New York Governor David Paterson may have abandoned hope of enacting his tax on non-diet soda drinks, experts are still weighing in on its merits. New York Health Commissioner Richard Daines has received over 60,000 hits on a YouTube video he posted, arguing that the taxA tax is a mandatory payment or charge collected by local, state, and national governments from individuals or businesses to cover the costs of general government services, goods, and activities. would improve public health.
Dr. Elizabeth Whelan, president of the American Council on Science and Health, disagrees:
First, there is no scientific basis for singling out sugar-sweetened soda and certain fruit drinks as a primary underlying cause of obesity. So many Americans these days far exceed their ideal weight because they consume too many calories from all types of foods and beverages — and do not dedicate sufficient effort to burning calories through exercise. Sugar-sweetened sodas don’t make you fatter than eating too much meat, bread, potatoes, or anything else. The old adage “for every complex problem there is a simple solution — and it never works” comes to mind here. It is always easier to zero in on one alleged villain and assume the problem is solved.
Second, taxing soda sets up a precedent for taxing myriad foods considered “bad” by popular wisdom. Can we expect taxes next on cake, cookies, candy, and pizza? If food with high sugar or fat content is “bad” and deserving of punitive regulatory action, to be consistent will we tax orange juice (very high in sugar) and avocados (a plentiful source of fat)? Should we tax everything except tofu and spinach?
Third, when the soda taxA soda tax is an excise tax on sugary drinks. Most soda taxes apply a flat rate per ounce of a sugar-sweetened beverage. is examined closely — given that it will have zero net effect on reducing obesity — it must be perceived as another attempt to raise revenue for a financially strapped state. The Governor estimates that the soda tax will bring in $404 million the first year and $539 million annually after that. What’s not to like about that if you are trying to balance a budget? But the bad news is that this influx of cash has nothing to do with fighting obesity and enhancing health.
Read Dr. Whelan’s statement here. Read our analysis of Paterson’s tax proposals here.
Share