Why are Coke, Pepsi and the rest of the beverage industry spending millions of dollars to repeal Washington’s temporary tw0-cent per 12-ounce serving excise tax on carbonated beverages? Because, as this new USDA study confirms, raising taxes on sugary beverages does indeed decrease consumption.
Soda taxes are being pushed in states and cities nationwide, partially as revenue generators, and partially as public health measures, for as this USDA study also demonstrates, decreasing consumption of sugary beverages also decreases overall caloric consumption, leading to a substantial drop in obesity rates and its associated costs.
A tax-induced 20-percent price increase on caloric sweetened beverages could cause an average reduction of 37 calories per day, or 3.8 pounds of body weight over a year, for adults and an average of 43 calories per day, or 4.5 pounds over a year, for children. Given these reductions in calorie consumption, results show an estimated decline in adult overweight prevalence (66.9 to 62.4 percent) and obesity prevalence (33.4 to 30.4 percent), as well as the child at-risk-for-overweight prevalence (32.3 to 27.0 percent) and the overweight prevalence (16.6 to 13.7 percent).
It’s basic economics really. Raise the cost of something nonessential, and consumers will purchase less of it.
Of course our two-cent per 12-ounce tax was mostly sold as a revenue measure, and only comes to more like an average 7 percent price increase, so we won’t see the same degree of public health benefit as that shown in the USDA study, but the I-1107 sponsors can’t have it both ways. They can’t oppose the initiative because it would decrease consumption of their product while at the same time dismissing the public health benefits of reduced consumption.
Make the nanny state argument if you like, but we regularly use our tax code to influence behavior (you know, like cutting taxes on the wealthy to spur investment). And with both our state and our nation is in the midst of an obesity epidemic, I can think of worse ways to fill our gaping budget hole than a tax on soda-pop.
This is a large load of dog squeeze.
Are these taxes applied to diet sodas as well?
DavefromGA @1,
I see from your IP that you’re trolling from at or near Coca Cola’s headquarters in Atlanta. So how much are you being paid to post such a devastating rebuttal?
“When soft drinks are taxed, only outlaws will have coca cola?”
Taxing Leftist Blogs like HA reduces MORONosity!
@2 There’s actually a fair amount of data showing that drinking a lot of diet soda contributes to obesity because aspartame actually stimulates appetite.
@3
Hopefully, not very much!
The nanny-state argument is hogwash: the only reason soda is so cheap is because of the incredible federal subsidy on farming = corn = high fructose corn syrup. I’d love to see a detailed discussion of that side of the equation.
LWC beat me to it. It’s long past time Ag policy was examined so family farmers can be assisted but Big Ag loses corporate welfare. Unfortunately, corn farms have better representaion in the Senate than everybody on the Left Coast put together, so how that change happens is beyond me.
The study doesn’t show that raising soda taxes reduces obesity. It estimates that raising taxes will reduce consumption of soda — maybe.
They didn’t actually measure weight loss or even soda consumption. They estimated how much a tax increase would cause consumption to drop — based on a price elasticity model. And they came up with 11 – 13 percent. That’s pretty tenuous (and modest). Even if there is an actual drop in calories consumed from soda pop, there is no attempt to measure or even estimate whether this would be made up with increased calories consumed from other sources.
Look, I’m not arguing to repeal the soda tax and I won’t be voting for Eyman’s latest silliness. The state needs the added revenue to pay for services that I don’t want to see cut. But misleading arguments are not the right way to support this policy. We get enough abuse of statistics from the right.
@ 2: I’m assuming that the tax applies to diet sodas as well, although I haven’t confirmed it.
But I’ve seen several studies which point out that diet sodas also contribute to obesity. The reasons stated are that the salt and artificially sweetened formulas tend to affect our appetite for foods. It dulls the tast of naturally sweet foods (fruits and vegitables), and instead encourages consumption of high-salt and fatty foods – like burgers & fries.
Another factor not mentioned is that the extra-large sizes of sodas (diet and regular) sold in fast-food restaurants, movie theatres, etc. tends to stretch the stomach, making it harder for the person to fill full after eating subsequent meals. I remember when the first 16 oz sodas came out, my college roomate ridiculed them as “gut gushers”. I wonder what he now thinks of the 32 oz and 62 oz ones.
As for myself, I gave up diet sodas a couple of years ago. I found that my taste has changed, and I’m more amenable to eating better foods and avoiding overly salted and fatty foods. In general, I feel a lot better, and I’ve been losing 1-2 lbs a month, without making any other changes.
You mean Goldy is coming up with a conclusion out of thin air with little or no support? Oh my, but that is par for the course.
The only reason anyone should oppose this tax is because it isn’t high enough.
