Don't Tax Soda, Tax Fat Soda Drinkers

Congress has recently proposed the Soda Tax which would add an additional tax to all soft drinks because of their sugar content. The theory, some in Congress suggest, will force Americans to not consume these drinks because they will not want to pay the higher tax. While the goal of forcing Americans to stop consuming simple carbohydrates is a noble one, the current proposal will not work because it will not change American's addiction to sugar or high fructose corn syrup. After all, if you tax sugar in Coke, they'll just buy Oreos.

Obesity continues to skyrocket out of control; treatment for related diseases costs roughly $147 Billion annually. It doesn't matter in what food simple carbohydrates are hidden, it's the result of eating too many of them that matters. Its time to face the facts: Simple carbohydrates are an addicting drug. Any human culture, if exposed to simple carbohydrates, will always start eating them and often to the exclusion of other foods. As an example, Hispanics and American Indians, healthy for generations, now are being ravaged by obesity and diabetes, all because of a newfound food: simple carbohydrates. During the years 1990-1998, when the low fat movement was taking hold, the number of young American Indians with Diabetes increased 71%. The rates for young Hispanics doubled during the same period. Of these, over 90% were overweight or obese.

Tax sugars and carbs all you want, you won't stop their consumption. For all the government warning labels, TV and magazine bans, and outrageous taxes on tobacco, smokers only stopped when the consequences of using the drug became unpleasant. Smoking seriously subsided only when "lighting up" became physically difficult -- when it was banned from buildings, restaurants, and bars.

There are two ways to slow obesity: One, limit where and when simple carbohydrates can be used (it worked in World War II). Or two, tax the consequences of their overuse. The first choice is legislatively improbable and not within the government's jurisdiction but the second could work.

Compare Americans' coffee consumption with our Italian counterparts: where most Italians walk to get their Espresso and may add a packet of sugar (3 gms) to it, Americans will drive to get a "light" Frappocino and pick it up from the drive-through window. And although both cups contain the same amount of coffee, the Frappocino has over 12 times more sugar (37gms). Compound this by 365 and its no wonder we're an obese Nation.

It is only when the result of overusing simple carbohydrates becomes unpleasant that the epidemic will be reversed. We pay by weight for much of what we want so we should pay by our own physical weight too. Bananas are purchased by the pound, our airline luggage has weight limits and financial penalties, and the trucks that carry our cargo is taxed according to its weight. It only makes sense that if we want to be fat, then we should pay a tax to cover the consequences to society we know are coming. Taxing the consequences of behavior (the overuse), not the behavior itself is a better solution.

Steven R. Gundry, MD, FACC, FACS is the Medical Director and Founder of The International Heart and Lung Institute, Palm Springs, CA and author of the "Dr. Gundry's Diet Evolution: Turn Off the Genes that are Killing You" from Crown Publishing.

 

Comments

[BunnyX]

I eat zero sugar or refined flour (and I know this because I cook everything from scratch), and I'm still obese. Why do self-righteous jerks like this get to decide I should be taxed for the 'consequences' of a behavior I don't even DO?

[seattle music]

People in powerful positions in government will do ANYTHING to keep the money rolling in for the corrupt and inhumane so-called "food industry" in America. They've been bought and paid for with campaign financing and political outrage directed at them by industry. Remember what happened to Oprah when she dared to criticize?

It should be illegal to put Coca-cola into a baby's bottle. Drugs are adjusted by body-weight when given to children vs. adults. Giving a small child a Coke is equivalent in caffeine to giving an adult male eight Cokes. How many adult males would be climbing out of their own skin if they had eight or sixteen Cokes? Trouble concentrating? Erratic, broken sleep? Blood sugar spikes and crashes? Oh. My. Goodness.

Yet every day, all over America, we are bombarded with advertising directing families to DRINK COKE or Pepsi or whatever high-fruct­ose-corn-s­yrup plus caffeine plus chemical flavorings are on offer from the "food industry".

It's not food. It's metabolic poison. It should be taxed to the point where less than 10% of the population -- the really hard-core abusers who will not quit -- are the only ones left using these poisons.

When a soda is $15 per can, people will think twice.

