"Obesity Tax"

From CNN ... David Paterson, Democratic governor of New York, it trying to impose a tax on soft drinks containing sugar.

Today, we find ourselves in the midst of a new public health epidemic: childhood obesity.

What smoking was to my parents' generation, obesity is to my children's generation. Nearly one out of every four New Yorkers under the age of 18 is obese. In many high-poverty areas, the rate is closer to one out of three.

That is why, in the state budget I presented last Tuesday, I proposed a tax on sugared beverages like soda. Research has demonstrated that soft-drink consumption is one of the main drivers of childhood obesity.

*snip*

Our tax would apply only to sugared drinks -- including fruit drinks that are less than 70 percent juice -- that are nondiet. The $404 million this tax would raise next year will go toward funding public health programs, including obesity prevention programs, across New York state.

The surgeon general estimates that obesity was associated with 112,000 deaths in the United States every year. Here in New York state, we spend almost $6.1 billion on health care related to adult obesity -- the second-highest level of spending in the nation.

*snip*

We must never stigmatize children who are overweight or obese. Yet, for the sake of our children's health, we have an obligation to address this crisis. I believe we can ultimately curb the obesity epidemic the same way we curbed smoking: through smart public policy.

*snip*

Just as the cigarette tax has helped reduce the number of smokers and smoking-related deaths, a tax on highly caloric, non-nutritional beverages can help reduce the prevalence of obesity.

To address the obesity crisis, we need more than just a surcharge on soda. We need to take junk food out of our schools. We need to encourage our children to exercise more. And we need to increase the availability of healthy food in underserved communities.

Agree? Disagree? Indifferent?

I'm personally all for it. I think hitting people in the pocket book for making bad health choices is an excellent idea - if only we could go that extra step and financially reward those who make GOOD health choices too. I think this has the potential to have dramatic effect on people's on the spot decision making - if you see a diet coke for $1.00 and a regular coke for $1.50, which will you buy? - which can only be a good thing. People's love affair with smoking shows us that education only goes so far, sometimes it takes that extra step to make people say "hey wait a minute....".

I don't drink regular coke but i do think its stupid. there are a few people i know that like the occasional coke, and are not obese, why should they have to pay extra? i feel like this is more about making money for the state and less about concern of obesity.

i think they need to stop taxing people on every little thing--especially sugared drinks.  thats just beyond ridiculous.  it may be effective but i dont agree with it.  taxes on important stuff is one thing, but you cant just tax everything to solve the problem.  plus there are tons of skinny people who drink soda and there are tons of fat people who dont drink soda and still get fat.  its stupid and its not the answer to obesity.

I've heard that a justification for the tax is that humans don't tend to get full off of liquids, so people can consume hundreds of empty calories of soda, and still go eat the same number of calories as they would've if they hadn't had the soda.  That means that if you get a jumbo fountain drink soda everyday, you could be consuming like 500 extra calories a day, thus making it easy for people to consume way too many calories without realizing it.

Also, I'd point out that even though there are skinny people who enjoy soda, and fat people who don't, there's no nutritional value in soda.  It's not necessary for anyone.  There's no recommended amount of soda to drink everyday.  It's kind of like a luxury item in that respect, and if it's actually causing harm (i.e. a cause of childhood obesity), then I say tax it!  If nothing else, it'll make people think more about what they're putting into their bodies instead of mindlessly consuming empty calories.

Comparing soft drinks to cigarettes is ridiculous. I would say that soft drinks are far from being the main cause of obesity. All the overweight people I know drink diet drinks anyway...

But I will say I think they're unhealthy, and that HFCS is not natural and was not meant to be consumed by humans. Then again neither were artificial sweeteners...I'm mixed I guess.

Just as the cigarette tax has helped reduce the number of smokers and smoking-related deaths, a tax on highly caloric, non-nutritional beverages can help reduce the prevalence of obesity.

I don't believe the cigarette tax helped reduce the number of smokers. I doubt that a tax on sugared soft drinks will reduce the number of obese people.

Original Post by allydan:

I've heard that a justification for the tax is that humans don't tend to get full off of liquids, so people can consume hundreds of empty calories of soda, and still go eat the same number of calories as they would've if they hadn't had the soda.  That means that if you get a jumbo fountain drink soda everyday, you could be consuming like 500 extra calories a day, thus making it easy for people to consume way too many calories without realizing it.

