Can Soda Tax Fight Back Obesity?

As an attempt to reduce the rising obesity and obesity-related disease rates, Mayor Bloomberg of New York City has proposed a ban on soft drinks larger than 16 oz. According to an infographic created by the Huffington Post, extra large soft drinks have accounted for an average of 301 extra calories in people’s diets across the US. Although measures need to be put into place to improve the unhealthy diets and lifestyles of many Americans, a ban on large soft drinks is not the solution. The ban on soda would be an ineffective attempt at reducing obesity and obesity-related diseases, as well as an infringement of civil liberties and an attack on businesses in New York City.

More than 35% of American adults are obese and as a consequence, are at increased risks for health issues such as heart disease, high blood pressure, and diabetes ("Overweight & Obesity"). The U.S. taxpayer is supplementing much of the cost to treat obesity related health issues through public health programs such as Medicare and Medicaid ("Economic Costs"). A positive externality will occur in the form of decreased health care expenditures on Medicare and Medicaid. The U.S. government should impose an excise tax on soda and other beverages that contain sugar. Consumers who drink excess sugary beverages impose a negative internality on their health; as well as imposing a negative externality on the American

“Soda Taxes: Gaining Steam or Getting Steamrolled?” is an enticing article by Anna Gorman that focuses on the issue of taxing sugary beverages and the effect it will ultimately have on the health of the general population. She mentions that the tax could reduce the rates of obesity and diabetes in the affected areas. She also points out the counter to this claim, that soda taxes may not have any effect on obesity rates at all and may give the government too much power over the consumer choice. Overall, she seems to advocate that soda is an unhealthy beverage and should be cut down among consumers. Soda however, is not the only unhealthy options out there. There is a plethora of products on the shelves of supermarkets and sold at restaurants.

The debate on weather sugary drinks, especially soda, should be taxed or not has been a topic for years. Some people believe that they should be taxed for the improvement of health while on the other hand some people think that taxing the drinks won't do much and actually hurt people. Taxing sugary drinks is helpful to those who have a hard time with temptation for the drinks. In the article "Do Soda Taxes Really Work?" Sifferlin states that when researchers looked at Berkeley residents, they found that when taxing soda started "sales of sugary-sweetened drinks fell by close 10% and sales of water increased in Berkeley by about 16%" (4) Just by the percent difference rasing prices on soda made people decide against buying the sweet drinks,

For starters,if you do tax soda is will not effective some people.If you do add taxes to soda it obesity won’t end.Also if you add taxes to soda people will not make any better choices and also since people won’t make better choices people can find other stuff that they will enjoy and then they have to tax that as well until everything is taxed.People can find other sugary drinks if they tax soda.People can just buy energy drinks that does not taste bad and they can just drink that instead of soda if they tax soda.

As William Shughart states in the article: “Should There Be a Tax on Soda and Other Sugary Drinks?”, published in the Wall Street Journal “taxes on sugary beverages are regressive and would hurt the poor”. While it is true that sodas and sugary beverage are the most consumed by low income working family; however, the amount of tax per ounce and the effect aren’t harming the poor families. In fact, it is the opposite; they are the biggest beneficiary of this tax in the short and the long term. First, the tax is not big enough to hurt the pocketbooks of the poor. In fact, it is around “1.5 cents per-ounce” in Philadelphia (Cuellar). Moreover, we could never consider the tax harmful, if we understand the aim of such a sin tax and we remember the nature of the taxed product. Actually, considering the health effect of consuming it, the taxed product is indeed the real harm. The tax will prevent the poor and the working families from consuming soda drinks in big quantities, and protect them from the consequences of excessive sugar consumption. Accordingly, because poor and low income families had suffered the most from the consumption of sugary beverages, by high rates of diabetes diseases and obesity, we will see the biggest positive changes in those

If done right the political side would be able to use this accurately, however it is not done right. The tax shouldn't be enforced because of the way obesity isn't drastically improved upon from these taxes. The people who don't want to pay high prices have alternatives available to them, so the taxes stopping obesity proves useless. The alternatives are going to be more tempting when consumers see the prices of the taxed drinks and still be consuming drinks that may not be healthy. This, on top of the political eye of the situation, are reasons that the tax can't be helpful to stop obesity; one of the main claims to stop the taxes being to stop obesity. Further support of this being that author Brian Gale points in his article, "What the Soda Tax Means for Consumers" that even with the drink's taxes reducing how much is being consumed, it is uncertain if it's changing the consumers' choices of unhealthy drinking choices. It is undeniable that gauging every singe persons drinking and health choices will prove difficult based solely on the taxing of sugary beverages, especially with the idea of multiple variables having an influence on the drinking habits of every

While some believe that creating a calorie tax will promote healthy eating lifestyles and decrease obesity rates, the idea of imposing a tax on what people eat is very irrational due to there being better alternatives, many consequences and reverse effects, and also this tax was meant to target obese people, not average weight people. Calorie taxes are being introduced to the US because it can potentially help people save money, reduce calorie consumption, and also it can decrease obesity rates. Sadly this calorie tax also has many flaws, there are many other alternatives to this and also there being no drop in obesity rates in several years. Also, this calorie tax can actually increase calorie consumption rather than decreasing it, not only

