Food/drink

Experts Push 1 Cent per Ounce Soda Tax

Friday Sep 25, 2009
  • PRINT
  • COMMENTS (1)
  • LARGE
  • MEDIUM
  • SMALL
  (Source:AP)

In a bid to ramp up the public health battle against obesity, a group of nutrition and economics experts are pushing for a tax of 1 cent on every of ounce of sodas and other sweetened beverages.

Proposals for a hefty soda tax though have repeatedly fallen flat. The idea was even floated as a way to help pay for health care reform, but government officials on Wednesday said that’s not likely to happen.

The experts’ plan was released by the influential New England Journal of Medicine, in a health policy article by Arkansas’ surgeon general, New York City’s health commissioner and five national experts on health and economics.

A soda tax would generate tax revenue while discouraging people from consuming extra calories, the authors contend. They cited a series of studies that showed higher rates of obesity and diabetes among women who drank more sugar-sweetened beverages. They argue that a steeper soda tax would borrow the same strategy that helped drive down cigarette smoking while bolstering government revenues.

But a golden opportunity for enacting a national soda tax apparently slipped away Wednesday, when the Senate Finance Committee released its health reform proposal without a previously considered soda tax provision.

The House of Representatives’ health reform bill also is without a soda tax. And a White House spokesman on Wednesday said President Barack Obama is not going to ask for Congress to put a soda tax in.

The politics of health reform are too delicate right now to provoke an attack from the sugar and beverage industries, said Kenneth Thorpe, a health policy researcher at Emory University.

"They’re at such a fragile place, introducing anything new and big like that into the mold is not likely to happen," said Thorpe, who served as a federal health policy official under President Bill Clinton.

Taxes on soda aren’t new - 33 states charge sales tax on soft drinks. But generally they are fairly small, with the average soda tax rate being 5.2 percent. On a 12-ounce can of soda that costs $1, that translates to about 5 cents.

The latest proposal in Thursday’s issue of the medical journal calls for a 1-cent-per-ounce sales tax, an amount more than double the average state tax. It would increase the levy on that $1 soda can to 12 cents.

A national tax of that amount would generate nearly $15 billion in its first year, said proposal author Kelly Brownell, director of Yale University’s Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity.

The money could be used for child nutrition and obesity prevention programs, the authors suggested. The tax also would lead to a yearly 2-pound weight loss for soda drinkers, on average, they estimated. For people who drink who drink a lot of soda, it could be more, Brownell said.

His co-authors included Arkansas Surgeon General Dr. Joe Thompson; New York City Health Commissioner Dr. Thomas Farley; University of North Carolina obesity expert Barry Popkin; University of Illinois economist Frank Chaloupka; and Harvard nutrition and obesity experts Dr. Walter Willett and Dr. David Ludwig.

But the beverage industry will no doubt fight a legislative proposal like that, Brownell and others said. PepsiCo threatened to move its corporate headquarters out of New York before that state dropped efforts to implement an 18-percent sales tax on sweetened beverages, they noted.

The American Beverage Association disputed that the soda tax would reduce obesity rates.

"We agree that obesity is a serious public health issue, but the solution put forth by these researchers simply won’t work," the trade group said in a statement. "Reducing obesity will only be addressed through comprehensive solutions."

Thompson, the Arkansas surgeon general, said one reason soda taxes fail is that consumers don’t view sugared beverages as an important source of their weight problems.

"That’s a new concept" that may take a while to gain wide acceptance, he said.

Brownell said it is more likely that soda taxes would be adopted first by states, than by the federal government.

"That’s what happened with tobacco. The states were on it long before there was federal action," he said.

Copyright Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Comments

  • Anonymous, 2009-09-25 07:47:36

    EXPERTS.......by whose definition. higher taxes on smokes have only caused higher consumption in blackmarket cigs.They have no way to determine lowered usage because they did it by volumes of cig sales which went down due to the higher taxes on legal smokes. Now they are outlawing internet sales where people could buy cheaper smokes and thats going to lead to the canadian problem right here in the US. woth bootleg cigs sold right out of the boot of a car....where anyone can buy them......including your kids. Poor hurley...why dont you tell the truth about second hand smoke..........but of course your paid to spread lies and propaganda.........The fact is second hand smoke is a joke.......a joke you ask? ITS 98% WATER VAPOR STEAM....If your afraid of water like hurley is,then you will be afraid of second hand smoke...Why take my word for it.......lets see what osha says about it.....As for secondhand smoke in the air, OSHA has stated outright that: "Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)...It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded." -Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec’y, OSHA, To Leroy J Pletten, PHD, July 8, 1997 and then......... Wednesday, March 12, 2008 British Medical Journal & WHO conclude secondhand smoke "health hazard" claims are greatly exaggerated The BMJ published report can be found here: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7398/1057 And concludes: The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed. What makes this study more significant than any other is that it took place over a 39 year period, and studied the results of non-smokers who lived with smokers..... meaning these non-smokers were exposed to secondhand smoke up to 24 hours per day; 365 days per year for 39 years. And there was still no relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality. This report was of course silenced in the media; however in light of the damage to business, jobs, and the economy from smoking bans the BMJ report should be revisited by lawmakers as a reference tool and justification to repeal the now unnecessary and very damaging smoking ban laws. Also significant is the World Health Organization (WHO) study which concluded "..secondhand smoking doesn’t cause cancer..." found online here. Excerpt: Passive smoking doesn’t cause cancer-official By Victoria Macdonald, Health Correspondent The results are consistent with their being no additional risk for a person living or working with a smoker and could be consistent with passive smoke having a protective effect against lung cancer. The summary, seen by The Telegraph, also states: "There was no association between lung cancer risk and ETS exposure during childhood." And if lawmakers need additional real world data to further highlight the need to eliminate these onerous and arbitrary laws, air quality testing by Johns Hopkins University, the American Cancer Society, a Minnesota Environmental Health Department, and various researchers whose testing and report was also peer reviewed and published in the esteemed British Medical Journal......prove that secondhand smoke is 2.6 - 25,000 times SAFER than occupational (OSHA) workplace regulations.


Add New Comment

Comments on Facebook