Also, I'd point out that even though there are skinny people who enjoy soda, and fat people who don't, there's no nutritional value in soda.  It's not necessary for anyone.  There's no recommended amount of soda to drink everyday.  It's kind of like a luxury item in that respect, and if it's actually causing harm (i.e. a cause of childhood obesity), then I say tax it!  If nothing else, it'll make people think more about what they're putting into their bodies instead of mindlessly consuming empty calories.

 i think people have the right to make bad choices without being taxed.  i believe in taxing people to fund public projects and what not, but to tax someone because they consume 500 empty calories is very invasive, in my opinion.

In the UK, the makers of Walkers crisps reduced the saturated fat in them by around 70% just by frying them in a different kind of oil. As far as I'm aware, no one got upset, and they still taste fine to me. I wonder if sugary drinks could also be made with less sugar in them, but still tasting good?

they could probably make everything healthier, but it'd cost more money for better quality ingredients and research to get the formulas right. 

Perhaps I should include this little tidbit from the article:

... a study by Harvard researchers found that each additional 12-ounce soft drink consumed per day increases the risk of a child becoming obese by 60 percent. For adults, the association is similar.

I think that skinny people can pay an extra 15 cents for their occasional sugar filled beverage if it means that fewer people are buying it in the long run. I would also like to point out that this is the same governor who banned trans fat products in fast food restaurants and made it law for nutritional info to be posted in them too, so I think it's possible that he does have the interest of the people in mind.

I don't think it will "cure" obesity, but I sure as heck think it's a step in the right direction.

i'd pay 15 cents more for the same soda and i think a lot of people would.  he may have the best interest at heart, but i still think its invasive.

Original Post by jessicasbc:

Original Post by allydan:

I've heard that a justification for the tax is that humans don't tend to get full off of liquids, so people can consume hundreds of empty calories of soda, and still go eat the same number of calories as they would've if they hadn't had the soda.  That means that if you get a jumbo fountain drink soda everyday, you could be consuming like 500 extra calories a day, thus making it easy for people to consume way too many calories without realizing it.

Also, I'd point out that even though there are skinny people who enjoy soda, and fat people who don't, there's no nutritional value in soda.  It's not necessary for anyone.  There's no recommended amount of soda to drink everyday.  It's kind of like a luxury item in that respect, and if it's actually causing harm (i.e. a cause of childhood obesity), then I say tax it!  If nothing else, it'll make people think more about what they're putting into their bodies instead of mindlessly consuming empty calories.

 i think people have the right to make bad choices without being taxed.  i believe in taxing people to fund public projects and what not, but to tax someone because they consume 500 empty calories is very invasive, in my opinion.

People can make all the bad choices they want until my tax dollars have to pay for them.  Then it becomes the taxpayers' business.  If people want to make bad choices, then they should have to pony up some money to pay for their potential health problems down the road.  Smokers pay extra taxes because they might get lung cancer or some other smoking related disease someday... I absolutely see the similarities in this situation as well; I don't want to pay for someone else's diabetes because they made bad choices any more than I want to pay for someone else's throat cancer!  

As far as taking more money to make everything healthier, my hope is that more laws like this will eventually lead to an overhaul of the farm bill so we can stop subsidizing corn so much, and stop pumping kids full of cheap, easy, empty calories.

then they're gonna have to start taxing just about every food item.  the majority of food is unhealthy.  its invasive.  we cant control and legislate everything and tax dollars will always go towards something that you may not like.

I don't think it's such a bad idea, honestly. Obviously sugary drinks aren't the only cause of obesity, and yes there are skinny people who drink soda, but that doesn't make it a good choice even for them. Why not?

Personally, here in Mexico I find it infuriating that soft drinks are often quite a bit cheaper than water - it just doesn't make sense. Since tap water isn't that great, it's very common for people with lower income to drink soda with their meal on a daily basis. Heck, I've even seen mothers giving their babies coke. It would be GREAT if that tax came to Mexico City.

i think the real problem solver would be to make healthy food more affordable.  i dont know exactly how that could be done, but making things more expensive just seems unfair and wrong.  i know that my family would eat a million times healthier if the food wasnt twice as much.  there are so many problems to address that i think making a tax on sugary drinks is  a very narrow way to go about dealing with obesity.  it almost seems like a cop out way of dealing with things.

