I'd Like to Buy the World a Coke - And Slap It With a Big Fat Sugar Tax
In July 1971, Coca-Cola debuted a commercial that remains famous in the fizz of marketing history. Shot on a hill outside Rome, the spot -- featuring a diverse group of winsome, cleaned-up hippies singing a pop song with a folky vibe -- was a phenomenon.
The spot was a clever way of tethering the mainstream Coke brand to the emerging counter-culture, and making it zeitgeist-worthy. And believe it or not, people genuinely loved the song and the message of global kumbaya.
In fact, the song -- re-recorded without any reference to Coke -- became a #1 hit in the UK and #7 here. And in an early example of cause-marketing, The Coca-Cola Company donated its royalties to UNICEF.
Today, the song has its own Wikipedia page. What more can we say?
How times and tides have shifted in the last 39 years.
Today, Coca-Cola has flipped from the right side to the wrong side of a movement. They are in the crosshairs of an upheaval that's looking to demonize high-fructose beverages, and to blame our soaring health care costs and obesity epidemic on them. A movement that actually wants to slap a sin-and-slurp tax on every bottle to discourage consumption.
Just this week, in a long feature story, NPR reported that "One idea that has been suggested is a junk food tax -- and in particular, a tax on soda."
The story went on to say that "Public health advocates say drinking soda is directly linked to obesity, which is partly responsible for skyrocketing health care costs."
They reference a study conducted by the California Center for Public Health Advocacy, with UCLA, which found that "... regardless of income or ethnicity, adults who drink one or more sodas a day are 27 percent more likely to be overweight or obese."
How much money could a tax produce? In a much-quoted story from this month's New England Journal of Medicine, Kelly Brownell director of Yale's Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity, argues that a federal soda tax could generate $150 billion of ten years.
Even worse for the hilltop crowd, Brownell invoked the "T" word:
"Using a tax, much as has happened with tobacco, to try to change consumption patterns in a way that would benefit overall public health and provide a very much-needed revenue for programs, seems like a home run."
What's scary for Coke is that this movement is feeding into two powerful forces.
One is a general muscle-flexing by local officials, from mayors to Attorneys-General. Perhaps the most visible mover-and-shaker is Mayor Bloomberg of New York, who is often accused of Nanny Statism for his (successful) efforts to force fast-food companies to display calorie counts. Along with other aggressive nutritional interventions, Mayor Mike appears to be channeling Michael Pollan at times.
In California, where menu ingredients can have longer histories than college application essays, Mayor Gavin Newsom is also trying to take the fizz out of Pepsi, Coke, and even uber-chic artisanal-esque manufacturers like Jones Soda.
According to the San Francisco Chronicle, Newsom ha actually tagged soda as "...the new tobacco" and plans to "introduce legislation this fall that would charge a fee to retailers that sell sugary beverages."
The story reminds us that "Newsom would need voter approval to tax individual cans of soda and sugary juice, but only needs approval from the Board of Supervisors to levy a fee on retailers. His legislation would charge grocery stores like Safeway and big-box stores."
And it's not limited to soda. Yesterday's New York Times pointed out that Richard Blumenthal, the Connecticut Attorney General, has no patience with an industry-wide "Smart Choices" marketing campaign. They say he is "Raising the stakes in the battle over nutritional claims for packaged foods" by "investigating a national labeling campaign that promotes products like Froot Loops and mayonnaise as nutritionally smart choices."
Blumenthal sent blistering letters to Kellogg's, General Mills and Pepsi in which he admonished them that he "was concerned that the program, called Smart Choices, was 'overly simplistic, inaccurate and ultimately misleading.'"
Beyond energized local entities feeling their organic oats, the second trend that should send tremors through Atlanta -- if it isn't already -- is a shift in consumer consciousness from impunity to accountability. Increasingly, we are paying careful attention to the implications of what we buy.
It's more than the Great Recession that's behind this. We're looking at the long, winding cascade of effects from every purchase decision we make, from the carbon footprint of the jetted-in New Zealand lamb we buy, to the enviro-complexities of bottled water. Some of us are seriously taking up President Obama's charge to take responsibility for our health. And younger consumers will rally to these efforts in numbers that are going to surprise everyone.
Of course, there are contrarians rattling around. Newsweek has a piece this week which argues that personal responsibility is over-rated, that a tax on behavior is wrong-headed, that we need to focus on income and education to create a healthier population.
