Pro & Con: Is a ‘soda tax’ a good policy to reduce obesity in the U.S.?

Within hours, Washington-based lobbyists for the industry went to work painting the idea as a scary, radical new thing: Susan Neely, head of the American Beverage Association, called the new tax a “money grab, pure and simple,” coming at a time when “New Yorkers continue to struggle through a tough economy with double-digit unemployment rates.”

Though Paterson’s proposed penny-per-ounce tax would be the highest tax yet on soda pop, the taxes themselves are nothing new. In fact, the state of New York has had a sales tax on soft drinks since 1965, which has poured (ahem) billions into state coffers since. And 32 other states (and Chicago) already have some kind of sales or excise tax on soda.

Georgians certainly don’t seem outraged by the 4 percent tax they pay on soda sold in vending machines. But what should outrage Georgians, New Yorkers and all American taxpayers is the financial harm caused by our out-of-control soft drink consumption. There’s no line for it on our tax returns, but on April 15 and out of every paycheck, we’re subsidizing the treatment of obesity, diabetes and other expensive health problems made worse by soft drink consumption.

Unlike milk or juice, sugar-sweetened beverages provide nothing but empty calories. I call soft drinks “liquid candy,” since they provide plenty of calories without necessary nutrients. Besides promoting obesity and disease, soft drinks displace from the diet real foods with valuable health-promoting nutrients. In fact, in the 1970s, teens drank about twice as much milk as soda. By the 1990s, teens drank almost twice as much soda as milk.

When I was a kid, soda was considered an occasional treat and served in small bottles. Now it’s practically the default drink, particularly for young people, and often served by the quart. Our 2005 analysis of government data found that teenage boys who drank soft drinks consumed an average of three 12-ounce cans per day and girls an average of two 12-ounce cans. One in 10 boys who drank soft drinks consumed 5 1/2 12-ounce cans a day, or about 800 calories’ worth. It’s not the only reason, but the increase in soda consumption since the 1970s certainly helps explain why obesity rates have tripled in children and teens.

The father of free-market economics, Adam Smith, wrote in 1776 that “Sugar, rum, and tobacco are commodities which are nowhere necessaries of life, which [have] become objects of almost universal consumption, and which are therefore extremely proper subjects of taxation.” Were he alive now, he’d likely propose taxes on soda that would make Paterson’s tax look like chump change.

While soda lobbyists shed crocodile tears about the effects on poor consumers of a penny-per-ounce tax, the soda industry is gouging Americans for what is, after all, mostly water and high-fructose corn syrup. In recent newspaper ads, Coke praised itself for offering a new, 90-calorie, 7.5-ounce can. I could buy it at my local supermarket for $3.99 for an 8-pack, or about $8.50 a gallon. But I could buy 12-ounce cans of Coke for as little as $2.45 a gallon. That difference in prices amounts to a “convenience tax” that is as much as 3 1/2 times greater than the tax New York is weighing.

If Coke and supermarkets can ratchet up their profits like that by several cents an ounce, why shouldn’t legislators take a penny to help undo the damage that liquid candy causes?

Michael F. Jacobson is executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest in Washington.

NO: Soft drinks account for a tiny percentage of diet; a tax won’t cure obesity.

By Sandy Douglas

Like so many of us, I could stand to lose a few pounds. I know that if I do, I’ll feel better, have more energy and, as my doctor reminds me, be healthier. Many people tell me they’re in the same place. We eat on the run and don’t always choose a balanced diet. We don’t get enough exercise — it seems there’s never enough time in a busy day.

It’s not a simple problem, or a simple solution. Obesity is an issue with myriad causes and everyone in business, government and civil society should be working together to solve it.

But not everyone sees it that way. Some want to demonize us because our products have calories. They say no one should enjoy the simple pleasure of a Coca-Cola. They say we have no role in finding solutions. They shout at lawmakers: “Blame soft drinks! Tax soft drinks and you’ll not only raise revenues, you’ll lower obesity rates!”

They have loud voices that can drown out the facts, which are:

A beverage tax, such as has been adopted in Arkansas and West Virginia, will not solve obesity. Science has shown that all calories count — regardless of source — when it comes to weight gain or loss. Soft drinks, sports drinks, sweetened waters and energy drinks combined account for only 5.5 percent of the American diet, according to the National Cancer Institute, which means 94.5 percent of calories come from other foods and beverages. The two states that tax soft drinks have obesity rates that are among the highest in the nation.

No one single food or beverage is responsible for obesity. While the volume of regular-calorie soft drinks sold declined 10 percent from 2000 to 2008, according to industry publication Beverage Digest, obesity trends increased during that same period, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

A beverage tax will eliminate jobs and hurt the economy. A beverage tax would be regressive and hit hardest people who can least afford it. The beverage industry directly employs more than 220,000 people in the United States (including nearly 9,500 in the Coca‑Cola System in Georgia), and, through supporting industries, an additional 3 million people. A beverage tax will cost jobs. Can we really afford that?

The good news is that most Americans can recognize a bad idea. A recent CBS poll found that 60 percent oppose a food tax. And nearly 9 in 10 say obesity can be controlled through diet and exercise, not taxation.

We’re against beverage taxes, too. But we’re also against obesity. That’s why we joined first lady Michelle Obama in her goal to end childhood obesity in a generation. We’re for moderation, with innovations like the 90-calorie mini can, zero-calorie natural sweeteners like Truvia, and the more than 130 low- and no-calorie products we’ve introduced in the U.S. during the past decade.

We’re for transparency, as the first beverage company to commit that nearly all our packages will have calories displayed on the front label. We’re for education, through support for organizations such as the American Academy of Family Physicians, which is providing consumers science-based information about sweeteners.

And we’re for active lifestyles, with more than 6 billion Diet Coke packages helping the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute remind women about the importance of staying active and maintaining a healthy weight, and our support of physical activity initiatives like Exercise Is Medicine.

Obesity is a serious problem. But we can overcome it if we all work together. At Coca-Cola, we’re playing our part in helping develop and support workable solutions. Let’s stop pointing fingers and start working together productively. I think we’ll discover we burn more calories that way.

Sandy Douglas is president of Coca-Cola North America.