Food Politics

One thing that they did not cite is the US Farm Bill.

People forget (or have never realized) that our tax dollars have already been used to subsidize corn production. In other words, our tax dollars are the reasons why high fructose corn syrup is so plentiful. Can I put it any more simply? Our tax dollars have been used to make sure sodas and other HFCS-sweetened beverages devoid of nutrients are cheap and plentiful.

Once you realize that this is the case, do you see some sort of twisted irony in a beverage tax?

The government takes our taxes, pays farmers to overproduce corn so that it can be processed into HCFS that makes the taxpayers fat, and now the government wants to tax the citizens that they helped get fat in the first place???

Instead of taxing us more (and then continuing to misuse our tax dollars on things like corn subsidies), why not eliminate or change the farm bill? That will cause the price of soft drinks to increase with LESS financial cost to Americans.

The NYC Health Department guide is good, but I think it errs in referring to “sugar-sweetened” beverages when most sodas and other calorie laden drinks these days are sweetened with high fructose corn syrup. I fear that as soon as a soda tax is passed, beverage makers will come up with some chemical concoction that isn’t covered by the legislation and is even more detrimental to our health.

What about raising taxes on corporate food companies or all corporations in NY state? PepsiCo and Cadbury are in NY… Similar to Oregon’s recent Measure 67.

While it seems nice that the soda tax corresponds to health initiatives, the bottom line is centered on how to increase revenues. Going after the people who produce and market this junk would be a good route to take too. Heck, raise corporate tax and have a soda/candy tax!

Maggie N, HFCS is sugar. The HFCS used in soda is generally 55 percent fructose and 45 percent glucose — roughly the same as the composition of your average spoonful of honey.
Sucrose, or table sugar, is 50 percent fructose and 50 percent glucose.

“Obesity among children and adolescents has tripled over the past three decades.” This sentence right their justifies the need for a proposed tax on soda. We don’t need soda. Soda is unhealthy. Soda contributes to obesity…Set a tax on it!

It makes no sense to subsidize crops creating artificially priced ingredients to then turn around and tax the consumer again. Seems like the government is chasing its tail to come up with a dizzy response to an enormous food and health problem. Almost without fail people site price as their main reason for the poor choices they make in the grocery store; fresh produce and healthy foods are too expensive. I do believe that sodas and non-food items should cost more, produce and healthy staples shouldn’t be the expensive choice. Just seems like a bit of a double standard and we are stuck in the middle.

“indeed, the five most obese states–Mississippi, Alabama, West Virginia, Tennessee and Oklahoma–all have soda taxes, while three of the least obese, the District of Columbia, Massachusetts, and Colorado, have no soda taxes” –http://www.forbes.com/2009/09/16/nejm-health-obesity-cigarettes-opinions-contributors-soda-tax.html

Soda Taxes are not the way to go.

I agree that subsidizing corn and then taxing what we make from it is a little ridiculous, but since there doesn’t seem to be any major movement in Congress to change the subsidies to support real food, I think a tax on junk food is at least a good place to start. If the junk costs more, for whatever reason, I hope it means folks buy less of it. And if we all buy less, heck, the government might be inspired to make some bigger changes. At any rate, at least states considering these taxes can generate some much-needed revenue.

Social comments and analytics for this post…

This post was mentioned on Twitter by nyusteinhardt: Not sure about soda taxes? Read this! http://ff.im/-f3e6j...

I am the son of a bodega owner. My daycare growing up was the cardboard box from paper towels when my mom attended customers at the counter. My father worked a day job for someone else and restocked the store shelves at night. As soon as I could hold a broom, I was on clean up detail everyday after school. My sister could work a register before she could write. Why did my family endure these hardship and work so hard?

It was the only way to economically survive in New York City. I know my story is not unique. It is the reason why I can say that the soda tax is wrong. No Ph.D. needed.

People, especially whose like my father and his customers, make their food choices on the economics of their lives. Their first thought is, “What can my family afford?” followed by, “Will this fill their empty stomachs?” The few cents, that some discount as trivial burden, is the thin line that defines their poverty. The pennies this tax proposes were my school lunch. The nickels were my sister’s dress for her Quinceañera. Both our college educations were paid for in dimes.