How about an "empty calorie" tax with the proceeds going to healthcare? I'd rather see us tax junk food than tax people who get excellent insurance through their employer.

[JimR]

It's an interesting idea, but I can see all kinds of complications. Some people do have pre-existing conditions that cause them to be overweight. And there also weight ranges for people of different heights. Are you going to have people's height measured, their weight checked, and then compare it to a chart? Sounds time-consuming.

I don't have a problem with the soda tax. Oh, I agree it won't stop consumption. But it sure will bring in tax revenue!

[wmk504]

all this is fine and dandy, but to me it seems that a lot of issues from someones diet (simple carbs) does not come from choice, but from not being able to afford alternative foods.

I am all fro taxing someone if they are overweight and a burden to our health system, but only if you also offering healthy affordable choices to people. that is the real issue, taxing the people who are fat (generally lower income families) is not going to help the problem... we must make healthy food affordable and available!

also, schools are a great place to start serving better food

[Steven Gundry]

Raising taxes on a substance like gas or cigarettes will lessen consumption somewhat becasue there is no alternative. On the other hand, taxing an addicting substance which is present in lots of products becomes problematic. Tax my Coke, I'll eat an Oreo. Tax my Oreo, I'll eat a cracker. Tax my cracker, I'll drink a "healthy" juice or smoothie. They are all great sources of simple carbohydrates. You have to tax the consequence of eating or drinking too many of these products.

AS far as gyms, dieticians for free...they won't be used,as all well-meaning companies discovered. Once they taxed the consequences of being overweight or smoking by raising insurance premiums for corporate provided health care or threatened job loss, then the gyms, the healthy eating programs got noticed and utilized. Tax the consequences, not the behavior.

And how do we weigh everyone? Easy. Stop by the post office, DMV, step on the scale, get your waist measured, your height, get an official stamp to send in on your W-2 and send in your money. This is what government does best: measure and collect a tax.

[zombie fairy]

Yes, some people are overweight for biological reasons or due to prescription medication side effects, but I can't imagine that 1/3 of American adults - the number of American adults who are obese - are so because of biological complications or drug side effects. I can't imagine that 2/3 of American adults - the number who are simply overweight - are either.

No one may want to be fat, but a lot of people, fat and thin, want to be ignorant about what they eat. If you put cr.ap in your body, then guess what? Your body is going to be cr.ap. It might be fat cr.ap or it might be thin cr.ap, but it's going to be cr.ap. Take some responsibility for what you choose to buy and feed yourself.

[rjmiller]

"There are two ways to slow obesity: One, limit where and when simple carbohydrates can be used (it worked in World War II). Or two, tax the consequences of their overuse."

These are the ONLY two options? Nice false dichotomy: tax everyone or tax fat people. You really couldn't think of a single other option?

How about offering free nutritionist visits to help obese people with weight loss plans? I'll wager that the cost of free treatment of obesity is less than the societal cost of treating the medical conditions stemming from obesity. A lot of companies have begun holding free health screenings to help employees target potential health problems, I'm sure the effect would be similarly positive.

[ColumbiaPatricia]

Quit blaming the victim and attack the MANUFACTURERS of simple carbs - that is the true enemy. Softdrink companies, candy bars, fast food, etc.

Also, start a massive media blitz promoting vegetables and fruits. Place a limit the amount of media ads the MANUFACTURERS of simple carbs can have.

[zombie fairy]

Limited ads will do nothing to reduce the rate of consumption. Just look at tobacco and alcohol products.

Whether the consumer is fat or thin, sickly or healthy, that person makes the choice to purchase and consume the product. It's not like there aren't other option.

[seattle music]

Tobacco consumption has dropped DRAMATICALLY since the government started trying to rein in tobacco abuse.

Anti-tobacco ads, high taxes on tobacco products, strict regulations on who can buy tobacco and/or where tobacco can be sold, etc. have had an enormous impact.

In some places (e.g. Seattle) we've gone from 85% smokers to 85% NON-smokers in a few decades.

[Sub Libertate Quietum]

"Taxing the consequences of behavior (the overuse), not the behavior itself is a better solution."

Sugar, coffee, and a host of other ingredients in our crummy food is addictive.

If this weren't bad enough, some food corporations (name McWithheld) were adding "preservatives" that actually stimulated the consumer to desire more of their crummy product.