From where I sit, though, the risks are great for the companies in the sugar-flavored water and sugar-flavored processed wheat business. I wouldn't be surprised at all if local sugar-and-fructose taxes start appearing in city after city, as one politician after another races to jump on the bandwagon.
Americans like to point the finger, and never at ourselves. Americans love an enemy, even if we once wanted to buy the entire world a bottle of it. We are frustrated and angry and need our daily demons.
So for Coke, the early warnings from Gavin Newsom and the New England Journal could very well be the Real Thing.
Follow Adam Hanft on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ahanft
Michael Wolff: Soda Is the New Right-Wing Issue--and Fatsos the New Base
The soda tax is being tried out as a potential wedge issue, a populist theme. Super groovy cool self-satisfied yuppie people don't drink soda. But gross fat compulsive lacking-all-self-control normal Americans do.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Pretending HFCS and real sugar are equally bad for you is a huge mistake.
Two problems: 1. HFCS is terrible for your body (though you would never know with big ag spending all kinds of "research" money to keep HFCS's reputation pristine).
2. We have millions of corn growers all over who get gov subsidies to grow corn whether we need it or not.
So the solution:
Don't tax all sugared drinks, tax HFCS drinks to prices HFCS out of the market.
Instead: subsidize corn ethanol.
As a registered dietitian and consultant to the food and beverage industry for over 28 years, I am passionately OPPOSED to any food/beverage tax. I happen to think all this misguided focus on sugary beverages is just that: misguided and clearly a scapegoat for raising revenue. I also consider this talk narrow-minded, short-sided and NOT based in science. While there may be a “link” in some scientific studies between soda and obesity, it’s inappropriate to say it’s the “cause.” Correlation does NOT equal causation.
Doesn’t anyone stop to think, or wonder, what ELSE overweight and obese people are eating and drinking? And what other lifestyle factors, like LACK of physical activity, might come into play? Or that maybe some people don’t want to MAKE the effort? And how do you explain people that CAN enjoy sugary beverages and are in GREAT health and at appropriate weight? Or overweight people that don’t drink soda at all? What food or beverage is their culprit?
As Mr. Hanft said: Americans like to point the finger and never at ourselves. Or in other words – mine as a registered dietitian: instead of making the effort to learn how to eat as healthfully and take personal responsibility for appropriately balancing ALL calories with regular physical activity, many people just prefer to blame someone or something else. In this case, soda and sugary beverages.
Taxing soda is not the answer. Thank you. Kim Galeaz, RD
Soda causes higher BMI. Happy?
Cutting out soda is something a person does on a diet. Its a short-cut to weight loss politicians are trying to force on other people. Its not a long-term life style choice that promotes over-all good health and weight.
Stop subsidizing corn and start subsidizing fruits and vegetables, so that everyone can afford to purchase them.
BTW. Why did the food and beverage industry hire a registered dietitian as a lobbyist?
WE DONT LIKE LOBBYIST HERE
GO AWAY OR WE WILL SUPPORT THE TAX
I really don't think the problem is people consuming sugar in soda, its consuming sugar in your meat, in your french fries, in your "fruit" juice, in pasta salad, in salad dressing, in just about all processed food. People realize they are consuming sugar in sugary foods and they can avoid them if they want. I think its the total amount of sugar in everyday foods that are hard to avoid that kills people.
Taxing soda is just a dumb, ineffective tax. We need to stop subsidizing corn and corn syrup.
I'd like to buy the entire Democratic Congress a Red Bull just to see them a little more energized about health care reform.
If there is a way to screw the taxpayers, today's politicians will find it. The new democratic party, "change", just not the change you thought you were voting for...
I really don't like the idea of the government applying a tax on "sugared" sodas. First of all, it's not sugar that is the primary sweetener used (although it once was), it's high fructose corn syrup. As stated by knosiswar earlier, high fructose corn syrup and cane sugar are metabolized quite differently by the body.
I also generally don't agree with the "slippery slope" argument on various pieces of legislation, but this time I can see great validity to the idea. If it's sugared soda today, is it cake and cookies tomorrow? Or, could it be sugar itself? Don't forget the always easy target of "fast food".Next, let's define what we mean by "fast food". Is it McDonald's and not Panera?
The food police could go nuts. Let's not start.
it is not the govt's responsibility to tell me what I should or should not consume. If someone chooses to have a poor diet and lead a sedentary lifestyle then the resulting physical condition they find themselves in is their doing, not anyone else's. There is no reason to raise my taxes because you don't like how someone else lives their life.