In New York State, there already is a tax on the soda. The 6% sales tax, more in the city, on all food purchases. Further more, there is the five cents bottle deposit which the state retains millions in as an unofficial levy. Now our elect officials are suggesting a further tax.

This tax is on the poor and the working middle class. These are the people who buy the majority of the soda sold. This is the majority who will pay the tax in bodegas and convenience stores across the state. If the governor and all our elected officials really care about our waistlines, they should look to help us with our bottom lines.

There are ways to both spur economic growth and promote physical wellbeing. Economic growth leads to collecting more tax revenue for the state and alleviating poverty of its inhabitants. This should be the goal of every elected official in these recessionary times.

@Emily:

“but since there doesn’t seem to be any major movement in Congress to change the subsidies to support real food, I think a tax on junk food is at least a good place to start”

No it’s not. Have you called or written your congressperson about the food bill yet? The pressures from the people need to outweigh the pressures from agribusiness before Congress will even think about making this change. You can’t just sit back, cross your fingers, and hope Congress figures it out for themselves. Otherwise their creation of new taxes to fix their previous fuck-ups will just be reinforced and they’ll keep making ridiculous decisions.

I’m thankful that ‘Heights of Brooklyn’ posted his personal story here. This tax will effect people differently.
Since the bottle deposit-fully refundable with return of the bottle is NOT a tax and is retained by the bottlers/manufacturers, not the state, it is much different than a tax. It promotes recycling and many people subsidize their income through collecting such deposit containers.
We had a super idea in NY State to increase the *refundable* deposit to 10¢ per soda AND water, snapple, sports drink container as well as actually allowing the state to make use of deposits from people who choose don’t return their containers or have them returned for them. That can flattened in the road would have meant 10¢ for the state and it can still be recycled (but not returned for credit). There is millions of $ senselessly currently going back to bottlers through unclaimed 5¢ deposits. That is the public’s money.
Unfortunately this program died after Eliot Spitzer’s ‘relationship’ problems came to light. The bottle bill was a great program idea–unless you are a soda manufacturer lobbying for your greed.
What ‘Heights’ didn’t say is the effect that empty calories such as soda when consumed very frequently and in the medium-long term. Obesity, diabetes and heart disease will be much more expensive for them in outright costs, insurance deductibles if they have insurance at all (so many people don’t) and even decreased ability to be a wage-earner. There is really no good coming about from drinking soda. None of us need it. If people find that an inevitable tax on sugar-water at perhaps a couple cents extra per litre makes it suddenly so unaffordable, maybe they will save their money to purchase something more meaningful to them.

A tax on sugar, and the loophole concentrated fruit, or other sweetened beverages is in my opinion a wonderful way to decrease consumption. I believe a tax will work IF it is not just a general fund revenue maker for the city/state/fed. A small tax will work IF the revenues are used to improve public health such as through investing in actual kitchens and actual edible, healthy foods prepared, served and consumed in schools.

It is really ironic, as noted in the first comment by Mr. Herniation, that soda is currently tax-payer supported and itself is proposed to be taxed. There is a huge difference between NYC lawmakers approving a tax and the heavily lobbied Agricultural Committees of the House and Senate in Washington DC. It won’t be easy to adjust the Farm Bill (aka Food Bill, next up 2013?) but these corn-subsidies must end.

It would be interesting to look at the role that flavored malt beverages (specifically marketed towards women) played in the increased alcohol consumption levels–they almost seem to bridge the gap between soda and alcohol.

@Uncle Herniation

When was the last time you called your congressperson or senators and saw any result? I have been calling all of them repeatedly in favor of health care reform, and so have millions of others and all we see is compromise after compromise–and now the “back burner”. You will forgive me for being in favor of something more direct. Only when their own wallet is affected do people tend to notice and sadly, the same is true of members of congress–only substitute “re-election fund” for “wallet”.

