Discussions
Can a sugar tax really curb obesity?
Posted by iyaayasmoderator • 5/13/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: sugar taxes, United States
Is it possible that when this tax is passed that it will help us be healthier in the United States?
User Comments
-
I think we pay enough taxes already here in this country.
The government waste all of the money. So giving them more is just like giving a kid $1,000 in a candy store. They will just go nuts with the money.
Once you tax sugar though, then other people will want to tax other ingredients in foods. But, I had sugar all my life and I don't gain any weight. -
"Food and drinks high in sugar should be taxed just like cigarettes, say economists who believe it is the only way to combat the crisis in obesity."
Can the government tax people to the extent that they can not afford to consume sugar or even manufacture with sugar?-
Seems like the answer lies right in the analogy. Anybody know anyone who quit smoking because of the tax? -
Nope
-
-
Just eat less. I see what some people eat when I go out. They get large portions of everything. Restuarants also serve these giant dishes. They have to cut back. Once you eat more, you stomach expands and you want more all the time. Once you eat less, you don't want more food any longer. I know from when I was a teenager.
Sugar is in everything. If you tax it high, people will have a fit. You will go broke buying food.-
Yeah, with sugar being in almost everthing consumed, it would seem that grocery shopping in it self is going to have a higher price tag.
-
-
Senate leaders are considering new federal taxes on soda and other sugary drinks to help pay for an overhaul of the nation's health-care system. The taxes would pay for only a fraction of the cost to expand health-insurance coverage to all Americans and would face strong opposition from the beverage industry. They also could spark a backlash from consumers who would have to pay several cents more for a soft drink.
The Senate Finance Committee is set to hear proposals from about a dozen experts about how to pay for the comprehensive health-care overhaul that President Barack Obama wants to enact this year. Early estimates put the cost of the plan at around $1.2 trillion. The administration has so far only earmarked funds for about half of that amount.
I sure hope I'm getting my money's worth out my elected officials.-
Taxing sugary drinks? Why not? If the people who waste so much money on them can be convinced to cut back or drop them altogether, they'll have more to spend on things like real food.
Wait, taxing them won't do that! People will just pay the extra nickel and forget about it. If they're going to do it, make it a big, fat tax like on cigarettes and alcohol - a buck a soda at the grocery store. Make them luxury items and treats like they ought to be, and you could make a difference. But then the government will figure out that fat is bad...
Sorry, I'm extra-sarcastic today.
-
-
Here's a link to an article about the tax:
online.wsj.com/article/SB124208505896608647.html
The government needs to raise taxes to cover its deficit and that seems like a decent way to generate billions without affecting people who can't afford to have their taxes raised.-
If you create a tax, how would it not affect people who can't afford to have their taxes raised in the first place?
-
Thanks for the link, Sati. Discussions are almost always richer with additional information. -
iya, nobody HAS to buy soda. It's a luxury tax. There are other drinks that are healthier and cheaper.
-
I wonder if considering things a luxury makes people sleep better at night. Water must be a luxury also, I pay for that and pay taxes for it as well. The more of it I will consume, that bill will go up also. Do the taxes on the water go towards healthcare for all the poisons and toxins that are unheathy and found in our Nation's drinking water. No.
-
So your argument is that if it's taxed, it must be a luxury?
-
-
Short answer: This wont change a darn thing -
Maybe, if the government is serious about health, they should tax foods with high sugar content and highly processed foods, but have a trade-off... like NO taxes on fresh vegetables and fruit.
I mean, if we're going to convince ourselves that people won't buy the candy bar if it costs a dime more... why not go all the way and sell the salad for a penny?
Personally, there are so many contributing factors to the obesity issue that just one tax probably won't make a dent in our collective national blubber. Creating situations where people are encouraged to walk or bike to work would probably make more of a difference. -
Sugar is not the only factor that contributes obesity. There are many factors involved.
So to answer the question, no.-
Which is my point. Taxing sugar with a higher rate would not cure obesity. Every single person has their own unique chemical makeup and there is not just one answer to get a cure.
-
-
Actually, the City of Chicago and Cook county already has very high taxes on fast food sales. Typically, a 5 dollar fast food meal in Chicago comes out to 7 after taxes. It has done nothing to curb obesity but it has put a dent in the pockets of the poor.
