May 12, 2009 3:40 PM

Senate Considers Federal Tax On Soda

By
Brian Montopoli
Topics
Congress
(AP)
The Senate Finance Committee today is hearing proposals on how to pay for President Obama's proposed universal health care plan, which is expected to cost more than $1 trillion. Among the proposals, as Consumer Affairs reports: A three-cent tax on sodas as well as other sugary drinks, including energy and sports drinks like Gatorade. Diet sodas would be exempt.

"While many factors promote weight gain, soft drinks are the only food or beverage that has been shown to increase the risk of overweight and obesity, which, in turn, increase the risk of diabetes, stroke, and many other health problems," Michael Jacobson of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, which is pushing the idea, said in his testimony. "Soft drinks are nutritionally worthless…[and] are directly related to weight gain, partly because beverages are more conducive to weight gain than solid foods."

According to Jacobson, "Beverage companies market more than 14 billion gallons of calorie-laden soft drinks annually. That is equivalent to about 506 12-oz. servings per year, or 1.4 servings per day, for every man, woman, and child."

(Getty Images/AFP/Earl S. Cryer)
He argued that each penny of tax on a 12 ounce drink would raise $1.5 billion annually and lower consumption roughly one percent, improving overall health. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that a three-cent tax would generate $24 billion over the next four years.

Such a tax might well be considered a "sin tax" similar to the taxes levied on cigarettes, which are extremely high compared to most other consumer products. Jacobson also wants the taxes on alcohol raised -- he argues that doing so will "compensate society for the costs of alcohol abuse and alcoholism and to marginally reduce problem drinking." The argument echoes the idea of cigarette taxes helping pay for health care costs associated with smoking.

In his testimony, Jacobson also called for a ban on artificial trans fat and a reduction in sodium levels in food.

(AP Photo/Tim Roske, File)
Any soda tax a proposal is unlikely to pass easily, as New York Governor David Paterson well knows. Paterson's proposed 18-percent tax on soft drinks died amid pressure from the industry and resistance among New Yorkers who didn't want to pay more for soda.

It would also, it should be noted, only pay for a tiny portion of the health care overhaul.

Susan Neely of the American Beverage Association, which represents Coca-Cola Co., PepsiCo Inc. and others, told the Wall Street Journal that the tax would hit poor Americans hardest and would not lower consumption.

"Taxes are not going to teach our children how to have a healthy lifestyle," she said. Neely said the industry backs programs to lower consumption of sugary drinks in schools.