How about we start cracking down on a lot of these crummy corporations who use so many wonderfully addictive products to overstimulate the consumer?

You can't go after the addict and leave the pusher alone, ya know.

[notobeseanymore]

Take a kiok at the authors book; Dr. Gundry's Diet Evolution. It is one of the most interesting books I have read and opened my eyes to our current weight problem. I too had given up on dieting and healthy eating having fought weight gain all my life. I figured I was one of the unlucky ones with genes that don't help me.
I have been following the recommendations in Dr. Gundry's book for the last 6 months and have lost 36 pounds and feel terrific. It has been the easiest way to lose weight and my body is now working with me. Sugar and all our over processed foods are killing us.

Read the book and try it out, you'll be glad you did!

[DevonTexas]

What should we do about fat people who don't drink soda? Make them drink it?

You don't offer a solution as much as a knee-jerk reaction that seems to reflect a prejudice against overweight people. When you are able to remove the blinders, perhaps you would be able to offer a more effective soltion.

[martina1965]

Agree.

[Steven Gundry]

I was obese for a number of years until I learned what and how to eat. As a heart surgeon who now teaches people full time how to avoid me, I believe that being fat is a choice that carries dire consequences. While the cause of obesity is multifactorial, the simple truth is that people who don't eat our "Western Food" are not fat; interestingly, when they start eating our Western diet; they too become fat and get our diseases. Coincidence? Bad Genes? Sudden weakening of moral character? I think not; its the food.
If you want to eat this food in moderation, okay. Abuse it, and be prepared to pay the consequences monetarily for the resources you will use in the medical system.

[whateverlolawants]

Agreed wholeheartedly. This guy offers two dichotomous choices- how narrow-minded. And while many people are fat b/c of simple carbs... many aren't, or it's only a small part of how they came to be that way. Not all fat people drink soda, you're right. And then you've got people like me... I'm petite, have a fairly flat stomach and a "normal" BMI, and I eat lots of simple carbs. (I also have good metabolism, eat other "good" foods, and occasionally exercise, though.)

I also don't like the targeting of the obese. Alcoholics probably cause just as much strain on the medical system per person. Why not target them, they're addicted to something too? Wait, we've realized their addiction is a mental illness of a sort... might this simple carb thing be the same? I don't know, but the analogy is worth exploring. While not ignorant of the health risks and societal impacts of being morbidly obese, I'm sick of this "berate and hate the fat" mindset.

[SaddieMcCall]

How would you prevent a fat person from having a skinny person making all of their soda purchases for them?

[Steven Gundry]

Its the fat person who is going to get taxed. Drink up! But be prepared to pay up for the priivilege.

[SaddieMcCall]

By your logic, we should not tax cigarettes - only the people who get cancer from it. Nor should we tax alcohol, only tax the addicts who destroy their lives with it. Why stop there? Why are we not looking at taxing health care benefits as they are being used? If someone has heart surgery, the the health insurance pays out for it - then tax the cost of the procedures that their customers receive as additional income to their salaries?

Maybe we can expand your logic even further, why should people who don't utilize police or fire services pay taxes to cover them? Lets make the people pay as they go, if a woman wants the police to investigate domestic violence or sexual assault - she should pay for each hour the officer spends on her case? Only people whose homes burn down ought to be paying for the fire department's responses.

Its a terrible thing to expect nonvictims to pay for other people's misfortunes, if only they made better choices they would have perfect lives like the writer of this article.

I'm glad I don't live in your world.

[Steven Gundry]

Actually, I like that logic. Don't tax cigarettes, tax the smoker. Why do you think insurance companies get a blood nicotine level on you when you buy life insurance. They will "tax" you because they know what you will cost the system by smoking. If President Obama wants to smoke, that's fine with me: just send in the money he knows he will cost the health-care system by that behavior.
Same with alcohol; small amounts have huge health benefits. Its when large amounts are used acutely or chronically that it becomes a health and societal menace. No one says don't have a drink with dinner; but don't drive because now you threaten others.
Its the same with obesity; no one is saying you don't have a right to be fat. But if you are, be prepared to pay for that privilege in higher health care taxes. Simple user fee.

