Rather than tax soda how about removing the corn subsidy farmers get for growing corn, which gets made into fructose that goes into soda. It irritates me that my taxes go into a business that makes us sick. We are subsidizing obesity and diabetes through corn subsidies. We are paying on the front with the subsidies and the backend through health care and now taxes.
Having said that, ya tax the heck out of it so the farmers grow something that is actually healthy. Better yet stop the corn subsidies and tax the heck out of it.
Having said that, ya tax the heck out of it so the farmers grow something that is actually healthy. Better yet stop the corn subsidies and tax the heck out of it.
10
"Only one city in the United States has passed a [soda] tax..."
I've _never_ seen a national reporter get the full and correct story on soda taxes. The state of Arkansas passed a soda tax of $0.21 per gallon back in 1993 (!) - almost exactly the same cash amount, probably coincidentally, as the one peso per liter in Mexico.
If I recall correctly, Washington, Ohio, and West Virginia have also had per-ounce taxes on soda in the past. We can squabble over the semantics of "only one city" but it's simply misleading.
I've _never_ seen a national reporter get the full and correct story on soda taxes. The state of Arkansas passed a soda tax of $0.21 per gallon back in 1993 (!) - almost exactly the same cash amount, probably coincidentally, as the one peso per liter in Mexico.
If I recall correctly, Washington, Ohio, and West Virginia have also had per-ounce taxes on soda in the past. We can squabble over the semantics of "only one city" but it's simply misleading.
1
Americans pay so little for food (~10-12% of income) that it would take a pretty substantial increase in price to impact sales. And Americans, even poor people, still pay $8-9 for someone at McDonalds or a mediocre corner deli to be their personal lunch chef. $12 for cigarettes, etc. A disincentive tax comparable to the one in Mexico would never pass here.
The demographic target for this tax is low-income households. Since we tend to hate taxes, the more pragmatic solution would be to restrict SNAP purchases. There shouldn't be full freedom of choice when someone else is paying the bill. Everyone is entitled to nourishment, but if you want soda and doritos, pay for it yourself.
The demographic target for this tax is low-income households. Since we tend to hate taxes, the more pragmatic solution would be to restrict SNAP purchases. There shouldn't be full freedom of choice when someone else is paying the bill. Everyone is entitled to nourishment, but if you want soda and doritos, pay for it yourself.
2
Would this work on guns too? Hmmm. A way to reduce the number of guns in circulation, and make them harder to get, without having to enact laws restricting possession. Apply the tax as they leave the factory (or the dock in the case of imports) so that you can't black-market around mainstream retailers to avoid the price hike.
Also, if guns become more expensive, it incentivizes existing gun owners not to leave them out where they can be stolen, or found by a child and fired accidentally (and confiscated afterwards).
Also, if guns become more expensive, it incentivizes existing gun owners not to leave them out where they can be stolen, or found by a child and fired accidentally (and confiscated afterwards).
2
It’s astonishing how these discussions always focus on soda taxes when the emphasis should be on warning labels, like those on cigarettes.
The soda PR firms can’t propagandize info labels as restricting buyer freedom. Every label should state the equivalent teaspoons of sugar, the grams of fructose that comprise half of that sugar or HFCS, and the fact that fructose is harmful to your health.
And folks, despite every article you’ve ever read, added sugar is no worse that intrinsic sugar - to your liver, a fructose molecule is a fructose molecule. Fruit juice is every bit as harmful as soda. Don’t drink calories, you can easily get that bit of vitamin C from solid foods.
The soda PR firms can’t propagandize info labels as restricting buyer freedom. Every label should state the equivalent teaspoons of sugar, the grams of fructose that comprise half of that sugar or HFCS, and the fact that fructose is harmful to your health.
And folks, despite every article you’ve ever read, added sugar is no worse that intrinsic sugar - to your liver, a fructose molecule is a fructose molecule. Fruit juice is every bit as harmful as soda. Don’t drink calories, you can easily get that bit of vitamin C from solid foods.
1
I will continue to get some calories from milk, thanks.
Fructose is not harmful. Overeating is. I'm a 5'10" 150 pound man and I refuse to be taxed because obese people can't control themselves. Tax fat people, not foods.
2
The know-it-all, otherwise useless politicians who are our employees, that would do this to us deserve to lose their jobs.