Add a Comment See all 170 Comments
by cloudwaltzer007 April 19, 2011 7:43 AM EDT
The government has no business in what people eat, should eat, can eat or anything else. The government needs to deal with the real issues at hand like Medicare, Medicaid, our military, etc. Sounds like a Michele Obama idea at best. People are paying exorbitant for groceries as it is! Give us a break!!!!
Reply to this comment
by jtaf May 4, 2010 6:24 PM EDT
We need the soda tax. In my view we should treat sugar like tobacco and booze.
I think we should make the tax 50% at least for all sugared drinks, and diet drinks too.
If the tax is onl 2-3% it won't effect demand. But a large tax will reduce demand. It's not about parents having control of what kids it, and it's not about raising revenue. It's about the health of our population, and the cost of being overwieght. We should help people eat better by taxing bad food, like soda, and subsiding good food.
Reply to this comment
by bigmg603 June 8, 2010 12:46 PM EDT
Insane. Do you also think that the government should subsidize exercise equipment and tax TVs? The government should have absolutely ZERO influence in what we choose to do with our money and bodies. The more regulation there is the less freedom there is. Ridiculous tax.
by jtaf October 18, 2010 2:32 PM EDT
The typical response from the right is to bring up other things, like the comment below. "if you allow this, then do you want that?"
The point is that we have a problem in this country that too many people are FAT. Doing nothing is not, in my view, a good option. The government should tax junk food, and tax it like tabacco and booze, at a high rate. Use the money collected to remind people not to eat the crap.
by cokesweetie April 29, 2010 5:12 PM EDT
Oh who are they trying to kid??? Worried about our health?! They aren't worried about our health, if this tax were to deter us from buying Coke's then it would decrease the revenue they need to cover their over spending! They use smoke and mirrors and say they are concerned for our childrens health when in reality they pray that we continue to be loyal, unmovable Coke consumers in order to pay for their inability to create and follow a budget!!! It's like the saying...guns don't kill people...people kill people. As with cokes...they don't make us or our children fat...the lack of self control of HOW MUCH we consume and being too lazy to exercise is what makes people fat! Bottom line...the government is not concerned with our health; they are concerned with devising ways to find a quick means to pad their pockets and cover their inadequacy. At the same time demonizing everyone and everything that stands in their way. No one can tell me they aren't guilty of unhealthy behaviors...promiscuity, drinking alcohol and even the President SMOKES!(let him quit and see how much weight he gains!). Most of them fall into the category of "a burden on society's healthcare". People need to quit placing blame! Get off the Psych couch and get out of the lawyer's offices and take responsibility for your own actions!!!
Reply to this comment
by jtaf May 4, 2010 6:25 PM EDT
cokesweetie. You are a moron, and a jerk
by bigmg603 June 8, 2010 12:49 PM EDT
jtaf below is an idiot. This is exactly the problem. People are no longer accountable for their own actions. If people can't lay off the sodas the want the government to help them do it even if it means penalizing the rest of the country for innocence.
by mymainmanme April 28, 2010 7:13 PM EDT
Everyone is in panic over this tax and there really is no reason for this Mr. Dave Patterson is so far out of touch with New Yorkers, that is just the last nail in his coffin to end his political career.
Reply to this comment
by ian_armbruster April 2, 2010 4:59 PM EDT
1. Sin taxes have been in place for years.
2. They are not an absolute. A 3 cent tax is not meant to stop all people from drinking soda all the time. That's the point, you're going to keep buying it, it's not essential, and it has negative effects. It hurts the people that consume it the most, i.e. those to whom it causes the most damage and incurs the largest health related costs.
3. A major player in the money going into politicians coffers is lobby industries like the soda manufacturers themselves. Who's only vested interest is getting you to drink more soda. If you want someone to blame, blame artificial food industries.
4. Read a book by Michael Pollan. (From the library, you know, because you're taxed for it already)
5. Stop drinking soda
6. You can excersise for free. Run. With your legs.
Reply to this comment
by davidscottfl March 20, 2010 10:41 AM EDT
Obesity in young person is a result of BAD parenting! NOT SODA! You let your little piggies eat junk and be lazy they will more than likely turn out like thier parents. Parents control what thier kids eat & drink and social activities. Quit blaming someone else for your problems!
Reply to this comment
by davidscottfl March 20, 2010 10:36 AM EDT
That's what you get for putting democrats in power. They sit around and think of what they can tax next and say it is for the good of the people.
Reply to this comment
by strumwasser March 12, 2010 5:20 PM EST
Is ?Sugar? Now the Source of All Health Problems in America?

www.blog.snowbeverages.com

I qualify the following by saying that this statement is merely my opinion and not intended to be presented as scientific fact:

I woke up today unable to contain my frustration about the misleading information I am seeing in regard to the proposed soda tax and also the disproportionate focus some are trying to put on to the consumption of sugar alone.

Sugar has calories. Yes, we know that. But let?s be clear: lots of healthy foods (like say, fruit) contain sugar and also, if you consumed NO calories, well, you wouldn?t do very well?. Of course there is a major obesity problem in this country. There is also a general health crisis in this country. However, trying to somehow place the blame entirely on sugar or on beverages like soda that are sweetened with sugar, is myopic at best, and misleading at worst.

