Thanks to a recent publication about the potential impact of taxing sugary drinks, many policy makers, media, health professionals and consumers are returning to the table to discuss the controversial soda tax.
In a study published in the journal Health Affairs, January 2012, researchers at the Columbia School of Public Health and University California- San Francisco predicted that taxing sugary drinks would prevent 240,000 new cases of diabetes, 9,500 heart attacks and 2,600 deaths every year. The study used a penny-per-ounce excise tax on sodas and uses a model to predict that the tax would decrease consumption of sugary beverages, resulting in lower body weight and lower risk of diabetes.
Sugary beverages (referred to by some as liquid candy) are currently consumed by Americans more than three times as often today as 30 years ago. Soft drinks are thought to contribute to the obesity rates as children today are more than three times as likely to be overweight compared to 1970.
It is estimated that Americans drink nearly 14 billion gallons of sugar-sweetened beverages, like soda (non-diet) and sports drinks, each year. Per the study authors, a one-cent tax would generate about $13 billion in revenue, while reducing costs associated with health-care by $17 billion.
Proponents of the proposed tax on soda, heavily sweetened “sport drinks,” and similar products suggest that the tax would reduce obesity and its related costs by discouraging consumption.
This type of tax serves a dual purpose- taxing individuals who consume sugary drinks to increase revenue and discouraging people from consuming sugary drinks due to the additional costs.
Opponents of the proposed tax suggest that the tax will not discourage people from drinking sodas and would essentially be taking more money from the hands of the poor. This type of tax has the potential to negatively impact lower income groups more than higher income earners when measured as a share of their income. For example, a 20-ounce soda would cost an additional 20 cents due to the tax. Some financial analysts believe that the makers of sugary beverages are likely to increase the price of these products to account for any decrease in sales due to the tax. This would mean and even higher cost for sugary drinks.
Whether you are for or against the idea of an excise tax, it’s hard to argue with a small tax if it can save thousands of lives and prevent heart attacks and diabetes. The problem with the study is that it uses a model of prediction. If it were just predicting the impact of the additional revenue, perhaps that would be easier to believe. But the study is actually predicting that the tax will change human behavior.
I’m not convinced that taxing specific foods or beverages is the best way to encourage lifestyle modifications to improve health. While I agree that sugary drinks are not the healthiest products to consume, consuming in moderation is the key to most healthy diets. Educating individuals and communities about healthy options and making those healthy options available should be one of our primary goals. We can’t encourage people to eat fruits and vegetables and walk in their neighborhoods if fresh fruits and vegetables are not available and there is no safe place to walk in the neighborhood.