You don't want to drink sugared soda? Don't, but don't tell me what to do.
You don't want to drink sugared soda? Don't, but don't tell me what to do.
5
The Bloomberg Philanthropy team of high ranking city hall leaders who worked for the former mayor served as advisors to Mexico City in incorporating these changes. Did they plant this story?
2
Let's take this to the next level. I want to see a tax on french fries, ice cream, doughnuts, tacos, popcorn, and pie.
The calorie content of a can of soda sweetened by cane sugar is exactly the same as the calorie content of a similar quantity of orange juice.
The calorie content of a can of soda sweetened by cane sugar is exactly the same as the calorie content of a similar quantity of orange juice.
4
The answer to your comment comes in two parts
1) Yes, tax high calorie, low nutrition foods. But, be aware that in all my years of obesity research the only factor that remains consistently highly correlated with obesity is soda consumption. So, if you are really interested in fighting all of the causes of obesity, you should concentrate on soda first
2) Yes, fruit Juices also contain very high levels of sugar, along with all sorts of self-proclaimed health drinks. Once again, if you want to go after all possible causes of obesity, please be my guest, but in all my years of obesity yada yada yada
In short, there are lots of causes of obesity, but the one that keeps popping up is Soda consumption, that is why it is the first to be targeted, the NIH calculated that a tax on Soda consumption would reduce average body weight in the population by 10%, more than most anti-obesity drugs can do in obese populations and more than most diets can claim after a year, all for the measly cost of... a few cents on a soda, the money from which could be used for all sorts of common good.
1) Yes, tax high calorie, low nutrition foods. But, be aware that in all my years of obesity research the only factor that remains consistently highly correlated with obesity is soda consumption. So, if you are really interested in fighting all of the causes of obesity, you should concentrate on soda first
2) Yes, fruit Juices also contain very high levels of sugar, along with all sorts of self-proclaimed health drinks. Once again, if you want to go after all possible causes of obesity, please be my guest, but in all my years of obesity yada yada yada
In short, there are lots of causes of obesity, but the one that keeps popping up is Soda consumption, that is why it is the first to be targeted, the NIH calculated that a tax on Soda consumption would reduce average body weight in the population by 10%, more than most anti-obesity drugs can do in obese populations and more than most diets can claim after a year, all for the measly cost of... a few cents on a soda, the money from which could be used for all sorts of common good.
8
That green sea of corn in the Midwest? Unprofitable without large government subsidies - yes the corporate welfare queens of America "profit" because they soak up government dollars. Subsidy ? Yes ! Tax ? No ! Big Soda loves Big Corn and they both love Big Governmnet when the check has their name on it. Very powerful lobby - just think back to Gov Walker's flip/flop on ethanol subsidies. You can't campaign in Iowa by telling the "conservatives" that you want to gore one of their federal handouts. The Horror !!
6
Can we please go after "healthy" drinks? I love that Pom Wonderful, made with pomegranate juice and marketed as healthy, has 32gr of sugar, while a can of coke has 39gr. Same goes for Vitamin Water and a lot of "smoothies" like Odwala juices that are full of sugar.
6
Well it's better to eat the fruit than drink the juice. However - if it is actual pomegranate juice - even with all that "sugar" (which is natural as opposed to the soda) there are PLENTY of nutrients. The soda is just empty calories. Even worse - the artificial ingredients.
2
I opposed the so-called soda ban in NYC, but I would support a tax. This one's fine. It might make more sense to go further upstream and tax sugar and corn syrup, because the added cost would be passed on to all sweetened products. But maybe the geography prevents that approach.
1
There is only one reason to levy a tax- that is to raise revenue.
I object to social engineering by do-gooders who seek to impose their values upon others. If you do not want a big soda- fine. Don't buy one. I personally refer to the 32oz size as a Bloomberg size.
Diet sodas do not cause people to be overweight. The do-gooder crowd quoted a recent study and tried to tie insulin resistance to diet drinks but failed to note that the study did not factor for who was overweight in the first place- a very important fact. Figures do not lie but liars figure.
What is next? Taxing winter flights from NYC to the Caribbean since passengers will lay out on the beach and get a potential increase in UV exposure?
While we are all worked about the empty calories in a Coca Cola the do-gooders say nothing about alcohol. I think the term is a BEER GUT.
