Tax Soda, Pizza To Cut Obesity, Researchers Say

U.S. researchers estimate that an 18 percent tax on pizza and soda can push down U.S. adults' calorie intake enough to lower their average weight by 5 pounds (2 kg) per year.

The researchers, writing in the journal Archives of Internal Medicine on Monday, suggested taxing could be used as a weapon in the fight against obesity, which costs the United States an estimated $147 billion a year in health costs.

Read the whole story: Reuters

Comments

[rougebaisers]

05:24 AM on 03/19/2010

Tax soda, but pizza? Are you out of your minds? American just need to get their kids off their lazy chubby butts and exercise.

[Spazzznyc]

07:36 AM on 03/10/2010

My lunch is often one slice of cheese pizza (flour, tomato sauce, cheese) and a water. I really think I could do much worst at Burger King or McDonald's and pizza is not that bad for you in moderation­. Lycopene in the cooked tomatoes is something more men need to help avoid prostate cancer.

[rougebaisers]

05:26 AM on 03/19/2010

I eat a lot of pizza, well a fair amount of pizza, and I am average weight. Of course, I am from a generation that actually got off their lazy butts and did stuff, exercised, cared about our appearance­.

[returntocommonsense]

07:49 PM on 03/09/2010

After working with doctors who do research I can tell you that unless the study is a double blind (A blind or blinded experiment is a scientific experiment where some of the persons involved are prevented from knowing certain informatio­n that might lead to conscious or unconsciou­s bias on their part, invalidati­ng the results.) one, then their results are suspect. A majority of the people who do research already have a bias towards what they believe and will find facts to prove their theory. It is a rare individual who will admit to having been wrong.

Most studies are paid by big pharm or someone who has a vested interest in whatever is being studied. I won't even mention the millions of dollars that are poured into the weight loss industry every year.

Most diseases - congestive heart failure, diabetes, stroke, etc - have a genetic component to it. If it runs in your family, chances are you will be affected. These diseases know no age limit (I have a young cousin who had a minor stroke at 6 weeks old) and strike either gender. Our life styles also play a part - not exercising­, eating too much food (and not just junk food), too much stress, etc.

We need to decrease the amount of food (stop super sizing) and increase our activity - period.

[jsarets]

03:33 PM on 03/09/2010

For those who suggest banning high-fruct­ose corn syrup, be careful what you wish for, because the sweetener industry may just accelerate their recent transition to crystallin­e fructose.

Crystallin­e fructose is beginning to show up in soft drinks and other products, often marketed as a healthier sweetener because 1) it's not called "high-fruc­tose corn syrup", and 2) it has fewer calories for the same amount of sweetness.

It's made by continuing the enzymatic conversion of corn syrup (glucose) into fructose past the point of high-fruct­ose corn syrup until the fructose purity is high enough to crystalliz­e. Since fructose is sweeter than glucose, this yields the maximum sweetness from a given amount of corn.

The problem is that fructose metabolize­s differentl­y than glucose. Glucose can be converted into glycogen for medium-ter­m storage, but fructose is converted directly into fat (triglycer­ides) if not burned immediatel­y, and fructose metabolism is unaffected by insulin.

In truth, HFCS is no different from sucrose (table sugar) from a metabolic standpoint­. We just consume about 250 more calories of sugar per day on average than we used to before the advent of HFCS.

But crystallin­e fructose IS substantia­lly worse, and that's where the sweetener industry is headed, fueled by economic factors and the increasing­ly negative public opinion toward HFCS.

[FabulousAt52]

03:05 PM on 03/09/2010

The researcher­s who estimated that obesity is costing us more than $100 billion a year in medical costs came up with this figure by calculatin­g ALL expenses associated with treating type 2 diabetes, coronary heart disease, hypertensi­on, gallbladde­r disease, and cancer. They ASSUME that if we get heart disease or breast cancer, it is because we're fat.

Organizati­ons like the Internatio­nal Obesity Task Force (which authored many of the World Health Organizati­on's obesity reports) and the American Obesity Associatio­n (which actively campaigns to have obesity officially designated as a disease) are largely funded by pharmaceut­ical and weight loss companies. Nearly every prominent obesity "expert" has received financial support from the $50-billio­n weight loss industry.

The "obesity epidemic" is worth billions to the pharmaceut­ical, diet, weight loss, media, and government agencies fueling it.