When I was in Paris, I noticed no one drank soda pop. The reason being, soda pop in France costs triple what it does in the States. Typically, a glass of soda pop is about 4 Euros which is 6 dollars with no refills. When they say glass, that's 8 oz. To buy a can is 1 euro which is a 1.50. It is much cheaper to drink water, wine, or fruit juice. I didn't notice the portions being any smaller in France, but I did notice that people paid more attention to their food. They bought groceries in small amounts, ate thoughtfully, and appreciated what they were eating. They still had relationships with their butcher, cheese and butter maker, fruit and vegetable vendor, baker. Everything was locally made and produced. No one ate fruit that had been imported from Chile or the Philippines. They didn't eat meat every single day.
I believe one of the biggest contributors to obesity in the US is the fact everyone buys their food processed and packaged in big box grocery stores where it is cheaper to buy in bulk than in small quantities. We eat food that is out of season, flavorless, overly processed, nutritionally empty, loaded with high fructose corn syrup, preservatives and artificial ingredients because it is what is in front of our faces and is cheapest at the store.
Eating healthy in the US is very expensive because that means eating natural, eating in season, eating in small quantities.
Buying low fat, fresh white meat chicken costs quadruple what ground frozen turkey costs. Fresh white meat chicken costs double dark meat. The "cheap chicken" is loaded with hormones, chemicals, antibiotics because it is raised on factory farms on federally subsidized corn. Ground frozen turkey is mostly dark meat (and god knows what)and has almost 12% fat. Commercial beef and pork is raised on government corn subsidies and is also loaded with antibiotics and hormones, not to mention the conditions in which they are raised make e-coli a major hazard and a future mad cow epidemic almost a certainty.
If the government really wanted to curb obesity, they need to stop subsidizing corn which will end the dominance of high fructose corn syrup (the rest of the world uses sugar and in much smaller amounts) and also the practice of feeding corn to animals in feedlots.
AND most crucially, people need to eat more vegetables, eat less meat, and be more active. That means driving less, walking more. We are talking a major cultural shift. It is no coincidence that obesity began rising in the US during the 50's when white collar jobs rose, people moved out to car centric suburbs, and processed foods became cheap and widely available.-
I was in China recently and the only fat people there were foreigners..I agree with your comments...very deep and thoughtful -
lifestyle change is hard to make
-
-
How is this going to effect the Farm Bill? Are they not going to tax the energy drinks that you can buy with food stamps? -
If we start using sugar to fuel our cars automatically the sugar price will go up
-
Sugar is not the issue. High Fructose Corn syrup is. All sugary drinks, sugary treats have huge amounts of high fructose corn syrup. If the government ends corn subsidies, the dominance of high fructose corn syrup goes away.
And guess what? We are already putting corn in our gas tanks as ethanol.
-
-
you have to change lifestyles to change addictions-
Exactly what I was saying. See my long comment above. ^
-
-
So, I sit here un-convinced. The solution cannot be that everyone in the United States needs to change their lifestyles and change their addictions. Can I call this impossible? The tax is coming. It's coming for everyone here in the United States. I don't think we will be able to hide from it, no matter how the tax is "sugar" coated.
-
Did you read my comment?
Eliminate the corn farm subsidies and that will go a long way to changing poor quality ingredients from processed foods.
And yes, it will require a massive change in lifestyle.
You need to respond to individual comments and not make generalized statements.
-
-
Not when salty chips are around! -
Government Official #1: we need more money...I promised my constituents a bigger pork barrel this year. Let's raise taxes.
Government Official #2: Yah, I promised my constituents more pork barrels, but raising taxes in a recession is bad for reelection.
GO1: Hmmm...you've got a point. Hmmmm...I know! Let's implement a new tax!
GO2: Nonono! That will still sink us at reelection time!
GO1: Not if we pick something everybody will think is a good idea to tax...sin taxes have always worked well.
GO2: But we've already taxed tobacco and liquor to death...and we'd have to legalize drugs and gambling and prostitution before we could tax them, and that might not be very helpful at reelection time...
GO1: Yah...good points. (thoughtful pause) I know! Let's tax fatness! Nobody likes fat people, so that should be a popular tax!
GO2: Huh? How would you do that? Make people line up every month for a weigh in at their local Weight Watchers?
GO1: No, man...put a tax on sugar! And if we tax everything that has sugar in it, we get a double whammy...tax the sugar when the manufacturer buys it, then tax it again in the form of taxing the sugar-laden product!
