In my humble opinion, a soda tax is a terrible idea. I could go on for quite some time on this issue, but I'll try and keep my points succint. So here are my main reasons for opposing this idea:
- Soda isn't tobacco. A lot of people have tried to make that link, that soda companies are doing the same thing as tobacco companies were doing 50 years ago. But I just don't think that's true. Cigarettes and tobacco products are a pretty specific thing that has been definitely linked to cancer and other diseases in even moderate quantities. With soda, the link isn't so clear. While certainly drinking too much soda can lead to obesity, drinking an occasional soda probably isn't harmful. If people were to unconditionally stop drinking soda, I don't know that the obesity problem in this country will go away. And my fear is, if we can tax soda which can potentially lead to obesity, what else will we tax? Eating too much meat can lead to obesity, as can too many cookies, too much chocolate, too much cheese....the list goes on. It's too much of a slippery slope to me.
- Diet soda isn't all that great. A lot of these soda tax proposals don't include diet sodas. Indeed, companies are often proud to claim that they've removed full calorie soft drinks from schools and other places, while leaving diet sodas in their place. Now, I hate diet soda because it tends to give me a horrible headache, but more importantly, there's some evidence that diet soda isn't all that great for us either. I think it would be a bad idea for us to focus on "regular soda" as a public health issue and ignore the possible perils of diet soda.
- Finally, and perhaps most importantly in my opinion, a soda tax is a regressive tax--it hurts the poor more than anyone else. Go to a low-income area and chances are there aren't a ton of full-service grocery stores. But there probably are a lot of small convenience stores. If you go into these, you'll notice that there isn't a whole lot of options for drinks and by far the cheapest options tend to be soda. You won't find single servings of milk, or 100% juice or other healthier options. So what this tax will do is force poor people to pay more for soda, but they still might not have the ability to choose healthier options. It's essentially a poor tax.
So there's my opinion in a nutshell, I'd be happen to expand more if anyone wants to hear more. What do you all think about taxing soda? Do you think it would be an effective anti-obesity program? I would love to hear your thoughts. And as a reminder (and a shameless plug) I'm running the Boston Marathon to raise money to find innovative solutions to these problems, Your support would be very much appreciated, visit: http://www.tuftsmarathonchallenge.com/runners/miriamst to help me make every mile of the marathon count.
A preview for upcoming blog posts: a running update is coming in a few days followed by my brilliant thoughts about obesity and what I think would work waaaay better than a soda tax.
9 comments:
Good post. While you bring up good arguments, I think your case would benefit from factual evidence. Also you present your strongest argument last, I think you should begin that one.
I disagree with you. How do you like them apples?
Fact 1: Too much sugar is bad for you. It causes cancer, makes you fat, and may lead to diabetes. http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/19/2/447.abstract
Fact 2: It's a regressive tax that will lead to the poor making healthier life decisions for themselves. When cost goes up, people will look to alternatives. Water, fruit and vegetable juice for all! Convenience stores stock soda because people want the cheapest foods they can buy, not because they can't carry healthier alternatives. If the cost goes up, and demand changes, stores will stock different products.
Fact 3: we need reduce health care costs and prevention is the easiest and cheapest way to do so. Eat a balanced, plant based diet, avoid refined foods and sugars, drink lots of water. You will live longer and be healthier throughout your life.
It's ok Nathan, you're allowed to disagree with me.
1) Sure, too much sugar is bad for you. But no one is suggesting a tax on candy. Too much red meat is bad for you, too much soy is bad for you. We can't tax everything that can possibly cause cancer, make us fat, or lead to diabetes. So if we tax soda, and people still are obese and still are getting diabetes (a very real possibility) then what? Do we tax other things? How does this end?
2) Taxing soda isn't going to make other drinks cheaper. It's not going to change what stores carry. It's just going to disproportionately affect poor people who can't afford to pay more. If you want to really do something, make bottled water, milk and 100% juice cheaper. A soda tax won't do that.
3)I agree. :) But even if everyone stopped drinking soda, it's not going to solve the problem. Haven't you ever seen someone ordering a Supersize Giant whatever with a diet soda?
