Is soda the new tobacco? That is what I was wondering after I read Mark Bittman’s op-ed piece (Bad Food? Tax It) in yesterday’s New York Times. In his article (which I tweeted several times) Bittman suggested taxing soda and subsidizing vegetables. Not such a bad idea, right?
Wait a minute. There will be loads of people who vehemently object to Bittman’s proposed soda tax. Why? They will claim that we are creating a nanny state. They will argue that the process of determining which foods are healthy and which are not is too complicated and subjective. Bittman however, has sound comebacks for each argument that the critics throw his way.
Bittman’s points are compelling, here are just a couple:
- because of subsidies to industrial agriculture fruit is more expensive than Froot Loops
- one-third of Americans either have diabetes or are pre-diabetic
- a sane diet could save billions of dollars in health care costs
Bittman has plenty of solutions for the spiraling healthcare costs associated with the Standard American Diet (SAD). He talks about spending revenues from a soda tax on local gyms and to pollinate food deserts. He also notes that for the first time in our history, “lifestyle” (preventable) diseases, will kill more people than communicable ones.”
Finally, Bittman drives his point home when discussing the historic ramifications of the implementation of the tobacco tax, noting that since its institution just over three decades ago, smoking has declined by more than half.
What are your thoughts on the soda tax? Leave a comment and let’s discuss this controversial issue.
chris says
i wonder if you have a way for me to get your feed in my google reader?
thanks. chris
Christine says
There seems to be some mass confusion here. First off, Mark Bittman isn’t a legislator. Secondly, it’s NOT the government that’s the problem it’s the billions spent on lobbying by the very corporations that are trashing our food supply, making the vast majority of soda/junk drinks that ARE the problem. Thirdly, It would be a move in the right direction to break up the stranglehold monopoly these few companies have on the entire planet, not just the US.
Encouraging healthy eating and exercise by directing the proceeds towards gyms ( would prefer to see community based centers over private gyms) IS a good thing when there are so few places for kids to play, exercise, take gym classes, interact in team play without being in a sports league. Many areas simply don’t have those resources or families can’t afford them. Some kids aren’t good at team sports but still need to find some form of exercise that they will be likely to do their entire lives.
Sarah says
I agree with Christine. Our broken political system is the real root of the problem. My father just sent a brief ‘Letter to the Editor’ in response to Bittman’s article, which I hope will get published. In his letter, he takes Christine’s comment to the next step — it’s the special interest groups’ support of political campaigns that causes lawmakers to back corporate interests (like subsidies to make junk food cheaper to produce) rather than those of the voters and the public good. We should insist on public financing of political campaigns so legislators are beholden to the voters, not to those who produce junk food which only increases our health care crisis which we later pay for through taxes.
Brett Rainbow says
I have the following questions for the supporters of a sugar tax:
1. Instead of taxing sugar, why not just tax body fat percentage directly? For example, anyone with over 25% body fat has their marginal tax rate increased by 5%. Please explain why this is acceptable/unacceptable vis a vis the sugar tax.
2. Let’s say tomorrow that Mark Bittman comes out with an editorial saying we must tax saturated fat. As part of this, Bittman advocates banning coconut milk, coconut oil, and other coconut products. Please explain why this couldn’t happen if we go down the path of allowing the government to decide what’s best for us.
Please not I am not in favor of government subsidies for grains, corn, or any other food product.
Judy says
What kind of genetic health problems does you family have? Your family history could get you ‘taxed’. Do you really want to open the door to this. Hitler used the same logic to rid Germany of all its ‘undesirables’.
Jay says
It’s obvious from your rediculous comparison comment, that some people have no idea of what they speak.
Amy says
So, he thinks a police state will cure what ails us. The question is, where will it end? Twenty to thirty years ago, the medical community said all fats were bad, go fat free. Now there are good fats and bad fats. We were told sun was bad. Now some sun is good. Should we allow the government to dictate what we eat and drink, when even the medical community can’t agree? I’m not saying that sugary soda will ever be good for you, but when did we start letting the government think for us?
Personally, I think that if people were less busy, lived more simple lifestyles, and stopped trying to keep up with the Joneses, everyone would be healthier. One tends to make poorer choices when they are stressed, busy, overworked, sick, etc.