I think this is a great idea – we get over 21% of our calories from soft drinks and they are the #1 source of added sugars in the American diet. Research shows that excess sugar leads to obesity, heart disease, high triglyceride levels, diabetes and many other detrimental health states. The amount of money spent dealing with these problems is staggering, so why not tax them? It seems to have worked pretty well for tobacco. Cheers to New York for leading the way on progressive food policy!!!

[...] Not sure about soda taxes? Read this! | Food Politics January 31st, 2010 | Tags: health links | Category: health [...]

While I apologize for not yet having time to skim the report, I fail to see the logic of both subsidizing and taxing something. As Drewnowski has demonstrated highly process, foods with minimal nutritional value are more affordable. Calorie per dollar, soft drinks are 300% “cheaper” than produce. Adding a $.01/oz tax won’t dramatically alter that relationship.

The consumer shift towards SSBs, alcohol, fruit juices etc and away from the healthier options points to a forced change in the lifestyle of Americans. We have lesser time on our hands to even think about what we are eating/drinking.. this is compounded by the fact that the stress levels in our daily life seem to necessitate the use of some feel-good beverages. We are becoming dependent on them to cope with stress.

Daniel K. Ithaca is correct that the bottle deposit is not a tax. The state does generate millions in revenue from it. Thanks 2009 NY state law, the state gets to keep 80% of the unclaimed deposits. The remaining 20% is left to distributors (not bottlers/manufacturers) of any product in a plastic bottle. This barely covers the cost of transporting and recycling the returned bottles. So the state keeps the profit for doing none of the work, what a racket!

Don’t believe me, don’t have to, read it all in The Post-Standard of Syracuse…
http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2009/11/new_yorks_bottle_deposit_creat.html

The reason I didn’t talk about the health impact, Daniel, is because it is not my (nor I believe it to be anyone’s) place to decide what people buy to eat. I can encourage my family, friends and even complete strangers to eat what I consider to be healthy. Unless I pull out my wallet to pay for the chow, the choice is ultimately that of the individual. If any entity, especially the government, wishes to have a voice in that choice, it must be through words of support and encouragement, not declarations of sin.

Isn’t sin is defined by people in pointed hats and priestly robes, not the politicians in three-piece suits? Or why have the separation of church and state in the First Amendment anyways?

If the state really wants to do something for the health of people in poor neighborhoods, why not implement systems to bring them healthier food options. Let people have the freedom of choice. One suggestion is to establish cooperatives between farmers in upstate NY and bodegas in the city centers of New York. The state should be looking to ideas that promote good health for both the individual and the economy.

This soda tax is on the poor and the middle class, who need help and encouragement, not damnation by their elect public officials. Do not tax the working people of New York!

I wasn’t aware that a 1/4¢ per oz or 4¢ per 16oz soda takes away any “freedom of choice” or other sensationalist/exaggerated term. A tax on soda could promote programs, especially for at-risk groups like low-income families. Promoting/funding nutrition programs like farm-to school can really have a positive impact on vegetable and fruit intake–and the health of children. With budget cuts, these programs are less likely to be created, or even continued, than they were just a year or so ago.
Tax-payers are currently paying for the results of people following poor diets. It will be wonderful if we have health-care passed sometime soon for everyone, including the public option, which is basically medicare with the age requirement essentially moved to 0. (It’s amazing that we don’t hear anything positive about such a basic system on public television –between the health-care and Pharmaceutical ads I’m sure they could find a few seconds.)
The best way to cure diseases is to prevent them. Until Ag committees change their mind and promote farmers to grow real food, not corn for animal feed or corn “sugar”, other methods such as this could be utilized. Without subsidies (with no change in current sugar tariffs) the cost of soda is ARTIFICIALLY LOW. Consumers are currently not paying actual cost. (Farm Bill subsidies)

If we can achieve a funding source for at-risk your nutritional programs and even see perhaps a slight decrease in soda consumption, that sounds wonderful to me.

@Uncle Herniation, you’re absolutely right– it makes sense to address the root cause of the problem.

People often focus on the excess sugar in soda, but another problem is the acidity of the drink. Our diets are already out of balance in terms of acidity/alkalinity. One countermeasure is to drink more alkaline, ionized water.

[...] among us, it provides loads of reference citations.  Take a look and put it to good use!  More [...]