• Welcome to BGO! We know you will have questions as you become familiar with the software. Please take a moment to read our New BGO User Guide which will give you a great start. If you have questions, post them in the Feedback and Tech Support Forum, or feel free to message any available Staff Member.

CDC Chief: Soda Tax Could Combat Obesity

Happy hour starts in 5 minutes
Chris said:
Let's say that soda is evil incarnate, is the major contributor to the downfall of the human species, and that it doesn't like babies or pets:

How is a three penny tax per serving (I guess) going to have one iota of impact on consumption?

Sounds like a bad plan poorly executed. Not a surprise if elected governmental officials are involved.
Click to expand...
Agreed. This is why I said above that the ultimate strategy will have to be reducing the subsidies that artificially keep the prices for sugars below the market rate. At that point (hopefully) the price would rise to the point where drinking soda would be come more costly, and hence less desirable. OTOH, diet sodas aren't much better than sugary ones in terms of the risk of obesity and metabolic syndrome etc. so perhaps the soda tax AND removing sugar subsidies would work hand-in-hand to help decrease this problem.
 
Yusuf06 said:
I'll take you up on that challenge.

However, of all intervention methods, price has been shown to be the single most effective means of altering tobacco use behavior (19).
Click to expand...

And I can find studies that show price has no significant impact on tobacco-addicted user's smoking habits.


While it feels good to say all the usual things about personal responsibility, it doesn't hold much weight here. How so? Well, the insurance industry has priced premiums for coverage based on risk for years. In this case, one can think of the tax as a "premium" for consuming sugar. Besides, I'm of the mind that your freedom to do self destructive things should generally end at the point where it ends up costing me money. In this case the obesity epidemic has gotten to the point where it's costing those of us who make a decent effort to not eat ourselves into oblivion more than our fair share.
Click to expand...

This argument boggles my mind man. There are countless things that other American citizens do that 'cost you money'. People driving down the block when they could walk that distance. Cha-ching. They just raised your road repair costs. Less motivated people who, because they don't apply themselves and live up to their potential, are only able to get crappy jobs without health insurance, so they end up using the ER as their personal clinic. Cha-ching. There went our insurance costs. Everything every American does, to some extent or another 'costs you money'.

That doesn't give the Federal Government the right or authority to tax any activity someone argues could be harmful or costly. Sorry, I am in healthcare, and I certainly see the downhill effects of poor diet, and other more obviously harmful personal behaviors. If it's okay for the government to tax with the stated purpose to impose it's agenda on the US populace (ie...we will punish you for your excessive sugar intake by imposing a financial penalty), why not go the full mile and impose required daily exercise on our citizens. If they can't document they are in compliance, they pay a fine. Because, afterall, exercise is good, no? Is that a ridiculous notion? Yeah, obviously it is. But it's not much more ridiculous than the Federal Government getting into the business of telling me how many sodas I should drink, and spending time figuring out how to penalize me if I don't agree with them.

When you look at the scope of challenges we face as a country, the idea that our representatives are spending their time and energy on this kind of nonsense is truly scary.
 
Insideous creep is all this is. Does anyone here really thing the government gives two ****s about your health? They just want the money. Earlier this year they got stogies, even after the ol' "I will not raise your taxes one dime". Now they're coming for soda. Next they'll tax you on the average number of breaths you tax per day and claim the money will got to combat global warming.

It's just more, and more, and more government in your business and your life
 
Boone said:
And I can find studies that show price has no significant impact on tobacco-addicted user's smoking habits.
Click to expand...
Actually, that's not what you said. What you said was "I'd also challenge anyone to demonstrate taxing a commodity, at any level, has resulted in a significant decline in its use. So even if that is the rationale driving this kind of effort, it's not based in reality."

In fact, that's precisely the conservative argument against higher taxes, i.e. higher taxes on earnings/consumption equals less of both. Now you're trying to tell me that as the price of a commodity goes up, consumption of said commodity stays the same? Even with the stagnating growth in income over the past few years? :insane:

How about this...
CigConUS.GIF



In any event, please find me a credible study that says increasing taxation equals more consumption of anything.
Posted via BGO Mobile Device
 
Last edited:
Yusuf - you're a smart guy.
So you know that a graph, or a study, or for that matter, a stack of statistics, showing one result declining and another rising doesn't prove causation. Since prices for nearly every item sold in the United States have done nothing but climb over the past 20 years, there are obviously going to be commodities whose use is rising as well as falling. I could show a similar graph showing the dollars spent on anti-smoking education rising with that downward consumption curve and 'prove' education can eradicate smoking. It wouldn't be true, but it would make a pretty graph :)

To be fair - I did ask for evidence, and you did provide it. I don't find it persuasive, but maybe I'm just not open-minded on the topic.
 
