From the San Francisco Chronicle:
A new UCLA study examined sugary drinks and their effect on state spending and consumers' health.
$41 billion - Amount spent treating obesity in California each year.
41 percent - Kids ages 2-11 who drink at least one soda every day.
62 percent - Adolescents 12-17 who drink at least one soda every day.
39 pounds - Amount of sugar consumed over one year if you drink one soda a day.
17 teaspoons - Amount of sugar in a 20-ounce serving of soda.
278 calories - Increased number Americans consume each day compared with 30 years ago.
43 percent - Share of new calories attributable to soda.
Source: "Bubbling Over: Soda Consumption and Its Link to Obesity in California" by UCLA Center for Health Policy Research and the California Center for Public Health Advocacy
The full article states that they are considering taxing Soda (pop to you Washingtonians) in San Francisco to help pay for an exercise program and a media campaign to discourage soda drinking. The tax would be levied on stores that sell soda, not on the individual sale of soda itself.
Now, as a Dr. Pepper / Pepsi addict, I actually don't think this is a horrible thing. We tax cigarrettes and alchohol very heavily, largely to discourage their use. Would it have any real effect? I'm not sure. I think you'd have to actually tax the sale of individual drinks to get anyone's attention, or to see any affects.
Arkansas, Missouri, Tennessee and Virginia apparently already have a similar tax.
According to the Wall Street Journal, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that adding a tax of three cents per 12-ounce serving to sweetened drinks would generate $24 billion over the next four years.
20 comments:
I don't think a tax would discourage people from drinking soda, unless it was on the individual drink. Even then, it would have to be more than a few cents to really make a difference, in my opinion.
Here in Illinois, the tax on a pack of cigarettes is around $2.50 per pack. I did recently read that calls to a state-wide 'quit smoking' hot-line were up about 20%, since the increased tax. But I honestly doubt those results would be the same if it was a mere 5 cents per pack.
I don't know. People make their own choices. Its like someone suing the tobacco companies even though they knew perfectly well what cigarettes would do. Or suing McDonald's for making a person fat because they ate too many Big Macs. I mean, come on. Common sense tells you that too much of anything like that will be bad for you. Its no different for soda.
Sounds like another way for the government to make more money off of us.
They need to tax the actual drink. Otherwise it won't do anything to detour the soda drinker.
Evy, I agree that without taxing the individual drink heavily, it would not make a difference.
I guess the question is, should the healthy, non-soda drinking citizens of the country be forced to bear the tax burden caused by all the chronic diseases related to obesity, or should those who continue to drink those drinks be the ones pay heavily up front.
Same with cigarettes. I have no problem with them taxing cigarettes so much, because if they can discourage people from smoking, it improves my life, and means less money I'm spending on treatments for lung cancer, emphysema, etc...
What goes around, comes around. People with no children pay taxes that go to schools. People who pay for health insurance pay taxes that go to Medicaid. People that never smoke a cigarette pay for the health care that the ones who smoke need. We all share the tax burden, no matter what we do or don't do, drink or don't drink.
BULLCRAP! This has nothing to do with the health of the nation and everything to do with taxing us more.
I don't need big brother telling me what, how much, or when to do anything. It is my GOD GIVEN right to eat that second piece of cake should I choose. Those who want to take away choice in the name of accountability on my behalf are following the devil. We lose a little more freedom everyday. Can I get a tax credit for the carrots I had at dinner or what about the salad I had for lunch?
If you want to persuade the masses the become healthier than tax spandex. It is the only thing the morbidly obese seem to wear. Them and bicyclist and nobody likes them anyway.
PS- you're still a fascist for moderating my posts!
Formly Mr. Noriega (and continued fellow facist...),
Take the taxes out of it. Does the government need to worry about the health of it's citizens (and I'm not making an argument for health care here).
Should a government be concerned at all for whether its citizens are healthy? If so, what should it do?
If not, why?
Like the Gipper said, if you want something to stop moving, tax it.
The question is: do we want it to stop moving? Personally, I like to exercise, but I still don't do it enough to get rid of this growth around my belly. Now, it ain't a baby growin' in there, it's the accumulation of three years on my buttock, too many late night meals on the way home, and probably too much pop (and I drink the diet stuff, too, see?). I'm trying to exercise more, so that I can get rid of it, but I'll be honest: it's easier to stay home and have have bowl of fudge brownie Dreyers ice cream with grasshoppers (that's a cookie) and milk than it is to bust out P90X or hop on the bike for a twenty-five mile trek around the valley...
So. I deviate. I act as if this is Weight Watchers Anonymous instead of Professional Americans Anonymous.
And your eyes have glazed over....
Stir, didn't i leave a different comment in addition to the one above?
Sorry Dan, that was the only one in the queue. Don't you have a gmail account? You should be able to put up your own posts and everything here...you used to do that all the time.
If you log in, your comments don't get moderated by me.
Gen. Noriega, if you set up an account your comments won't get facistly moderated either.
And naturally, what I thought i wrote was the most brilliant and insightful piece of political commentary since Max Weber deigned to put pen to paper.
Alas. It is lost and do not recall it.
On a more functional point, I think I left the blog when you closed it down previously (thinking, however erroneously, that it was not necessary to be connected to it). Hence, I cannot publish without permission of Sir Ster.
Obesity in America is a problem but taxing it won't solve the issue...