Taxing soda is an easy way for public health to say "look we're doing something big!" I just don't think it's the way to go.
1) Yes, I think that an Agency like HHS can make a broad range of suggestions on products that disproportionately affect human health and apply a consumption tax on those products. The tax should be high enough that it creates an even playing field for healthy (or healthier)alternatives.
2) Provide a tax credit to both sellers and consumers for truly healthy foods including vegetables, fruits, nuts, 100% juice, (soy/rice/coconut) milk, etc. The tax credit helps both small consumers and the poor.
3) This is more of a personal choice in my opinion. I don't support telling people what they must consume, just leveling the playing field to make healthy/ier foods more attractive.
I think taxing soda should just be a first step. Hard choices must be made to reduce health care costs and lower our deficit. A scheme like the one I highlight would significantly reduce costs of health care in the long term.
In paragraph 2 I meant small businesses, not small consumers.
I agree with you about the undesirable, regressive, soda tax. As you mention, it might also drive people to drink the potentially harmful diet sodas which are supposed to be untaxed.
There should be more publicity about healthful fresh fruits and nuts and, perhaps, government subsidies to make these cheaper. (People would get more benefit from this subsidy than the government support of ethanol!)
Nathan we may just have to agree to disagree on this one :) But I'm glad you meant small businesses and aren't against short shoppers :)
The problem with taxing foods is that most of them are not harmful, and can be even beneficial, up to a point. And how do we tax something like that? It's not like cigarettes, which are harmful at any level.
Plus, unless we tax EVERYTHING, it's just too easy to find something else unhealthy. For example, if we tax soda, people might just drink Gatorade, also a pretty calorie heavy drink that would not be taxed under these plans. For me, as someone who is training for a marathon, it's probably good for me to drink Gatorade. For someone who sits on her couch all day, it's probably not so great. But our tax system doesn't really work that way.
I agree, we should level the playing field for healthier foods and beverages. But I just think we should do it through tax credits like you mentioned, re-arranging our food subsidies. These will all emphasize the importance and goodness of healthy food, rather than demonizing the unhealthy stuff. That's a much more empowering strategy to create change.
I love how this topic is getting so much discussion.
As a Nutrition Student, and new follower of Mir's blog, I feel a need to comment.
I'm not a committed believer in the soda tax, but I do take issue with a few of your arguments:
-Soda isn't tobacco: Soda companies are acting a lot like tobacco companies in their activities such as advertising to children, but this is not my main concern. The magnitudes of the associations between drinking soda and disease are certainly less, but also, not insignificant. Soda contributes to an overall diet (as you mentioned, there are many other bad foods which could be baned, but the language and logistics of implementing those types of bans are more complicated), and the link between diet, obesity, and health outcomes are clear. Also, as 'drinking an occasional soda probably isn't harmful,' neither is smoking the occasional cigarette (at least, it's not likely to produce those odds ratios of >20).
-Diet soda isn't all that great: I wholeheartedly agree.
-A soda tax is a regressive tax: While it is unfortunately true that low income individuals consume more soda than individuals of higher incomes, this does not mean that a tax is worse for them. This group also has a higher burden of obesity as well as a higher incidence of chronic disease. The tax does not make healthier options cheaper, but it does make them relatively cheaper, by increasing the price of soda. Low-income individuals base their food purchase decisions more heavily on price than higher income consumers, and are thus more likely to be swayed away from soda (presumably to healthier options) by the relatively increase in price. In this way, the tax helps the poor to a greater extent.
A final note on this, this type of tax should just be the beginning of interventions at the level of the food-industry and policy which aim to change the environment such that it is easier for people to make healthy choices.
Sorry for the long rant; this is obv an issue I feel passionate about :)
Wow I certainly did not expect this level of discussion. I think I will have to have a follow-up post about this soon. You all have brought up some interesting arguments that I'll have to think more about.
Rach, you make a lot of good points and you are welcome to post on my blog anytime....especially if you talk about odds ratios :)
Post a Comment