Will Taxing Soda Lead to Weight Loss?
The debate about whether or not junk food should be taxed has gotten interesting.
While legislatures evaluate the merits of such proposed hikes, a study has been released that actually lends credence to the idea, predicting that an 18% hike on pop would lead to 5 pounds weight loss per year.
- Researchers at the University of North Carolina studied the eating habits of 5,115 adults, between the ages of 18 and 30, over a 20 year period. The study looked at consumption of soda, pizza, hamburgers and whole milk.
- They found that a 10 percent price hike led to a 7 percent decrease in soda consumption, and an 11.5 percent decrease in pizza consumption.
- When it came to soda, researchers reportedly found that a $1 increase in the price of soda resulted in an intake of 124 fewer calories per day. As a result, participants lost weight.
- From this, researchers propose that an 18% tax on soda would result in 56 less calories per day, with the long term result of 5 pounds per year.
The debate continues...
The opinions on junk food taxes are polarized in both legislative arenas and online forums. If the aforementioned study is in fact evidence that taxing junk food would likely lead to weight loss, it may be worth a shot.
But, it's time now to explore the "however" side of things...
There are a lot of big leaps of faith and assumptions being made based on the available data of this study. Numbers don't typically work out this cleanly as there are many variables to consider. Particularly compensation with other forms of calories.
One of the biggest issues in this debate is the very slippery slop of what constitutes "junk food" and there would be a tangled web of bureaucracy, lobbying and political posturing as a result.
While I don't feel strongly either for or against a junk food tax, I do feel strongly that there needs to be more parity in cost between healthy, fresh produce and processed, empty calorie foods.
What do you think?
Should soda and other junk foods be taxed?
If so, how much?
If not, why not?
Do you think people would compensate with other calories if they did consume less soda and other junk food because of cost?
Source: NWCN
42 Comments
Add Your Comment
Created / Updated: March 23, 2010
It's worth a try. But I really think that once people get used to the price hike, if they really like the taste of something they will just make financial accomodations for that. They may spend less over say a year, and in turn eat less.
I personally make a trip to a Godiva store at least once a year to spend roughly $40 on a 1/2 pound box of chocolate because the stuff tastes like chocolate silk!
ReplyI don't think it'll make much difference. There might be an initial drop off but like O. said, but once they adjust to the price hike they'll buy it again.
Really, I think a big help would be for the gov to stop subsidizing corn and other grains and instead start subsidizing veggies and fruits. It would be like killing two birds with one stone.
Prices would naturally go up on anything using corn and grain additives, all stuff we really don't NEED in our diets and stuff our ancestors survived quite comfortably without.
Fruit and Veggie prices would drop and seem like the better bargain compared to a bag of chips or box of cereal.
Although I'm sure it wouldn't take long for the food manufacturers to turn fruits and veg into creative packaged crap.
ReplyAt least in the US, the majority of federal subsidies go to the meat and dairy industry, followed by grains, and followed extremely far behind by fruits and vegetables.
ReplyActually corn is the highest subsidy crop and it's used to make HFCS, so the price of soda and other things sweetened with HFCS is heavily subsidized and the price is lower than it would be without the subsidy, which is yours and my tax dollars going to that subsidy to make HFCS. Why tax it again? How about remove the subsidy and let the price go where it will go on it's own when it's not subsidized by our tax dollars?
ReplyCorn may be the highest subsidied item, I don't know, but it isn't the only grain. Look at this "food pyramid", it's a bit scary. http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/.a/6a00d83451c45669e201310f82248d970c-popup
ReplyI completely agree. I used to live in the US and now I live in Australia. They use real sugar rather than HFCS in the soda, so when I drink it, I actually feel full. Also, it's a lot more expensive. And a small soda is ACTUALLY SMALL. Taxing people a second time for a product whose price has been reduced by federal subsidies seems a bit like robbing Peter to pay Paul. I hate it when people try to solve problems by throwing a tax at them.
ReplyCigarettes cost EUR8.50 a pack in Ireland (thats about $10). I don't know a single person who quit smoking as a result. So the savings don't work as an impetus to quit.
ReplyAlso, whats the point of raising the price of pizza when fresh vegetables and meat are still the most expensive thing in the store?
So true. Alcohol another example.
ReplyI think it's all about education, we need to be showing people HOW to eat healthy — this should start with children, it's not just about targeting adults, perhaps it's too late then in a lot of cases.
I believe this is the only way to make people aware of what they are doing to their bodies, at least then they can make informed choices about the foods and drinks they choose.
Like O says, people just get used to the price hike and continue buying.
ReplyI honestly don't think its just lack of education. Like its the governments responsibility to educate on nutrition. How long has the food guid ebeen around? how many years has the gov't been recommending daily physical activity? I think there has been efforts to educate the public but some people just prefer to be ignorant. Ultimately you need to educate yourself.
ReplyYes, I agree that people DO need to take responsibility for themselves, and you're right, there's only so much the government education can do.
But, I was thinking more of the parents responsibility to educate their children in the home — don't you think that would make a difference?
ReplyIt is never too late. Anyone can make improvements in their diet and level of physical fitness. Indeed, as a child and young adult I was completely sendentary because of a disease.One day I woke and decided to become an athlete. Now I am an athlete.
