The Pros And Cons Of Soda Tax

Sugar addiction is a problem that has been in our society for many years. In today's world this type of addiction is being composed into drinks. Sugary drinks are found everywhere from local stores, to in home refrigerators. Sodas, juices, and energy drinks, all fall under unhealthy remedies to thirst. Sugar addiction can only restrain us from accomplishing healthy goals in life. Sugary drinks can lead to harming one's body. Over the past few years, many cities and states have considered taxing sodas and other sugary beverages. Sugary drinks must be tax due to its unhealthy components and addiction.

Sugary beverages suggest a poor dietary quality; they are loaded with added sugars and attribute to the body’s energy density. “A 20-year study on 120,000 men and women found that people who increased their sugary drink consumption by one 12-ounce serving per day gained more weight over time—about 4 pounds per year” (19). Through increasing the daily intake in trivial increments, the body substantially results in an increased BMI (body mass index) and an increased body fat percentage score. Another study conducted at Harvard found that a 60 percent increase occurs in children for each 12-ounce they additionally drink daily. (________) The growing correlation between obesity and sugar has led to further studies, and statistical data. Researchers have revealed that in total, “half the people in the U.S. consume sugary drinks; 1 in 4 get at least 200 calories from such drinks; and 5% get at least 567 calories.” It was additionally found that one-fourth of Americans are consuming more than 135 grams of sugar per day from soda and other sweetened beverages, which compares to people of the past who only had 10 grams of fructose a day (_____). Such a high daily intake of sugar and calories illustrates the risk that arises when people consume too much sugar; that is, sugary drinks result in weight issues and medical consequences.

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.

However this argument is weak due to the most popular places, such as fast-food chains, are affected by the ban. You would also have to go out of your way to buy more soda, which is a huge inconvenience and it will cost more money, simply because you want an unhealthy beverage. The text “Soda’s a Problem But...” Klein argues against the ban, but a lot of her pieces of reasoning are not logical, for example “People would simply buy two 16-ounce cups” (Klein 289). This is illogical because it will cost more money to buy multiple cups of soda, which would cost more money, and they may not finish the soda’s that they bought at the convenience store or restaurant.  If you bought more cups of soda you would be taking up space within your car, if you have less space you will not have anywhere else to store more valuable objects like your phone or wallet. Soda being harder to get will help us make a healthier society because it will discourage people from buying more soda than they actually

On October 11th, 2016 Cook County, which includes the city of Chicago passed a one cent per ounce soda tax. Due to a lawsuit by the Illinois Merchant Association the new law did not even come into effect until August 2nd 2017. Now, due to a repeal, the law will cease to be in effect by December 1st, giving this law an effective life of about four months. The tax seems a no brainer with about 25% of United States boys and girls suffering from obesity. However the law had two major shortcomings. First, it had a bad start due to a poor implementation of the tax, since the tax was originally levied on producers instead of at the point of sale. This caused what is known as a double tax situation, soda companies were being charged two taxes in

However, the soda ban is not the best way to regulate people’s health because they can still buy as much soda as they want. According to “Three Cheers for the Nanny State” it states, “After all, people can still buy as much soda as they want” (Conly, 277). The soda ban should not be placed because there is really no point in doing

“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,

Although this may be true, the soda ban “... produces a false sense of accomplishment in the fight against obesity” (Gross,1). In brief, the soda ban won’t reduce the ever-growing obesity rate in America. After all their are other contributors that damage America’s health. Without delay, this law gives the thought of the U.S. becoming forcefully controlled by the government. As described by Sidney Anne Stone “ It starts here and it will spread throughout the nation..before you know it, it won’t be the “land of the free and home of the brave”...we are all going to wake up in the land of “Big Brother” with a list of things we can and cannot do, eat, drink, say, and so on, and we’ll be wondering how we got there. Well, this is how”(Stone,288). For this reason the soda ban devices those who may agree with the law. If more bans or laws like this one were to occur, the U.S. would become what it hates.Overall, the ban may bring a horrid future for

1Why has there been so much fuss about New York City’s attempt to impose a soda ban,1 or more precisely, a ban on large-size “sugary drinks”? After all, people can still get as much soda as they want. This isn’t Prohibition. It’s just that getting it would take slightly more effort. So, why is this such a big deal?

This memo is an application of some of the policy ideas Cass Sunstein has described in his book “Simpler,” to a proposed “soda tax” in Oakland California. The introduction of the tax, contained in “Measure HH” (as it appears on the ballot) has been met with stiff opposition by some members of the Oakland area while others have embraced the idea. Three ideas from “Simpler” will be tested in this California case.

Soda companies “dramatically announced that they would aim to cut the number of sugary drinks calories by twenty percent over the next ten years by reducing the portion size and trying to sell more zero-calorie and low calorie options.” By reducing the portion size, Americans could be drinking more cans, and possibly drinking more ounces than they were originally. As for the zero-calorie and low calorie options, the drinks are considered by doctors to be worst than the original because they contain artificial sweeteners that are not ‘natural sugars’, but chemically made sugars that puts an individual at greater risk of being morbidly obese by slowing their metabolisms, and is also known to elevate their blood pressure. Mexico’s soda consumption and obesity rate was once worst than the United States a few years ago, Mexico then established “a significant tax on soda and junk food.. Soda consumption in Mexico fell by a couple of percent points almost immediately.. there was almost as large increase in the sale of bottled water (not taxed).” Mexico had went ahead with its initiative to stop their nation’s problem, as for the United States, soda has become a major part of our diets. I believe that is restricting us from progressing from this aggravated problem.

The article on sugary drinks and soda by Caitlin Dewey, discusses the alarming rate that sugar consumption has been on recently (Dewey 2017). The Journal by The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition clearly analyzed the original article, and even broke down in details what's really happening to society, and not just reporting on it like the article by Dewey (Kit, Fakhouri, Park, Nielsen, Ogden 2013). Although it sugar based beverage consumption is fortunately still on a decline, it wasn’t until recently that it was discovered we have begun to back track the progress we’ve made up to this point. There are several possible explanations on why this has happened. From the lifestyle the sugar consumer has, to the

Firstly, I believe that introducing a soda tax would create further socioeconomic inequalities. Assume, for the sake of argument, that introducing a soda tax would not create further socioeconomic inequalities. However, we already know that obesity is more prevalent among the more unprivileged groups of society. Thus, imposing this kind of tax would be taking a proportionally greater amount from those on lower incomes. This would result in greater socioeconomic disparities between the rich and the poor. From this contradiction, we can see that it is not the case that introducing a soda tax would not create further socioeconomic inequalities.

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