A Taxing Issue
An editorial published yesterday in the New England Journal of Medicine lays out the “Public Policy Case for Taxes on Sugared Beverages.” The piece, by Kelly Brownell, Ph.D. and Thomas Friedan, M.D., M.P.H. makes several salient points:
Sugared beverages are marketed extensively to children and adolescents, and in the mid-1990s, children’s intake of sugared beverages surpassed that of milk. In the past decade, per capita intake of calories from sugar-sweetened beverages has increased by nearly 30% (see bar graph)3; beverages now account for 10 to 15% of the calories consumed by children and adolescents. For each extra can or glass of sugared beverage consumed per day, the likelihood of a child’s becoming obese increases by 60%.4
Taxes on tobacco products have been highly effective in reducing consumption, and data indicate that higher prices also reduce soda consumption. A review conducted by Yale University’s Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity suggested that for every 10% increase in price, consumption decreases by 7.8%. An industry trade publication reported even larger reductions: as prices of carbonated soft drinks increased by 6.8%, sales dropped by 7.8%, and as Coca-Cola prices increased by 12%, sales dropped by 14.6%.5 Such studies — and the economic principles that support their findings — suggest that a tax on sugared beverages would encourage consumers to switch to more healthful beverages, which would lead to reduced caloric intake and less weight gain.
Naturally, the soda industry doesn’t like the idea…
Susan Neely, president and CEO for the American Beverage Association, released a statement in response to the article and said they agree that obesity is a big problem, but cited a National Institute of Health study indicating all calories count, whether they come in a can, bottle, bag or as a big plate of greasy, salty fries.
“Taxing these products won’t make an ounce of difference in reducing obesity. But these taxes will inflict serious pain to hard-working families, who face higher costs at the store and the risk of losing their job all in the middle of a devastating recession,” Neely wrote.
I’ll concede this to Neely: all calories DO count, although her comment about “serious pain to hard-working families” rings pretty hollow. Hard-working families could save themselves even more money by NOT BUYING THE STUFF AT ALL This is, of course, the point of the tax: to provide a disincentive to consumption. As Kelly Brownell points out: “…“the poor could most benefit from reduced consumption because they’re most vulnerable to obesity and diabetes.”
Brownell 1; Neely 0.
It may seem unfair to tax sodas and not – say – candy or potato chips…and I can’t argue with that: it IS unfair. Then again, so are a lot of public policies and issues that folks like Neely aren’t losing any sleep over. And the evidence that sugar-sweetened beverage consumption and obesity are linked is piling up. For example, here’s the latest from Columbia University…
April 6, 2009– Replacing consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) with water could eliminate an average of 235 excess calories per day among children and adolescents, according to a study published in the April 2009 Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine. The study’s authors conclude that such a replacement would be a simple and effective way to reduce excess intake of calories causing childhood overweight and obesity, as well as address dental cavities and other health problems associated with added sugar. And they predict no detrimental effects on nutrition.
“The evidence is now clear that replacing these ‘liquid calories’ with calorie-free beverage alternatives both at home and in schools represents a key strategy to eliminate excess calories and prevent childhood obesity,” said Y. Claire Wang, MD, ScD, assistant professor of Health Policy and Management at Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health and the study’s lead author.
…No data suggest that youths increase their consumption of other foods and beverages to compensate for drinking fewer SSBs, and so every can of soda or fruit drink that is replaced by water means a net reduction of calories.
Not to mention this recent study from Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health…
When it comes to weight loss, what you drink may be more important than what you eat, according to researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Researchers examined the relationship between beverage consumption among adults and weight change and found that weight loss was positively associated with a reduction in liquid calorie consumption and liquid calorie intake had a stronger impact on weight than solid calorie intake.
“Both liquid and solid calories were associated with weight change, however, only a reduction in liquid calorie intake was shown to significantly affect weight loss during the 6-month follow up,” said Benjamin Caballero MD, PhD, senior author of the study and a professor with the Bloomberg School’s Department of International Health. “A reduction in liquid calorie intake was associated with a weight loss of 0.25 kg at 6 months and 0.24 kg at 18 months. Among sugar-sweetened beverages, a reduction of 1 serving was associated with a weight loss of 0.5 kg at 6 months and 0.7 kg at 18 months. Of the seven types of beverages examined, sugar-sweetened beverages were the only beverages significantly associated with weight change.”
I think it goes without saying that the proceeds of such a tax – which would raise an estimated 1.2 billion in New York State alone – should be used for nutrition and public health programs. This would make it a “win-win” proposition.
Under the circumstances, I think it’s certainly a measure worth exploring. Sure, as a stand alone measure, it’s hardly a cure for the obesity epidemic. But it’s a place to start…and it sure as hell beats doing nothing at all. We’re already doing that – and it’s clearly not working.
April 10, 2009
I agree that sugared drinks are bad for children. I will also say that they are bad for adults. I have’nt drank a soda pop in over 7 years. I think there does need to be some control over consumption.
I do not like the idea of making it a tax. It seems like that is yhe big Governmental “thing” these days.If they feel something is not good for us then they just throw a tax on it for our own good.
I don’t know about others, but in Michigan we have a high income, sales & gas tax now. Another one added to the mix would’nt be good.
I do feel something should be done. An example would be to have parents do their job and have them make sure their children are drinking the proper beverages.
To me that would be much better than a tax.
April 10, 2009
Income, sales and gas taxes affect everyone who works, purchases anything but food, and drives a car (a virtual necessity for most). This is quite different… The example here is cigarette taxes, which affect only users, and has had the desired effect of reducing consumption – we know measures like this can work as part of an arsenal of tools to influence behavior. If people don’t drink sodas and other sugar-sweetened beverages, then they need not pay the tax at all. It’s strictly a choice.
And – needless to state – “having parents do their job and have them make sure their children are drinking the proper beverage” begs the question of “how”? Seems to me, that’s the ultimate in big government, when you step in to enforce how parents raise their children.