Harrolds.Blogspot.com
Washington Post Opinion
September 27, 2009
By Katherine Mangu-Ward
Like bears to honey or zombies to brains, politicians find something irresistible about soda taxes. President Obama recently told Men’s Health magazine that he thinks a “sin tax” on soda is “an idea that we should be exploring.” San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom moved to impose a fee on stores for selling sugary drinks, only to admit that his plan was probably illegal. In December, New York Gov. David Paterson proposed a 18 percent tax on full-sugar soda to help cover a budget shortfall. After a public outcry, he claimed he was just raising awareness about childhood obesity. But he was also rehashing the same old myths about how taxing soda will save us all:
1. Sin taxes are for our own good.
The basic idea sounds reasonable enough. Why not have the government nudge citizens along the path to righteousness by making bad choices more expensive? But even the most avid proponents of sin taxes concede that none of the nickel-and-dime proposals on the table is large enough to discourage soda drinking. And they’re not really intended to. Soda taxes, like most sin taxes, aren’t primarily designed to reduce consumption — they’re designed to raise revenue. Tap water is already virtually free. Adding a few cents in tax to a $1.29 soda bottle isn’t going to send cost-conscious Coke-guzzlers swarming to the nearest water fountain. Forty states currently take a bite out of sales of soda or junk food — if anyone’s addicted to soda, it’s state legislatures. In the Men’s Health interview, Obama focused on childhood obesity. But the Senate Finance Committee’s interest in soda taxes at a hearing this spring wasn’t about keeping American spawn slim; health-care reformers were salivating over the projected $24 billion in revenue that a 3-cent tax would generate over the next four years.
2. Soda is causing the obesity epidemic.
It’s true that, on the whole, fat people drink more soda than skinny people. They also consume more calories overall and exercise less. So soda does help people pack on the pounds. But so does absolutely everything everyone eats. No news story about soda is complete without the scolding phrase “empty calories,” yet soda consumption per capita hasremained steady over the past two decades as obesity numbers have continued to rise. Weight gain is a function of calories in minus calories out. A food calorie is 4.2 kilojoules of energy, whether it comes from a bottle of orange juice, a latte or an ice-cold Coke. Cola calories are not uniquely “empty.” They are not bleak, hollow shells of calories, staging tiny productions of “Waiting for Godot” in your love handles. A calorie is a calorie.
3. Soda taxes help everyone.
Even advocates of soda taxes admit that the costs will be borne disproportionately by the poor, who spend a larger percentage of their income on soda than other groups. Nonetheless, politicians continue the long tradition of taxing the wazoo out of a can of Coke while leaving upscale beverages and luxury foods sin-tax-free. Eight ounces of Naked’s Mighty Mango juice ($3.79 a bottle at Whole Foods) contains slightly more sugar than the same serving of cola, while diet soft drinks have the same calorie count as water. But nationwide, fancy juices and venti mocha Frappuccinos remain almost completely untouched by sin surcharges, while a bodega bottle of Sprite brings down the wrath of the taxman. It’s the silly, sugary equivalent of the distinction between the harsh sentencing guidelines for people caught with crack vs. the lenient sentencing for possessors of cocaine, its high-class cousin.
4. High-fructose corn syrup is extremely hazardous to your health.
It’s the stuff that makes soda sticky sweet — and the reason many justify a soda tax. Florida state Rep. Juan Zapata called it the “crack of sweeteners” and tried to ban it in schools in 2006. At the popular blog Slashfood, it’s known as “the devil’s additive.” High-fructose corn syrup has been treated as the fall guy for America’s obesity problem. But the hazards of cheap corn sweetener are the stuff of pseudo-scientific legend. New York University nutritionist Marion Nestle, a major proponent of soda taxes, has said of corn syrup: “It’s basically no different from table sugar. . . . The body can’t tell them apart.” Even the head of the self-proclaimed “food police” has denounced high-fructose fear-mongering. Michael Jacobson of the Center for Science in the Public Interest tore into a 2004 scientific research report that kicked off anti-corn-syrup hysteria, saying, “The authors of this paper misunderstood chemistry, draw erroneous conclusions and have done a disservice to the public in generating this controversy.”
5. Obesity is driving health-care costs up. A soda tax is just a user fee.
Should we consider soda taxes an advance payment for all those diabetes tests and emergency room visits down the road — not to mention the cost of buying the inevitably necessary super-size MRI machines? A group of academics, state health commissioners and others take exactly that line in the pages of the New England Journal of Medicine this month, writing, “Escalating health care costs and the rising burden of diseases related to poor diet create an urgent need for solutions, thus justifying government’s right to recoup costs.” But there is a dangerous precedent at the root of this argument: that government can and should tax any behavior that hurts the budget’s bottom line. That logic sends us down a strange road. It’s just a slouch, sink and a slump to taxing remote controls, thus encouraging the fat and lazy to get a little exercise by standing up to change the channel.
All kinds of private decisions — good and bad — affect government spending. That doesn’t give politicians the right to use taxes to push people around.
Katherine Mangu-Ward is a senior editor at Reason magazine.
