Soda taxes back in the limelight

Consumption – many would say overconsumption – of full-calorie soda and other sugar-sweetened beverages has undoubtedly fueled the rise of obesity in the U.S. The number of colas, sports drinks and fruit punches guzzled by the average American doubled between 1977 and 2002. Study after study has demonstrated a link between the amount of liquid calories consumed and the number of pounds gained.

If only the reverse were true as well.

It certainly stands to reason that switching from Coke to Diet Coke – or better yet, to water – would cause people to lose weight. Surprisingly, this connection is difficult for researchers to make. In some studies, people who knew they were saving calories on soda wiped out that advantage by taking extra helpings of food. Perhaps others saw less need to exercise. For whatever reason, cutting back on sugar-sweetened beverages is just not as good for the waistline as you’d expect.

And yet, advocates of a soda tax keep pressing their case – most recently in a Health Policy Report to be published in Thursday’s edition of the New England Journal of Medicine. They insist that raising the price of sugary drinks by means of a tariff will prompt people to buy less, consume less and consequently gain less.

Many researchers have made the case that a soda tax would indeed eat into soda purchases. In multiple studies, they have found that a 10% tax on sugar-sweetened beverages would reduce consumption by 8% to 11%. But, as reported recently in The Times, researchers have almost universally failed to close the loop by showing that reduced consumption leads to lower body mass index.

In their policy report, the soda tax advocates cite four long-term, randomized, case-control trials – the kinds of studies considered the gold standard in medical research. But these trials pretty much fail to show that drinking fewer sugary drinks leads to widespread weight loss. Consider:

•  A British study of 644 kids between the ages of 7 and 11 found that the ones who drank fewer carbonated beverages had lower BMIs after one year compared with kids who didn’t. But the difference in BMI wasn’t statistically significant. That means the difference could easily be explained by random chance. This study did find that kids who drank fewer sodas were slightly less likely to become obese.
• A Brazilian study of 1,140 9- to 12-year-olds found that a program to discourage kids from drinking sugary drinks had no effect on overall BMIs. The only group with a statistically significant benefit was overweight girls.
•  A Boston study of 103 high schoolers found that those who consumed diet drinks for 25 weeks didn’t lose weight compared with kids who drank regular soda, though there was a statistically significant difference for the one-third of kids with the highest BMIs.
•  A Chilean study of 98 overweight children found that those who drank milk instead of sugary beverages didn’t have a statistically significant reduction in body fat, though there was a bona fide increase in lean mass.

None of these shortcomings should be interpreted to mean that soda is some kind of health food. But perhaps it would be useful to explore other public health interventions that are proven to reduce BMI broadly among the two-thirds of Americans who are overweight or obese.

Even if soda taxes don’t cause anyone to slim down, some people say they’re a good idea anyway because the money they raise could be spent on measures aimed at reducing childhood obesity, overhauling the healthcare system, or other worthy objectives that would counteract their regressive impact. President Obama recently told Men's Health magazine that a soda tax could be useful in the fight against obesity.

The authors of the policy report suggest a tax of 1 penny per ounce of sugar-sweetened beverage. For a 20-ounce drink, that works out to a price increase of 15% to 20%. If implemented on a nationwide basis, such a tax would raise $14.9 billion in one year. In California alone, it would generate $1.8 billion, including $188 million in Los Angeles.

Want to dream on? Check out this online calculator to see how much money could be raised by imposing taxes of up to $2 per ounce on a variety of drink categories in each of the states as well as in 25 major cities.

-- Karen Kaplan

Photo: Full-calorie soft drinks and other sugar-sweetened beverages are a persistent target for fat-tax advocates.

Credit: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

Comments

[Mike]

The only answer anyone has to impose their will on society is to tax, tax, tax. If people want to control obesity by taxing sodas then they are going to have to tax all foods. Remember that old joke about the person who orders the banana split and a diet soda? Well, it is all too true. I've worked in the food industry and obesity is about the amount and mix of foods consumed not any single food.

Taxing sodas is just plain stupid and a flagrant attack on individual freedom. Yes, individual freedom because now government would be imposing its views on what you can eat which apart from insuring it isn't poisoned, seems to cross way beyond the line of what constitutes personal freedom. If people want to really solve the obesity problem then they need to look at the root cause of the problem which really has nothing to do with any particular food but a range of problems that can never be solved by taxation.

I know a number of people who are heavy and they drink diet sodas and water quite often. Their problem isn't what they drink but what they eat and their ability to get exercise. Taxing them would not change their behaviors one iota. Helping them to seek good health care and identify and solve the root cause of why they eat and don't exercise is a much better approach and will yield a much better outcome.

[Truthbeknown]

Why does the media keep referring to 'sugar-sweetened' and 'sugary' soda drinks. One can never find soda sweetened with cane sugar in the US anymore. Go look next time you're in the grocery store.

The real culprit is high-fructose corn sweetener (HFCS) which is metabolized differently from sugar and promotes the buildup of visceral fat (aka organ fat). HFCS should be taxed in any and ALL foods containing it...

I think this just goes to show that tax-payer subsidized corn industry here in the US is far more powerful than any lonely sugar lobbyist.