I object to social engineering by do-gooders who seek to impose their values upon others. If you do not want a big soda- fine. Don't buy one. I personally refer to the 32oz size as a Bloomberg size.
Diet sodas do not cause people to be overweight. The do-gooder crowd quoted a recent study and tried to tie insulin resistance to diet drinks but failed to note that the study did not factor for who was overweight in the first place- a very important fact. Figures do not lie but liars figure.
What is next? Taxing winter flights from NYC to the Caribbean since passengers will lay out on the beach and get a potential increase in UV exposure?
While we are all worked about the empty calories in a Coca Cola the do-gooders say nothing about alcohol. I think the term is a BEER GUT.
5
This tax DOES raise revenue. It could be targeted only to non-diet drinks. Isn't it better to discourage obesity than to discourage work, saving, and investing, like income taxes do?
1
Would you also agree that government should not subsidize anything? By so doing, government shifts the cost to the taxpayers instead of the manufacturer who may then pass along the cost to the consumer.
As someone you would probably call a do-gooder, I pay for all the people who smoke and are obese with increased health care costs.
4
Soda taxes are a good way to help pay for the costs they cause in the health care system. Obesity is expensive to treat and who better to pay for it than the people whose behaviors lead to it?
10
Yet again, the NY Times cheers a regressive tax. Soda taxes are not a sin tax, they're a callous means of extracting tax revenue from poor people.
3
They are a sin tax and there are a multitude of alternatives in Mexico. Many of them even contain important vitamins and minerals. Limeade, Hibiscus tea, almond milk (horchata). Yes they contain sugar but they are cheaper and more healthful.
2
Are poor people somehow forced to drink soda then?
1
Mayor Bloomberg tried this in NY and was sued. Soda - like cigarettes are no good for you. Since people often depend on other taxpayers to subsidize their own healthcare - then there should be a tax for things that are not healthy. All junk food should be taxed higher if you ask me.
6
The lawsuit against Bloomberg was based on the fact that he instituted the policy through the Health Department without a city council vote and therefore didn't have the legislative authority to do so. The lawsuit wasn't about the merits of the soda cup policy itself.
Andrew - that is "lawyer speak"... Look who was actually behind the lawsuit. They could have cared less. All they did was look for a way to attack it in court.
In México, there are many alternatives for sweet drinks in a restaurant, almost always including some made right in the restaurant. Does this study track this easy substitution?
Aren't most of the sweet drinks bought outside of restaurants?
Mexico is way ahead of us in many things. I bought a solar water heater for my house in Michoacan, for example, at an affordable price. Why don't we have them here? Answer: energy industry dependent on revenues to pay stockholders. Why don't we go back to returnable bottles? Why is there so much plastic? Same answer.
3
They are everywhere, but almost every restaurant will have "aguas dulces."
Bragging about this: "....the tax prompted a substantial increase in prices and a resulting drop in the sales of drinks sweetened with sugar, particularly among the country’s poorest consumers " is what is wrong with these types of actions.
Being proud to have forced a product out of the financial reach of the poor -- punishing the poor -- is something to be proud about?
The whole thing is some kind of crazy class war -- punish the poor for drinking soda -- who cares about the fat middle and upper classes? ... an extra few pesos won't change the behavior of the financially better off.
In the US, there has been a huge shift to "energy drinks" from other sodas -- to caffeinated, high-sugar content drinks -- Red Bull etc. I wonder if these drinks were taxed? Was a large portion of sales losses of regular sugary sodas simply shifted to sugary energy drinks?
Overall, this is why we call them the Food Police.
Being proud to have forced a product out of the financial reach of the poor -- punishing the poor -- is something to be proud about?
The whole thing is some kind of crazy class war -- punish the poor for drinking soda -- who cares about the fat middle and upper classes? ... an extra few pesos won't change the behavior of the financially better off.
In the US, there has been a huge shift to "energy drinks" from other sodas -- to caffeinated, high-sugar content drinks -- Red Bull etc. I wonder if these drinks were taxed? Was a large portion of sales losses of regular sugary sodas simply shifted to sugary energy drinks?
Overall, this is why we call them the Food Police.
5
We used to call the Food Police "Mom."
5
Yes, taxes change behavior. The data is clear. High Fructose corn syrup is so bad for you, I'm all for the taxes.