September 27, 2009
By Katherine Mangu-Ward
Like bears to honey or zombies to brains, politicians find something irresistible about soda taxes. President Obama recently told Men’s Health magazine that he thinks a “sin tax” on soda is “an idea that we should be exploring.” San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom moved to impose a fee on stores for selling sugary drinks, only to admit that his plan was probably illegal. In December, New York Gov. David Paterson proposed a 18 percent tax on full-sugar soda to help cover a budget shortfall. After a public outcry, he claimed he was just raising awareness about childhood obesity. But he was also rehashing the same old myths about how taxing soda will save us all:
1. Sin taxes are for our own good.
The basic idea sounds reasonable enough. Why not have the government nudge citizens along the path to righteousness by making bad choices more expensive? But even the most avid proponents of sin taxes concede that none of the nickel-and-dime proposals on the table is large enough to discourage soda drinking. And they’re not really intended to. Soda taxes, like most sin taxes, aren’t primarily designed to reduce consumption — they’re designed to raise revenue. Tap water is already virtually free. Adding a few cents in tax to a $1.29 soda bottle isn’t going to send cost-conscious Coke-guzzlers swarming to the nearest water fountain. Forty states currently take a bite out of sales of soda or junk food — if anyone’s addicted to soda, it’s state legislatures. In the Men’s Health interview, Obama focused on childhood obesity. But the Senate Finance Committee’s interest in soda taxes at a hearing this spring wasn’t about keeping American spawn slim; health-care reformers were salivating over the projected $24 billion in revenue that a 3-cent tax would generate over the next four years.
2. Soda is causing the obesity epidemic.
It’s true that, on the whole, fat people drink more soda than skinny people. They also consume more calories overall and exercise less. So soda does help people pack on the pounds. But so does absolutely everything everyone eats. No news story about soda is complete without the scolding phrase “empty calories,” yet soda consumption per capita hasremained steady over the past two decades as obesity numbers have continued to rise. Weight gain is a function of calories in minus calories out. A food calorie is 4.2 kilojoules of energy, whether it comes from a bottle of orange juice, a latte or an ice-cold Coke. Cola calories are not uniquely “empty.” They are not bleak, hollow shells of calories, staging tiny productions of “Waiting for Godot” in your love handles. A calorie is a calorie.
3. Soda taxes help everyone.
Even advocates of soda taxes admit that the costs will be borne disproportionately by the poor, who spend a larger percentage of their income on soda than other groups. Nonetheless, politicians continue the long tradition of taxing the wazoo out of a can of Coke while leaving upscale beverages and luxury foods sin-tax-free. Eight ounces of Naked’s Mighty Mango juice ($3.79 a bottle at Whole Foods) contains slightly more sugar than the same serving of cola, while diet soft drinks have the same calorie count as water. But nationwide, fancy juices and venti mocha Frappuccinos remain almost completely untouched by sin surcharges, while a bodega bottle of Sprite brings down the wrath of the taxman. It’s the silly, sugary equivalent of the distinction between the harsh sentencing guidelines for people caught with crack vs. the lenient sentencing for possessors of cocaine, its high-class cousin.
4. High-fructose corn syrup is extremely hazardous to your health.
It’s the stuff that makes soda sticky sweet — and the reason many justify a soda tax. Florida state Rep. Juan Zapata called it the “crack of sweeteners” and tried to ban it in schools in 2006. At the popular blog Slashfood, it’s known as “the devil’s additive.” High-fructose corn syrup has been treated as the fall guy for America’s obesity problem. But the hazards of cheap corn sweetener are the stuff of pseudo-scientific legend. New York University nutritionist Marion Nestle, a major proponent of soda taxes, has said of corn syrup: “It’s basically no different from table sugar. . . . The body can’t tell them apart.” Even the head of the self-proclaimed “food police” has denounced high-fructose fear-mongering. Michael Jacobson of the Center for Science in the Public Interest tore into a 2004 scientific research report that kicked off anti-corn-syrup hysteria, saying, “The authors of this paper misunderstood chemistry, draw erroneous conclusions and have done a disservice to the public in generating this controversy.”
5. Obesity is driving health-care costs up. A soda tax is just a user fee.
Should we consider soda taxes an advance payment for all those diabetes tests and emergency room visits down the road — not to mention the cost of buying the inevitably necessary super-size MRI machines? A group of academics, state health commissioners and others take exactly that line in the pages of the New England Journal of Medicine this month, writing, “Escalating health care costs and the rising burden of diseases related to poor diet create an urgent need for solutions, thus justifying government’s right to recoup costs.” But there is a dangerous precedent at the root of this argument: that government can and should tax any behavior that hurts the budget’s bottom line. That logic sends us down a strange road. It’s just a slouch, sink and a slump to taxing remote controls, thus encouraging the fat and lazy to get a little exercise by standing up to change the channel.
All kinds of private decisions — good and bad — affect government spending. That doesn’t give politicians the right to use taxes to push people around.
Katherine Mangu-Ward is a senior editor at Reason magazine.
***
To read the original article, go to http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/25/AR2009092502015.html.
Hi,
ReplyDeleteInteresting site.
4. "HFCS is extremely hazardous to your health."
While it is true that the body cannot differentiate the origin of fructose and glucose, whether the simple sugars comes from sucrose or enzymatically isomerized corn starch, the body can recognize a simple sugar imbalance. Take the variant HFCS-55 which is used to sweeten all national brands of soda. HFCS-55 is 55% fructose: 45% glucose. This appears to be just 5% different from the 50% fructose: 50% glucose ratio of sucrose. That is, until you do the math. 55%:45% = 55/45 = 1.22. This means that in every can of Coke (bottled in the US, international Coke uses sucrose), there is, compared to glucose, 22% more fructose. In every day terms this means that drinking 5 HFCS-sweetened sodas is the equivalent of drinking 4 1/4 sucrose sweetened sodas + 3/4 can of pure fructose sweetened soda. Considering that the average teen chugs a couple of sodas a day, that's a lot of extra fructose bombarding the liver. Could this imbalance of fructose>glucose have led to
our health woes? The CRA designed a fructose enriched product and now they're back pedaling and saying that it is essentially the same as sucrose. I find that patently decpetive. Their $30 million dollar publicity stint was a failure (several parodies on Youtube), and now the CCF has taken their plight. Ditch HFCS, especially HFCS-55. To your health.