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.
D. Linehan says
Am so tired of being taxed on any and everything the gov’t thinks they can get away with…..soda tax–ridiculous! If people want to drink soda, they will. Why tax it? Apparently this man thinks people are so stupid they can’t make up their own minds if soda is good for them or not, so by golly, he’s going to push for legislation to tax soda! Will it really stop people from buying soda? The answer is a resounding NO! Get out of our wallets and stop pushing us more towards a Nanny state where the government takes care of and regulates our lives even more, and takes away our freedoms, one at a time.
DJDeeJay says
You think adding taxes, and therefore raising the price, of sodas won’t convince people to drink less? Did you read the article? They did the exact same thing with cigarettes and the smoking rate has plummeted by 50% in 50 years. Prices do affect consumption.
AnnMarie says
Interesting! And I would like to see some transparency in what is done with the tax “revenues” that the government collects in connection with tobacco. I, for one, decided to implement my own greenhouse of sorts and plant my own veggies to supplement the few that I buy from farmer’s markets or, rarely, from the store. When will people see that more taxation is not the answer for anything? I just don’t get how some people lost their sense of empowerment. It’s incredible.
Leah says
How can they isolate the cause of the decrease in smoking? Many other things have gone on to discourage smoking in the last 50 years, one can hardly say definitively that the tax caused the decrease. I would venture to guess it actually had very little to do with it, but that would just be my opinion.
Jennie Johnson says
I am opposed to Mark Bittman’s soda tax! For every tax dollar that the government takes in only 19 cents of it actually accomplishes anything because of all the fraud and government waste. Do you trust your savings account with the average politician? Why should we share more of our savings accounts with people who steal and defraud us on a regular basis? Everyone deserves the free will to choose how they will live. Only people who are dysfunctional feel the need to control the lives of other people. Media and Politicians are pushing their dysfunctionality on us, next they will make a law to take children away from their parents if the children are too thin or fat (such a law is being considered by the President as we read this blog). Can the government handle all those who are incarcerated, is there money for social security or medicare for those who have paid in and yet there will be money for a huge Foster program for under- and over-weight children? Does the government know how to raise your children better than you do? Does the government know what the ideal weight is for every child based on their genetics? Would a Village love your children more than you do? Or is the family unit the best place for children to be raised and nurtured? Let’s stop believing the lies of the media and politicians and think for ourselves. Do we really want government telling us how to live our lives?
DJDeeJay says
“such a law is being considered by the President as we read this blog”
No, the President is not considering this law right now. It was suggested by an article in a medical journal. That’s as far as it’s gotten as of now.
Anna Marie says
NO NO NO. The Government has no right. It is the parents responsibility to parent their child NOT the Govt. I understand that it doesn’t seem fair that fruit costs more than soda, but life isn’t fair. I neither drink soda, nor do I give it to my children, but if someone chooses to that is up to them, We have to do our job as responsible adults/citizens/parents. Keep the Govt. out of my house
DJDeeJay says
Fruit doesn’t actually cost less than soda, all things considered. I mean, think about it: all the chemicals that are used in soda, the packaging, the marketing – how could it cost less? Because the government is ALREADY interfering by offering subsidies for corn (like the corn syrup in sodas), soy and other mass crops. Take away those subsidies and we’d see the true costs of real foods vs. processed products.
The government is already in our homes and has been forever. We’re just so used to it that we don’t see it.
Heather says
Soda should be a luxury item. HFCS should NOT be subsidizedt, and an extra tax on it is fine with me. I’m fine paying taxes on my liquor, and I’m very happy with cigarettes being taxed too. Heck, I’d be happy if we’d legalize marijuana, regulate it, and tax the hell out of it.
But I’m a crazy liberal, I know. I’d love to see our tax brackets back to Clinton-era rates.
You know what I’d also love to see: restricting the use of food stamps from being used for candy, soda, and other junky garbage. Everyone can kill themselves in their own way, but I’d rather my tax dollars not subsidize that. If anything, use the money to pay to help these people NOT kill themselves.
Karen Schudson says
I’m all for imposing these kind of taxes. Too bad it’s such a “hot potato”. Funny how people who don’t want government intrusion also complain that government does too little.
Leah says
Can you please explain such a blanket statement about the people who don’t want government intrusion?? Your comment doesn’t make much sense to me.
Betsy says
Please back your comments up with some facts. I don’t want government intrusion and I would NEVER complain they do too little. Your comment is truly childish.
Paleo Rob says
Tax should only be used as source of revenue for the government and not as method of social engineering.
The government definition of what is healthy and what I know to be healthy is very different. Once the mechanism is in place, how hard would it be for the government to put red meat, butter or god forbid bacon on the list?
If anything the playing field should be leveled and all subsidies should simply be removed (especially the ones on soy and corn).
Nicole says
agreed.
Marcy says
Oh my word –
Is this really the appropriate place to discuss this? Why does every food blogger try to use their platforms to push their political beliefs?
The answer is ABSOLUTELY NOT. Honestly – who is the government to decide which industries to punish? Why soda and not candy? Why stop at candy? Why not fast food? Where in the world does it stop? When everyone eats like you think they should?