GO2: Nah....it would never work. You'd have to tax foods full of fat like cheese and sausage, and foods full of carbohydrates like bread and pasta...those are the things that really pile the pounds on!
GO1: Hah! People think those are healthy foods...but everybody just knows that sugar is bad for you. So, we tax sugar and everybody is happy because we are taxing a bad thing!
GO2: Everybody except the fat people...and more than half of America is overweight...
GO1: Nah, they'll go for it too...guilt, you see! They feel bad for being fat...it has become a character flaw worse than avarice!
GO2: Hmmmm...you've got a point there. It's brilliant! The dairy and wheat lobbies won't get offended, and nobody likes a fatty, so sugar is ideal! You want to write the bill or should I?
GO1: (on cell phone) Hello? Pork Barrels R Us? I want to place a big order...-
LOL. I almost felt I was in the room listening.
Sad to say, as others have commented earlier, it's another idea that won't have the desired effect.
-
-
Then, they should also have some sort of daily cardio quota (DCQ?). If you don't fulfill the minimum required amount of cardio exercise time, PAY! -
We have sugar quotas to protect our farmers, which is part of the reason why more items are sweetened with high fruitose corn syrup. The HFCS is worse for your weight than sugar.
Even if you buy the concept that taxing bad foods will help people make better decisions, a sugar tax is the wrong tax. -
Okay............here's the deal. There just aren't that many things that aren't taxed. The desired effect would be to make things to expensive that have sugar in them so people won't buy them. Won't this effect farmers and manufacturers as well as the end consumer? Is salt next?
The choice to eat healthy and have a healthy lifestyle should not be regulated by the government. Healthcare prices are already high and now the reasons for it to continue to rise will also increase.
Personally, I don't see a need for the tax. But then..........who am I to argue with our leaders as they try to make me a better person.-
What about rolling back corn subsidies? Several people besides myself have pointed out that sugar is not the issue, high fructose corn syrup is. A fact you have ignored, over and over and over.
-
-
Well, from my understanding, remember I'm a simpleton here, the wording of the tax is about items with a high sugar content.
"Food and drinks high in sugar should be taxed just like cigarettes, say economists who believe it is the only way to combat the global crisis in obesity." "The impact of taxes, subsidies and trade restrictions on consumption needs to be carefully looked at," agrees Boyd Swinburn of Deakin University in Melbourne, Australia. This week he and colleagues argue in the International Journal of Pediatric Obesity (vol 1, p 133) that the economic drive towards eating more and exercising less represents a failure of the free market that governments must act to reverse.
Could this really work? When two-thirds of the population of the United States are obese or overweight, you can't handle the problem with simple solutions like education. Instead, governments need to impose tariffs to replicate the success of tobacco taxes in reducing smoking. What am I missing? Through education it is taught that smoking is bad for your health and cigarettes are taxed at a very high rate. But there are still large numbers of smokers in the United States.
I'm not here to split hairs with anyone. There are probably many angels one could take with this and many more angels the government could take. I wasn't trying to ignore anyone or anything, my apologies.-
Getting rid of corn subsidies would have a greater effect on obesity levels in the US than levying any sugar tax. Also, getting rid of sugar subsidies would help as well.
Why are we protecting these farmers? These are not family farms we are protecting, these are massive farming corporations that have completely thrown the American food supply out of whack.
In the rest of world, high fructose corn syrup is practically unheard of because natural sugar is cheap. High fructose corn syrup is much more glycemic and addictive than natural sugar. The US is the only country in the world where it is cheaper to drink soda than it is to drink water. Big soft drink manufacturers use sugar in their products everywhere except the US. Why is that?
-
-
The following information found @ www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/19453520/detail.html
"Possible Sugar Tax Anything But Sweet For Businesses, Customers"
"Congress Weighs Taxing Sugar-Sweetened Drinks"
PITTSBURGH -- As Congress discusses the possibility of adding a federal surcharge to sugar-sweetened beverages, the mere thought of another tax is leaving a sour taste in the mouths of consumers.
"We feel angry enough as it is with current taxes and what we're paying for stuff," said Kelly Kaylor of White Oak.
Supporters of the tax believe it could help Congress pay for a portion of universal health care, which President Barack Obama has made a priority.
Health advocates hope the move could also serve as a tool to fight obesity.