Fixing the food corporations influence in washington, education, education, education, making healthier food more accesible, getting back to basics (and getting rid of HFCSyrup and other corn based refined sugars) etc will be a good start to helping solve things. I think Education is crucial though...how many Americans know how to cook or that making meals with legumes/beans is actually cheaper than ordering at KFC or processed food?
Food Politics is a real interest of mine..Its quite frightening how big the beef industry and some of the food industries have gotten.I would suggest any additional reading of books like Fast Food Nation, books by Michael Pollan, movies like Food Inc....The list goes on.
It's just so much easier to go through the drive-thru than to cook your own food. Even if it is cheaper and healthier. AND the drive-thru for sure tastes good. How are we to be sure that what I try at home will even turn out? Some people are very intimidated by cooking. And others are too lazy.
BTW, education may help some, but how much has sex education in the schools and in our communities helped to detour teenagers and adults from recklessly having sex?
A precious few.
Food and sex are both so darn tempting that we do things in the heat of the moment because we crave them instead of rationally thinking of the ramifications of what we are about to do.
Trust me, I grabbed a fist full of choc. covered raisins for breakfast, thought about how it would make me feel afterward, and STILL ate them. And went back for another hand full.
Tax it, and it will whither. Happens every time. Tax something, and it either grows smaller. That or it foments a rebellion.
So I'm not saying it should be one way or the other, but I think that's the question that we have to ask: Is it important enough to get the government involved?
At least with a tax, it leaves the choice to the individual about whether he/she wants to make the purchase, pay the price. When you enforce with a corporation, you limit individual choice, tell people they are too stupid to think for themselves, and really should rely on big brother to think for them.
I do think education is important, as is labelling. Just think what a difference food nutrition content labels make in your choices.
However, i think it should remain an individual choice.
I guess its different values for food. To me what I've learned through education about what goes into things like fast food, the exploitation of workers (particularly immigrants), the fact that a lot of food is banned from the US in the EU because of some of the chemicals involved (including spraying chlorox bleach on the chickens), the complete lack of nutrition in most commercial/processed foods, the affects of bad food particularly the beef industry on the environment and the contribution to world hunger has made it so that I haven't touched fast food in over 6 years and only go out to eat at places I know share my values for food even if it is inconvenient, even if sometimes my cooking at home tastes like paste. I learned a lot about proper diet, how to cook (I could only make macaroni salad once and now you should see my cook book collection), where my food comes from, how to read labels and make choices from that. Making a difference in myself (lost 50 lbs so far) and the world with my food purchases is a powerful thing and I owe all this to educating myself because I wanted to. To me, I can't afford food that has no nutritional value and that causes harm to others in some way like a lot of processed food/fast food does. I need to get the biggest bang for my buck and eat things that I know have positive karma/energy surrounding them and higher nutritional value...which is why I choose fair-trade, organic, shop at local markets, grow my own food where possible, go to local butchers, eat in season, etc....but that's just me. So--Convenience food sure does not taste good to me.
I think sex and food are two things that are basic needs...Some of the problems with sex education is preaching abstinence only and that its bad and evil. Kids should be taught in my opinion that its a normal thing at the right time in your life. However, I would strongly put abstinence out there too as a choice. I think education is still important for food and sex...but all options need to be put on the table so people can make the most informed decisions.
Final thing on food...Jamie Oliver did a thing over here encouraging a pass it on cooking type thing. He taught others to cook a dish, then those people taught people (party like settings), then they passed it on and so on. Wonder if that kind of thing would work in the US?
I say tax it! But not the stores, tax the individuals that purchase it. I actually loved Huckabee's approach to taxes. Put an equal amount of tax on everything that is excess (a second car, second home, whatever) The people who can afford it will pay it anyway, the people who can't probably won't (and probably shouldn't anyway)and if they do, then they should pay the taxes on it, too. And then there is a distribution of wealth. The taxes that the wealthy pay will pay for all of our socialist programs we support. If its unnecessary and especially if its bad for you...TAX IT! I love the idea. $24 billion could pay for some great social healthcare!
But who decides what is bad for you? Isn't that just saying it's ok to trust the government, anyway? Sounds like the Christian "conservative" version of socialism.
Like the gipper said, "The most frightening words in the English language are 'I'm from the government, and I'm here to help you."
No, thank you. I'll help myself thank you.
(Please don't take me too literally. I don't actually believe it is that black and white. It just makes better rhetoric, see?)
So Mike Huckabee supports socialism? I'm confused. I never did understand his tax ideas.
Farmers...the subsidies that are handed out by the government are partly to blame for the obesity epidemic in America.
Farmers in America grow tons of wheat and corn. These crops are cheap and easy to produce and they are used in nearly every single processed food on the market.
Americans need to be educated on proper diet. Eating a truly balanced diet is the solution, not taxing soft drinks and "juices". The current food pyramid is BS in my opinion. If we want to be lean, we should be promoting a diet that is no more that 50% carbs, at least 40% protein, between 10 - 15 % fat while also paying attention to getting the right mix of green veggies, fruits, and essential fatty acids.
I personally try to follow about a 45/45/10 macro-nutrient ratio to stay relatively lean. But the ratios I stated above are probably more realistic for most people. Diet and exercise do take effort. But the benefits are worth it.
The government is diverting our attention again. They want us to worry about ridiculous issues so that we don't have our eye on reforming a corrupt institution.
I would gladly give up some of the extra "love handles" around my waist if it would help alleviate global poverty and national obesity... ;-)
Post a Comment