Let's consider a hefty tax on gasoline. Folks think twice about making unnecessary trips, would consider car pooling, and use public transportation more. More would shift to solar and other sustainable energy sources. With gasoline prices relatively low, now is the time to act.
Let's consider a hefty tax on gasoline. Folks think twice about making unnecessary trips, would consider car pooling, and use public transportation more. More would shift to solar and other sustainable energy sources. With gasoline prices relatively low, now is the time to act.
5
Can you point me to the solar powered car dealership? Oh wait...
2
We have the bedroom police on the right and the health police on the left. As a libertarian I always side with personal choice not government poking around in our private affairs.
3
As a libertarian you should also side with government not having to subsidize the unhealthy lifestyles of people when they end up needing government-paid medical care resulting from their unhealthy beverage consumption. As a libertarian you should support things being priced to reflect their actual cost - personally and to society.
5
Have to laugh. Taxes were not raised to increase revenue? Taxing authorities are as addicted to the revenue as nicotine users. They had to raise the tax to keep the money flowing when sales lessened.
Pop taxes prey on the poor. Nothing but another sin tax.
Pop taxes prey on the poor. Nothing but another sin tax.
9
Is there are law forcing poor people to buy soda?
Holding a gun at somebody's head works too. When will the taxers learn that they are just taking advantage of the power of punishment invested in the State to pursue their own petty goals? When will they realize that taxing in pursuit of a "good" outcome will be followed by taxing in pursuit of less justifiable outcomes?
This is the way the world ends, not with a bang but taxed to death.
This is the way the world ends, not with a bang but taxed to death.
4
And income taxes cut....
Of course higher prices will reduce consumption. The problem is, you've penalized an industry with no factual basis for doing so.
3
Fact: Sugar sweetened beverages are bad for you
Fact: Eating too much sugar can cause adult onset diabetes.
Fact: Eating too much sugar can cause adult onset diabetes.
1
sugary drink sales have been declining at a steady rate for 20 years and will continue to fall. We dont need another tax.
6
When I worked in the marketing research department of Coca-Cola USA we found a perfect indirect relationship between education and the amount of sugar soft drinks consumer. This relationship extended across race and types of jobs. Education is the key.
BTW a 10% of the US corn crop goes into making HFCS - why does Mexican made Coca-Cola use real sugar and not the US. Well it is all about controlling the amount of sugar imported into the US. The import quota increases our sugar price over 20 cents a pound. Costs the US consumer over $3 billion a year. Before HFCS there were a very small number of sugar cane/beet producers in the US - now the Agribusiness lobby has lots of money so HFCS is here to stay.
BTW a 10% of the US corn crop goes into making HFCS - why does Mexican made Coca-Cola use real sugar and not the US. Well it is all about controlling the amount of sugar imported into the US. The import quota increases our sugar price over 20 cents a pound. Costs the US consumer over $3 billion a year. Before HFCS there were a very small number of sugar cane/beet producers in the US - now the Agribusiness lobby has lots of money so HFCS is here to stay.
5
If you tax something, you get less of it. Who knew?
2
It is kind of funny. Any economist would tell you that a significant Increase in price, whether fom taxes, raw material, or whatever, will lead to a decrease in the demand for the product. How much of a decrease and how quickly depends on a lot of factors. In this case, it was the conservatives that ignored the truism. When it comes to a significant increase in the minimum wage, most economists will say the same thing: it will lead to a decrease in the demand for that labor. In this case, it is liberals that prefer to ignore the evidence.
3
Idiotic advocacy, at it's finest.
Based on the marked switch in beverage preferences, from soda to water, coffee and tea based drinks over the last 2 decades, mere education is having an even greater impact. A soda tax is in reality a carbonation tax, not a sugar tax, given the large volume of sugar-free soda consumed. And given the high sugar content of non-carbonated drinks. Most commercially available juices definitely included.
If we switch from soda to Mocchachino or Hi-C, what have we accomplished?
Based on the marked switch in beverage preferences, from soda to water, coffee and tea based drinks over the last 2 decades, mere education is having an even greater impact. A soda tax is in reality a carbonation tax, not a sugar tax, given the large volume of sugar-free soda consumed. And given the high sugar content of non-carbonated drinks. Most commercially available juices definitely included.