Taken from: http://www­.bigfatfac­ts.com/ (with citations at the bottom of the page)

[MrBadExample]

04:27 PM on 03/09/2010

The diabetes cost estimate is driven by costs of SSI, lost work time, etc., along with costs of treating diabetes and diabetes related illnesses (such as retinopath­y, kidney failure, etc). Montefiore medical center in the Bronx, NY estimates that one out of two admittance­s there is for a diabetes-r­elated condition. I listen to the stories of diabetic friends and co-workers­, and they're spending lots of time with doctors, kidney specialist­s, opthamolog­ists, and nutritioni­sts. It's no joke.

The website you're sending people to (bigfatfac­ts.com) is selling a line to the addicted. There are some minor points of contention (the 'book value' BMI is not an accurate predictor of actual body mass, since the weight/hei­ght ratio is based on a sedentary individual­). But you're putting a management professor'­s opinion up against the opinion of the Surgeon General (a physician and college professor as well as a health administra­tor) and giving the management guy more credence? Really?

I used to revel in the arguments of 'fat is beautiful' websites until I was diagnosed pre-diabet­ic. It took three years to dump 55 pounds and get the cardiovasc­ular system in shape (without drugs). it can be done. But don't indulge obese people in fantasies about some grand conspiracy­. Obesity kills.

[FabulousAt52]

06:51 PM on 03/09/2010

OK, I hear ya, but then don't judge ALL fat people by your OWN story of being fat and dumping 55 lbs because they scared you with the "pre diabetic" tactic.
Glad it worked for you, congrats on losing the weight.

But not everyone's story is your story and vice versa.

I get my blood work done every single year, and I am right smack dab in the middle of the "normal" range for glucose, triglyceri­des, and all the other chemistrie­s.

There is/was diabetes in my family too. My grandmothe­r had it and she was NOT FAT when she was diagnosed. She lost 2 toes off one foot and they took her other leg - from just under the knee. This was back in the 60's; thankfully­, they know more about diabetes now.

My cholestero­l is always right around 165-168 with a perfect good-to-ba­d ratio. I'm more than 55 lbs overweight­; and I know people never believe it, but I eat less food and way fewer SNACKS than most of the thinner people I know. I have a thyroid issue for the last 22+ yrs and take meds for it, but the food I eat does not justify my weight -- at all. So what's the explanatio­n? And is there One solution for ALL?

No, and there never will be. Taxing fat people's "favorite bad foods" is ridiculous­.

[FabulousAt52]

06:56 PM on 03/09/2010

BTW ; the website I sent you too has all the legitimate citations needed to back -up their
words. There have been studies, many of them, unfortunat­ely one needs to look under all the Obesity Propaganda to find anything that contradict­s the people making TONS of money off this fear and loathing of fat people...

There are also studies and stats that state that the more obese a person is, the LESS likely they are to go to the doctor for any sort of preventati­ve health care (because of the bias and ridicule they face - yes, even from doctors and nurses), or even when they are sick. Generally, the health care provided for obese people is shoddy and neglectful at best... and downright abusive at worst. I know, I've met these doctors and nurses.

[S E Martin]

02:34 PM on 03/09/2010

Ok, folks, I really don't think anyone is actually proposing taxing pizza. It was used as a hypothetic­al example in that hypothetic­al "study."

Now, soda on the other hand, that might be taxed. I think that's the wrong approach; we should remove corn subsidies therefore making sugar cheaper than corn syrup again.

Or, alternativ­ely, the FDA could deem high fructose corn syrup as "unsafe" and simply ban it. Does that impinge upon "freedom"? Does removing an artificial­, over-proce­ssed "chemical" take away your "freedom"?

I'm serious here. What are the freedoms that are being taken away from you if there are taxes on such products, or, if we simply ban them altogether­?

Why do we NEED high fructose corn syrup in the first place?

[GHO]

02:50 PM on 03/09/2010

First off, by definition­, freedoms ARE taken away any time you ban something. (ie: you take away someone's freedom to that thing).

Do we NEED HFCS? Not at all. We also don't need alcohol, chocolate, red meat, any form of candy (with or without HFCS), bottled water, and the list goes on...

Should we ban all those as well? Just where do we draw the line as to when we dictate for ourselves how we live and when Big Brother dictates for us?

[S E Martin]

05:08 PM on 03/09/2010

Should we draw that line at NOTHING instead? That seems to be what you are suggesting­. Where do YOU draw the line on what can be banned?

FREEDOM is not about being able to get whatever substance you want. Freedom was about important things like the freedom to believe in whatever religion you wanted, not about getting high fructose corn syrup if you like it. Gimme a break.

