(If you can't see the video below, view it on YouTube here.)
I can’t tell you how much this commercial irks me! It is so disingenuous. First of all, the premise of the commercial is that if the government begins taxing beverages, American families won’t be able to afford to feed themselves. But what are we talking about taxing? Fruits, vegetables, whole grains? No. The proposed tax would be on “juice drinks and sodas” (notice, not fruit juice, but juice drinks, which usually contain high fructose corn syrup and artificial flavoring). After getting steamed up watching this commercial, I decided to investigate further.
There is no particular piece of legislation pending, but lawmakers have floated the idea of taxing sugary beverages. Estimates on how much money a tax of one to a few pennies per ounce could raise range from $51-150 billion dollars over the next ten years. These taxes have been proposed not only to raise money to support health care reform or other public goods, such as inner city farmers’ markets, but also to shift consumer habits in support of health. Consumption of sugary beverages has been linked to obesity and Type II diabetes, diseases that are afflicting more and more of the population and driving up the costs of public health care. In an article in the New England Journal of Medicine earlier this year, authors Kelly D. Brownell, Ph.D., and Thomas R. Frieden, M.D., M.P.H. state, “For each extra can or glass of sugared beverage consumed per day, the likelihood of a child’s becoming obese increases by 60%.”
It has been argued that a tax on sugary beverages would disproportionally burden the poor, who spend a greater percentage of their income on these products. Some Democrats in Congress have even claimed that a sugar tax could encourage low-income families to cut spending on fruits and vegetables rather than on the taxed items. While it is important to assess the social and economic impacts on all segments of society when considering new legislation, these claims do not reflect the whole picture. Low-income families are also disproportionally afflicted with Type II diabetes and obesity-related diseases. Why haven’t these same Representatives spoken out against industry subsidies that make sugar-loaded, processed food cheaper and easier to come by than healthy whole foods? Additionally, there is good reason to believe that the proposed tax would reduce consumption of sugary drinks. Studies by researchers and industry groups alike have found that an increase of 6.8-12% in the cost of soda resulted in a 7.8-14.6% decrease in consumption. Low-income families stand to gain from a tax that would encourage reduced consumption, especially if the funds raised could be used to make healthy foods more readily available.
One final thought: The group sponsoring the commercial, Americans Against Food Taxes, calls itself a “concerned coalition of citizens,” but if you go to its website, you can view a list of “coalition members”; The supporters listed are mainly beverage companies like Coca-Cola and PepsiCo, industry lobby groups like the American Beverage Association, and retailers like 7-Eleven and McDonald’s. And we are supposed to believe they have our best interests at heart?
For more information, see: Brownell, KD and Frieden, TR. “Ounces of Prevention--The Public Policy Case for Taxes on Sugared Beverages.” N Engl J Med. 2009 Apr 30;360(18):1805-8.
3 comments:
Coke employees about 11,500 people in the United States, Pepsi 200,000 worldwide (coke says 14% of total workforce is American, so lets assume pepsi is the same = 28,000). On these two companies alone, a tax of 6.8-12% resulting in a reduction of consumption of 7.8-14.6% means that, roughly speaking 3081-5767 people would lose their jobs. Again, this is roughly speaking. It ignores the cost structure and company breakdown of the two companies. But when you throw in all the other companies involved in delivering the product to market, a lot of people stand to lose their jobs over this.
Also, why don't we just end the sugar subsidies paid to farmers to produce the glut? 1.2 billion a year for sugar. Corn was 4.5 bil that year. 5.7 bil over 10 years is 57 bil, more than the 51 bil they estimate on the low end, plus, I won't be DOUBLE TAXED by subsidizing sugar production and then being taxed on the soda again.
Just my two cents.
First off, I completely agree with you about ending the corn subsidies that flood the market with cheap high fructose corn syrup, making these sugared beverages cheap to produce. In fact, ending these subsidies would probably accomplish the same positive effects (as well as the negative ones you've pointed out) as a sugared beverage tax. It would also make factory farming and corn ethanol production much less viable, forcing us to consider more sustainable alternatives. So, perhaps this is a better place to focus our energy (although unfortunately even less likely to gain traction than a sugared beverage tax).
As far potential job loss, while I (as a currently unemployed person) empathize with this problem, I don't think it's a good reason to subsidize or avoid taxing an essentially unhealthy industry. We should encourage growth in sectors that are good not only for employment but also for our overall health- environmental, public, and personal.
What a frustrating commercial! Thanks for your thoughts on this, Megan.
Post a Comment