What do you think of the proposed soda tax?

[tinkerdorabelle]

http://www.newsweek.com/id/234886?f...+-+Headline+Feed+-+Health)&utm_content=My+MSN

 

[IDoDis]

I didn't know it has already taken effect in some places. Processed foods encompasses a lot. Anything that is packaged *could technically* qualify. Wheat bread is "processed", but I guess that's left out? How is the tax received overall? That's a lot of foods under the tortilla tax umbrella!

Oooh, not so well! Lots of unhappy people revolting. Right now there is no tax on food, as it was done away with a few years ago, so basically it is being brought back but does not include all foods. These foods listed as acceptable under the WIC program will be exempt from the food tax:

meats, poultry and fish with limited amounts of added ingredients
All Fluid Milk (including soy)
fresh and frozen meats
Beans - Canned
Beans – Dry
Bread – Whole Wheat or Whole Grain
Bottled Juice
Cereal
Cheese
Eggs
Fish
Fresh Fruit and Vegetables
Canned Fruits and Vegetables
Frozen Fruits and Vegetables
Frozen Juice
Infant Cereals
Infant Formula
Infant Fruits & Vegetables
Infant Meats
Milk - Soy
Oatmeal
Peanut Butter
Rice - Brown
Tofu
Tortillas - Corn
Tortillas - Whole Wheat

I don't like the fact that the tax targets the poor and wish the tax was on liquor instead -- but of course the liquor lobbyists won that battle.

 

[joviroxx]

This is what makes them empty calories, they serve no real nutritional purpose.

true, but consume 3500 calories more than you expend, nutirtional or not, and you will gain a pound. Your health is one thing, obesity is another. And obesity is caused by extra calories, regardless of their nutritional value.

We can discuss nutrion until we are blue in the face but the truth is they are claiming this is to fight obesity, not to make su eat better. So overindulge on whole grain bread and you will gain weight as well. Heck, I have vegan friends that are very overweight.

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

...Heck, I have vegan friend that are very overweight.

Me, too. I was shocked to find out that she was a vegan when I met her.

 

[OceanAnnie]

Oooh, not so well! Lots of unhappy people revolting. Right now there is no tax on food, as it was done away with a few years ago, so basically it is being brought back but does not include all foods. These foods listed as acceptable under the WIC program will be exempt from the food tax:

meats, poultry and fish with limited amounts of added ingredients
All Fluid Milk (including soy)
fresh and frozen meats
Beans - Canned
Beans – Dry
Bread – Whole Wheat or Whole Grain
Bottled Juice
Cereal
Cheese
Eggs
Fish
Fresh Fruit and Vegetables
Canned Fruits and Vegetables
Frozen Fruits and Vegetables
Frozen Juice
Infant Cereals
Infant Formula
Infant Fruits & Vegetables
Infant Meats
Milk - Soy
Oatmeal
Peanut Butter
Rice - Brown
Tofu
Tortillas - Corn
Tortillas - Whole Wheat

I don't like the fact that the tax targets the poor and wish the tax was on liquor instead -- but of course the liquor lobbyists won that battle.

Thanks for posting this. I agree with you about the target. Healthy food is more expensive than fast, convenient, processed grocery food. Fast Food too. Yes, I know there are examples where that is not the case, but more often than not healthy food is more expensive. I don't think the tax would change the discrepancy in price.

I think people are going to buy what they want. They may pay more for what they want, but I don't think it will have a watershed effect. There are going to be a lot of ticked off people, if this continues.

 

[Lassie Lynne]

If we keep going this way, we'll be going to the "grocery store" to get our weekly allotment of "nutri-paste". This will be the only thing you will be permitted to consume and the only choice you have is color. And those choices will be beige or grey. YUM!

Well, as long as it isn't the green kind, because.....you know what that is made of

Back to your original programming......

 

[OceanAnnie]

Interesting follow up article:


Small Soda Tax Doesn't Dent Obesity

ATLANTA – Small taxes on soda do little to reduce soft drink consumption or prevent childhood obesity, but larger levies probably would, according to new research.

The study is being released as a recent wave of proposals would raise soda taxes or create new ones on sugared beverages. But they'll have to be a lot steeper than current taxes, which are generally 4 percent or less, said Roland Sturm, lead author of the new research.

"Small taxes will not prevent obesity," said Sturm, a senior economist at the Rand Corp. in Santa Monica, Calif.

Sturm and his colleagues used information from a 2004 national survey of about 7,300 fifth-graders. The researchers looked at how the children's height and weight had changed over the previous two years and how often the kids said they drank soda and sports drinks. The researchers also reviewed taxes on carbonated drinks that were in effect in 2004.