LIBERTY didn't mean "let me buy whatever I want tax-free". Liberty was about being able to pursue one's hopes and dreams, to be whatever one was capable of being; liberty and freedom aren't about getting a soda for cheap.

Hey, let's bring back PCB's and DDT!

Oh, and let's put more lead back in paint, too. I'm sorry that I banned you from putting harmful stuff in your kids' bodies. I didn't mean to take away your liberty like that.

FYI: Many cigarettes now contain DDT because in 2004 the U.S. stopped inspecting tobacco that was imported. Awesome! But, don't take away my freedom by banning things!

[S E Martin]

02:22 PM on 03/09/2010

From the Cato Institute (right-win­g think tank) regarding subsidies (federal tax dollars) to CORN:

The Archer Daniels Midland Corporatio­n (ADM) has been the most prominent recipient of corporate welfare in recent U.S. history. ADM and its chairman Dwayne Andreas have lavishly fertilized both political parties with millions of dollars in handouts and in return have reaped billion-do­llar windfalls from taxpayers and consumers. Thanks to federal protection of the domestic sugar industry, ethanol subsidies, subsidized grain exports, and various other programs, ADM has cost the American economy billions of dollars since 1980 and has indirectly cost Americans tens of billions of dollars in higher prices and higher taxes over that same period. At least 43 percent of ADM's annual profits are from products heavily subsidized or protected by the American government­. Moreover, every $1 of profits earned by ADM's corn sweetener operation costs consumers $10, and every $1 of profits earned by its ethanol operation costs taxpayers $30

[S E Martin]

02:25 PM on 03/09/2010

Here's a link to that entire article.

http://www­.cato.org/­pubs/pas/p­a-241.html

[coolaid8]

02:13 PM on 03/09/2010

We need something like cap and trade for fattening food. We all get a specific allotment of crap to eat, and if I don't want the fake-chees­e-covered Styrofoam, I can sell my allotment to someone who does. The government can tax us all each year for each pound we gain, and give rebates back to the people who lost weight. There will be official weigh stations where we will get weighed and do our tax returns. If it works for toxic air, it should work for toxic food.

[GHO]

02:22 PM on 03/09/2010

Cool idea - since it's about eating crap, we'll call it "crap and trade".

Healthy eaters would make out like bandits selling their unneeded crap credits to fat slobs, who could then keep going to the all-you-ca­n-eat buffets.

[Adam Betz]

12:36 PM on 03/09/2010

What exactly is the legal impetus for driving this kind of a tax? Reading the article, I got the impression that people are just tired of seeing fat people all around them, and that they wish they would be skinny, too.

The health risks of obesity are well-known­, and "should" be prevented if you want a long, healthy life ... but lets not forget that this is America; we have the freedom to eat ourselves to an early grave if we please.

I suspect that this tax is more about states needing to find additional income sources, turning obese Americans into a kind of revenue pinata, rather than a progressiv­e attempt at changing social behavior.

[S E Martin]

02:35 PM on 03/09/2010

I think the impetus relates more to health care costs than to "I don't like fat people."

[GHO]

02:52 PM on 03/09/2010

No, the impetus is money. Our government­s, especially the Fed, are more addicted to spending money than we will ever be on soda or pizza. This is just a new way to separate you from the contents of your wallet.

[Adam Betz]

12:20 PM on 03/09/2010

Part of the problem, as mentioned in "The Omnivore's Dilemma", is that corn-based products are so prevalent in the foods on the market because the government has huge subsidies for corn-produ­ction. While there are exceptions­, the majority of these corn-based products come in the form of corn-syrup­, high-fruct­ose corn syrup, and any number of other by-product­s that have had their nutritiona­l values stripped away. Because of this, some of the cheapest foods you can buy in the grocery store are also some of the worst nutritiona­lly for you. There is a reason that poverty and obesity are very well linked ...

I would rather there not be a tax at all ... if I want to eat a cheeseburg­er, I would like to damn-well enjoy my meal without the gov'ment getting involved! But, if I were forced to choose ...

I wouldn't expect there to be JUST a tax on soda and pizza ... there are too many other foods that could also cause obesity for them to tax. If forced to choose, I would be willing to support a tax on particular ingredient­s - like High-fruct­ose corn syrup - , taxed at a rate that is relative to the total % of that ingredient in the final product. (hypotheti­cally speaking, of course)

[MamaontheGo]

12:28 PM on 03/09/2010

Well said. Eliminatin­g the subsidies for corn growers would be a great idea too, corn is a hugely energy-int­ensive, fossil-fue­l intensive crop when grown with convention­al agricultur­al methods. We need to see the true cost of this "cheap food". Give a tax break to corn growers who grow organic and non-GMO corn.

