Search results: soft drink tax

If I read the tea leaves correctly, soda taxes are on their way.  Kelly Brownell and Tom Friedan broached the idea earlier this year.  York state tried and failed to implement them.

Since then, as we learn more about the role of sugary drinks as a factor in obesity, public health support for the idea is growing.  Last week, Jim Knickman, President of NYSHealth wrote an op-ed in the New York Post in favor of the taxes.    Now the New England Journal of Medicine – as prestigious a journal as they come – is publishing another article from  Brownell, Frieden, et al on the public health and economic benefits of taxing sugary soft drinks.

And the evidence accumulates daily.  Children and adults who habitually drink sodas are more likely to be obese and have worse diets than those who do not.  The latest study from the California Center for Public Health Advocacy and a policy research group at UCLA makes just this point.

The study found that 41 percent of children (ages 2 – 11), 62 percent of adolescents (ages 12 – 17) and 24 percent of adults drink at least one soda or other sugar-sweetened beverage every day. Regardless of income or ethnicity, adults who drink one or more sodas or other sugar-sweetened beverages every day are 27 percent more likely to be overweight or obese.

The result of all this is what the New York Times is calling in its print headline, “tempest in a soda bottle.”  I’d call it a Category 5 hurricane.

As I love to point out, it did not used to be OK for kids to drink sodas all day long.  Now it is.  Taxes might encourage some changes in these recent practices.  It will be interesting to watch this idea progress.

Later in the day: as for pushback, here is a link to the ad from the “Americans Against Food Taxes.”  Why am I thinking this is an astroturf client of the Center for Consumer Freedom?  Just a wild guess.

Remember New York State Governor David Paterson’s idea about taxing sodas to raise funds for health care? According to news accounts, New York State Governor, David Paterson, now says his proposal to tax sodas is just a rhetorical device.  He didn’t really think it would ever pass.  He just wanted people to talk about how to do something to prevent childhood obesity.  Chalk this one up as a win for soda companies?

Update February 19: here are Kelly Brownell’s thoughtful comments on the matter.

Nicholas Kristof writes about it in the New York Times today.  As for me, I did 7 radio interviews on Fox News this morning, including two in Georgia, home of Coca-Cola.  The Fox News folks are shocked, shocked: Where’s personal responsibility?  Where’s parental responsibility?

OK, but what about liquid candy?  And marketing to kids?  And all the research linking frequent consumption of soft drinks to childhood obesity?

OK.  I’m not crazy about regressive taxes, and I think the distinction between sugary soft drinks and sugary juice drinks doesn’t make much sense, but I’m interested to see how this idea works.  Let’s call it an interesting experiment and hope that someone is doing the research.

I am reprinting this with no comments (beyond really, healthier marshmallows?) from the industry newsletter FoodNavigator.  Here is its

Special Edition: Sweeteners and sugar reduction

Sugar continues to be in the spotlight, singled out as the nutrient responsible for alarming global rates of obesity and type 2 diabetes. Artificial sweeteners are also facing fire from consumers who want to adopt ‘clean’ diets. And while natural sweeteners are a preferred option, ingredients like stevia are notorious for their off notes. So what is the answer? We take a look at the latest thinking around sugar reduction, from the nutritional science underpinning the trend through to tech developments like so-called structured sugars.

