Thread: A Tax on Soda?

Just what the doctor ordered: A soda tax?
June 11, 2006

BY JIM RITTER Health Reporter





The American Medical Association, meeting in Chicago this week, will consider a controversial proposal to fight obesity by taxing soda pop.

A committee of the influential doctors' group is recommending the AMA lobby for a "small" federal tax on sugar-sweetened soft drinks, with proceeds going to anti-obesity efforts such as physical activity programs and healthier school meals.

The committee did not specify how high the tax should be. But a consumer group, Center for Science in the Public Interest, estimates that a 1 cent a can tax would raise $1.5 billion a year. That's more than the advertising budget of McDonald's.


ON THE AGENDA







These are among the proposals the American Medical Association will consider this week during its annual meeting at the Hilton Chicago:



Support a 50 percent reduction in salt in processed foods, fast foods and restaurant meals over the next decade.



Urge health insurance plans to cover stomach-stapling surgery for weight loss.



Oppose beer ads on college sports broadcasts.


Prepare a report summarizing video game research, including emotional and behavioral effects and addictive potential.



Push to ban smoking in all public places and workplaces.


Urge school health classes to "discuss the importance of routine pap smears in the prevention of cervical cancer."


Support mandatory school instruction on the dangers of Internet pornography.

During its five-day meeting, the AMA's governing House of Delegates can accept, reject, amend or table these and dozens of other proposals.



A 12-ounce can of Pepsi contains 150 calories of sugar or high fructose corn syrup -- the equivalent of 10 teaspoons of sugar or a 3.2-ounce reduced-fat ice cream cone at McDonald's.

In the late 1970s, teens drank nearly twice as much milk as soft drinks; now they drink twice as much soft drinks as milk. Pop is "devoid of nutritional value" and contributes to increasing obesity rates, the AMA committee said.

The committee cited one study that found the odds of a child becoming obese increases 60 percent for each additional can of pop consumed each day. However, the committee report noted that other studies have found no link between soft drinks and obesity.

The AMA committee also endorsed soda pop taxes imposed by state and local governments. Diet pop, flavored milk and sugary fruit drinks should be exempt, the committee said.

Can Congress stomach this?



More than a dozen states have passed soft-drink taxes, but in recent years several states have repealed such taxes. States typically use soft-drink taxes for general purposes, rather than for obesity programs.

Taxing soft drinks is "misguided," said Kevin Keane of the American Beverage Association. "It will not move the needle one ounce in addressing health and wellness issues."

Doctors should know better than to target a single food, Keane said. "People consume a lot of calories every day. Why pick on one particular product?"

Of course, soda pop is not the only cause of the obesity epidemic. But pop makes an easy target because it has no redeeming nutritional value, said Michael Jacobson of the Center for Science in the Public Interest. "It's a simply defined category of food that's pure junk."

The AMA's House of Delegates can accept, reject, amend or table the committee's recommendation. An AMA endorsement of a soft drink tax could be "extremely useful" to legislators who push such measures, Jacobson said.

However, he added that a federal soda pop tax is unlikely. "Tax increases are not popular with this administration or Congress," Jacobson said. "It would be dead on arrival."

jritter@suntimes.com

Control, control, control.

I'm sick of having everything taxed and banned to death. I'm not so sure our obesity isn't due to other things. Hormones used in cattle etc. They've already reported young girls starting their menstrual cycles years earlier than usual. There has to be some effect of these genetically engineered foods and hormone pumped animals. Doesn't seem much of anything is "safe" anymore. Fish and mercury etc.

Plus....sometimes there are other health issues or genetics in play.

Whatever it is.....I'm sick to death of having someone else tell me what I can and cannot do. Nobodys getting out of here alive. We're all going to go in one way or another. If I get enjoyment from something I don't need the government telling me I can't or taxing me on it when there's 1000's of other equally not perfect things.

