Calls in the US for a federal tax on sodas and other sugary drinks are gathering momentum. But will a “soda tax” do anything to curb the obesity epidemic?

I believe it will. But before I argue the point, here’s some background for those new to the debate.

Washington leaders are busy discussing ways to pay for President Barack Obama’s $1.2-trillion extreme makeover of the health care system… and a soda tax could be one of them.

It’s estimated that the controversial tax could raise as much as $24bn over the next four years.

Supporters of the tax, like the Center for Science in the Public Interest, say sugary drinks are one of the main culprits in the global obesity epidemic. They argue that a national tax - similar to those levied in at least 12 states already - would cut consumption and make for a healthier nation.

Michael Jacobson, the center’s executive director said: “Soda is clearly one of the most harmful products in the food supply, and it’s something government should discourage the consumption of”.

Not surprisingly, the American Beverage Association, the lobby representing Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Kraft Foods and other big drinks companies, disagrees. It says such a tax would be unfair on lower-income people and would do nothing to cut the amount of sodas and other sugary drinks Americans consume.

“Taxes are not going to teach our children how to have a healthy lifestyle,” said association president, Susan Neely. The association backs self regulation, in the form of nationally agreed guidelines, as a way to limit sugary beverage consumption in schools.

I believe there’s room for both approaches.

A soda tax would certainly be effective. There’s overwhelming evidence that sugary sodas are indeed one of the chief contributors to obesity, the biggest public health menace in the US, any many other countries, today.

And there’s plenty of precedent for “sin taxes” on harmful industries, both to encourage them to moderate their behavior and to help pay for measures to mitigate the harm they have caused.

The smoking industry is a perfect example and the anti-soda tax arguments currently being used by the beverage industry mirror those trotted out by the tobacco lobby years ago. They’re just as flawed now as they were then.

Ms Nealy says a tax will hurt poor consumers and won’t teach our kids to have a healthy lifestyle. Wrong on both counts.

It’s poor consumers who are the biggest victims of the obesity epidemic and they’re the least able to afford the kind of health care needed to treat its ills - diabetes, heart disease and other ailments. Wouldn’t a share of the $24bn soda taxes go some way towards helping the victims?

And teaching our kids about healthy lifestyles? Last time I looked, a few billion dollars bought you a lot of education.

As for self regulation, it’s another of those tired tobacco lobby tactics. By all means lets have national guidelines. But let’s give them teeth and make them federally enforceable.

This, coupled with a national soda tax, would be the quickest way to encourage beverage makers to produce and market healthier drinks.

I’d drink to that.

• Diet pills versus Metabolism
• 3 Effective Weight Loss Tips You Need To Know
• How to Lose 20 Pounds - Find the Way Lose a Pound a Day With the Ultimate Weight Loss Formula!
• Obesity and Health - The Biggest Reason Why People Lose Weight
• The Growing Popularity of Male Liposuction
• The Underlying Keys to Successful Weight Loss.
• How The Busy Women Can Lose belly Fat
• Obese People Stay Obese - What's Wrong?
• The 1 Reason Why Obese People Keep Getting Bigger - Do You Want to Know Why? You Will Be Amazed
• Diet for Weight Loss, Which Diet is useful in Weight Loss

No Comments »

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.