Food Companies Fight Soda Tax Proposal Despite Staggering Obesity Epidemic (VIDEO)

This week, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) held the first ever conference on obesity titled "The Weight Of The Nation." Obesity is a serious public health crisis, and according to new numbers released by the Journal of Health Affairs, spending on obesity-related health costs has doubled over the last decade, reaching a staggering $147 billion a year.

But Americans did not get fat overnight, nor is it simply a result of gluttony, bad choices or laziness. Food policy over decades has made corn syrup-based junk foods like soda and processed foods, with little nutritional value, fast, cheap and easy. Huffington Post, in conjunction with the Gotham Gazette, just did a mapping project of the availability of fresh produce in New York City and found that the wealthier the neighborhood, the better the access to fresh, healthy food.

One proposal currently on the table to help fund President Obama's health care initiative is a 3 cent tax on soda and sugary beverages -- culprits in the high calorie, no nutritional value product market. This proposal would generate $24 billion over the next 4 years.

Marc Ambinder reports:

As he discussed the efficacy of a tax on soda [Monday], CDC chairman Tom Freiden was quick to point out that he was not endorsing the policy as a member of the administration. "I'm just presenting the science," he says. In his opinion, any intervention that reduces the price of healthy foods and increases the price of unhealthy foods "would be effective."

I spoke with Kevin Keane, a spokesperson for Americans Against Food Taxes, a group who is fighting the tax. He is also the VP of Public Affairs for the American Beverage Association.

He disagrees with Dr. Friedan, citing a recent New England Journal Of Medicine study "which [shows] no calorie is more impactful on obesity than any other calorie," Keane says.

He also says groups such as Center For Science In The Public Interest, who have been involved over the years with such causes as getting nutrition information on packaging, are supporting the soda tax "because we're an easy target. It's a personal crusade."

Taking a populist posture, the Americans Against Food Taxes website states:

American families and small businesses are struggling to survive in the current economy [...] Learn more about the devastating economic impact of raising more taxes on the food and beverage industry...and on the millions of Americans who eat and drink every day.

However, the coalition list reveals an impressive group of corporations who are backing the initiative, including 7-11, American Beverage Association, Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Red Bull, and Yum! Brands. Keane admits that most involved in the group have business interests they anticipate to be affected by a soda tax.

In this TV ad, Americans Against Food Taxes portray drinking soda as a healthy, natural, fun and family oriented activity, and a soda tax as an affront to both families watching their budgets and "the simple pleasures we all enjoy."

WATCH:

In addition to concerns over lost profits for beverage companies, Keane also gives voice to larger fears about an encroaching nanny state a soda tax would represent. "There's a great fear of a slippery slope. Once Congress and government reach into the grocery cart, they aren't going to stop. Every food product is going to be on the tax table," he says.

Quick Poll

Should we tax soda?

Yes. Soda is terrible and big part of the obesity epidemic.

I don't think a 3 cent tax will make that much difference, but at least it will raise some money.

Why only soda? There's a lot junk food out there.

Share your vote on Facebook so your friends can take this poll

Comments

[FatNSassy]

03:57 PM on 07/31/2009

It is amazing to me how liberals are letting Pharma off the hook about this latest obesity conference. Which is just another in a long line of ploys to fatten pharma's wallet. It is sponsored by the Robert Woods Johnson Foundation for heaven sake!!! Pharma has as big a hold on the CDC as bankers have on the Fed. We have been harping about obesity for over 50 years and allegedly people have gotten fatter. We should move on!!! It is also inexcusable that poll did not have an option of "No, the obesity crisis is exaggerated." All the options led to support of the tax.

We also need to see that they are using obesity as an excuse for another tax grab. What are they going to say? We let a group of banking bandits take you to the cleaners? Now we want to bleed out every last drop of you? No! Far better to try and disguise by saying it is for our own good! And shift some of the anger away from the bankers and towards their fat neighbors and friends who are struggling to put food on the table just like they are.

Tired of the status quo? Ignore the newest CDC antifat witch hunt. And resist the swine flu vaccine while you are at it!

"I never had a problem with my weight that wasn't caused by other people!"

[econ1]

11:01 AM on 07/31/2009

It won't stop obesity, but it will raise money and sales of soda will go down (if the price is up the amount is down).

I'd rather have them tax soda than savings (we need more savings ... don't need more soda.

[Sheeba Bobo]

11:47 PM on 07/30/2009

Anyone who is for this tax should be shot in the head. Twice.

[steele967]

08:50 PM on 07/30/2009

Why should I have to pay a tax if I'm not fat, I exercise, and I'm in great shape? From time to time, I drink soda, alcohol, etc. So why should I pay a tax if I don't contribute to the health problems? This is backwards. You should tax the inactivity of the lazy fat people. It's insane to think that EVERYBODY should pay for the unhealthy lifestyles of the obese population.

[rf-hawaii]

05:38 PM on 07/30/2009

The food industry has a vested interest in keeping people fat. That's why portions keep getting bigger.

Big Gulp, anyone?