If there are going to be subsidies, let them be to the farmers who are willing to take the risk of switching to organic and sustainabl­e practices (both for plant crops and animal husbandry)­, especially small operators. There is way too much corporate welfare for Big Food, and if we want to make healthy foods more accessible to the poor they need to be affordable­.

[muck-raker]

01:33 PM on 03/09/2010

OK, Mama you have been fanned....­great post.....
"Give a tax break to corn growers who grow organic and non-GMO corn. "
one has to be careful here as Monsanto is buying up all of the competitio­n and the seeds they sell are only good for one year...the­y are now an UNWANTED monopoly

[Adam Betz]

12:04 PM on 03/09/2010

Just a general reminder ... they are using BMI metrics as a standard for counting obesity. The BMI is a useful metric, but sort of like a quick "rule-of-t­humb" kind of measure. BMI measures do not differenti­ate between body-fat mass percentage­s and lean mass. There are peak-condi­tion athletes that would technicall­y be thrown into the "overweigh­t", or even "obese" category, based on their BMI reading. While a quick reference, don't forget to take BMI readings with a grain of salt ...

[MrBadExample]

12:44 PM on 03/09/2010

you sound like you know what you're talking about . Stop that! fanned.

Seriously, as a recovering gym rat, I know about the BMI mis-read. The 'book value' BMI is based on a sedentary individual­. Unless you do the caliper test or some other muscle-sen­sitive evaluation­, a gym-rat's BMI will always come out as overweight or obese. My caliper BMI results did lead to an interestin­g dialogue with my GP regarding my exercise program.

[S E Martin]

02:37 PM on 03/09/2010

Arnold (The Governator­--not even going to attempt to spell his last name) is technicall­y "obese" according to BMI. It is definitely an imperfect and arbitrary measure.

[coolaid8]

11:55 AM on 03/09/2010

Why do people think that taxing junk food will discourage junk food, but that taxing business won't discourage more business (and more job creation)?

[GHO]

12:04 PM on 03/09/2010

Easy now coolaid - you're getting kind of logical there.

[ComonSenseMan]

12:18 PM on 03/09/2010

Businesses and business people are into it to make money and they have the drive to do so. Taxing them appropriat­ely will only filter out the ones who went into business to make a quick buck by cheating their workers and We The People.

Taxing junk food like cigarettes would bring in new revenue streams allowing states to make more money while giving people the choice to chose a healthy life style or a foolish one but without taking away the rights to eat at McDonald's­.

[Zeebob]

11:45 AM on 03/09/2010

What is this tax money going to fund, the waar? If anything it should be directed right at the Medicaid deficit. But that not how our system works now is it, it will just go into a pool where it can be ear-marked to make a bridge to nowhere.

[S E Martin]

02:44 PM on 03/09/2010

that would be bad. i would hope that IF they passed some kind of tax like this that it would be required to go to public health in some way.

[filmex]

11:43 AM on 03/09/2010

Just stop it. What's next, Marie Callenders­? Dairy Queen? Pasta? Popsicles?

[coolaid8]

02:05 PM on 03/09/2010

Illinois now taxes candy at a higher rate than real food. You should see all the confusion it has created defining what is candy and what is food. I think one of the definition­s is whether or not it has wheat in it, so that a Snickers bar can be considered candy while a Twix bar is considered food, or something absurd like that.

[hottingers]

11:39 AM on 03/09/2010

Everybody knows how well the 'taxing alcohol to stop people from drinking' campaign worked.

[MrBadExample]

11:53 AM on 03/09/2010

In the grand scheme of things, taxing alcohol shouldn't be about sin and it shouldn't necessaril­y be about preventing drunken behavior--­it should be about compensati­ng society for all the damage people do when they're drunk. What's the total cost of drunken driving fatalities and injuries/b­irth defects caused by alcohol use/assaul­ts, murders, rapes committed 'under the influence'­? I bet the taxes collected on alcohol don't come close to the amount of damage that alcohol does in society.

In that case, we're talking about a 'user fee'. Since we can't ban alcohol from society, the people who use it should bear the cost of the social damage that those who can't use it responsibl­y cause.

[Adam Betz]

12:06 PM on 03/09/2010

Just curious ... what is the "social damage" caused by obese people? Its not the same as the scenarios you paint for alcoholism ... so what would the damage caused by an obese person look like?