"If this purpose is to actually limit consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages among kids, and influence their health in a positive way, then I'm supportive of that," said Dr. Goutham Rao of UPMC Weight Management Center.
Diet drinks with little or no calories could be exempt, but the thought of a sugary drink tax has left a bad taste in the mouth of small businesses and their owners who rely on soda sales.
"You're deterring people from spending. I think we need something to stimulate the economy not deter it," said Mineo's Pizza House owner Dominic Mineo.
Will we need universal healthcare if everyone is so healthy because they couldn't afford products sweetened with sugar?-
Mineo's, the best pizza place in Pittsburgh. If they go under because of this ridculous tax, I will smoke more since I won't have their pizza. My dollar=my choice. Sue me.
-
-
Nope, that would just be a fat *** Tax. -
This won't stop obesity. The government knows this they are hoping people will still buy it so they can make more money. That is all it is to the government is a way to make more money. Like the cigarette tax, do you really think they wanted everybody to quit smoking when they raised the tax? No they just figured it was a way to make money knowing that people would pay it. If everybody quit they would have no money from it, then they would have to find something else to tax. -
Well, it's rather for the help of the banksters: how do you want gov to pay financial interests to the huge financial debts they are making for the bailout if not taxing people using any pitifull pretext ?-
It's almost like watching a person who digs a hole to fill another, moves on to dig a few more holes to fill the ones dug before. More holes will be dug. More money will come out of our wallets. Makes one wonder if there is actually a light at the end of the tunnel.
-
-
Here's some more......
"The question of the repeal of the duty on Sugar, which will soon be discussed in Congress, excites general interest in all parts of the country. It is a practical question which comes directly home to men's business and bosoms. Sugar, which might once have been a luxury, has become a necessity of daily life."
Do we really use that much sugar in our daily life? -
It isn't so much to curb obesity. It amounts to a use tax, like that on gasoline, to repair roads
-
I'm ok with a new tax as long as an equal old tax goes away.
-
Hell no, does it stop people from smoking? -
The advantage of luxury taxes is that you don't have to participate in them. I have no problem with a liquor tax, a cigar tax, and a candy tax. Let someone else choose to pay.
It does stop some people from smoking.
As far as a pure sugar tax it would be problematic, sugar is used to make ethanol and other biofuels. Taxing candy and other sweet things might actually give more of an incentive to turn corn and sugarcane into ethanol instead of candy. The sugar producers would need another source of revenue.-
As a smoker, I can tell you that it makes it expensive to smoke, but I still do.
I suppose we will have to see where it actually ends up and what the tax gets attached to. I have a hard time seeing anything good coming from the new tax, especially in the short term.
-
-
It won't curb obesity. However I find it disingenuous for the makers of soda to state that soda has no role in obesity whatsoever. Soda contains two main ingredients that make soda addictive - caffeine, and high fructose corm syrup.
That means that enjoying a soda comes with an addictive side effect - and from the high sales of soda, I think it's safe to say that a lot of people are consuming more than just one or two sodas as a "fun drink". High fructose corn syrup is linked to a host of health problems from long term consumption (and condtradictory to what the manufacturers are putting out in commercials, there is no "consuming it in moderation" as it is the main ingredient is far too many foods).
So it's not just "sugar" and it's not just "obesity" that's the problem, but all manner of health problems, including types of diabetes, heart problems, etc and so forth all rolled up in an addictive drink.
I would support taxing the companies more, and not the consumers, but that's just me. If you want to put out a product that is unhealthy and addictive, by all means, go ahead, but you'll be paying the taxes to do so.-
Do you think that by taxing the companies more that the consumer would not see an increase in price? One way or another, the tax will be added. Hopefully, it doesn't effect the overall product the consumer buys.
I got to wondering last night about what I had in my kitchen that contained sugar and high fructose corn syrup. I was really surprised, almost everything had one or both. Ever payed attention to the labels like that?
We aren't the healthiest eating family. But, we aren't all just Ho Ho's, Ding Dongs, and sodas either. We are meat, potatoe, and pasta people here in this house.
-
-
The government just recently passed new tobacco taxes for the SCHIP program. They will tax tobacco out of business and then what? Where will that money come from then? I smoke cigars and I resent having my pocket picked. If I have to pay extra taxes on my vice, then damnit lets take sugar sodas too! And potato chips. And fast food! Misery loves company.
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