Roughly two-thirds of the children lived in states that had a tax on soda greater than on other food items. The highest was 7 cents tax on each dollar's worth of soda. The average was about 4 cents.

They found the taxes made no real difference on overall soda consumption or on obesity for kids overall. They did have a small effect on certain children — especially those from families with an annual income of $25,000 or less. Those kids — who drank about seven cans of soda a week, on average — drank one less can because of the taxes, Sturm said.

However, if the taxes were more like 18 cents on the dollar, Sturm calculated it would make a significant difference.

The research is being published online Thursday in the journal Health Affairs. The Rand study was funded by the federal government and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

Most states exempt grocery food from sales taxes. But in recent years, candy and soft drinks have been increasingly targeted, either through a tax or removal of an existing sales tax exemption.

The children in the study were from 40 states, 20 of which had soda taxes when the study was done.

More than 30 states have some form of soda tax today, averaging about 5 cents per dollar of soda.

In the last month, Colorado removed a 3 percent sales tax exemption for candy and soda. Philadelphia's mayor proposed a 2 cents-per-ounce tax on sugary drinks, which would add 24 cents to the price of a can of Coke.

Most of the taxes tend to be enough to bring in some extra money for struggling state budgets, but small enough not to rile soda manufacturers or significantly change buying habits, said Kelly Brownell, director of Yale University's Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity.

"Taxes have to be large enough to affect consumption," said Brownell, who has called for a tax as high as 12 percent.

But most people don't want their soda taxed, according to the American Beverage Association, which represents soda manufacturers.

Association officials noted that Maine voters last fall rejected a soda tax. And in a press release last week, the organization pointed to a recent survey of 1,000 U.S. adults by Rasmussen Reports that found 56 percent of Americans are against taxes on candy and soda.

The beverage association did not pay for the telephone survey, said Debra Falk, a spokeswomen for the polling firm.

The Rand study confirms that small taxes on soda don't reduce obesity, and offers no evidence that larger taxes would do any better, said Christopher Gindlesperger, spokesman for beverage association.

"Taxes don't work. What does work is balancing the diet and exercise," he said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100401/ap_on_he_me/us_med_soda_tax

 

[castleview]

There's far more to obesity than soda consumption. Overall quality of food and exercise need to be encouraged.

 

[bunkkinsmom]

I will read any thread with Bicker AND Fire Dancer!!!

I've got a question...... wouldn't alcohol fall under any sugary drink tax?

I mean really, talk about affecting other people. Why is alcohol legal again? I can't seem to place the actual reason.

 

[ladycollector]

Soda does not contribute to obesity anymore than any other food. I drink it and lost 30lbs 4 years ago and have kept it off.

It's a simple math equation of calories in and calories out. If they don't equal, you will gain or lose weight (based on if your calories in are more or less than your calories out).

It makes no sense to me and i am a HUGE proponent of combatting obesity. But knowledge is the only way that will happen.

 

[eliza61]

Soda does not contribute to obesity anymore than any other food. I drink it and lost 30lbs 4 years ago and have kept it off.

It's a simple math equation of calories in and calories out. If they don't equal, you will gain or lose weight (based on if your calories in are more or less than your calories out).

It makes no sense to me and i am a HUGE proponent of combatting obesity. But knowledge is the only way that will happen.

LOL that's sort of like saying rain doesn't contribute to flooding. by itself yes that simple math equation is absolutely true. The problem is we humans rarely operate in a simple vacuum.
So let's at least look at the problem realistically, shall we?

The problem becomes with children getting the major portion of their empty non nutrional calories from sugary drinks and snacks. couple that with a diet made up of high processes, high fat, high caloric non nutrional food and a susbstantial decrease in physical activity and you have a recipe for disaster.

As they say, "if it were easy, every one would do it". If combating obesity was as simple as telling people calories in have to be less than calories out. pretty much every one would be thin.

 

[EveDallas]

Well, as long as it isn't the green kind, because.....you know what that is made of

Back to your original programming......

"Soylent Green is people!" (sorry, couldn't resist LOL)

 

[ladycollector]

LOL that's sort of like saying rain doesn't contribute to flooding. by itself yes that simple math equation is absolutely true. The problem is we humans rarely operate in a simple vacuum.
So let's at least look at the problem realistically, shall we?

The problem becomes with children getting the major portion of their empty non nutrional calories from sugary drinks and snacks. couple that with a diet made up of high processes, high fat, high caloric non nutrional food and a susbstantial decrease in physical activity and you have a recipe for disaster.