I agree with Jessica, they need to find a way to make healthy food more affordable.  A person who is struggling financially is going to eat hot dogs and mac and cheese and drink pop because it is cheaper than having chicken and a salad.  Unfortunately for too many people cost trumps nutrition.

In MN we already pay tax on soda...regular and diet. 

Original Post by jessicasbc:

i think the real problem solver would be to make healthy food more affordable.  i dont know exactly how that could be done, but making things more expensive just seems unfair and wrong.  i know that my family would eat a million times healthier if the food wasnt twice as much.  there are so many problems to address that i think making a tax on sugary drinks is  a very narrow way to go about dealing with obesity.  it almost seems like a cop out way of dealing with things.

As you seem like you have quite a strong opinion on this, may I suggest reading the whole article? I just gave the highlights to give people an overview but seeing as you're arguing so strongly against it, perhaps more than the cliff notes version would be beneficial. He's not advocating this is the only step needed to curb the obesity epidemic, he is simply saying it's a start.

To address the obesity crisis, we need more than just a surcharge on soda. We need to take junk food out of our schools. We need to encourage our children to exercise more. And we need to increase the availability of healthy food in underserved communities.

I also believe you overestimate the average person's motivation to eat healthy. Most people I know put far greater stock in convenience than health. If you can get both then grand, but the plethora of fast food joints around my house that do booming trade contrasted with the (only) salad bar shut down due to lack of business...yeh, I think most people prefer quick and tasty over quick and healthy.

@mooni: I respectfully disagree - I think that taxing the crap out of cigarettes has had a huge impact on the number of people who smoke. I've known several people who've given up smoking because the known health risks combined with the exorbitant cost of cigarettes has driven them to believe it's just not worth it. It's like alternative fuels and hybrid cars - when petrol was $4 a gallon people were all talking about them, now that it's gone down in price all that has gone out the window because gas prices aren't such a big deal anymore. If you hit people in the pocketbooks they sit up and take notice - my favourite part of the whole article was that the number of people who smoke is down from 70% in 1950 to less than 20% today.

Original Post by jessicasbc:

i think they need to stop taxing people on every little thing--especially sugared drinks.  thats just beyond ridiculous.  it may be effective but i dont agree with it.  taxes on important stuff is one thing, but you cant just tax everything to solve the problem.  plus there are tons of skinny people who drink soda and there are tons of fat people who dont drink soda and still get fat.  its stupid and its not the answer to obesity.

what "important stuff" do you think should be taxed?

personally, i think taxing luxury items like soda that add nothing to quality of life makes more sense than taxing necessities.

Original Post by p0nda:

@mooni: I respectfully disagree - I think that taxing the crap out of cigarettes has had a huge impact on the number of people who smoke. I've known several people who've given up smoking because the known health risks combined with the exorbitant cost of cigarettes has driven them to believe it's just not worth it.

how much are smokes in the US these days?  because cost is definitely a factor in canada, but i'm not so sure they're taxed enough in the states to make a difference in people's choices.

I guess more than anything, i just dont think that the government needs to be involved in everything.  Overall, I think the government regulates people's personal lives too much.  There are so many ways that obesity could be regulated.  Why not tax fast food companies for using unhealthy ingredients?  Why not make laws about what parents can and cant feed their kids?  Why not make a price ceiling for healthy foods?  You cant legislate everything.  I understand that the tax would be a deterrent and people would still have the right to buy the products.  I just dont think a tax should be forced onto people because they want to buy soda.  Its not the governments responsibility to regulate people's personal choices like that.

Original Post by pgeorgian:

Original Post by jessicasbc:

i think they need to stop taxing people on every little thing--especially sugared drinks.  thats just beyond ridiculous.  it may be effective but i dont agree with it.  taxes on important stuff is one thing, but you cant just tax everything to solve the problem.  plus there are tons of skinny people who drink soda and there are tons of fat people who dont drink soda and still get fat.  its stupid and its not the answer to obesity.

what "important stuff" do you think should be taxed?

personally, i think taxing luxury items like soda that add nothing to quality of life makes more sense than taxing necessities.

 general taxes for funding the police, firemen, building roads, etc...

edit: i think it makes more sense to tax things that are essential than luxuries.  Everyone uses roads, firemen, police, etc.. even if when they think they arent.  Sodas are for whoever wants to buy them.