Fight obesity? Add sales tax to soda tab
September 16, 2009
Presenting a united front in the war on obesity, diabetes and other nutrition-related disorders, seven of America’s leading public health and economics experts are urging passage of taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages (SSB).
Their report, which suggests how such taxes could improve nutrition as well as recoup some of the country’s enormous healthcare costs related to these diseases, appears in the October 15 print edition of the New England Journal of Medicine, and online at nejm.org on September 16.
Citing numerous studies, the authors show that SSB consumption has been linked to problems such as heart disease, diabetes and most notably weight gain due to increased caloric intake. With medical costs for overweight and obesity alone estimated to be $147 billion (9.1% of U.S. healthcare expenditures), the authors suggest a tax on SSBs as a viable means to recoup some of these costs, and as a way to generate revenue that could be used for child nutrition and obesity prevention programs. The nation has a history of consumption taxes on tobacco, alcohol, and other products.
The authors propose a penny-per-ounce excise tax on sugar-sweetened beverages, which would raise about $150 billion over a ten-year period. In a single year, taxes at the state level would generate an estimated $139 million in Arkansas, $183 million in Oregon, $221 million in Alabama, $928 million in Florida, $937 million in New York, $1.2 billion in Texas, and $1.8 billion in California. A tax calculator at http://www.yaleruddcenter.org/what_we_do.aspx?id=271 estimates revenue figures for states and 25 major cities.
Kelly Brownell, Director of Yale’s Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity, notes: “A tax on sugared beverages has four features that make it unique: It would have immediate impact; it would have a beneficial effect on the nation’s diet; unlike education programs, it costs nothing; and it would generate considerable revenue that could support key health programs. I know of no other approach that meets all these criteria.”
The authors of “The Public Health and Economic Benefits of Taxing Sugar-Sweetened Beverages” include: Kelly D. Brownell, Ph.D., Yale University; Thomas Farley, M.D., M.P.H., New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene; Walter C. Willett, M.D., Dr.P.H., Harvard School of Public Health; Barry M. Popkin, Ph.D., University of North Carolina; Frank J. Chaloupka, Ph.D., University of Illinois at Chicago; Joseph W. Thompson, M.D., M.P.H., Surgeon General for the State of Arkansas; David S. Ludwig, M.D., Ph.D., Harvard Medical School.
Provided by Yale University
Oct 05, 2006 |
not rated yet |
0
How about taxing every pound someone is overweight, force people to report their BMI to a governement watchdog... hey wait! This shouldnt be too hard if Obama gets his health care.
You get a benefit if you get married.
You get a benefit to buy a house.
You get a benefit if you have kids.
You save money if you don't smoke or drink.
Here's a better idea: 1 flat tax, be it sales or income, at a federal level. Then you can adjsut the percentage against the GDP and GNP to create a balanced flow of money through the economy and back to the people in the form of services or bailouts.
one size fits all utopia...
of course, an engineer who builds a bridge is working an applied science. a social engineer is just a person who wants to experiment on people like mengele without them complaining or having IRB approval. so they couch their solutions as "fads" en education, economics, etc... they refusde to return to what has worked and build on it, and they do what amounts to great harm on swaths of the peoplupation as if they are bacteria being guided by acid and sugar to perform for them.
The reason why this is an issue goes back to the old saying, "give them an inch and they'll take a mile".
Now let's be clear, I'm not saying that being overweight or having a poor diet is a good idea, but it is a personal choice. The last thing government should have any influence in is personal choice.
Now, I'm not saying that soda is healthy, but the 0 calorie sodas are a life-save. I lost 30 pounds in 4 months, while still consuming 2 sodas per day.
The government is just looking to tax something that has large income potential for them - they don't really care about the health benefits (which are 0).
I wish more people could see the absolute truth in these contributions.
It is worth knowing that your body still has to devote energy to metabolizing what are essentially toxins present in these misleading 0 calorie drinks (coloring, artificial sweetner, etc.), energy that would otherwise be spent metabolizing carbs and lipids and other essential nutrients or building muscle, etc. For sure they are better than normal soda drinks, but you'd be better off drinking lots and lots of water which facilitates weight loss.
If they are just going after soda companies, why aren't they going after cereal, ice cream, cookies, pasta sauce, many things have sugar. At least, attack HFCS, then soda companies would switch back to sugar like they used to. When Pepsi had their non-HFCS throwback sodas, I could tell they didn't burn my throat.
