Comments on: Not sure about soda taxes? Read this!

By: Soda Tax | Community Kitchens Northwest

Soda Tax | Community Kitchens Northwest — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 05:00:27 +0000

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

By: My Kangen Power

My Kangen Power — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 22:14:02 +0000

@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.

By: Daniel K. Ithaca, NY

Daniel K. Ithaca, NY — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 06:21:42 +0000

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.

By: Heights of Brooklyn

Heights of Brooklyn — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 15:03:16 +0000

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!

By: Hillary

Hillary — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 10:37:13 +0000

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.

By: Daniel

Daniel — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 08:13:01 +0000

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.

By: this week in health « avocado & bravado : a food blog

this week in health « avocado & bravado : a food blog — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 06:59:46 +0000

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

By: Jenny Evans

Jenny Evans — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 22:17:53 +0000

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!!!

By: Anthro

Anthro — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 21:46:45 +0000

@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”.

By: Christy

Christy — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 19:32:56 +0000

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.