From NYTimes.com:
The debate over a tax on sugary soft drinks — billed as a way to fight obesity and provide billions for health care reform — is starting to fizz over.
President Obama has said it is worth considering. The chief executive of Coca-Cola calls the idea outrageous, while skeptics point to political obstacles and question how much of an impact it would really have on consumers.
But a team of prominent doctors, scientists and policy makers says it could be a powerful weapon in efforts to reduce obesity, in the same way that cigarette taxes have helped curb smoking.
The group, which includes the New York City health commissioner, Thomas Farley, and Joseph W. Thompson, Arkansas surgeon general, estimates that a tax of a penny an ounce on sugary beverages would raise $14.9 billion in its first year, which could be spent on health care initiatives. The tax would apply to soft drinks, energy drinks, sports beverages and many juices and iced teas — but not sugar-free diet drinks.
The scientific paper found that a beverage tax might not only raise revenue but have significant health effects, lowering consumption of soda and other sweet drinks enough to lead to a small weight loss and reduced health risks among many Americans.
The study cited research on price elasticity for soft drinks that has shown that for every 10 percent rise in price, consumption declines 8 to 10 percent.
John Sicher, the publisher of Beverage Digest, a trade publication, said that a two-liter bottle of soda sells for about $1.35. At 67.6 ounces, if the full tax was passed on to consumers, that would add 50 percent to the price. A 12-can case, which sells today for about $3.20, could rise by $1.44, a 45 percent increase.
“A one cent per ounce tax would create serious problems and potentially adversely impact sales for the American beverage industry,” Mr. Sicher said.
The proposed tax faces a formidable hurdle in Congress, where several members have voiced strong opposition and few if any have said more than that they would be willing to consider it.
The soft drink industry has adamantly resisted the notion that its products are responsible for a national increase in obesity or that a tax would help curb the problem.
And even a supporter of a beverage tax said it was not clear if it would have a direct effect on the waistlines of Americans.
“I think we should be satisfied that soda taxes would be having a modest effect on consumption but would generate billions of dollars that could be used to mount public health campaigns,” said Michael Jacobson, executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, an advocacy group that favors such a tax.
He said that if the tax was levied on the manufacturers of the sugary drinks they might be able to spread the cost among many of their products, from chips to granola bars to diet sodas, which would keep sugary drink users from feeling the full impact.
Nonetheless, discussion of the tax has the beverage industry on the defensive.
Muhtar Kent, the chief executive of Coca-Cola, was asked about the tax on Monday during an appearance at the Rotary Club of Atlanta and he responded by calling it “outrageous.”
“I have never seen it work where a government tells people what to eat and what to drink,” Mr. Kent said, according to a report by Bloomberg News. “It if worked, the Soviet Union would still be around.”
* * *
Do you favor a tax on sugary soft drinks?
Do you think such a tax would cut consumptions of sugary products?
Does the goverment have the right to "tell people what to eat and what to drink"?
Do you favor a tax on sugary soft drinks? NO
Do you think such a tax would cut consumptions of sugary products?Not really, people tend to buy what they truly want.
Does the goverment have the right to "tell people what to eat and what to drink"?According to they way I view HR 2749 and other things that have come to light, they seem to think they do. I don't think they should.
As a doctor once told me in reference to a member of my family "until they learn to push back from the table they are never going to get healthier". It seems to me that hitting one thing such as soft drinks is not going to fix an unhealthy lifestyle and only serves to punish the public for people being irresponsible.
A voluntary tax increase is always better than a mandatory. We are big soda drinkers in my house so this would affect us. But it's a choice, I'm not being forced to give the government my money. It's a tax increase I could live with.
Grammie6
Quoting Cafe GroupAdmin:
But a team of prominent doctors, scientists and policy makers says it could be a powerful weapon in efforts to reduce obesity, in the same way that cigarette taxes have helped curb smoking.
I don't know anyone who stopped smoking because the taxes went up on cigarettes and I know a lot of smokers, so I'm not sure how good this argument is.
Those idiots should do some homework. UGH!!!! The might as well tax the seed before the tree grows. Sugar is sugar, doesn't matter how it breaks down. Soda, juice, kool-aid, flavored water....
Since we already have a tax on most everything - from income to death - they are probably going to do it - using the excuse to keep America healthy is BS. Are you taxing all sugar products...i.e. ice cream? cookies? cakes? Kool-aid (have you ever had kool-aid without sugar?) juices? I think bread actually puts more weight on than a glass of soda...so maybe they should tax all carbohydrates too.....
Quoting MomIWant:Since we already have a tax on most everything - from income to death - they are probably going to do it - using the excuse to keep America healthy is BS. Are you taxing all sugar products...i.e. ice cream? cookies? cakes? Kool-aid (have you ever had kool-aid without sugar?) juices? I think bread actually puts more weight on than a glass of soda...so maybe they should tax all carbohydrates too.....
ooooh, they will- then it'll be air....
I think it's a great idea. Soda is an enormous problem leading to childhood obesity and diabetes, so it makes sense to put that money back into healthcare. And, diet soda isn't taxed, so that would encourage people to switch to a no-calorie alternative that does not affect blood sugar (and affecting insulin levels, taxing the pancreas, etc.) if they feel like they "need" soda but do not want to pay the tax. But, as was mentioned, the exorbitant tax on cigarettes may have caused some people to quit, but others will still shell out nearly $10 a pack, so this soda tax is minimal in comparison.
Jen
Mom to Emma, 13; Wyatt, 10; and baby Sofia...
Group Owner Home Office: www.cafemom.com/group/homeoffice
Juggling little ones AND deadlines? Meet others who have the best of both worlds as a work-from-home mom. (No classifieds, please.)
If their reason is to get people to quit drinking soda, this is stupid and 1 penny an ounce is not going to stop them.
If they are just wanting money, then it is pretty smart, because again, noone is even going to cut back.
And diet sodas are just as bad if not worse for you.
We are not big soda drinkers. We drink organic juice and sweeten most everything with honey, but if we need sugar, we buy organic unprocessed sugar.
I still think this the the BIG government, getting into peoples business.
(If they are really concerned with obesity, they should go after the food manufacturers that purposely put chemicals and such that make you crave their food. They should also go after all the chemicals and hormones that they inject into the meat and the pesticides that go into the vegetables.
Check out Jacob's jouney on my home page!
Eight Year Old Girl Given "Catastrophe Award" By Teacher
- Cafe GroupAdmin
on Sep. 18, 2009 at 3:16 AM