This also assumes that making unhealthy choices is related to income levels. If that were the case there would be no obesity among middle and higher income families. Clearly not the case.
I’d be all for the government teaching people HOW to be more healthy, but PUH LEASE. The soda industry is no more to blame than the fast food industry, or the processed food industry. It’s just another way for people to absolve themselves of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. And PS – the farmers are already subsidized.
People not interested in personal responsibility are always looking for someone to blame.
Catie says
Marcy, this is the perfect place to discuss this…In fact, I can’t think of a better place. A forum in which people are speaking freely about healthy choices on a blog about healthy choices. Furthermore, this is Elana’s blog and she can write and ask about whatever she pleases just as you can read and answer her thoughts and questions however you please.
Marcy says
You’re so right, Catie. Sorry for my outburst.
I’m a newbie to Elana’s forum and have so enjoyed coming here the last few weeks. I’ve written so much praise and thanks for her recipes and that she has taken the time to share her talents and discoveries with us. I’m just so personally disappointed to see it turn into a forum to criticize and demonize an entire industry.
I would remove my comment if I could; clearly an opinion that’s not welcome here. My apologies.
Catie says
No, I think there are many in your camp – read through the comments again…many are for No Tax. Together, we’ll meet somewhere in the middle and begin to create solutions to our obesity/health crisis our country faces. And, I wholeheartedly agree, education is our only path to that center.
Marcy says
Hey, Catie –
I was trying to pinpoint what it was about your post that bothered me so much, and here it is –
this isn’t a discussion about healthy food. There isn’t a question on whether or not excessive amounts of soda is healthy. This discussion is about government intervention and whether or not we should ask the government to a) determine which behaviors are “bad” and then trust them to b) determine the right punishment those behaviors. It really has very little to do with healthy food or eating habits. It’s politics. That’s why it feels out of place to me here.
Your point is still right on – Elana can blog about anything she wants. It’s her site and that’s 100% her right.
Catie says
Actually, it’s not about politics it’s not about government intervention it’s about taxing soda. The discussion has shifted to “Government in my kitchen”. Well, no one is really inviting them there. Soda is the number one contributor to childhood obesity. Childhood obesity is now classified as an Epidemic.
As in “Emergency”.
As in “Crisis”.
This much we know. Divisive political discussions only cloud the issue and prevent common sense actions by concerned parents and health care professionals all over our country. Bittman suggests the soda tax…you don’t like it…what is your alternate suggestion then? I think we are all available for constructive discussion. I’m open to hear other solutions. Unfortunately, the “personal responsibility” one isn’t working.
Anna says
Your comment doesn’t make any sense. Questions of taxation are questions of politics.
Kathy says
They are already rewarding some industries and by default punishing others. Where has your outrage been all this time?
Marcy says
Hey Kathy –
No worries – I actually am outraged at government intervention in our lives. It doesn’t start with this issue. Appreciate your concern! =)
Sarah says
I don’t disagree with a soda tax, but I’m not sure I agree either. I’d have to read the research from Yale he references, as I have a hard time believing they actually proved that a tax at that level would lead to behaviour change on a large level. Sure it would lead to some behaviour change, but the question is how much? Here in Australia junk food is EXPENSIVE. But our obesity problem is nearly as bad as the states. Cost alone does not deter people from eating unhealthy foods. Sure it will deter some, but again, the question is how many?
Bittman makes good points, but makes inaccurate assumptions on a few counts. The most irritating of which is this: you can’t isolate the tax on tobacco and attribute the decline in smoking to the tax. This discounts the countless number of social marketing and behaviour change programs targeting smoking, and the public health workers who work on them. There’s a large body of literature discussing these results, and he doesn’t even bother to reference the fact that the tax alone was not solely responsible for the decline.
Sarah says
I am all for healthy food choices. Imo most soda is poison as are a lot of other foods.
As for a soda tax or any other food tax. NO WAY! I think that government assistance in the production of unhealthy foods (i.e. subsidizing corn) should stop too.
There is no way on earth I want the government, or any other organization, telling me what I should and should not be eating. Especially through some kind of ‘force’ such as taxes, outlawing foods etc. I don’t agree with the fda’s food pyramid or many other things that the government conisders healthy or unhealthy.
I definitely think it is incredibly insane to “protect” people from their own “stupidity” or whatever. I am glad I don’t live in a socialist nation and hope ours doesn’t continue to lean in that direction.
One of the things we need to have to begin a Real change is doctors who have a far better understanding of real nutrition and it’s role in our health. I have not met a single md who has a deep understanding of the way our body works with the food we consume. People listen to their doctors. Especially parents to pediatricians. This would be far better than an arbitrary tax to effect a change in people’s habits.
Stephanie says
I don’t drink much soda so I am not sure where I stand on this issue. When I first heard of the idea to tax soda, I thought of it as a luxury tax. I realize most people who drink soda do not think of it as a luxury … but it’s a treat, not a necessity. I think of the tobacco tax the same way.