How about taxing parents that allow their children to sit down at the TV or on the Internet for 500 hours a week eating chips and crap all day long? How about getting those kids outside to see what playing and having fun feels like, oh wait, babysitting them with the TV or Computer is much easier and the Parents don't have to bothered. Silly me, what was I thinking???????? EXERCISE PEOPLE!! drink soda and crap, but EXERCISE AND SWEAT WILL BURN IT OFF. Were all the kids fat back in the 60's and 70's? NO we were outside riding bikes ALL DAY and stayed healthy and thin.

It is easy to say that we are all responsible for what we eat and how fat or not fat we are, although that is absolutely true to a point.

The fact is, however, that many, many people think our food supply is safe - that 'good' foods are 'good'.

There is something that is causing this - and yes, junk food contributes - but it is not the root cause. I do think it is hormones, perservatives, and Heaven knows what else.

My brother just had quadruple bypass surgery. He is 67 years old. He is a diabetic and has been for 20 years. He is, however, the poster boy for healthy living and eating. With the exception of 3 wild years in the AF, he doesn't smoke or drink. His wife has always been a stickler for balanced, healthy meals. He doesn't stress out. He has always raised some cattle and horses, done custom haybaling. He is a very active person. He has never been overweight. In other words, he does everything you are supposed to do - and yet his arteries are clogged.

It is wrong to single out soda pop - because fructose is present in almost everything we eat. I have read there is some theory that it actually makes you want to eat or drink more and more. Could it be they found something to put in food that is addictive???

I have been skinny and I an now overweight - and believe me, skinny is more comfortable, so I am not making excuses for myself. I just don't think our food supply is as safe or healthy as we have been led to believe, no matter what you eat.

have been skinny and I an now overweight - and believe me, skinny is more comfortable, so I am not making excuses for myself. I just don't think our food supply is as safe or healthy as we have been led to believe, no matter what you eat.

I'm with you on this nntrixie. I was chubby as a child coz my mom baked all the time and I ate alot of cakes and cookies etc. Once I left home I lost all the weight. At one time down to 85 lbs. Stayed between 95 and 105 from 22 yrs. old till 3 years ago.(49). Had 2 children and gained alot of weight but lost every bit of it and I didn't exercise. I gained about 15 lbs when my hips were broke but once I got up and around I lost it too. I eat no differently than I have in the past and I've put on 50 lbs. I don't overeat. One maybe 2 meals a day. Diet soda. No cakes or cookies. Can't even remember the last time I had a candy bar. I'm not quite as active as I used to be but not 50lbs worth! I have an Ab lounger in the living room and have been doing other exercises and nothing. I've gone without eating and nothing. I ride my bike and walk my dog. Nothing. I very rarely eat out. Don't munch between meals, no mid-night snack......yet here I am. I'll even give myself 25 lbs for aging and all that goes with that. But 50? And it is uncomfortable. Even my husband says I don't eat enough to keep a bird alive.

If it were just me.......but it's not. It's way too many people, young and old. Poor and anyone who can't afford liposuction. I do eat hamburger and an occational roast. Chicken breast no skin, baked. Occationally pork. Eggs. Very little bread. And the weight keeps comming. Has me stumped. But this is also happening world wide..so there has to be more to this problem.

This is a bunch of crap! Another excuse to tax us to death. This will not stop kids from drinking soda pop. It is in their schools etc. This will not stop parents from ignorantly allowing their kids to drink it daily either. And it will not stop obesity. The most popular drinks are sugar free.

Make them sit down and eat a healthy meal and get off their butts to excersize and the obesity would level out. It's common sence not tax cents!

I agree another source of revenue that can be exploited to fund something I am sure we do not want. With regards to obesity, yes there is an increase in late years due to parents letting their children watch TV and play video games instead of playing in the yard or encouraging them to play sports. Also the food we eat does have alot of additives much more so than in my parents time. Eating alot a fast food due to two working parent households does not help either. Lifestyle is the greatest contributor to obesity followed by genes. Why should we be forced to pay a tax on our lifestyles good or bad, it is a choice that we as americans have a right to. If we let them tax this what will they try to tax next. We are getting the shaft at every corner. I do agree with schools offering better choices for school lunches at least they are not eating junk food during the school day and the teachers can get a break from them bouncing off the walls with all that sugar