No Soda Tax--Government Can't End Obesity in America
By Mary Kate Cary, Thomas Jefferson Street blog
Obesity is a public health crisis in the United States. There's no debating that it is caused by Americans' sedentary lifestyles and poor food choices. And, before we go any further, I should disclose that I am an active supporter of both the Obesity Institute and the Diabetes Care Complex at Children's National Medical Center. So I care very much about bringing down the rate of obesity in this country.
Having said that, controlling what we put into our mouths is not a job for the government. Ads are running on local TV here in Washington, D.C., urging Congress not to impose a tax on soda and juice drinks. Last month, in an interview, President Obama suggested that a soda tax was worth exploring. Currently a group in New York City supporting Gov. David Patterson's proposed soda tax is sponsoring an ad campaign in New York subways which, according to the Boston Herald, shows soft drinks morphing into yellow globs of human fat. (Actually I don't have a problem with the ads, just the tax.) Over the weekend, a Princeton University professor suggested a tax on red meat in the New York Daily News, since "high taxes on cigarettes have saved many lives." The difference is that cigarettes have been proven to kill people—I'm not sure the tax is what made people quit—while no one has proven that soda kills people.
We don't need the government to tax what it deems to be unhealthy foods—what we need is a shift in the culture. Remember the days when pregnant women smoked and drank? We had a '70s party recently and one pregnant guest showed up in a beehive hairdo, carrying a box of Marlboros and an empty bottle of Dewars. It was so funny because times have changed so much. (In fact, in the mid-1960s, when my mother was pregnant with my sisters, she went to the doctor because of insomnia and asked for sleeping pills. He advised her instead to knock back a stiff Manhattan every night. And because you're pregnant, he said, don't drink the cheap stuff.) Now, pregnant women who drink a glass of white wine in public are practically arrested.
The same cultural change has taken place with kids' car seats, bike helmets, and seat belts—none of which were taxed. Once we start the "sin" taxes, where do they end—Doughnuts? Caesar salad dressing? Whole milk instead of skim? For that matter, how about La-Z-Boy recliners?
Taxes on sodas, red meat, and the like are one more example of government arrogance. It's that mindset so common these days: You people don't know what's good for you, and I do. So give me your money and I'll decide what to do with it.
We'd be far better off with tax incentives for grocery stores and farmers' markets to go into the poorest neighborhoods, so residents have access to fresh produce—a twist on Jack Kemp's "enterprise zones" back in the 1980s. Controlling crime in bad neighborhoods would go a long way toward allowing mothers to feel it's safe for their children to play outside instead of watching TV inside. And how about discounts on health insurance—or a bonus from Medicaid—for joining a health club?
Wouldn't a carrot work better than a stick when it comes to healthy eating?
- Check out our political cartoons.
- Become a political insider: Subscribe to U.S. News Weekly, our digital magazine.
- Follow the Thomas Jefferson Street blog on Twitter.
Tools:
Share
|
| Comments (14) | Print
Reader Comments
Overall Healthy Lifestyle
I agree, the last thing we need is more government control. Once you allow a soda tax, what other foods will be added? I think we should spend our efforts on teaching people how to lead an overall healthy lifestyle. Because, you can consume all foods in moderation in the context of an overall healthy lifestyle. Making changes in nutrition, exercise, stress management and sleep will reverse the obesity crisis in this country, NOT taxing specific foods. For more information, see my book, "How To Eat Fried Chicken and Be Thin Too" on Amazon or at strategicbookpublishing.com
I wonder
A good point you raise, Mary Kate Cary, it would be beneficial to have a reward system, rather than a punishment one. But I feel that we shouldn’t condemn the “Sin Taxes” too quickly. I personally would lean towards cheaper healthier alternatives, as many others would. The only problem is that a “lack of choice” feeling remains if we choose this route. I like to think that we as people like to taste freedom, there’s just something rewarding to controlling your own destiny.
So perhaps we shouldn’t use a system at all, perhaps we should just inject a few images into pop culture. Maybe all we need to do is make the people who make healthier choices look cool. Or at least get a more positive image of those who choose a healthier lifestyle.
If we could get some (stick figure) super models to say they keep in shape by eating healthy, we could influence many.
But of course this may be more difficult than developing a system, and it would certainly take more time. So then what should we do?
I believe the answer lies in all options. We should use “Sin Taxes” since they sound likely to work, while offering bonuses like the ones you mentioned. While in the background we start our “Healthy lifestyle” image improvement project.
Sin Taxes
'Sin' taxes will only hurt the poor - so much better to educate the people in danger; reduce the taxes on good quality foods and give incentives, else you are in grave danger of becoming a "Nanny State" as we are in UK with so many Health and Safety laws.
I notice referencces to Soda - do you mean the stuff you put in water to soften it? I have never heard of anyone drinking or eating the stuff, or is it something entirely different like the soda from the syphon that goes with whisky - but that is unsweetened
advertisement