BTW, Pittsburgh mayor tried to push for a soda tax last year (more to help the city coffers than to discourage drinking sugary stuff – as seen by the passing of the 50% parking tax, amusement tax, alcholic drink tax, etc. But I digress…) The proposed tax would be 2 cents on every ounce. That means the tax would add 40 cents to the cost of a 20-ounce bottle of pop and 24 cents to the price of a 12-ounce can. It would add $2.88 to the price of 12-packs and $1.35 to the cost of a 2-liter bottle.
Tina Jo says
Subsidies are BAD!!! Always. I do not want the government deciding what is healthy and unhealthy. They are not very good at it. Just look at the food pyramid for proof. I don’t even want Mark Bittman deciding what is healthy for me. I am an American, a free citizen, let me decide that.
Rebecca says
This would make me nervous as it leaves the burden of defining “unhealthy foods” up to our government. While I agree soda is unhealthy, I don’t appreciate the government telling me & my family what to eat. Nor do I see eye to eye with the government on many other foods they claim are unhealthy or healthy. It’s slippery slope. I read an article recently about a school system in Chicago that has banned students from bringing their lunches to school & has made cafeteria lunches mandatory arguing that their meals are healthier than what kids are bringing. While that may be true of some, it is not the case with my daughter. I would not want her eating what the school system defines as “healthy”. Where does it stop?
Christine says
I agree with Mark Bittman’s proposed Soda Tax. I see plenty of kids in affluent communities from California to Kansas drinking soda, sports drinks, hi-cal coffee drinks, faux-juice, ANYTHING but water, teas or liquid foods like real fruit juice or milk.
I saw it states to TAX SODA and SUBSIDIZE FRUITS AND VEGETABLES. That would automatically force companies like ADM, Cargill, Monsanto, Kraft to get with the program or lose out to the competition. What’s wrong with making these HUGE monopolies pay for destroying the health of the nation, misleading the public and flat-out lying about nutritional value.
Not only would this be good for the people but good for the planet as manufacturing all those food analogs has a high carbon footprint.
Mari says
No, absolutely not! The government always starts out with something that presumably makes sense, and then they expand their presence in it. What starts out as something that is good and beneficial ends up as a total mess that takes on a life of it’s own and never stops growing. Look at the mess the federal bureaucracy is in now. They can’t get anything done without spending a ton of money and then they screw everything up anyway. When they prove they can do something right and stop wasting money, maybe then they could consider doing something new. I agree that the corporate welfare should stop, but I don’t think a further tax is the answer. If something is the problem, don’t compound it. I have lived in several states where the states charge tax for candy and soda. It doesn’t stop anyone from consuming the stuff.
Christina says
Paula o’Brian has touched on the crux of the problem. It is the subsidies to the big Agri business (aka mono culture, GMO, pesticide supporters) subsidies are largely to blame for the “unhealthy” pricing of food out in the market. The government’s fix for the unconsious problem they have created should be to take responsibility for the mistake and roll back those subsidies. By taxing sodas, the responsibility for this problem is placed in the hands of the poverty-stricken folks who consume a disproportionate ratio of these kinds of food-like substances.
Janet says
Terrible idea. Bittman and supporters are making a huge leap of faith here.
Taxing soda in no way will cause increased consumption of vegetables. Taxing soda does one thing only: it makes soda more expensive. Parents and kids will simply purchase more expensive sodas, or buy a cheaper brand, or wait for it to go on sale and stock up. Period.
No child on this green earth will decide to eat vegetables because Coke has gone up. Seriously.
Why has smoking declined? Not because cigarettes cost more.
Sorry to be negative. I hate seeing rolypoly children, and they are everywhere. Large concentrations are from poor income families where both parents are working, sometimes more than one job and have a hard enough time getting by without struggling to convince their kids into making healthier choices. It’s fast and satisfying to serve chips and sodas, at least in the immediacy of wanting to eat.
Living in Los Angeles I know that too many kids do not have safe places to play outdoors which only perpetuates the problems. Schools serving Pizza Hut, KFC and McDonalds will never further the cause either.
It’s such a crisis, I’d like to see mandatory community based parent education. We need to cone back to the community to thrive.
a says
I absolutly agree