Posted on 10/01/2009 5:16:58 PM PDT by neverdem
Like bears to honey or zombies to brains, politicians find something irresistible about soda taxes. President Obama recently told Men's Health magazine that he thinks a "sin tax" on soda is "an idea that we should be exploring." San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom moved to impose a fee on stores for selling sugary drinks, only to admit that his plan was probably illegal. In December, New York Gov. David Paterson proposed a 18 percent tax on full-sugar soda to help cover a budget shortfall. After a public outcry, he claimed he was just raising awareness about childhood obesity. But he was also rehashing the same old myths about how taxing soda will save us all:
1. Sin taxes are for our own good.
The basic idea sounds reasonable enough. Why not have the government nudge citizens along the path to righteousness by making bad choices more expensive? But even the most avid proponents of sin taxes concede that none of the nickel-and-dime proposals on the table is large enough to discourage soda drinking. And they're not really intended to. Soda taxes, like most sin taxes, aren't primarily designed to reduce consumption-they're designed to raise revenue. Tap water is already virtually free. Adding a few cents in tax to a $1.29 soda bottle isn't going to send cost-conscious Coke-guzzlers swarming to the nearest water fountain. Forty states currently take a bite out of sales of soda or junk food-if anyone's addicted to soda, it's state legislatures. In the Men's Health interview, Obama focused on childhood obesity. But the Senate Finance Committee's interest in soda taxes at a hearing this spring wasn't about keeping American spawn slim; health-care reformers were salivating over the projected $24 billion in revenue that a 3-cent tax would generate over the next four years.
2. Soda is causing the obesity epidemic.
It's true that, on the whole, fat people drink more soda than skinny people. They also consume more calories overall and exercise less. So soda does help people pack on the pounds. But so does absolutely everything everyone eats. No news story about soda is complete without the scolding phrase "empty calories," yet soda consumption per capita has remained steady over the past two decades as obesity numbers have continued to rise. Weight gain is a function of calories in minus calories out. A food calorie is 4.2 kilojoules of energy, whether it comes from a bottle of orange juice, a latte or an ice-cold Coke. Cola calories are not uniquely "empty." They are not bleak, hollow shells of calories, staging tiny productions of "Waiting for Godot" in your love handles. A calorie is a calorie.
3. Soda taxes help everyone.
Even advocates of soda taxes admit that the costs will be borne disproportionately by the poor, who spend a larger percentage of their income on soda than other groups. Nonetheless, politicians continue the long tradition of taxing the wazoo out of a can of Coke while leaving upscale beverages and luxury foods sin-tax-free. Eight ounces of Naked's Mighty Mango juice ($3.79 a bottle at Whole Foods) contains slightly more sugar than the same serving of cola, while diet soft drinks have the same calorie count as water. But nationwide, fancy juices and venti mocha Frappuccinos remain almost completely untouched by sin surcharges, while a bodega bottle of Sprite brings down the wrath of the taxman. It's the silly, sugary equivalent of the distinction between the harsh sentencing guidelines for people caught with crack vs. the lenient sentencing for possessors of cocaine, its high-class cousin.
4. High-fructose corn syrup is extremely hazardous to your health.
It's the stuff that makes soda sticky sweet-and the reason many justify a soda tax. Florida state Rep. Juan Zapata called it the "crack of sweeteners" and tried to ban it in schools in 2006. At the popular blog Slashfood, it's known as "the devil's additive." High-fructose corn syrup has been treated as the fall guy for America's obesity problem. But the hazards of cheap corn sweetener are the stuff of pseudo-scientific legend. New York University nutritionist Marion Nestle, a major proponent of soda taxes, has said of corn syrup: "It's basically no different from table sugar. . . . The body can't tell them apart." Even the head of the self-proclaimed "food police" has denounced high-fructose fear-mongering. Michael Jacobson of the Center for Science in the Public Interest tore into a 2004 scientific research report that kicked off anti-corn-syrup hysteria, saying, "The authors of this paper misunderstood chemistry, draw erroneous conclusions and have done a disservice to the public in generating this controversy."
5. Obesity is driving health-care costs up. A soda tax is just a user fee.
Should we consider soda taxes an advance payment for all those diabetes tests and emergency room visits down the road-not to mention the cost of buying the inevitably necessary super-size MRI machines? A group of academics, state health commissioners and others take exactly that line in the pages of the New England Journal of Medicine this month, writing, "Escalating health care costs and the rising burden of diseases related to poor diet create an urgent need for solutions, thus justifying government's right to recoup costs." But there is a dangerous precedent at the root of this argument: that government can and should tax any behavior that hurts the budget's bottom line. That logic sends us down a strange road. It's just a slouch, sink and a slump to taxing remote controls, thus encouraging the fat and lazy to get a little exercise by standing up to change the channel.
All kinds of private decisions-good and bad-affect government spending. That doesn't give politicians the right to use taxes to push people around.
Katherine Mangu-Ward is a senior editor at Reason magazine.
I'm saddened for the freedom and prosperity of America.
Oh, no. I think I'm going to cry.
NOT!
Keeping people from blowing smoke in my face and the faces of my children is a good thing.
You got that right
2007-07 6.96 Min. Wage = $5.85
2007-08 6.57
2007-09 7.46
2007-10 8.24
2007-11 9.01
2007-12 9.08
2008-01 9.18
2008-02 8.83
2008-03 9.08
2008-04 8.94
2008-05 9.68
2008-06 10.52
2008-07 11.30
2008-08 11.47
2008-09 11.04
2008-10 10.16
2008-11 7.77
2008-12 7.29
2009-01 7.63 Obama
2009-02 8.34
2009-03 8.12
2009-04 8.16
2009-05 8.12
2009-06 8.07
2009-07 7.30
2009-08 8.22
http://www.miseryindex.us/customindexbymonth.asp
Doesn’t most of the rest of the world still use sucrose in their soda?
