I am definitely not a fan of taxes. But I am even less of a fan of poor health and deceptive marketing bullshit. And Coca-Cola and PepsiCo have become kings of these dominions with their three-quarters market dominance in the beverage industry. And anyone thinking that the marked increase of sugary drink consumption (usually with the un-good high-fructose corn syrup here in the USA) is not linked to the increase in obesity is either deluding themselves or others.
By the mid-1990s, per capita consumption of sugared beverages surpassed that of milk for children. Americans, including children, consume about 170 calories per day from these products, enough to have contributed substantially to the obesity epidemic and, independent of body weight, caused many cases of diabetes and heart disease. A recent study by UCLA and the California Center for Public Health Advocacy showed that 41% of California children drink soda every day, and that adults who drink soda are 27% more likely to be overweight or obese.
The industry has launched an all-out assault on "soda-pop taxes." Beverage companies and their front groups claim that it is unfair to pick on soda when there are many factors contributing to obesity.
However, the scientific evidence linking sugared beverages with weight gain is stronger than for any other food category. Also, sugar in liquid form seems unique in its ability to slip past the body's calorie-detecting radar, perhaps because throughout evolution, the only beverage humans drank in large quantities beyond infancy was water. In other words, when you drink soda, you don't feel as full as if you were eating solid food, despite how many calories you're taking in. In addition, conventional sugared beverages lack fiber, antioxidants and other protective nutrients that might mitigate the adverse effects of their essentially empty calories on health.
The industry also claims that a beverage tax would hurt the poor (the same argument was used by tobacco companies to fight cigarette taxes). But as with tobacco, the poor are most hurt by diseases such as diabetes and obesity and stand to benefit the most from programs that could be supported by tax revenues. What's more, the average family could save several thousand dollars a year by cutting out soda. There is no question a tax would decrease consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages. Economists estimate a 10% price increase would result in a 10% consumption reduction. Otherwise, why would the beverage industry use a strategy from the tobacco playbook and establish a front group -- Americans Against Food Taxes -- meant to evoke images of a vast consumer uprising?
The soda-tax solution -- latimes.comI am all for this tax on sugary pop drinks in the same way I was in favor of higher taxes on tobacco products and alcoholic beverages.
The companies making mint off of your expanding waistline are obviously going to fight this tooth and nail. They are hiding behind their lobbying groups (such as the "Center for Consumer Freedom"), using the crutch excuse that you should be smart enough to decide what you consume and government should not interfere or tax your choices whether they are bad or not.
Here is what they are saying:
They all claim to know "what's best for you." In reality, they’re eroding our basic freedoms—the freedom to buy what we want, eat what we want, drink what we want, and raise our children as we see fit. When they push ordinary Americans around, we're here to push back.
Oh, how I am reminded of those executives testifying before Congress that cigarettes are not harmful and nicotine is not addictive.
And who is this 'they' that the self-appointed "Center for Consumer Freedom" is fighting against? They claim it is:
A growing cabal of activists has meddled in Americans’ lives in recent years. They include self-anointed "food police," health campaigners, trial lawyers, personal-finance do-gooders, animal-rights misanthropes, and meddling bureaucrats.
A 'cabal' is defined as "a secret political clique or faction". This "Center" wants you to think that they are fighting a noble fight against a secretive faction of meddling activists to defend your freedoms and save you from a big-brother government hell-bent on taxing you just because your little Timmy wants a small glass of soda-pop with his grilled cheese during lunch. Actually, the people asking for this tax on sugary drinks is a large group of health organizations, researchers, and fellow taxpayers like you who have gotten tired of the continued and growing health crisis around obesity (particularly childhood obesity) and the economic impact it is having on our troubled health-care industry.
And, in the quest for openness and fairness, it would be helpful to know who the supporters of this "Center" are so that we might better understand their motivations, but that will not be happening. Why?
The Center for Consumer Freedom is supported by over 100 companies and thousands of individual consumers.
The Center is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization.
Many of the companies and individuals who support the Center financially have indicated that they want anonymity as contributors. They are reasonably apprehensive about privacy and safety in light of the violence and other forms of aggression some activists have adopted as a "game plan" to impose their views, so we respect their wishes.
I contend that the supporters of this secretive and meddling faction (hey, they are a cabal) are not at all concerned about possible violence or aggression, and are much more concerned about doing their utmost to protect their slightly unhealthy revenue stream, much in the way a drug cartel wants to avoid government intervention while supplying pot to your kids.
Until such a time as everyone can control their desires and take responsibility for their actions, I think that at this time in history it is fair to increase the cost of consuming these products through the use of focused taxes which will be used to fund health programs to counteract the harm of their consumption. And yes, I actually do drink Cokes on a regular basis.
not so good for little girls
