The Soda Tax War Heats Up -- And The Possibilities Are Thrilling

Grist:

It's true that the effectiveness of a soda tax is still a subject of great debate. Public health officials on the one hand declare it to be a crucial tool in the fight against obesity. Economists, on the other hand, are far more skeptical�"although some new work suggests that a person's feelings of "price sensitivity" at the grocery store, independent of income level, is a strong determinant of food choices and obesity.

Read the whole story: Grist

Comments

[borscht]

Soda! Hey, that's where we can stick the carbon dioxide!

[spikeykitten]

I'm all for producing more carbonated beverages.

[nakedhand]

Tax all these stimulants, massively, and lower the price on real food!

[mountainweb]

And since I don't drink sodas, tax the crap out of them! Better you paying for a new corrupt heath care system than me!

[mergina]

They should tax EVERY product with high fructose corn syrup in it. That is quite a list. Not just pop or soda depending on where you live. It is in fruit drinks, campbell's soups, it is everywhere. Is it more than a coincidence that before the advent of this mysterious corn elixir, (you know it sends out signals that you are still hungry and thirsty when you are not), and saturated fats that tell our brains to keep eating, Americans were not as obese. Tax EVERYTHING put on our shelves with this crap, ALL OF IT.

[ImissBush]

or stop subsidizing it

[thundermummy]

Either way works for me.

[Valerie Keefe]

From the article:

"It seems to me that a soda tax offers a strategy for the ultimate bit of food system jujitsu—to allow reformers to stop tilting at agribusiness windmills, at least in the near term, and go about building our own. How about dedicating a good chunk of that new money—you know, a billion or two, chump change to the big boys—to subsidizing fruit and vegetables (whether at the producer or consumer level) and developing regional food systems."

This I'm in favor of, and I'd gladly pay another 65 cents for a two-litre of diet orange, when I'm in the mood to relive a pleasant memory from when I was 12, if it meant that vegetables were subsidized at the checkout counter. Makes eating well less financially frightening in the short-term. (Yeah, all you middle-class liveforevers can shut up about how much it'll save long-term, I still gotta make rent.)

[wm1066]

Replace the corn syrups with cane sugar and see if the number of fat people goes down. When pop had cane suger in it ( every soda before 1982) we didn't have the number of Americans with weight problems that we have now, I think its the corn syrups that are causing the health problems, corn syrup is pretty new to our diet, its only been around for about 80 years, cane sugar has been around for thousands of years. Our bodies are used to dealing with it. It was in the 80's that a southern politician,( I think it was Strom Thurmond) that forced the soda botteling companies to switch to corn syrup because Cuba had a thriving cane sugar market. And he wanted to punish Cuba for going communist with Castro.

[Tim303]

Definitely tax it. Have you ever seen a small child before and after she or he drinks a soda?

[Yeah-Me]

I say tax it... Soda has absolutely no nutritional value, just llike alcohol or cigarettes.

(From the article)
"How about dedicating a good chunk of that new money—you know, a billion or two, chump change to the big boys—to subsidizing fruit and vegetables (whether at the producer or consumer level) and developing regional food systems."

This right here seems the sensible thing to do.

[vwtx]

Tax the cr@p out of it. Sodas are poison anyway.

[JScott]

Actually what they should do is limit the amount of carbonation and a minimum amount of flavorings and stop subsidiing HFCS raw materials. As a result of all this we now have really really crappy sodas that are far too carbonated and have less flavor, after tasting artisanal sodas, like the orig. formula Dr. Pepper, I've tasted how BAD sodas have become-yecch.

[RightWingMarine]

it is not the responsibility of the govt to determine what we should and should not consume. That is the responsibility of the individual.

If we are going to talk about how much money could be made from another tax being foisted on the American people why not talk about how much money could be saved by ending all subsidies and other give aways our govt sponsors?

[Yeah-Me]

Who says the government is telling you to not drink sugary sodas?

They are only concidering putting a tax on it.

[Tim303]

Actually, it is indeed good news that the government tells us, oh I don't know, don't consume drugs, don't consume too much alcohol (in some states you can't even buy it except in a special shop), etc. etc. don't you think? Besides which, your point is irrelevant.

[gbrooks]

Why? Are you too daft to make your own decisions? You're for prohibition and marijuana being illegal?

This in a "free" country?

I've known for years that I shouldn't eat HFCS or trans fats, I can make my own decisions about what I do or don't consume.

[RJII]

Tax it like booze and cigarettes. Meh. I wonder if the smoking bans in certain states has worked significantly

[Tim303]

Yes. In fact where I live you can't smoke within 20 feet of a building. So yeah, that works quite well, cos you'd have to smoke in oncoming traffic to obey the law.

[RJII]

that is some funny sht. very effective.

[ResidualSelfImage]

Get rid of corn and soy and sugar subsidies.

[spikeykitten]

Don't tax you
Don't tax me

Tax the soda behind the tree.