksnookerLOL!!!
A Carrie Nation Tax?
Thu, 04/09/2009 - 11:42 ET by allanfSo how do today's statists diiffer from the intolerant Carrie Nations of a century ago?
I think it should be called a "Carrie Nation Tax"
The New England Journal of Medicine should stay out of politics if it wants to be a non-profit.
You win! Isn't the soda tax
Thu, 04/09/2009 - 12:47 ET by TheConservativeChemistYou win!
Isn't the soda tax already on the books in some states, where you pay 5-10 cents extra in their hopes you WON'T redeem the bottles/cans?
CONGRESS IS COVERED (well covered)
Thu, 04/09/2009 - 13:30 ET by reelman46HEALTH COVERAGE: CONGRESS STYLE
Ever
wonder why people spend a million to get a job paying under $175k? Our
arrogant congressional royalty…you know, the one that raises its own
pay in a severe recession and lusts only for 40 years in the D.C. power
bubble, that royalty.
Ever realized their health care coverage WE pay for with taxes?
According to the May 2009 CR…
this is what they have in their FEDERAL Employees Health Benefits Program:
1…No annual or lifetime limits for major services
2…$300 deductible per person and $600 per family
3…Limited 5k a year they pay with preferred providers (which includes most deductibles, co-insurance and co-pays)
Covered Services are:
1…In and out-patient care, visits, surgery and mental health care
2…Prescriptions and diagnostic tests
3…Preventative care including routine shots
4…Chem and radiation therapy
5…Family Planning and organ-tissue transplants
6…Durable med equip and artificial limbs
7…physical, occupational ans speech therapy
They pay $152 a MONTH each or $357 a FAMILY.
Okay, take out your family policy and compare.
The folks that “understand” your family struggles have this program.
The feds are special, you and your family are not.
Ask yourself why we can’t have the same coverage.
(this is only one of at least a dozen perks on US)
Doug Schexnayder, Ph.D. (theconservativecrawfish)
My home state taxes "soft drinks"
Thu, 04/09/2009 - 10:07 ET by Kingfish17The state I live in allready taxes soft drinks. But in their infinite wisdom, the law is structured to tax any carbonated beverage, so I pay extra sales tax when I buy carbonated water, which I buy as an alternative to sugary soft drinks!
It's a way to make money, not influence behavior.
"When will Barack Obama apologize to the American people for destroying their once great nation?" - MSM 2012
It's both. The Left (or
Thu, 04/09/2009 - 10:17 ET by mattmIt's both. The Left (or the Statists, as Mark Levin calls them) have done this for decades...and they have admitted it.
They've advocated taxes on spray paint in order to cut down on graffiti, cigarette taxes to curtail smoking, and on and on...
But the money is also a motive for them.
It's just a simple fact that Libtards are greedy control freaks.
"The health of a nation is
Thu, 04/09/2009 - 10:19 ET by wiwf"The health of a nation is inversely proportional to the number of laws needed to govern it." - Thomas Frey
The Rocky Mountain Collegian: Illustrating Idiocy
Shill indeed
Thu, 04/09/2009 - 10:22 ET by Charlie PA TpkI saw this piece in the 4AM hour today. I came away with the following thoughts:
= While it did acknowledge that raising taxes on cigarettes led to a reported decline in the number of smokers, it completely failed to address what cities/states would do if when the alleged decline took effect to offset the loss in the projected tax revenue. Simply stated: if people drink less soda, then the projected tax dollars will also fall; should the state then raise the taxes even more to make up for the loss?
= John Berman exhibited his superb reporting chops (or, to be fair, the editor of the piece did him an injustice) when Mr. Berman is seen asking a child (10-12 years old) what effect raising the tax soda would have on her. The girl said, and this is a quote "I don't know." Now that's award winning journalism!
http://whatsit2you.blogspot.com
Why is it liberals
Thu, 04/09/2009 - 10:24 ET by moderncommentaries83Why is it liberals acknowledge that raising taxes on things they don't like curbs those behaviors, but they adamantly ignore the fact that raising taxes on business and consumers will discourage business from doing business (read: creating jobs) and consumers from spending?
And why is liberals have no problem attempting to control what people do with their bodies when it comes to smoking or eating/drinking?
I propose a steep tax on condoms and birth control in order to curb risky sexual behavior. Those that still want to engage in it are free to do so, they'll just have to pay a little more.
Wait...what? What's that about "it's my body and I have a right to access to cheap birth control?"
Funny...then explain to me why don't I have access to cheap soda?
Aut viam inveniam aut faciam
Funny, Modcom!
Thu, 04/09/2009 - 10:49 ET by trak65Or how about a tax on daycare to reduce the incidence of children born into single-parent households? Ha ha.
Seriously, it's the revenue grab side that bothers me most. I don't really have a problem with goverment using carrots and sticks to influence public behavior in reasonable ways (deductibility of charitable contributions is a great "carrot" example), but it should be in the context of a relatively low overall tax burden as a percentage of GDP. The Left will rarely discuss what the "right" government share of GDP is because they know that people looking at issues in that context would want the government to have less.
How come democrats can dare use the term "sin" in refering to
Thu, 04/09/2009 - 10:47 ET by pahubertaxes and Republicans cannot? Sin taxes? Where in the world is the ACLU or other liberal trolls when they do it...
Next they will introduce prohibition as some new idea like obama has with this socialistic policies.
Hmmmm... maybe people will start growing their own tobacco instead of buying it... I am sure this cannot be too far off.
Do As I Say You Plebes
Thu, 04/09/2009 - 11:08 ET by GothampcNotice how it's always the "unwashed masses" that are targeted.