Btw, that you were able to post that via your mobile device is way cool :)
 
Boone said:
Yusuf - you're a smart guy.
So you know that a graph, or a study, or for that matter, a stack of statistics, showing one result declining and another rising doesn't prove causation. Since prices for nearly every item sold in the United States have done nothing but climb over the past 20 years, there are obviously going to be commodities whose use is rising as well as falling. I could show a similar graph showing the dollars spent on anti-smoking education rising with that downward consumption curve and 'prove' education can eradicate smoking. It wouldn't be true, but it would make a pretty graph :)

To be fair - I did ask for evidence, and you did provide it. I don't find it persuasive, but maybe I'm just not open-minded on the topic.
Click to expand...
You're absolutely correct that the chart I posted wasn't exactly proof. However, I'd stack that against the proof you've posted (i.e. none) any day. ;)

Regardless, there's plenty more where that info. came from. Trust me, this issue has been researched literally to death. And while I posted the chart because it was faster and easier to evaluate, the studies below go into much greater depth on the subject.

Higher cigarette taxes promote cessation among current adult smokers and reduce cigarette consumption by adult smokers who continue the habit, helping these smokers move towards cessation. Estimates imply that a ten percent price increase reduces overall cigarette consumption in this group by four percent, with approximately half of the impact resulting from reductions in the number of smokers.
Click to expand...

Increasing cigarette and other tobacco taxes will lead to significant
reductions in the use of these products, resulting from reductions in the frequency of use by continuing users, as well as reductions in the prevalence of use. Given this evidence, higher tobacco taxes are likely to be the single most effective policy option for reducing the public health toll from tobacco.
Click to expand...

In any event, if I'm understanding you correctly, allow me to paraphrase your position. "Yusuf, you've posted some information that 1)agrees with the conservative contention that taxing something increases the incentive to NOT use it and 2) answers a challenge that I've laid down. In response, I chose to disagree without any real basis and without providing any proof for my position."

Just so we're clear. :)
 
Last edited:
Yusuf, there is one thing about cigarette consumption and it's decrease that may also be contributing to the decline shown in your graph. It has simply become less socially acceptable to smoke, people are more likely now to express, even if mildly, a certain level of disapproval of friends who smoke-this trend has, in my personal experience, been increasing over the past few decades. People seem to be, at least as far as smoking goes, more accepting of its downside health effects and are more comfortable with the idea of telling friends and family that do smoke that they shouldn't-the decline of acceptability of smoking is, I think, a contributing factor to the decline and, since nicotine is indeed a drug and does have an addictive quality, people who don't quit may be finding quitting so difficult that they are willing to simply cut back or change to cheaper brands to offset the price increases.

As far as the soda tax goes, I, for one, do not view it as simply a "money grab by the feds" but done for social health cost reasons by well meaning-but possibly misguided people. I say misguided because I don't think it would have much of an effect unless the tax were truly punitive-say, a 50% price increase. A few cents per can would be ignored. I personally drink about 1 soda a month, I virtually stopped drinking them as a health-related diet choice-but I never drank them to the extent a large proportion of the population seem to do and they seem to have become so accustomed to having them that they would pay a little more without much complaint.
 
Great post Surv. You're absolutely correct that there are other factors besides price that are responsible for the decline in smoking. I've seen research that posits that health concerns are another big factor. However all the research I've seen still credits cost as the biggest factor.

You are also correct that a small price increase like this is unlikely to have much effect. However as I said I think the ultimate target should be the subsidies that keep the cost of sugar, HFC etc. artificially low. This had resulted in sweeteners in a wide variety of foods, many of which people have little idea about.
Posted via BGO Mobile Device
 
Yusuf,
I respect that you provided data to back up your opinion - seriously, although I don't think that's required as the basis to form an opinion. My primary point was that I don't agree these kinds of activities fall within the constitutional scope our Federal Government is supposed to be limited by. For me, whether or not taxing undesirable commodities is ineffective, mildly effective, or wildly effective is almost irrelevant. Because it's not the government's job to protect us from our less desirable impulses. Sorry - I just don't think it is. We can respectfully differ on that.

You mentioned 'conservative' a couple times - I don't know why - I'm making an argument for less intrusive government, but that's just a core belief I hold, it's not a political one.
 