If we switch from soda to Mocchachino or Hi-C, what have we accomplished?
7
This is good news - Mexico had the highest per capita soda consumption rate in the world - 43 gallons per year, and much of that is with breakfast. (The US is second at 31 gal.) [Yale University’s Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity.] There is a trade-war component missing from this story. Mexican Coca-Cola has long been made with cane sugar, rather than high fructose corn syrup, and the Mexican government had place a levy on corn syrup to protect the cane sugar industry which the US has repeatedly challenged. All that will change with the Trans Pacific Partnership - the tax may be less effective in curbing consumption if sugar prices fall, or cheaper corn syrup replaces Mexican cane sugar as an ingredient.
8
Both parents and corporations are responsible for this sugar-water blight. The addiction to sweetened beverages, imposed on children by parents with the same addiction, is a form of abuse. Corporate-sponsored obesity and related societal inflictions are no different from cancer inflicted by smoking.
6
You can hardly say that poor Mexican parents, mostly illiterate, with a limited access to clean water and cheap calories —a big reason behind the heavy consumption of soda drinks— are responsible for anything. Lack of education, of infrastructure, corruption and a weak civil society —that is, we, middle-class, college-educated Mexicans— are to blame. I wonder who’s to blame in the case of the US, the second biggest consumer of soda drinks in the world.
5
I support a soda tax, but there is not faster way to lose the macro argument than accusing parents who allow their children to drink a Coke of being "abbusive" PLEASE!!!
1
First, for any tax to be effective it must truly be punitive, that is seriously hurt. Cigarettes and alcohol are good examples. Second, the revenues from the tax should be used to subsidize healthy eating. Vegetables are too expensive.
12
People who overindulge in sodas and other sugary drinks and foods are not doing so because vegetables are too expensive.
6
@ MIR, sorry but that is not the case. Thought experiment: I have to feed a family of 5 on $7.75 an hour. "Grape Drink" costs 99 cents a gallon or 100% juice at $3 a quart. What do I choose?
1
How do you separate out the impact from public health campaigns? If Mexico is trying to reduce soda consumption then they must have also had a public health campaign.
Sugary soft drinks are even more toxic in countries where there isn't as much dental care available as there is in the U.S. Shame on the manufacturers for selling soda in these countries. And shame on cigarette makers for selling their products anywhere in the world.
Sugary soft drinks are even more toxic in countries where there isn't as much dental care available as there is in the U.S. Shame on the manufacturers for selling soda in these countries. And shame on cigarette makers for selling their products anywhere in the world.
3
Mayor Bloomberg had it right. Ban big and sweet and take it from there. Too bad courts got in the way.
15
If Bloomberg had bothered to get City Council approval he gotten what he wanted. The courts found fault with the legislative authority behind the policy, not with policy itself.
Tax is better than ban. This article must have Big Soda running scared.
A cop-out in my book, increasingly familiar story.
1
Reporting on preliminary results such as this leaves me uneasy. By the researchers own admission data are still being prepared for submission to a peer-reviewed journal, and at this point only press releases have been issued.
A more accurate headline at this time would be, "We Still Don't Know Whether Soda Taxes Cut Soda Drinking."
A more accurate headline at this time would be, "We Still Don't Know Whether Soda Taxes Cut Soda Drinking."
9
The effect of price on quantity demanded is well established. Just look in any Econ 101 text book.
3
It's been my impression that most "natural" juices such as apple juice have been heavily doctored with large quantities of that good old super healthy standard, high fructose corn syrup.
Perhaps the answer is to tax beverages on the amount of sweetener added (I realize the complexity of this). That would be a far more broad brush approach to the problem.
Perhaps the answer is to tax beverages on the amount of sweetener added (I realize the complexity of this). That would be a far more broad brush approach to the problem.
15
The reason for the use of high fructose corn syrup is because large farmers are being subsidized by the U.S. government (meaning the rest of us taxpayers) to grow corn. Corn syrup and ethanol are by-products. Corn syrup is cheaper than foreign sugar. That said - "fruit juice" and "fruit drinks" are different. One is "100%" and the other is a blend. That said - better to eat the fruit itself than drink the juice. Calorie density is lower and you get non-pasteurized enzymes and more fiber in your diet.