Mayor Bloomberg keeps trying to institute the soda tax in New York City, yet you never see him trying to tax alcohol. What about beer? What about wine? Aren't they empty calories as well?
nice
Thu, 04/09/2009 - 11:19 ET by katainkentthe nanny state strikes again.
tax utensils next, pls :P
_____________________________________________________
Obama does not perform as advertised. I'd like a refund.
Taxed Enough Already.
Nothing gets me angrier
Thu, 04/09/2009 - 11:32 ET by fitzfongNothing gets me angrier than when these elitist, freedom-hating Marxist tyrants are dressed up as "experts" to shill for "sin" taxes. Whether the "sin" be food, fuel or cigarettes, these creeps simply cannot help but assert themselves into other peoples' business. There will come a time when these people, so drunk with power, will overstep. The average Joe is not going to be too bothered if wealthier people have more of their incomes confiscated to fund garbage government programs...but you start punishing these average Joes with arbitrary, regressive, job-killing consumption taxes to underwrite another government slush fund, and just watch the revolt. Arrogant pinheads like Kelly Brownell are just asking for a beating.
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." -Winston Churchill
Tax Liberal Freaks
Thu, 04/09/2009 - 11:41 ET by GeronL"There are many contributors to the obesity problem," Brownell said. "But if you look at scientific studies - consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages would be at or near the top of the list."
sugar?? I think he means corn syrup. If it were sugar it would not be nearly as unhealthy IMO
eh..
Thu, 04/09/2009 - 12:47 ET by katainkentrefined is refined. Neither are great for your body. Honey, raw sugar or molasses is 'better for you' (in moderation, of course)
same as with flour. The less refined the better.
_____________________________________________________
Obama does not perform as advertised. I'd like a refund.
Taxed Enough Already.
A one-penny-per-ounce tax
Thu, 04/09/2009 - 12:07 ET by SeashellA one-penny-per-ounce tax on sugared beverages could lead to about a 10
percent reduction in consumption, which could be a public health
homerun," Brownell said.
I wonder how many American jobs would be lost if consumption dropped 10%?
RE linguistics
Thu, 04/09/2009 - 12:37 ET by slickwillie2001Soda pop vs soft drink etc is one of those odd terms that linguistics fans study.
The pop vs soda map: http://current.com/items/89288468/the_pop_vs_soda_map.htm
Most odd, in parts of the South, the term 'coke' is used generically for any soft drink. Such as "hey, you want a coke"; "sure, I'll have a Doctor Pepper". The term for a jelly-filled pastry is another odd one which is highly regionalized.
Get to the heart of the matter!
Thu, 04/09/2009 - 12:39 ET by ReaganFanWhy do libs always want to dance around the issue? Sure, drinking too much soda will make you fat. So will drinking too much sweetened tea, milk or juice. Instead of focusing on the issue at hand, they focus on a specific segment to modify through taxation. This of course never works, because people will always find a way around it.
The crux of the problem is that too many Americans are fat. So what? What does this mean? It means that the country is spending too much money on health care related to obesity. Obesity can lead to higher incidences of heart disease, cancer and diabetes. The way to curb this problem is not through taxation, but rather through insurance / Medicare / Medicaid. If people have to pay huge sums or are denied coverage because they are massively overweight--they are more likely to take to be proactive with their health. It's a win for the overall health of the country and it doesn't punish those that are responsible for their well-being.
I'm not saying that we should punish those that are a little overweight or those with actual metabolic problems. I'm not even saying that the obeise should not be given a chance. However, we shouldn't be paying for people that will not try.
Cigarettes, sodas, and next: toilet paper?
Thu, 04/09/2009 - 13:26 ET by dborschjr68I'm waiting for the liberals, specifically their Eco-Nazi branch, to wage a war against toilet paper. TP is considered a bad thing for public sewers and landfills. (Never mind that TP disintegrates, that's not the point.)
Remember when Cheryl Crow said she only uses 1, yes 1, sheet of TP to clean herself with regardless of what function she does on the toilet? How's that for a nice mental image, not to mention the blatant exposure of her hippie hygienic standards?
Tax smokes, people will stop smoking. Tax soda, or "pop", as we called it in MI, and people will stop drinking soda. Tax toilet paper, and people will stop....wiping? Hm.
Just an observation.
As to this soda/pop issue...well, let's face it: America is fat. Soda, being high-fructose corn syrup, does NOT help America lose weight. Of course, soda is not the villain here; it is America's lack of exercise and proper eating habits.
I cut-out pop/soda from my daily indulgences, and lost 8 pounds without exercising. It took about 35 days. So, using the logical reasoning ability that my Creator endowed me with, I have come to the conclusion that soda/pop was not the best thing I could be putting into my body. Simply put.
This is not a call to outlaw soda/pop. Not at all. But soda/pop and other high-fructose corn syrup soft drinks, really aren't your friend.
This is the kind of thing Obama would go for.
Thu, 04/09/2009 - 13:25 ET by The Smokin FrogThis is the kind of thing Obama would go for. It will destroy more businesses and put more people out of work. We'll have no freedom left when this monster is finished. Obama and the liberals must be stopped now. Beware if you are in favor of this. Once they do this there will be one company after another they will tax out of existence all to make us behave properly.
Recover Constitutional Jefferson Republicanism
At least the Roman masses
Thu, 04/09/2009 - 20:39 ET by RR GOPAt least the Roman masses got bread and circuses.
Looks like we'll end up with just bread and water.
One of the 34% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 61% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory (yep...approval for Congress now at 39%...do you believe that!?).