:munching_out:
enjoying the serve/volley to and fro.
brothers going at it like borg/mcenroe...
 
beamish said:
:munching_out:
enjoying the serve/volley to and fro.
brothers going at it like borg/mcenroe...
Click to expand...


More like Billie Jean King and Bobby Riggs. Sadly, Yusuf's the guy in the dress. But unlike Riggs, I can take it :)
 
I actually kinda toyed with the idea of acting as line judge here, but I've learned that doing that can result in getting pelted with balls, shoes, racquets, being accused of less than noble ancestry.....:paranoid:




(Hey, joke guys,...the racquets hurt !:joke:)
 
Makes me want to crack open an ice cold Pepsi and light a cigarette. ;)
 
Boone said:
More like Billie Jean King and Bobby Riggs. Sadly, Yusuf's the guy in the dress.
Click to expand...
I think you're supposed to follow that up with a "Not that there's anything wrong with that." :)

I get that we're coming at this from different angles. Heck, I'm in full agreement with you on the principles of less intrusion into our private lives and the need for personal responsibility. However I also recognize that there are times when the needs of the many outweigh the rights of the few, to paraphrase my boy Spock. However as you said, there's certainly nothing wrong with agreeing to disagree.
Posted via BGO Mobile Device
 
Interesting topic...I've been involved in many heated discussions regarding junk food taxes, soda taxes, cig. taxes, etc. throughout my program. While both sides make compelling arguments, I'm beginning to favor the NOT increasing taxes argument.

Soda isn't the only thing that makes people fat. Eating like crap, being lazy and not getting out to exercise are other major factors in America's obesity epidemic. How about we stop cutting P.E. classes and recess for kids in our schools? How about we stop serving our kids complete crap in school cafeterias? I would very much like to see those policies implemented moreso than just taxing everything under the sun.

Although I don't favor across the board taxes on soda or junk food or whatever, I would favor increasing health insurance premiums for those who have surpassed "healthy" parameters. I don't know what would be used to determine "healthy," maybe a combination of BMI, LDL, and cholesterol levels?

I would also favor decreases in health insurance costs to employers who encourage and facilitate opportunities for their employees to exercise daily.
 
MikeSr619 said:
what I guess I'm not understanding from the "non tax" crowd is that they arent for soda being taxed but have no problem with cigarette taxes.

smokes arent the only thing that cause cancer. But smokes are taxed and taxed on the constant.
Click to expand...
That's a fair question. I guess for me, personally, I've seen countless studies on the harmful effects of tobacco; studies that convincingly show a cause-effect relationship of tobacco and certain cancers.

I have not seen those studies in regards to soda pop. Don't get me wrong, I don't think pop is good (as I'm drinking a diet coke as I'm writing this, lolol), but I just have not seen enough evidence that soda intake is the primary causal factor of obesity. I think soda sure doesn't help the situation, but it's not as big of a factor in obesity as tobacco has been proven to be in several cancers?

Does that make sense? (I'm being serious, not flippant with this question :) )
 
whoops! double post, sorry about that!
 
keeastman said:
That's a fair question. I guess for me, personally, I've seen countless studies on the harmful effects of tobacco; studies that convincingly show a cause-effect relationship of tobacco and certain cancers.

I have not seen those studies in regards to soda pop. Don't get me wrong, I don't think pop is good (as I'm drinking a diet coke as I'm writing this, lolol), but I just have not seen enough evidence that soda intake is the primary causal factor of obesity. I think soda sure doesn't help the situation, but it's not as big of a factor in obesity as tobacco has been proven to be in several cancers?

Does that make sense? (I'm being serious, not flippant with this question :) )
Click to expand...

Makes total sense- I agree. I think that was what I was trying to get at earlier- soda is not the sole cause of obesity, and until we know what specifically causes obesity (aside from obvious overeating, etc.), taxing soda (and other junk food) should be avoided.

Tobacco has been shown to cause specific cancers, and there is research and data to prove it. So, if people still want to smoke it despite the warnings, fine, but I don't care if it costs more for them. Just as I wouldn't be too upset if the lower level spf suntan lotion was a lot more expensive than the spf 50. It's my choice to choose that dangerous route, and maybe one day I'd wise up and get spf 50.

But food in itself- I don't think the government should get involved. There are just too many different paths they can go down once they start.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)

Help Users
As we enjoy today's conversations, let's remember our dear friends 'Docsandy', Sandy Zier-Teitler, and 'Posse Lover', Michael Huffman, who would dearly love to be here with us today! We love and miss you guys ❤

You haven't joined any rooms.

    You haven't joined any rooms.
    Top