Soda Taxes, In Review
The Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity has just published its analysis of the debate surrounding soda taxes. Â Policy makers in at least 40 states have already implemented such measures in order to curb obesity and related health problems. The Rudd Report (pdf) is an easy to read, objective review of the health and fiancial incentives that underlie such legislation.
There is, however, at least one major argument against soda tax that outweighs the potential positives. While soda taxes may be presented as a governmental intervention in the public interest, what the taxes really amount to is social control. Parke Wilde, professor at Tufts University and contributor to the U.S. Food Policy blog, is quite right to suggest that the proponents of soda taxes “could justify fairly severe government interventions to influence personal choices that affect health.”
We have seen this same sort of behavior-manipulating proposal before. Â At one time, PETA suggested that meat eaters be charged higher insurance premiums (link). Most people would dismiss a PETA proposal out of hat, yet the proponents of the soda tax are giving the same reasons PETA did and they have not been automatically dismissed: Soda tax proponents proclaim, just as PETA did, that the negative health effects of the behavior they are petitioning against actually affect us all. Whereas PETA cited higher rates of cancer and heart attacks among meat eaters, the soda tax groups reveal that “obesity-related medical expenditures were estimated in 2002 to be $92 billion, half of which were paid for with taxpayer dollars through Medicaid and Medicare.”
Yes, diabetes and heart disease are serious problems that cost a fortune in health coverage. And yes, the consumption patterns of the typical American are usually to blame. But, instead of financially punishing people for some behaviors, which opponents say disproportionately effect the poor, why not encourage positive, heart-healthy initiatives? Instead of everyone directly bearing the burden of other people’s negative health decisions, everyone would win with cheaper fruits and vegetables.
According to the Rudd Report, “experiments show that decreasing the cost of healthy foods relative to that of less-healthy foods, is effective in promoting the purchase of healthy items.” Truly, if concern for the public’s health were the actual reason for soda taxes (rather than potential revenue), it would really do a lot more good if the policy makers attacked the corn subsidies that make soda such a cheap commodity in the first place.
It’s not a coincidence that everything keeps coming back to the corn subsidies.
March 4, 2009
Tags: food, Health, nutrition, obesity, soda, subsidies Posted in: Health, Politics
One Response
Soda Tax Revenue Projections | Food Bubbles - September 28, 2009
[...] not advocating for or against soda taxes at this point (though, earlier I was definitely against the idea). Â There are many pros and cons to this issue that need to be [...]
Leave a Reply