Can Small Soda Tax Nip Obesity? Fat Chance

Small taxes on soda do little to reduce soft drink consumption or prevent childhood obesity, but larger levies probably would, according to new research.

The study is being released as a recent wave of proposals would raise soda taxes or create new ones on sugared beverages. But they'll have to be a lot steeper than current taxes, which are generally 4 percent or less, said Roland Sturm, lead author of the new research.

"Small taxes will not prevent obesity," said Sturm, a senior economist at the Rand Corp. in Santa Monica, Calif.

Sturm and his colleagues used information from a 2004 national survey of about 7,300 fifth-graders. The researchers looked at how the children's height and weight had changed over the previous two years and how often the kids said they drank soda and sports drinks. The researchers also reviewed taxes on carbonated drinks that were in effect in 2004.

Roughly two-thirds of the children lived in states that had a tax on soda greater than on other food items. The highest was 7 cents tax on each dollar's worth of soda. The average was about 4 cents.

They found the taxes made no real difference on overall soda consumption or on obesity for kids overall. They did have a small effect on certain children - especially those from families with an annual income of $25,000 or less. Those kids - who drank about seven cans of soda a week, on average - drank one less can because of the taxes, Sturm said.

However, if the taxes were more like 18 cents on the dollar, Sturm calculated it would make a significant difference.

The research is being published online Thursday in the journal Health Affairs. The Rand study was funded by the federal government and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

Most states exempt grocery food from sales taxes. But in recent years, candy and soft drinks have been increasingly targeted, either through a tax or removal of an existing sales tax exemption.

The children in the study were from 40 states, 20 of which had soda taxes when the study was done.

More than 30 states have some form of soda tax today, averaging about 5 cents per dollar of soda.

In the last month, Colorado removed a 3 percent sales tax exemption for candy and soda. Philadelphia's mayor proposed a 2 cents-per-ounce tax on sugary drinks, which would add 24 cents to the price of a can of Coke.

Most of the taxes tend to be enough to bring in some extra money for struggling state budgets, but small enough not to rile soda manufacturers or significantly change buying habits, said Kelly Brownell, director of Yale University's Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity.

"Taxes have to be large enough to affect consumption," said Brownell, who has called for a tax as high as 12 percent.

But most people don't want their soda taxed, according to the American Beverage Association, which represents soda manufacturers.

Association officials noted that Maine voters last fall rejected a soda tax. And in a press release last week, the organization pointed to a recent survey of 1,000 U.S. adults by Rasmussen Reports that found 56 percent of Americans are against taxes on candy and soda.

The beverage association did not pay for the telephone survey, said Debra Falk, a spokeswomen for the polling firm.

The Rand study confirms that small taxes on soda don't reduce obesity, and offers no evidence that larger taxes would do any better, said Christopher Gindlesperger, spokesman for beverage association.

"Taxes don't work. What does work is balancing the diet and exercise," he said.

[gekkobear]

Educating people doesn't seem to be working; so lets just force people to bow down and obey us instead. It seems so much simpler if we take all their money and only buy what they deserve to have, instead of letting them make their own choices.

This isn't fascism, is the new liberal progressive thought process. Don't worry, they have scientists to explain why taking all your freedoms and choices from you is a good thing. So don't sweat it, your government allotted amount of food and clothing will be determined by your appropriate level of need.

[stop2think]

Does anyone anywhere really believe politicians who continually search for new sources of revenue have kids' health in mind when they tax soda? If you do, then you must believe Obamacare will cover 32 million people AND reduce the deficit. It's all about control and generating more revenue for pet projects to make Americans more dependent on Uncle Sam. If soda is so evil, legislate it out of existence. Just like tobacco: states profited from tobacco production with generous subsidies from the feds and low taxes on tobacco products for years until they found out they could score billions by excoriating tobacco companies and sue them. They are all ******.

[KeithDrippingSprings]

Tax beer, stop the belly explosions and liver disease. Tax Soda, stop the corn syrup lobby. Tax diet drinks because they cause cancer and obesity. Tax everything else that is bad for us. JUST DON'T TAX THINGS I LIKE.

[KimInLove]

This is what happens when we elect Marxists.

[ilpalazzo-2009]

Wow, is there ever a tax Democrats don't like? Seriously, folks, it's time to get a clue.. the gov't is spending ridiculously and instead of reeling in their spending, they're setting out to overtax EVERYTHING! It should be a major wake up call when gov't only solutions are tax every single thing.

[lilbear925]

Sending more tax dollars to government in the name of fighting obesity will not make people change their eating habits. It will just encourage the government to try and legislate more crap. You can't legislate thin, unless you do it like North Korea and put strict controls on the food supply, like starving people to death.

[SnowBeverages]

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.

At Snow Beverages we pride ourselves on making healthy products. I have been a vegetarian since 1980 (when I was 14) and I am committed to never making a product that contains any ingredient that is unhealthy. Is sugar unhealthy? No. Is TOO MUCH sugar unhealthy? Of course. However, as I stated earlier, orange juice has substantially more calories than our soda. Is orange juice unhealthy??.

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 ?Alliance for a Healthier NY? has a website. According to my two-minute search for the domain name on Go Daddy it appears to have been registered as recently as February 4th of 2010. There is no way I could find to contact them. I would be interested to know who is funding them. On their site, there are a plethora of FAQs addressing many of the major questions related to this issue. I find them to be extremely biased, one-sided and in fact, in many cases, rather misleading. Below are a few examples, along with my comments below their answers:

[Nate650]

It may be the carbonation or it may be the type of sugar. The fact of the matter is our science today isn't very good, especially when related to diet or food related issues, which is why so often we are recommended what to eat, yet this advice always proves to be wrong. The best advice is to stick to traditional foods which we've been successfully eating for thousands of years.

One theory, which I tend to agree with, is that a man-made sugar like highly-processed high-fructose corn syrup reacts in the body differently than sugar found in nature.

[HGOODGUY]

Putting a tax on sodas is chump change and will not change anything.

Do you really think that an extra tax is going to change anyone in line at McDonalds or at the grocery store?? They won't even shrug their shoulders!!

Even if all the school cafeterias stop selling soda these kids know that all they have to do is go home and their fix will be waiting for them there!!

If you want to change anything, parents have to withdraw as well and not bring the stuff home!!!

[tedg22]

All these type of taxes do is enrich the rich while taking more money from those with the least. Should we be widening the ever increasing gap between rich and poor? Our politicians just don't get it.

[rf35]

Any elected official who supports this just lost my vote. I only drink sugar-free soda, but they won't make that distinction...they'll tax it all.