The first question in Kass’s formulaic approach to the ethics of public health is “What are the public health goals of this program?” (Kass, 1777) By nature, the public health goal of any program is to essentially promote the overall health of a population through an organized and communal effort. In the case of the soda tax, the ultimate public health goal is simply to reduce the amount of morbidity & mortality and improve the well being of society. This begins by tackling the obesity problem, which is directly linked to morbidity & mortality. According to Brownell, “for each extra can or glass of sugared beverage consumed per day, the likelihood of a child’s becoming obese increases by 60%” (Brownell et al., 1599). It can be inferred that drinking soda is linked to obesity rates, but why should obesity rates matter? According to Sturm, “a higher BMI…is associated with increased mortality and increased risk for coronary heart disease, osteoarthritis, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and certain types of cancer. Even modest weight reductions can have substantial lifetime health benefits” (Sturm, 245). Obviously if someone is morbidly obese, he or she is at extreme risk for a myriad of

This extra weight has led to an increase in chronic diseases such as diabetes and a higher risk of cardiovascular disease (Leonhardt). Obesity is not just a “nice” or “correct” term for people who suffer from this ailment; Obesity is a dangerous medical condition that can lead to life-threatening diseases such as diabetes or even cardiac arrest. To make matters worse, diabetes does not kill fast. The estimated annual cost of healthcare for diabetes is $147 billion, approximately $1250 per household mostly in taxes (Leonhardt). This further expands the problem of obesity from a health to an economic spectrum that affects not only the sick but the healthy in a very direct way. A sugar tax will help alleviate the burden if the money raised is used towards paying the health care of the sick as well as reduce the cases of obesity and diabetes. A problem that not only pays itself but is reduced as time goes on. A penny-per-ounce tax on sugar-sweetened beverages would lead to a 10 to 20 percent decrease in consumption and a 1.8 to 3.4 percent decrease in diabetes cases from 2013 to 2022. This decrease alone could save Americans between $320 million to $630 million in medical costs (O’Connor). Although not a major decrease in diabetes cases would follow up with this tax, the impact on the economy would be drastically reduced. A sugar tax would be just the beginning of a much bigger movement towards a healthier

Because of prevailing junk food, the next generation of Americans will struggle with obesity and diabetes more than any other. Thus, one of the culprits is the sugar-filled sodas and other sugar-sweetened beverages, like sports drinks or sweet-teas. At this point, Legislators in California are trying to emblazon sodas with a warning label that looks similar to the alert on cigarette packages or alcohol bottles. They believed that all beverages with more than 75 calories of added sugar in a 12 oz. will contribute to obesity, diabetes and tooth decay. Legislators’ intention is positive to protect people, however, their statement has no support by any research institutes.

The soda tax policy has open eyes to many. It has positively and negatively impacted the public health and the economy of lower socio-economic cities. In order for the tax to maximize its potential, which includes improving the health of these communities and building their economy, the government has to take many things into considerations. “High prices remain a formidable barrier for many people, especially those of low socioeconomic status, to adopt a healthier diet;” however, lowering the prices of these goods will decrease the motivation to produce. To accommodate these people, price of both food and beverages should be adjusted. Also, the taxes would be more effective if government studies the elasticity of goods before making rash decisions.

Economic costs of obesity are increasing and will continue to do so if nothing is done. Healthy Communities for A Healthy Future state that the estimated annual health care costs related to obesity are 190 billion dollars. This is 21% of total health care costs. This includes direct costs, such as preventive and treatment services, while indirect costs include income lost to days debilitated or future income lost to death. On an individual level, an obese person will cost 42% more in health care than a person of healthy weight. A tax directly related to products known to cause obesity would offset the cost of health care, and hopefully result in less obesity in the Nation.

“Sin” taxes have been proven as a way to curtail known unhealthy behaviors. Soda taxes are most accepted if taxes collected are earmarked for health specific programs (Chaufin et al., 2010). The cons are the consumers are the voters and taxing may equate to loss of votes, taxing may not be equitable to individuals that do not have the disease, and finally, an undue burden may be placed on lower socio-economic demographics as these groups often have limited access to food vendors that primarily sale what would be considered taxed foods. Though these sin taxes are proven to work well with tobacco and alcohol consumption, altering a persons’ diet needs to be more individualized and realistically approached. Lower socio-economic individuals should not feel added burden as a tax; which would be a negative impact (Kuchar et al., 2005). Legality issues are regarded as low, but would require state government support to enact. This would likely not be popularly accepted and have a minimal impact for any increase in tax rate.

Considering that soft drinks are one of the most popular drinks to a lot of people all around the world, unfortunately, a lot of them love to drink it almost every day and may not live without it. Soda becomes addictive, preventing one from drinking what the body needs the most which is water. In the market, there is a infinite amount of choices with multiple varieties of flavors, different tastes, ranges from classic soda to diet soda. However, consumers do not recognize clearly the negative effect of soft drinks that have a high chance of eroding their health away. Some of these examples include dental erosion, energy intake, obesity and other health issues. Nowadays, people live a healthy life to avoid health problems, so taxes on soft