The Fruit Sugars without the Fruit Fiber is creating problems with hormone and insulin production.
Sugar: The Bitter Truth
Source: www.youtube.com
Robert H. Lustig, MD, UCSF Professor of Pediatrics in the Division of Endocrinology, explores the damage caused by sugary foods. He argues that fructose (too much) and fiber (not enough) appear to be cornerstones of the obesity epidemic through their effects on insulin. ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_sugar
Unlike glucose, fructose is almost entirely metabolized in the liver. "When fructose reaches the liver," says Dr. William J. Whelan, a biochemist at the University of Miami School of Medicine, "the liver goes bananas and stops everything else to metabolize the fructose." Eating fructose as compared to glucose results in lower circulating insulin (pancreatic beta cell insulin release is controlled only by blood glucose levels) and leptin levels, and attenuation in the suppression of ghrelin postprandially.[53] These hormones are implicated in the control of appetite and satiety, and it is suspected that eating large amounts of fructose increases the likelihood of weight gain.[54] Excessive fructose consumption is also believed to contribute to the development of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.
Meira Field, Ph.D., 'The livers of the rats on the high fructose diet looked like the livers of alcoholics, plugged with fat and cirrhotic."[50]
STOP THE USE OF SAW DUST FOR CELLOUSE AS A FOOD ADDITIVE ....
WE ARE NOT BEAVERS !!!!
Our good ol' nanny government wants to fleece us any way they can...
I'm surprised that there was no mention of High Fructose Corn Syrup in the sugar discussion. Sucrose (table sugar) like starch has to be processed by the the body to be used by the body but corn syrup is high in glucose which absorbed by the body before it gets to the stomach, and blood glucose levels are what cause diabetic illness. The politics of Corn definitely bears scrutiny in this publication because the throttling of sugar imports is in part due to Midwest corn votes. Tax on sucrose is more likely than soda.
Washington State has a tax on carbonated beverages and alcoholic beverages although food in general is not taxed. Grocers like Walmart, Kroger, Safeway, et al apply the carbonated beverage tax to all bottlers' products including drinking water and unsweetened ice tea.
There is about 5 grams of sugar (sucrose) per teaspoon. A 8 oz serving of Coke (what you get at McDonalds between the ice) is listed as 25 grams. A glass of "healthy" Apple juice is 33 grams of sugar per glass. Ditto Grape and Cranberry 'cocktail'. A 6 oz. cup of "healthy" Yoplait yogurt is 27 grams of sugar. Two tablespoons of Heinz ketchup is 8 grams sugar, name brand BBQ sauce is 10 to 16 grams.
Perhaps someone wiser than I can explain the bad science behind "sugar causes obesity"? I've noted that people are often thin (emaciated) when they die of chronic disease; I can accurately observe than being skinny is a prelude to death. Of the 50 states, Wisconsin has the highest per capita incidence of rectal cancer; Wisconsin also has the highest per capita consumption of beer, so therefore beer causes rectal cancer. Wisconsin also has the highest per capita consumption of cheese, so a predisposition to get rectal cancer causes one to eat cheese? Sorry to pick on Wisconsin, but it was a seriously published scientific study (should be in Annals of Improbable Research or Journal of Irreproducible Results ).
The banning of advertising of tobacco and hard liquor, and the high taxing of those, has not put much of a dent in sales of those products and would have equal results with sugar. The Pharmacy analogy is apt because people, like lab rats, tend to self-medicate to attempt to alleviate some perceived lack. Why do people crave sugar? Anandamide as you know is the body's internal hormone that activates the same enzyme as THC of Marijuana. Why does the liver release Anandamide in response to a fatty meal?
We need this tax to be able to stop or at least slow down the corporate soda machine. I'd like to see Spitzer come back and lead this effort. Americans can't control their unsationable appetite for this high calorie beverage and it is costing us all and the corporations just keep churning out a profit. This tax will also help bring down the deficit.
[cont'd]
Look, you can tax sugared soda drinks until they're out of reach of the average consumer, and there will STILL be an obesity epidemic in this country. The problem is only partly due to WHAT we eat, but HOW and WHY we eat contribute in equal measure. Instead of trying to tax our way to better health, how about we expend some resources on teaching people more about good nutrition and health maintenance; and, most importantly, how about we figure out a way to make fresh, healthy food AFFORDABLE for poor and working class families?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