Fat people buy more food.

[DCX2]

04:13 PM on 07/30/2009

I think this is awesome. Extend it to all food which does not contain a specified amount of nutritional value per calorie.

The problem is that we need to create _incentives_. Healthy food has risen in cost faster than inflation, and junk food has risen in cost lower than inflation. We have created an incentive structure that punishes healthy eaters.

If you put a tax on junk food, you aren't criminalizing it. If you want to stuff your face full of food that had all of the nutrition processed out of it, a three cent tax isn't going to stop you.

For the rest of us who are concerned about our health, we win four times. First because healthy food becomes will become cheaper. Second because junk food will become more expensive. Third because the tax can be used to deal with the health problems that come from overconsumption of calories. And fourth because food manufacturers will begin to add just enough nutritional value to their food so that they might avoid the junk food tax, meaning there will be more food that's more healthy.

[obamaluv]

11:06 AM on 07/30/2009

Pass it tax also twinkies, doughnuts, potato chips, bacon, lard, kool aid, hi c, candy bars, gum, red meat, everything but brussle sprouts

[medicinecat]

10:30 AM on 07/30/2009

A country where a public health menace can be overriden by a bunch of soda-pop manufacturers? Pathetic. And pathological.

[burtmckinly]

10:16 AM on 07/30/2009

Perhaps the above anti-junkfood tax television ad would have different impact if the family depicted were all morbidly obese.

[burtmckinly]

10:11 AM on 07/30/2009

Tax fat itself.

[FreidaPeeple]

11:48 PM on 07/29/2009

Pass it, Pass it, Pass it. Again I say, the sooner the better. Tax cupcakes and donuts and bubble gum too. Tax video games and cheeseburgers. Pass the Healthcare bill and fill it full of pork. Then tax pork. Tax people who drive too much because they're at risk. The sooner Americans are forced to recognize they they are no longer free. The better. GO CONGRESS!!

[CaptainVideo]

09:38 PM on 07/29/2009

Do we really want to live in a nanny state where the government tells us to eat our broccoli because it is good for us?

[CalverH]

10:05 PM on 07/29/2009

If what you eat cost EVERYBODY that much in terms of health care costs, YES!

[Carol06095]

10:31 PM on 07/29/2009

I'm overweight and have never been a burden on the government. I have no health problems. And I actually work and have health insurance although I only go to the doctor once a year for a check-up. Of course, I don't drink or smoke - - things that cause major health problems or so I've been told. All the states got tobacco money to help with smoking health problems - and where is that money now? If all you are worried about is health care costs - - don't give free treatment to illegal aliens. Problem solved. But it's not really about that is it? The government could care less what we eat - -they just want the tax money.

[JuliusR]

10:45 PM on 07/29/2009

Well said, Comrade!

[Tommygun264]

08:42 AM on 07/30/2009

They already make it hard for us to huff paint, glue and drain cleaners. Will the heavy-handed government oppression never end?

[medicinecat]

10:33 AM on 07/30/2009

Some places are even banning artery-killing trans-fats!. When, oh when, will the government get off our backs!!!!!!!!

[CaptainVideo]

09:21 PM on 07/29/2009

Whatever the intrinsic merits of such a tax, imposing any kind of a tax to pay for universal healthcare on people who earn less than 250,000 will reduce public support for universal healthcare and is therefore counterproductive.

[libster4]

08:06 PM on 07/29/2009

I HATE this commercial!!! You know, sodas and "truit drinks" do not add that much to one's quality of life. They make it sound like it's so dire that you may pay a few more cents to buy a soda! Ridiculous! We have real things to talk about here, people. Wonder how much this ad cost?

[Cryostatic]

01:32 PM on 07/30/2009

It is dire. For the beverage companies.

Nobody's going to pay $1.03 for a vending machine soda. Even if they would, the machines won't take pennies. That means that the drink manufacturers are going to have to eat those three cents. When you figure how many vending machines there are across this country, and what a huge business it is, then you can easily see how much such a tax would cut into profits.

[BeefyT]

01:49 PM on 07/30/2009

Um... no, the companies won't eat the loss. The soda companies will pass the tax on to the consumer in the form of higher prices. Soda machines take quarters, right? So $1.03 will translate to $1.25, see?

[CrzyRussell]

07:55 PM on 07/29/2009

If this is TRULY about health and not just to raise more "REVENUE" than why so little? 3 cents isn't going to modify behavior.....

Make it a stiff tax ..say 50% if you want to change people's behavior.

Otherwise it is just a sneaky way to raise taxes.

[JoeAlvord]

11:32 PM on 07/29/2009

Agreed. The heavy tobacco tax (and education) has helped decrease smoking greatly.

[BeefyT]

01:51 PM on 07/30/2009

Better yet, let's pass a LAW outlawing soda and sugary food. And Cigarettes while we're at it. If they're so bad for everyone and cost society so much, what are we waiting for?

[rf-hawaii]

06:57 PM on 07/30/2009

We need to start the process somewhere. Tobacco taxes started small too.