For instance, a lot was made recently in the press about a study released that concluded that there is a link between regular consumption of traditional soft drinks and pancreatic cancer. My dad just recovered from pancreatic cancer which nearly killed him a year ago. I am particularly sensitive to severity and risks of this illness. If you look at the anecdotal information passed around in the popular press on this study you will find that they claim that people who consumed soda regularly over prolonged periods of time were, according to that study, 87% more likely to contract pancreatic cancer. However, in that same study, they point out that people who consumed juice had no greater incidence of pancreatic cancer. Juice typically has an even higher sugar content and calorie count than even traditional soda. (Granted, the sugar is naturally occurring and was not ?added??but nevertheless, it is THERE.) So, people who drank soda got pancreatic cancer, but people who drank juice (with MORE sugar and calories) did not. Conclusion (according to that study): it was the SUGAR in soda that got people sick. I have not seen anyone in the press call them on this. I still can?t figure out why. In addition, did anyone ever stop to think that people who drink traditional soda everyday may also be more likely to have other unhealthy habits that are contributing factors (such as smoking or lack of exercise)?? Here?s my favorite part: what about the OTHER ingredients in traditional soda?? They often contain artificial sweeteners, preservatives like potassium sorbate or sodium benzoate, and many other artificial ingredients. Is there any chance that any of those chemicals might contribute to a greater incidence in cancer? Not according to that ?study??it?s the sugar. Just the sugar, everyone. Calories kill. I guess we all need to stop eating.

Traditional soda contains unhealthy ingredients. We simply don?t use them. Diet soda contains many ingredients that I would never let me family consume. I have two five year old twin sons. I have absolutely no problem with them drinking a little Snow Natural Soda + Vitamins. I would never let them drink traditional diet soda. Rather than have our children misled and pushed into drinking diet soda (with it?s chemical artificial sweeteners and it?s preservatives that some claim are low-level carcinogens) why not teach them to look at health from an overarching and global perspective? Let?s be responsible and teach them to be as well. They should eat balanced and healthy diets. They should try and avoid chemical ingredients. They need to exercise regularly. If they do this, they will not become obese. Taxing soda won?t save them. It will temporarily put some money in the depleted state coffers and then it may have a myriad of other negative long-term economic effects (such as layoffs at local soda manufacturers, a strain on already-strapped low income families, etc.) but this ?band-aid? attempt to raise revenue that is posing as some sort of ?quick-fix? for the health and obesity problems in our state and our world, is really nothing more than an ill-founded and misrepresented lie.

The fact is, people should eat and drink healthy and natural products. Taxing any beverage that has sugar in it (even natural cane sugar) will not solve any widespread health problem or any obesity problem. It may cause more economic damage than it provides in tax revenues. Furthermore, it detracts from a comprehensive and responsible dialogue on these important and timely issues or their actual solutions. Don?t be fooled.

?Stu Strumwasser
CEO of Refreshiliciousness
Snow Beverages, Inc.
www.blog.snowbeverages.com
Reply to this comment
by 1danielle2 March 12, 2010 8:23 AM EST
I think this tax is a joke. This won't deter people from buying soda and it won't halt the obesity problem in this country. This is just another way to collect money from the working class. The way to halt obesity is to watch what you eat and eat reasonable portions and you can still have your sodas. the way to curb obesity in this country is to curb your appetite. Forget about the triple burgers in all the fast food restaurants. How about taxing restaurants that put 2000 calorie lunches on the menu?
Reply to this comment
by KPR3D March 8, 2010 9:17 PM EST
Citizens of the United States have been being screwed since the gov instated the IRS to get us through WWII which also was to end at the end of said war yet here we are today still paying taxes ,another thing to thank democrats for they took our civil right there with taxation with out representation I see no representation of where my money is going that uncle sam takes every year .I pay school taxes yet I have no children nor do I plan on it . Why should I pay for illeagals children to go to school and get food stamps when their parents just come here to have them so they do not get deported as their children are born as US citizens .would not have the healthcare problems we have if we got rid of the illeagal aliens living here off the Gov's *** . remember we have the right to over throw our gov voteing is not the way for that to work either why vote in another liar/thief into office ? make congressmen have term limits and make lobbying a felony offence
Reply to this comment
See all 170 Comments
.

Follow Political Hotsheet

Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook
  • Building You a Better Morning

  • CBS This Morning

    "CBS This Morning," anchored by Charlie Rose, Gayle King and Erica Hill, airs weekdays from 7 to 9 a.m. ET and at the same time in other time zones.
    Learn more...