• Better for you marshmallow: a healthy twist: To help children avoid excessive sugar intake, it is wise to teach healthy life styles and prevent overweight. Occasionally you can take a sweet treat. With a healthier marshmallow you are still able to control your calorie and sugar intake…   Click Here
• Sugar reformulation: How are big brands innovating to cut the sweet stuff?  With mounting pressure – both via voluntary targets and mandatory taxes – to reduce sugar in food and beverage, FMCGs are getting creative. Some are substituting sugar with coconut water, others with maize flour or tiger nuts. Scroll through the gallery to see who is doing what to cut the sweet stuff… Display
• Kerry talks sugar reduction in beverages: ‘It impacts the three most important sensory dimensions’:  The push to reduce sugar in products, supported by regulatory levers such as sugar taxes, has focused largely on the beverage sector. Kerry Taste & Nutrition weighs in on the challenges facing beverage formulators… Read
• The FoodNavigator Podcast: Sugar reformulation part 1: Why reducing by stealth is key:  The food industry is under massive pressure to reformulate products with less sugar. And in light of the voluntary target in the UK for manufacturers to meet a 20% cut in sugar by 2020 unlikely to be met, campaigners are increasingly demanding that mandatory sugar reformulation targets are set… Listen now
• Could SDIL’s sweet success expand beyond soft drink? ‘The lack of taxation for sugary milk drinks definitely needs more thought’: The UK’s soft drink tax has probably been of greatest benefit to the Childhood Obesity Plan, says Association for the Study of Obesity Chair Dr Maria Bryant, and similar principles should ‘absolutely’ be applied to sugary milk drinks… Read
• Tate & Lyle aims to cut carbon emissions 30% by 2025 as reformulation lifts profits:  Tate & Lyle has announced a set of ambitious environmental targets including a commitment to cut Scope 1 and 2 CO2e emissions 20% by 2025 and 30% by 2030. Scope 1 and 2 are defined as direct emissions from owned or controlled sources, and indirect emissions from the generation of purchased energy, respectively… Read
• Beyond sugar and salt reformulation: The case for ‘positive nutrition’ targets to help curb obesity:  Implementing ‘positive nutrition’ policies – to increase the amount of whole grains, fruit, nuts and seeds, and vegetables in our diet – could help the UK combat childhood obesity, argue experts… Read
• Making sweet food taste sweeter: Could coffee hold the key to sugar reformulation?  Fresh research out of Denmark reveals that drinking coffee changes our sense of taste, making sweet foods even sweeter. Could these findings help inform sugar reformulation strategies?.. Read
• Was the failure of Nestlé’s Milkybar Wowsomes down to poor demand or poor marketing?  Nestlé has pulled its reduced sugar Milkybar Wowsomes product after poor demand. But others believe big brands are scared to push their lower sugar products for fear of failure… Read
• Healy leverages cocoa shells for natural sugar reduction:  Healy Group, the Ireland-based ingredient supplier, has developed a process to turn cocoa shells – an otherwise under-utilised by-product of cocoa production – into a micronised cocoa fibre that can help with sugar reduction in chocolate… Read
• Do low-calorie sweeteners make you fat? Controversy and confusion over the role of high-intensity sweeteners in weight management:  The war on sugar continues to gather steam as increasingly health-conscious consumers seek to limit their intake by opting for products that are perceived as healthier. But controversy continues to swirl over the impact of high intensity sweeteners – a popular reformulation option – on health… Read
• Sugar reduction through smell: ‘Aromas can be used to produce long-lasting sweetness-enhancing effects’:  One of the easiest ways to reduce sugar is to replace it with sweeteners – but research from Netherlands-based research group NIZO suggests aromas can be leveraged as an alternative path to sugar reduction… Read
• EY on the future of food: Tech innovation to deliver healthy, sustainable and personalised products:  What does the future have in store for the food industry? We spoke to Ernst and Young’s Rob Holston, global consumer industries advisory lead, to hear his thoughts on the top trends and technologies at play… Read

The much delayed UK government’s plan for dealing with childhood obesity has finally been released to virtually universal dismay over the missed opportunity.

The strategy is now a Plan, and says it is “the start of a conversation.” It reconfirms the government’s intentions to implement a soft drink tax, subject to consultation, but does not include a range of measures recommended by its own Public Health England and by last year’s House of Commons Health Committee, such as reduce food marketing and controls on retail promotions. It relies on voluntary sugar reduction by the food industry and encouraging parents to help increase children’s physical activity to meet the recommended 1 hour per day.

It’s fun to read the criticisms: nobody minces words.

An editorial in The Lancet

The UK Government’s long-anticipated response to the childhood obesity crisis disappointed everyone. From doctors, health charities, and celebrities to the very industry it seeks to propitiate, the Childhood Obesity Plan, published with as little noise as possible in the summer recess, has met with resounding criticism. As a Comment in today’s Lancet highlights, the strategy has been delayed for a year, and in that time it has been watered down to a vague Plan with no teeth.  Reading the report from start to finish gives the impression that its authors haven’t.

The Lancet editorial continues

The absence of curbs on industry practices that contribute to childhood obesity—promotions of unhealthy food in supermarkets and restaurants; advertising of junk food through family TV programmes and social media—seems like a gift to industry.

The Lancet is especially miffed because it ran a series on obesity last year that made it clear what kinds of policies needed to be enacted.