[ThomasinFrance]

Even though I should say so, I really do agree with Gundry's arguments... After all, a whole population get to pay enormous ammounts of money, far more than lung cancer for example (see JAMA for exact figures), because a lot of obese people eat too much and too often.
No one can ignore genetic or other factors detached from the person's will, but if we really are to be honest, it is undeniable that for most cases obesity happens for no other reason than lack of exercice and excess nutrition.

As Gundry says: smokers have to pay up to smoke to insurance companies, well then obese people should have to pay up to be obese when not pathological.

Is it that much of a coincidence that this issue is concentrated on one continent? Would there not be a whole lifestyle to be modified?

[lessthansign3]

Fat is not a choice. Believe me, I know. I've struggled with my weight for my entire life, but I'm fatter than I've ever been right now. I ate right and exercised, but I still gained weight. I tried losing it, and it wouldn't come off. I am only 21 years old. I would never, EVER choose to be fat, but I was put on meds that had weight gain as a side effect. I know others who are "fat" because they have various other health conditions that make losing weight incredibly difficult. Don't make blanket assumptions, please.

Sure, some people are fat because they never learned how to take care of themselves. If you ask me, the #1 thing we could do as a country right now is to demand that public schools offer *actual* food rather than the fattening crap we feed our kids now. I always brought my own lunch because the food served at my school was awful. Fruits and veggies were stale or bruised, "healthy" entrees were filled with preservatives, and there was *always* pizza available. Every single day. No wonder kids are fat! Sure, what they eat at home is important too, but schools need to provide proper nutrition to kids so they don't grow up like my boyfriend who acts as if he's allergic to veggies and won't eat anything healthy because "he doesn't like it" or "it's not yummy".

So... yeah. There are better ways to change things.

[zombie fairy]

One more thing to blame on schools. That's great.

[whateverlolawants]

Have you seen most school lunches these days? They really aren't nutritious.

[seattle music]

School lunches in America are, for the most part, crimes perpetuated against innocents.

Fried chicken "nuggets" or frozen pizza or just skip straight to the dessert, all served up with a big cup of high fructose corn syrup and caffeine.

Not a fresh, wholesome vegetable or whole fruit in sight.

It's disgusting what we do to our kids in this country in the name of "saving money".

[Steven Gundry]

Just imagine that you received a large tax bill from Uncle Sam that "little Jimmy" is going to cost you $1000 this year because "little Jimmy" isn't so little anymore! I would bet that might make any parent interested in what Jimmy eats and how much time Jimmy sits in front of the Nintendo.

I am sorry you are fat, I really am; my medical practice teaches people to change their food and change their lives and get off those other meds that "make" you fat. Check out and follow my book; you will be pleasantly surprised to see what happens. Good luck to you

[whateverlolawants]

You know, maybe those meds are saving her life or fixing a problem far worse than being fat (which may or may not be a health problem in itself, depending on a variety of factors- I'm assuming she's not morbidly obese.) Being fat isn't the biggest problem in some people's lives, nor would losing weight necessarily change a thing. People don't owe it to the world to lose weight (any more than they owe any other thing which might have a marginal betterment effect on others.)

[crashdmt]

Doesn't genetics have anything to do with weight? Yes we have a certain amount of control over our weight but we also know that there are people who can eat non stop and not put on weight and there are people who work very hard at trying to keep their weight in check to little result. I know that just this year after never having had a weight problem I was diagnosed as Hypothyroid. I am taking in no more than 1400 calories a day and excercising an hour a day and yet my weight does not budge. New studies are showing all the time that T3 and Leptin effect weight and that there are people with conditions whose bodies will not let them lose weight (google T3 and Leptin and an article posted right here on the Huff Post will come up) yet it is difficult to find doctors to test and treat against these conditions because most of the continued thinking is that it must be the person's fault. We need to realize that not everyone's system work's the same. I am only 25 pounds overweight currently however it came about through a slow deliberate medical condition that took my energy and took months for me to have diagnosed. Should I be punished on top of this for what I have now found out is my family's genetic heritage?

[Steven Gundry]

See my comment to Devon in Texas above. As i show in my book, its the interaction of simple carbohydrates with our genes that causes the problem.