Pro & Con: Should health policy include taxing unhealthy foods, drinks?

YES. The cost of obesity threatens to swamp health care reform.

By Stanley A. Cohen

Ignoring obesity would be ruinous for health care and any reform. Last year, the U.S. spent an estimated $147 billion on obesity related illnesses. That alone is more than the entire yearly cost of health care reform. And concern is rising.

Between 2001 and 2005, a Health Affairs study showed the hospitalization rate doubled for children with a diagnosis of obesity and the costs increased from $126 to $238 million, and that’s only a small component — with the rate of childhood obesity tripling since 1980. Reduce that, improve our collective health and we have paid for much of what is trying to be accomplished. Ignore it, and the costs will rise indefinitely.

The president’s plan levies a small tax on alcoholic and sugar containing drinks. A good start, but the tax should be expanded. On average, adolescents get 11 percent of their calories (and 15 teaspoons of sugar) daily from carbonated beverages, fruit-flavored and part juice drinks, and sports drinks. The problem isn’t with taxing these drinks, it’s that the tax doesn’t go far enough.

Levy a commensurate tax on other non-nutritious foods — and make the public fully aware of why these are being taxed, and how they can improve their health and help to lower costs with more judicious choices.

Add a small tax to meals at restaurants where less than 75 percent of the menu is “heart healthy.” Hopefully, this will incentivize restaurants to revise their selections, help consumers with their decisions and lessen the amount we all have to pay to offset the cost of obesity.

But let us not be foolish enough to think that any or all of those taxes alone will quickly lessen obesity and its costs. So convert some of the revenue into dollars spent on effective education and meaningful initiatives.

The federally funded WIC program to improve the nutrition of women, infants and children is now supplementing food packages with fruits, vegetables and high fiber foods. Yet, there’s more we can and should do:

Ask school districts that are dependent on money from snack and soda vending machines to instead sell healthy snacks and beverages. Ask schools to promote better choices in their cafeterias, following through on the lessons taught in their health classes.

Subsidize and expand exercise opportunities for parents as well as children so they can participate together. Encourage parents who model and promote active lifestyles, since inactivity so greatly contributes to the risks of obesity and its outcomes.

Expand insurance coverage for the prevention and treatment of obesity. Believe it or not, many insurance programs do not reimburse health care practitioners for patient visits until it is far too late and other problems, such as diabetes and liver damage, have developed as a result.

If Congress will not pass these measures quickly, consider adopting these changes in Georgia so we can demonstrate the effectiveness of these proposals.

Twenty-seven states have nutritional standards for what can be sold in their schools. Nineteen states have nutritional standards for school meals and snacks stricter than current USDA guidelines. Twenty states mandate additional screening for those at risk. Georgia has none of those, though the American Academy of Pediatrics and others previously presented such bills to the legislature.

While these suggestions may seem naïve to some and imposing to others, they are no more so than other simple suggestions that have already saved this state millions of dollars. Eleven years ago, an initiative on behalf of the Committee on Nutrition of the Georgia Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics focused on several projects, one with the state’s WIC program to lessen costs, targeting the way physicians could prescribe infant formulas and help mothers access care for their children. Our efforts have now saved over $50 million.

The bottom line: health care reform can work and health cost savings can be achieved. I applaud the politicians and health care leaders that are addressing these issues in a positive and productive manner.

Dr. Stanley A. Cohen is a physician at the Children’s Center for Digestive Healthcare. He is a nationally recognized expert in pediatric gastroenterology and nutrition.

NO. Wrong to use tax code to punish soft drink makers and industries.

By J. Justin Wilson

Despite opposition from two-thirds of Americans, President Obama has latched onto exploring one proposal to raise billions of dollars for health care reform through so-called “lifestyle taxes” on soft drinks.

Not only would a tax on pop (or food, or alcohol) generate big bucks, supporters claim, but it would also supposedly drive down medical costs by reducing rates of obesity.

That sounds good in theory, but is flat in reality. Evidence demonstrates that arbitrary taxes will not reduce health care costs. Rather, lifestyle taxes represent another “get rich quick” scheme by Congress, which doesn’t approve of many of its constituents’ lifestyles.

The sudden rise of beverage tax endorsements is rooted in a “for your own good” social engineering dogma that injects the government further into vending machines, liquor cabinets, and ultimately our private lives. It’s the kind of politics that thinks that your decisions about what to eat and drink are better left to a few self-appointed activist groups in Washington.

The tax code shouldn’t be a tool for punishing companies who make beverages that some people choose to consume. Nor should it be an instrument for penalizing individuals who make “bad” food choices.

Here’s what proponents of these lifestyle taxes aren’t telling you: Taxing soft drinks isn’t going to cure America’s obesity “epidemic.”

There’s not a single compelling study that suggests taxing sodas at the level being discussed affects levels of obesity. An analysis this year concluded that, to actually make a dent in the obesity rate, Congress would need a 1,200 percent tax on soda. That means a 75 cent can of soda would be taxed $9. (Better hope the vending machine takes $10 bills.)

Taxes on food and drinks will hurt low-income Americans the most. That’s because poorer Americans spend a greater percentage of their income on food and drink than high-income consumers.

One group leading the soda tax crusade is the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), champions of the government-knows-best attitude. CSPI’s leader, Food Police Chief Michael Jacobson, testified in front of a U.S. Senate committee in May in favor of soda taxes.

CSPI is looking to the government to raid your fridge, and not in a good way. Consider that in the past Jacobson has endorsed taxes on meat, butter, cheeses, and whole milk.

Today it’s taxes on soda; tomorrow it’s the rest of your pantry (or beer fridge).

The invasive philosophy behind lifestyle taxes is nothing new to the administration. Cass Sunstein, who was confirmed last week to lead the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, demonstrates another example of the government butting into Americans’ personal choices. Sunstein co-wrote the book “Nudge,” which argues that government regulations should intervene and nudge us toward making government-approved lifestyle choices — namely, what Sunstein and his bullies decide is best for us.

And while Sunstein suggests incremental nudges, it would seem the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) new director Thomas Frieden supports knockdown, drag-out fights in the name of turning private choices into a matter of public health.

Frieden was widely known as New York City’s command-and-control Health Commissioner until he took the helm at the CDC in June. And at the CDC Frieden hasn’t wasted any time in his new, national position, calling for a soda tax in July.

Americans know a scam when they see one. Along with widespread opposition to a soda tax, over 70 percent oppose such taxes on high-calorie foods, with half of the respondents strongly disapproving.

It’s time to slam the door on the food cops before they get their foot in it. These taxes need to be stopped before they begin, or the only barrier between the government and our personal choices will be a politician’s imagination.

J. Justin Wilson is a research analyst at the Center for Consumer Freedom, a nonprofit supported by restaurants, food companies and consumers.