Also in The Lancet, World Obesity’s Tim Lobstein and Klim McPherson say

What we read in the government’s Plan is nothing particularly new, nothing bold, and very little that can actually be measured to assess the Plan’s success. It is a document that is not only a disappointment to public health professionals, but also evidence of a government walking away from its moral duty to protect the health of children, and its fiscal duty to protect the NHS from the consequent costs.

The Association for the Study of Obesity (ASO) issued a statement:

the plan is a lost opportunity to provide leadership and commitment in tackling childhood obesity as part of a whole systems approach. It lacks bold actions that are needed to reverse the current high levels of child obesity such as: a ban on junk food advertising before the 9pm watershed; reduction in portion sizes; reformulation targets for industry that address high energy density foods; curbing the promotion of unhealthy foods in supermarket; investment to increase and extend evidence-based child weight management services. All of these would be robust, evidence-based actions and would start to tackle the root causes of obesity in this country.

Again in The Lancet, Yoni Freedhoff and Kevin Hall point out the need for more sensible weight loss studies:

Over the past several decades, dozens of randomised controlled trials have compared various diets for the treatment of obesity. Ideally, such studies should have provided strong evidence for clear clinical recommendations and also put a stop to society’s endless parade of fad diets. Unfortunately, the evidence base remains contested and the “diet wars” continue unabated…What is especially striking is the similarity of the long-term pattern of mean bodyweight change, irrespective of diet prescription.⁵ …Fewer resources should be invested in studying whether or not a low-carbohydrate diet is marginally better than a low-fat diet, or whether intermittent fasting provides marginally better short-term outcomes than a so-called Paleo diet.

Their study provides further evidence why we need stronger policies for preventing obesity.  It’s too bad the UK couldn’t do better.

And if you think things are any better in New Zealand…

The food industry has hit out at claims in a leading journal that New Zealand’s childhood obesity plan was flawed and that the government valued corporate profit over public good. The Food and Grocery Council said that an editorial in the New Zealand Medical Journal, which claimed that the government’s strategy did not address excess sugar intake, was “flawed on many fronts.  Moreover, the FGC complained that its response to the article, solicited by Fairfax Media, was not run.

Addition, September 14

• Jamie Oliver weighs in—The Guardian

Coca-Cola’s announced its new “global commitments to help fight obesity” in a full-page ad in the New York Times.

The company says it is committed to several actions in the more than 200 countries in which it sells products:

• Offer low- or no- calorie beverage options in every market;
• Provide transparent nutrition information, featuring calories on the front of all of our packages;
• Help get people moving by supporting physical activity programs in every country where we do business;
• Market responsibly, including no advertising to children under 12 anywhere in the world

The company’s press kit contains:

• Global press releases in English and Spanish
• U.S. press releases about “Shaping a healthier Georgia” in English and in Spanish
• An infographic on the global commitment (also as high res or printable PDF)
• A website where Coca-Cola commits to measure the scale and reach of its efforts.

As might be expected, the announcement has gotten a lot of press, most of it highly laudatory (see below).

How are we to interpret all this?  It sounds good if you don’t think about it too carefully.  Coke has made these kinds of promises before with not much to show for it.  And the company is still focusing on personal choice and physical activity.

It can’t advise people to drink less soda.  Business is already bad enough.  Sales of Coke are flat in the United States, or declining.  The company needs to sell more, not least to pay the salary of its President, Muhtar Kent, who earned $26 million last year.

This looks to me like a major public relations campaign to keep vending machines in schools and head off federal, state, or local soft drink taxes or soda caps.

The only way Coke can really help address obesity and poor diets is to sell less soda—the one thing its stockholders will not allow.  And the company is doing everything it can to fight city and state soda taxes, portion size caps, or anything else that might reduce sales.

It will be interesting to watch this one play out.  Stay tuned.

Here are some of the press accounts:

I don’t usually take estimates of the cost of bad diets and obesity too seriously because they are necessarily based on multiple assumptions, none of them verifiable.  But I do like to collect them.  Here are two papers from the American Journal of Health Promotion estimating such costs.  One estimates the health benefits and savings in medical costs from diets reduced in saturated fat, sodium, and calories (a savings of $60-120 billion), and the other estimates cost savings and productivity increases for reduction in calories and sodium ($109-256 billion).  Whatever the real savings are, they are likely to be enormous.  And that’s just money.  It’s harder to put a value on quality of life.  Maybe that’s all we need to know at this point.