[SmokeyBehr]

Soda taxes are regressive and will only hurt the lower income strata. Also, there are millions out there that can't or won't drink diet soda because of the physical effects of artificial sweeteners on their bodies. I personally can't have anything with Aspartame in it because I get splitting headaches when I ingest it.

[Mountain Steps]

Government - Stop Being My Mommy! I'm an adult - let me make adult decisions. You know, like whether I drink some pop or not.

[Jerrod Libonati]

While it’s true that there are health risks associated with excessive dietary intakes of nutrients such as saturated fat, dietary cholesterol, sodium, and sugar, obesity is a multi-causal issue that requires a comprehensive solution. If we’re going to tackle obesity, let’s start taxing total calories. It will be much easier to raise revenue if all nutrients are treated equally as they are in the calories in-calories out body weight equation. All calories count and balancing food and beverage calories with regular physical activity is what ultimately determines ones body mass index (BMI), a tool used to gauge health risks based on height and weight.
As a consultant to the food and beverage industry and a Registered Dietitian (RD), who practices in Southern California, I must say that it’s very ironic to me that we are challenging obesity through taxation. If we weren’t in such economic turmoil, would the controversy still be there? In the past 10 years, beverage calories have decreased, yet obesity rates continue to escalate. This fact and other studies show support for education, not taxation as all calories can be consumed in moderation while maintaining health and preventing disease such as obesity.

[McKlean&Soberly]

Why not tax junk food? It isn't necessary to survival, as with energy. In fact, it creates a huge new tax source. If you protest the tax, simply stop eating junk food and be healthier for it--or make your own junk at home.
Yes to tobacco and alcohol taxation as well. What they cost our government and the taxpayer is far higher than what we can ever collect from sin.

[HCG Weight Loss Diet]

Wow, this is so true. Like 80% of all American are either overweight of obese. people need to lay off the sugary drinks. i hope this works. it can pay for health care reform!

[Kevin]

A great idea... Do it!

[virginia]

It's not the soda. What are the calories in a glass of wine, doesn't regular beer have more calories than a can of coke? Hell, we drink less beer per capita than we did in 1910 and even in the 18th century, and yet we are fatter? The french and italians don't have an obesity pandemic. What is the major difference? It's that the french and italians have smaller portion sizes. They also aren't as sedentary as in the united states. Where do you find a glut of fat people - in places that are dependent on car travel to do basic activities, that is why in sprawl centrals, like the Southern United States, and parts of Australia you have the worst epidemics of obesity. European cities for hundreds of years relied either on public transportation or walking. People aren't consuming that much more in caloric intake than a generation ago, what they are doing less is basic daily exercise.

[Citizen]

California already has a .10-.15 tax on bottles and cans. In many places there is nowhere within 60+ miles to redeam the emptys - that makes it a tax.

Why not force everyone to raise and grow their own food? The $5 per item tax at the grocery store is comming...

[Doug]

This report seems more political than scientific.

Think about it...

First, the powers that be identify a villain that everyone can rally against...Obesity (see also terrorism and communism)
Then they prove their case with "facts"...scientific research (see sat photos of WMDs)
Then they provide a solution...soda tax (see Gulf War 1 & 2)

Soda Tax = Tax Grab

http://healthhabits.wordpress.com/2009/09/17/soda-tax-tax-grab/

[Raees Mohammed]

As a young adult concerned with the increasing rates of obesity in America, I was more than pleased to come across your thought provoking post discussing the possibility of implementing taxation on sugar-sweetened beverages. I appreciated your declaration that reducing calories by decreasing soda consumption does not eliminate alternate poor habits such as, “taking extra helpings of food” and having “less need to exercise.” Although proponents of the tax on soda use tobacco taxation to draw possible similarities, I believe their argument is subjective because the products being taxed are extremely different. In the case of tobacco taxes, cigarettes and related products were scientifically proven to cause cancer and other fatal diseases. However, as you pointed out, sweetened beverages have not been isolated as the sole cause that results in obesity. While soda intake may increase the likelihood of becoming obese, there are a plethora of other food products and eating habits that influence the path to obesity. Considering the fact that other food products – fast food and candy – in combination with soda are a more probable link to obesity, do you think implementing a slight taxation on a majority of proven unhealthy products can have a beneficial impact on decreasing obesity? Or, are there too many personal choices, environmental and genetic factors that limit any chance for taxation of food products to achieve the goal of improving overall health?

Moving past the possible health implications, there is an obvious economic impact that can occur due to the taxation of sugary drinks. Your attitude towards the possible revenue of “14.9 billion in one year” seemed less than optimistic. Although the numbers seem too good to be true, it did not stop President Obama from commenting on the possibility of using that money to lighten the load of obesity in America. Currently, the government allocates funds towards obesity and weight-related programs on a statewide level; do you think these are effective? With more money, is it possible for the government to implement programs or alternative solutions to obesity? My personal opinion is expressed in a point made by the study published in the New England Medical Journal, which stated: “obesity is unlikely to yield any single policy intervention, so it is important to pursue multiple opportunities to obtain incremental gains.” This particular statement refers to reducing caloric intake in a variety of ways, which I think is the start to decreasing obesity. In addition to regulated caloric intake, I am a firm believer that proper exercise and eating habits will direct individuals toward living a healthier lifestyle, and eventually lead to a healthier America.