1
It's becoming more and more likely that added sugar - whether to soda or catsup - is a major culprit in the obesity epidemic. Most of this added sugar comes from highly processed corn syrup, yet we heavily subsidize corn growers. Therefore, an alternative to a tax - anathema to many politicians - would be to get rid of corporate subsidies to unhealthy food and food additives.
50
Everyone who, despite being concerned about the overconsumption of sugar drinks, continues to use the potent marketing word ‘corn’ instead of ‘maize’ is playing straight into the hands of the US maize growers - who have a vested interest in promoting the word ‘corn’ and discouraging the use of the word ‘maize’.
What a lovely four-letter word the c-word 'corn' is. Unlike the five-letter word 'maize, 'corn' is easy to spell and obvious how to pronounce. 'Corn' summons up images of sunbathed yellow fields of ripened, opening plants gently waving in the breeze; of happy, rose-cheeked maidens and youths collecting the harvest. US growers, of course, love the word 'corn', and every North American grows up with it from childhood. What would be a western breakfast without Kellogg's Corn Flakes?
Cultivars of native maize, grown for centuries by the America's First Nations long before the arrival of Europeans, then called 'Indian corn' by the newcomers, eventually just 'corn', have been extensively cultivated, heavily marketed and promoted in the USA for at least the last century as 'corn'.
'Corn syrup' is maize syrup, ie syrup made from maize. The fact that the syrup is made from maize matters economically to the US maize growers, who receive massive taxpayer subsidies, and their political mates.
But it is not what matters when we ingest maize syrups. What matters is that maize syrup is almost 100% glucose syrup, and after isomerisation is 45% (HFGS 45) or 55% fructose (HFGS 55).
What a lovely four-letter word the c-word 'corn' is. Unlike the five-letter word 'maize, 'corn' is easy to spell and obvious how to pronounce. 'Corn' summons up images of sunbathed yellow fields of ripened, opening plants gently waving in the breeze; of happy, rose-cheeked maidens and youths collecting the harvest. US growers, of course, love the word 'corn', and every North American grows up with it from childhood. What would be a western breakfast without Kellogg's Corn Flakes?
Cultivars of native maize, grown for centuries by the America's First Nations long before the arrival of Europeans, then called 'Indian corn' by the newcomers, eventually just 'corn', have been extensively cultivated, heavily marketed and promoted in the USA for at least the last century as 'corn'.
'Corn syrup' is maize syrup, ie syrup made from maize. The fact that the syrup is made from maize matters economically to the US maize growers, who receive massive taxpayer subsidies, and their political mates.
But it is not what matters when we ingest maize syrups. What matters is that maize syrup is almost 100% glucose syrup, and after isomerisation is 45% (HFGS 45) or 55% fructose (HFGS 55).
7
Sigh ... the Americas' First Nations, not the America's First Nations.
3
I am not commenting about the fructose vs glucose content, but merely the fact that the cheap cost of "sugar" syrup is due to government tax incentives. Food processors are more likely to include added sugar if it is cheap.
4
ChemiCalories are calories derived from molecules that have been "tinkered with."
Whenever "they" decide to substitute ChemiCalories for natural calories, I tend to wonder: "What are they up to now?"
Examples of ChemiCalories include: Partially Hydrogenated Vegetable Oils, Trans-Fatty Acids, and High Fructose Corn Syrup.
A cousin of the ChemiCalorie is the PseudoCalorie (alias "Phantom Calorie") - a chemical that tastes like a calorie, but isn't a calorie.
Artificial sweeteners are examples of PseudoCalories.
SOMETIMES,
IT'S NOT NICE TO
"FOOL WITH"
MOTHER NATURE.
In 1957, Glucose Isomerase was discovered, making it possible to convert the glucose in corn syrup into fructose, resulting in High Fructose Corn Syrup, which gradually replaced sugar in "pop."
Isn't that about the same time our country started putting on a few extra pounds?
Is it just me, or do others seem to get hungrier when they consume HFCS?
If we decide to tax sweetened carbonated drinks ("soda pop"), what happens when someone gives up "soda pop" and decides, instead, to of wash down a bag of Doritos with a glass or two of water?
It's the ChemiCalories, people!
chemicalorie. (n.) A calorie from a molecule that has been "tinkered with."
(from: The Theory Of Bellytivity, 2015)