Yale’s Rudd Center for Food Policy has invented a Revenue Calculator for Soft Drink Taxes for estimating the amounts of money states and cities could raise from taxes on soft drinks.  You type in the state or city, estimate the size of the tax, decide what kinds of drinks it’s for, and push the  button.  Bingo.  California could raise about $1.8 billion a year from a 1 cent tax.

And the Department of Health and Human Service has hooked up with the Advertising Council for a new kids’ activity campaign on the Internet, this one using Maurice Sendak’s Wild Things tied in to a movie coming out in October.  I wasn’t so happy about the last such campaign, which featured Shrek and is still up on the site.  Shrek also advertises junk foods.  Maybe this one will work better?

The USDA just announced the addition of six states to the list of waivers that allow them to restrict soft drinks and sometime other foods and drinks from what SNAP recipients can buy with their benefits (they can still buy these things with their own money),

Secretary Rollins Signs Six New State Waivers to Make America Healthy Again by Removing Unhealthy Foods from SNAP in Hawai‘i, Missouri, North Dakota, South Carolina, Virginia, and Tennessee

You can keep track of the waivers—now 18 states—at the USDA’s website, which provides a handy map.

The site also has a table that gives the implementation date in 2026, and describes the restrictions.  If you click on the state, you get the relevant documents.  You also can keep track on a site run by the National Grocers Association.

The state waivers vary a lot in what they restrict:

• Drinks: Soft drinks, energy drinks, sweetened beverages, soda, unhealthy beverages, fruit and/or vegetable juice drinks (with less than 50% natural juice)
• Foods: candy, prepared desserts, and/or taxable food items

Florida, for example, says

Starting in early 2026, soda, energy drinks, candy, and ultra-processed shelf-stable prepared desserts will no longer be available for purchase with SNAP benefits in Florida. Items excluded from SNAP purchases will include:

• Soda
• Energy Drinks
• Candy
• Ultra-Processed Prepared Desserts

Indiana, for another example, uses these definitions:

Candy: A preparation of sugar, honey, or other natural or artificial sweeteners in combination with chocolate, fruits, nuts, or other ingredients or flavorings in the form of bars, drops, or pieces. The term does not include any preparation requiring refrigeration.

Soft Drinks: Nonalcoholic beverages that contain natural or artificial sweeteners. The term does not include beverages that contain milk or milk products, soy, rice, or similar milk substitutes, or are exclusively naturally sweetened using natural vegetable and / or fruit juice.

And, just for fun, I looked up another one.

Oklahoma’s definitions

“Candy” means any solid, semi-solid, or molded preparation of sugar, sweeteners (natural or artificial), or chocolate, with or without added ingredients such as flavorings, fruit, nuts, or flour, that is commonly marketed, advertised, or recognized as candy, chocolate bar, chewing gum, or similar confectionery. For purposes of this section, candy includes but is not limited to chocolate bars (including products containing flour such as Kit Kat, Twix, or similar items), hard candies, gummies, caramels, taffy, licorice, mints, and chewing gum.

“Soft drink” means any nonalcoholic beverage that contains natural or artificial sweeteners, including soda, pop, cola, energy drinks, sports drinks, and flavored water, but excluding beverages that contain milk or milk substitutes, soy, rice, or similar dairy alternative ingredients, or that contain more than 50 percent, by volume, of fruit or vegetable juice…For purposes of this section, “soft drink” includes but is not limited to:

• Carbonated sodas
• Non-carbonated sweetened beverages
• Energy drinks, energy Supplements, and sports drinks (whether or not carbonated)
• Sweetened bottled or canned teas and lemonades
• Flavored waters with added sweeteners

“Soft drink” does NOT include:
• Coffee or unsweetened tea
• 100% fruit or vegetable juice, or beverages containing more than 50% juice by volume
• Milk, milk substitutes, dairy-based drinks, or similar beverages

Yikes!  It gives me a headache just thinking about what it’s going to be like for grocers to deal with this, let alone the manufacturers of restricted foods that differ from state to state.

All of the waivers are said to include evaluation plans.  These will be interesting and we should start seeing them by 2027.  Can’t wait.