Fructose is rapidly metabolized to glycerol, the spine for the fatty acids in triglycerides. Maybe that ratio overwhelms the capacity of the liver, causing non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. The link in comment# 1 makes a convincing case for increasing triglyceride synthesis, what the authors refer to as de novo lipogenesis. I can't help you if you don't understand the biochemistry. I hope you can.
I keep an open mind. Maybe it's something else, but something is going on, more than couch potatoes and overeating, IMHO.
Governor Paterson proposes 'Obesity Tax,' a tax on non-diet sodasGov. Paterson, as part of a $121 billion budget to be unveiled Tuesday, will propose an "obesity tax" of about 15% on nondiet drinks. This means a Diet Coke might sell for a $1 - even as the same size bottle of its calorie-rich alter ego would go for $1.15. Paterson's budget also calls for a 3% cut in education spending, a $620-a-year tuition hike at SUNY and a $600 increase at CUNY - and about $3.5 billion in health care cuts, a source said. The Democratic governor will not call for a broad-based income tax boost, but he will push to restore the sales tax on clothing and footwear... State employees again will be asked to forgo their 3% raises next year and defer five days' pay until they leave their jobs, the source said. In all, Paterson will propose about $9 billion in cuts, $4 billion in new taxes and fees, and $1.5 billion in nonrecurring revenue, a second source said. The so-called obesity tax would generate an estimated $404 million a year. Milk, juice, diet soda and bottled water would be exempt from the tax... Public health advocates welcomed news of the tax, saying it would help the fight against childhood obesity. "Raising the price of this liquid candy will put children and teens on a path to a healthier diet," said Elie Ward of the American Academy of Pediatrics of New York State.
by Glenn Blain and Kenneth Lovett
with Edgar Sandoval and Erica Pearson
Daily News Albany Bureau
Sunday, December 14th 2008
I am a biochemist so I can. The ratio of fructose to glucose in cane sugar is 1 to 1. HFCS being 4 to 3 is not much of a difference. If one were to avoid cane sugar and eat a lot of fruit, which has been recommended by many dietitians, the intake ratio of fructose to glucose would be substantially higher than 4 to 3.
Sugar metabolism is pretty complex and influenced by many factors, as you know, so looking at one isolated pathway without considering all of the other things going on metabolically at the same time can be misleading.
The referenced article, unfortunately, is essentially a correlative study which, similarly, is seeking to isolate one factor while ignoring many others operating simultaneously. Non-alcoholic fatty liver has been associated with many causes, including the use of a number of drugs which are prescribed more now than in the past. There are also a number of life-style and medication changes which appear to affect insulin levels which may also effect fatty liver. In short, it's a complicated condition which is actually rather common but, happily, seldom causes complications.
BTW, the use of HFCS is simply economics: fructose is sweeter than sucrose which is sweeter than glucose (ever drink that stuff for a glucose tolerance test? Yuck!) so one can use less to sweeten soft drinks and other foodstuffs.
In the end, there's really not much of a case to be made for the use of HFCS as a cause of much of anything however simple and tempting that might be.
I drink tea, too. There is a place here in CT that sells bulk tea. My favorite is called "Russian Caravan". It's a blended tea but it is awesome. Smooth, lite and light smoky flavor.
Be careful with too much tea. I switched from drinking a 2liter bottle of Diet Pepsi a day to two quarts of iced tea thinking that was better. Much to my dismay (and a 10x6mm kidney stone later) I found out that tea is high in oxalates which help form kidney stones.
Careful what you wish for. More than 100 million people died from tactics you are championing. Including, I'm sure, some of your own relatives.
I wonder what they would say about you if they were alive?
Wow, comparing me to a Nazi. So much for debate.
BTW, why DO smokers think it's okay to blow smoke in everyone's face?
You're the one championing the brutal hand of government.
How is that NOT Nazi like?
LOLOLOLOL The "brutal hand of government". Great hyperbole.
Again, I ask. Why DO smokers think it's okay to blow smoke in other peoples faces? Would they mind if I pissed on their shoulders? Both are waste products ejected by the body.
You hit it right on the head. They need cash so they can blow it on something like Furbearing trout farms in West Virgina or Illinois. Or they can use to money to help build another ACORN like group so they can offer “How To” advise on opening up whorehouses.
The saying about giveing the Goverment money and power is like giving carkeys and booze to teenage boys pretty much summed it up.
Brutal hand of government, meaning that the government enforcement of no smoking laws is brutal, No Smoking or we will deprive you of your ability to make a living.
If you defy us (the government) we will eventually seize your business at the point of a gun.
Brutal, Nazi like. Clear enough?
Huh?
I see you continue to evade the question "Again, I ask. Why DO smokers think it's okay to blow smoke in other peoples faces? Would they mind if I pissed on their shoulders? Both are waste products ejected by the body."
Why?
I never brought up the question of smokers behavior, I accused you a supporting brutal governments.
Smoking has nothing to do with this, except that that was how you outed yourself.
History has proven that brutal government is nearly a 100 million times as dangerous as smoking.
Okay, now I get it. If a question you don't like is raised you simply ignore it regardless that it is pertinent to the discussion.
Based on that, why would I continue trying to have a discussion with you?
Read the thread title, this is about the brutal hand of government extending it’s power even further.
I see no reason for you to continue the discussion.
What would your dead relatives, killed by the brutal enterprise you are supporting, say to you?
I've been smoking for 43 years and hanging around smokers (including parents) for several more.
I've never seen anyone blow smoke in anyone else's face.
Have you?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.