As they say, "if it were easy, every one would do it". If combating obesity was as simple as telling people calories in have to be less than calories out. pretty much every one would be thin.

I think I am being completely realistic. Anything can make you fat. Healthy foods can make you fat if at the end of the day you ate more calories than you burned.

And I didn't say it didn't contribute, i said it didnt contribute *anymore* than any other food.

And it is as simple as calories in must be less than calories out, most people either don't know how to count them or they don't care.

I agree kids don't need to be drinking sugary soda. It's a total waste of calories especially when children don't exercise.

My point is that adding a tax on soda will not help anything. People still won't know how to control their weight.

Trust me, I grew up as a fat kid that drank 3 cokes a day. While that of course contributed, if you took it away (and this is assuming a tax actually gets ppl to stop buying it for their kids) I would've still been fat, because I had no idea that a piece of cheesecake and a glass of milk was over 1500 calories and my body didn't need much more than that for the entire day.

Something needs to be done, but a tax won't help anything.

 

[sbell111]

And I didn't say it didn't contribute, i said it didnt contribute *anymore* than any other food.

I don't understand this argument.

If I choose to drink a bottle of coke instead of a bottle of water, the coke has clearly contributed to my gaining weight more than the water would have.

 

[sbell111]

Trust me, I grew up as a fat kid that drank 3 cokes a day. While that of course contributed, if you took it away (and this is assuming a tax actually gets ppl to stop buying it for their kids) I would've still been fat, because I had no idea that a piece of cheesecake and a glass of milk was over 1500 calories and my body didn't need much more than that for the entire day.

If you didn't consume the 720 calories in those three cokes, you certainly wouldn't have been as fat as you were. You would have been less fat and more healthy. Depending on how active you were, you might not have been fat at all, even though you ate a piece of cheesecake.

 

[pansmermaidzlagoon]

I am against it in principle.

However,...

what I really hate are some of the arguments against it. Two ads are running here: both whining about the extra cost and the cost of putting food on the table already being hard enough for families.

Soda isn't food.

If you are already having a hard time putting food on the table, maybe you should do without treats for the time being. If the few cents this will add is a hardship for you, then skip the soda!!!!! It isn't a food, nor is it a necessity!!!!

either way, you shouldn't be consuming so much soda that this tax will affect your budget to any degree. Just IMHO - though again, IMHO, it shouldn't pass on principle.

 

[bicker]

ATLANTA – Small taxes on soda do little to reduce soft drink consumption or prevent childhood obesity, but larger levies probably would, according to new research.

You've got to start somewhere. Imagine the reaction if we start with a large tax.

There's far more to obesity than soda consumption.

Every little bit helps.

Overall quality of food and exercise need to be encouraged.

Not just "encouraged", I suspect. Of course, if they did a similar study to the one above on the matter of "encouragement" they'd probably conclude that "encouragement" wouldn't make a big difference, but "significant motivation" would.

 

[bicker]

I've got a question...... wouldn't alcohol fall under any sugary drink tax?

No. Alcohol already is subject to separate taxes. There is no need, nor reason, to try to put the two together under a single set of initiatives, especially since alcohol generally has a different (perhaps broader) impact profile than sugar does.

Why is alcohol legal again?

Nothing in the context of this thread is about making anything not "legal". With a tax on sugary soda in place, people still would remain free to drink such drinks, by definition.

 

[bicker]

Soda does not contribute to obesity anymore than any other food.

In context, that is incorrect. Sugary soda does contribute to obesity more than, say celery. Generalizations, such as what you've said here, are often way off-target.

Beyond that, there are other foods that also contribute to obesity, and indeed perhaps efforts should be made to apply similar measure to address those problems. However, that's really not relevant to the issue of this thread.

 

[ladycollector]

In context, that is incorrect. Sugary soda does contribute to obesity more than, say celery. Generalizations, such as what you've said here, are often way off-target.

Beyond that, there are other foods that also contribute to obesity, and indeed perhaps efforts should be made to apply similar measure to address those problems. However, that's really not relevant to the issue of this thread.

I still disagree. I think anything in moderation is fine. You can get fat on almost any food. But yes, celery and water have almost zero or little calories, so in that context you are correct. I am talking about food that people eat often.

People ask me all the time how I keep the weight off. I am thin and have kept it off for 4 years and am getting ready to become a spin instructor. I enjoy food now and allow myself pizza, ice cream, fries, etc. But I just keep track of my calories.

If you're gonna tax soda you might as well tax every other high calorie food, even if it is 'good' for you (nuts, etc), because it will still make you fat.

I will bow out now, obviously you don't get what I'm trying to say. I hope they do inact the soda tax, because it's gonna fail miserably.