Plus, a penny per ounce? 64 cents per 2 liter? So, a 99 cent bottle of soda would cost $1.63 after tax. I'm no mathematician, but that's a 64% tax. That's a lot. When we see a bottle of juice for $3.50-$4 and a soda for 99 cents plus 64 cents, even with that tax hike ... it's still a better deal. You also get more ounces of soda than you do juice.
And what will this do? Make people turn to Diet soda? Diet soda is worse for people.
then how about this... tax the poundage when your 15lbs or more overweight and do it directly.
then you get your raised prices for your inability to control yourself, and i get the benifit i deserve for not stuffing my face.
How would you determine that someone is overweight?
Please don't use the atrocity that is the body mass index. That thing is so far off base I've seen the fat called underweight and the underweight called fat because of height to weight differences in build.
Gotta love the random downranks from the faceless brianweymes.
As for the government, if anything, it should be doing whatever it can to promote a healthy life-style.
I don't believe people "want" to be obese, but if they do want to be obese, then I say let them pay for it.
My government has an obesity problem and it needs to go on a diet; it sure as hell doesn't need anyone feeding it more junk taxes. If you want to pay a tax to disincentivice your soda habit, set aside some cash for each soda you drink and give it to the red cross or something.
No it's a 1 cent per ounce tax. Like the income tax which started at a few percent and was paid only by the super-wealthy it will gradually be expanded so the parasitic state can live off the backs of the productive private sector.
Health care was working fine until the government broke it. The AMA is a cartel that artificially limits the supply of doctors in order to drive up wages(their web page even used to say so in plain text). The price-fixing in medicare and medicaid forces the industry to shift costs to the privately insured and the un-insured, that's how you get absurdities like the $20 aspirin pill.
The intellectual monopoly granted by the government is just another form of rent-seeking. It does very little to spur innovation(being first already means you are first to market. Absurdities like the 'porcupine defense' strangle small companies before they compete) and accomplishes extraordinary harm.
I hate that. I always copy before I post.
Theres also this discussion going on out there:This professional person may not have heard of epigenetics. After learning about what T. gondii can do, I tend to favor this:Bottom line though, weight gain depends on caloric intake minus calories burned. No one will die if they maintain parity on these, but if they are chronically in one direction or the other, they will. Tax. We need the money. Diet Monsters my favorite, no sugar and it speeds up the metabolism.
People will not stop overeating what science has designed to be irresistable. It will soon provide effective treatments and at that point we can begin to get moral on decrepitude.
"Chineese Resturant Syndrome" may not be it's only adverse effect since glutamates have paracrine effects in the human pancreas & brain. http://jgp.rupres.../185.pdf
It's use as a flavor enhancer allows low quality or diluted foods to taste the same, cutting the nutrient value & increasing the profit margin. MSG, under many different names, is added to almost all foods during processing.
MSG is addictive (maintains Brand loyalty, induces onvereating).
http://www.msgtru...tion.htm
Breaking the "you can't eat just one" addiction would directly effect obesity, and may reduce IDDM & ADHD.
Sucking down that quarter pounder means you have to pay more for your health insurance.
Oh wait, they want to change that too.
But the government HAS been influencing personal choice in a huge way, for decades. Agencies have PROMOTED the consumption of sugar, fruit juices, corn, spaghetti and all sorts of fattening starchy foods, in the name of "healthy" and "low-fat" eating. That advice was based largely on dogma, and not on science.
The best way to lose weight is to eat meats and leafy vegetables, all of which cost more anyway, and avoid cheap starches and sugars.
Alejo
If only that were true! If only exercise helped you lose weight! The thin people at the gym are there because they can't avoid being active: their bodies can't absorb calories well, and they HAVE TO burn those calories off through activity.
It's all very well to say that (weight change) = (calories in) - (calories burned), but this energy-balance equation leaves out a lot details. Before reaching simplistic conclusions based on moral prejudice, go talk to a fat person and ask him or her what they eat.
Most fat people I know eat the same amount of food as skinny people like me and you. That paradox doesn't break the energy balance equation. It means fat people's bodies are different.
Dietary advice is influenced enormously by moral dogma, and is rarely based on science.
Alejo
Corn is best suited for ethanol and squirell food.