This shit is bad for you. It has no nutritional value and no redeeming value, and we should have taxed the shit out of it years ago.
If people want to buy it, fine. But the state should be making money off of it as long as they do.
So your logic is that the state should make money off of poor behavior?
# 14: Do you have a problem with sin taxes in general?
(1) State revenues have to come from somewhere.
(2) Artificial drinks such as these are harmful to the health, in several different ways.
(3) The state ends up paying for at least a portion of the damage caused by those harmful effects.
(4) Taxing these drinks will discourage at least some consumption, thereby reducing the financial burden on the state, and promoting health of the citizenry in general.
(5) Although the tax is regressive (like all sales taxes), it is at least somewhat voluntary, in that individuals can opt out of the tax since the item is a discretionary purchase.
@15
If its such a horrible product, then why not outlaw it?
Answer: because its about the state making money, not about the health of its citizens.
@Goldy, do you always spy on your readers?
I live 35 miles from Coke Headquarters and am retired.
Scottd is right. The study is not complete.
@15
and if you think the state(feds or state) will use the tax money to deal with the health effects of the product or to promote healthy living, then your living in a dream and more naive than your previous posts have shown.
Remember all that tobacco money that was supposed to be used to combat smoking and deal with the medical costs of smoking? LOL
“@Goldy, do you always spy on your readers?”
Only on foreign ones, Dave, so suck it up. We’re fed up with out of state inteference in out politics.
@19
Only on foreign ones, Dave, so suck it up. We’re fed up with out of state inteference in out politics.
Really? Almost 50% of Christine Gregoire’s 2004 election fund was from out of state contributions. how do you feel about that?
According to the Seattle Times’ analysis, nearly half of Gregoire’s 2004 campaign contributions came from out-of-state.[20]
from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_Gregoire
or are out of state contributions OK as long as they support people/items that you agree with?
@19
Here I thought this particlar post was about Coke,Pepsi, calories and taxes. I didn’t know they were just Seattle issues.
Must be all that rain up there that has rotted your brain.
@13: “This shit is bad for you. It has no nutritional value and no redeeming value, and we should have taxed the shit out of it years ago.”
Then you must also support taxing the shit out of fruit juices, right?
The only “nutritional value” in a glass of apple or orange juice is the vitamin C. Unless you’re an old-timey sailor at risk of scurvy, the vitamin C isn’t doing anything for you… and even if you are, you can get vitamin C in tablet form without all that sugar.
@ 22:
You’re a fucking moron, you know that? Orange juice contains Vitamin A, Vitamin E, thiamin, riboflavin, niacin, Vitamin B6, pantothenic acid, choline, calcium, iron, and magnesium.
Fruit juices are a natural food. Get the fuck on out of here with your shit.
@23: Oh boy, more vitamins. But of course you can get all those in tablet form without the sugar too.
And if you think “natural” means it’s good for you, go eat some all-natural hemlock. Fucking moron indeed!
From an obesity standpoint, fruit juice is every bit as bad as soda. Go read the nutrition label on a package of juice sometime. If we raise the price of soda without raising the price of juice, kids are going to end up consuming just as many calories from juice instead of soda.
8 oz of orange juice:
Calories – 122
Fat – 0.3g
Sodium – 25mg
Sugar – 29.5g
Protein – 0.1g
8 oz of Mountain Dew:
Calories – 113
Fat – 0g
Sodium – 30mg
Sugar – 30.6g
Protein – 0g
The differences are negligible. And while orange juice has a ton of vitamin C and thiamine, it only has trace amounts of some of the others you mentioned (e.g. 0% RDA of vitamin A, 1% RDA of iron) so you need to find another source anyway — like daily multi-vitamins. And if you’re eating those, it really doesn’t matter what kind of sugar water you drink.
In a free country nobody would have the power to screw around with what i want to drink; that is, any beverage that doesn’t make me kill others is my own business. no tax policy to dissuade me, no prohibitions
what a stupid post goldy.
uhhh … sort of forgetting about that fiber thingy. Only fiber in MD is the cardboard container.
@27: The only fiber in juice is the pulp. Pulp-free orange juice (and apple juice, etc.) has no more fiber than Mountain Dew.
Jesse @ 22
“Then you must also support taxing the shit out of fruit juices, right?”
What would you do?
I strongly support taxing both HFCS based drinks and cans/bottles.
Removing the subsidies for both and letting the market decide would be best.
Baby steps.
@29: I would prefer not to tax either kind of sugary drink, but if we’re going to tax them for health reasons, we ought to tax them both equally. Maybe a per-calorie or per-gram-of-sugar tax.
In fact, we might as well tax all food and drinks according to their calorie/sugar content — I don’t see why potato chips and frappuccinos should get preferential treatment over candy and soda.