ReplyCause you know,only fat people drink soda. *sarcasm*
ReplyAll these burgers, pizzas are junk food. And these cause worst effect on body and mind.
Kate
ReplyI don't drink the stuff that much, so I say tax the bejesus out of it. While we're at it, add in a Twinkie tax.
ReplyAs we all know that sodas are really bad to everyone.Because of the carbonic acids that it contains. Did you know that in every 8oz of sodas is equalls to i think 16tbps of sugar. It really makes a difference. We all get also diabetes. so I suggest that it should be enforced to stop the addiction to it
ReplyThere is a diabetes epidemic in NY (close to 1 mil) and the vast majority of cases are LIFESTYLE related. And depending on where they are on the social strata, many of these people have no medical coverage which means that we, the taxpayers pay for these lifestyle choices. If the money goes towards lifestyle education and medical treatment, good idea. Tax snacks and liquid candy the same way as alcohol and tobacco since all 4 put a cost on society one way or another.
Replywe also pay for the elderly. I don't want to pay for a healthy person that lives until they are 90 and winds up in a nursing home. I ask you, what is more expensive, the person who who is obese but dies at a younger age, or the old person who's last years of life are the most costly? Have you looked into the cost of geriatrics? I'll take a guess and bet it's much more than the cost of obesity.
Replyyoure right. that is another issue but at least people are starting to talk about the Swiss route.
ReplyI'm not sure what the Swiss route is, but my point is that geriatrics probably costs more to society than obesity. If all these healthy people that don't ever have issues while young live until they are old, is their cost more than a fat person who has health issues but dies sooner? Initially it may seem that a healthy person costs less, but overall, they might cost more because they live longer. Fat people or people with disabilities or smokers may in fact cost less to insure than healthy people. To cry about lifestyle choices and such is completely ridiculous, since geriatric health care costs are enormous. If you call out fat people, I will call out a non-fat person who smugly proclaims they are not the cause of rising health care costs, when in fact if you live a long life, your geriatric cost will be enormous, and your cost will outweigh any fat person or smoker that dies at a younger age.
There is a cost to healthcare whether you are fat or not, healthy or not, young, old, disabled, smoker, disabled or sick. Is charging more for certain groups really the road we should go down? Very complicated, I say.
And besides that, I am getting sick of all these taxes. All these ridiculous taxes and regulations is why my state is going bankrupt. How bout that, the rest of America, you ready to bail out California?
ReplyA healthy person living into old age absolutely cost less than an unhealthy person who dies prematurely (age 40-50 - obviously a person who dies very young still costs less). A diabetic will likely miss work and not be paying taxes while they are ill leading up to their early death. A health person who lives until they are 90 will also likely work on a regular basis, not miss as many sick days, and contribute to the tax system until the age of 75 or even later. Also, if you are healthy through your life, your costs in old age are likely to be a lot less.
ReplyThat's where we differ. This whole fight regarding health care is about cost. Most of the cost of healthcare is in people over the age of 65 and in the last year of life. Why do you think they want to reduce the cost of Medicare by cutting services for the elderly? That's where the cost is. Medicare is going broke because it's costly as well as mismanaged.
Besides, most overweight people that have a bmi under 40 tend not to have the drastic health issues of someone with a bmi over 40. Once you go over a bmi of 40, then the health issues become more pronounced.
Maybe we can test your dna and see what's in store for you and start charging you now for some of those debilitating future genetic consequences. Or maybe we can charge you less for driving a Hummer instead of a goofy Smart car, since you're likely to have less accident injury in one of those giant cars.
And that whole contribution to society is total bunk. I can list of hundreds of famous fat people that have changed the world. And most fat people contribute to the tax base and are productive just as well as any skinny person. Please.
ReplyThe indirect costs of obesity, from reduced productivity and missed workdays, have been estimated at $56 million or more a year in the US. This does not factor in the costs related to health care, etc. Whether or not you agree that a healthy older person will cost less over the course of their life (when factoring in work time paid into the system) than an obese person, you cannot deny that obesity will not always significantly shorten a person's life, it will only make it more costly. A RAND study noted "Obesity is a “double whammy” for Medicare, because it raises annual health care expenditures but does not affect longevity and thus the number of years spent in the Medicare system." They also found "The research team found no difference in overall life expectancy between an obese 70-year-old and one of normal weight. However, weight has a strong effect on the numbers of disability-free years that a 70-year-old can expect (see Figure 3). The obese can expect only four disability-free life years. They will spend 40 percent more time disabled than their normal weight counterparts, who can expect nearly seven years without disability."
Replyhttp://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2008-02-05-obese-cost_n.htm
I don't think there have been a lot of studies comparing the two, but here is a study that shows the opposite.
It's easy to pick on fat people because it's visual. What about all the people that are of normal weight and have health issues due to "lifestyle?" Should we raise their rates too?
And what about those that give me high blood pressure because I disagree with them? Should they be charged more for health care or should I pay more?
ReplyPeople of normal weight are already taxed for certain lifestyle choices that may lead to health problems - people have already discussed the sin taxes on alcohol and cigarettes. And an important thing to note from the article you cited: "The study, paid for by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports, did not take into account other potential costs of obesity and smoking, such as lost economic productivity or social costs."
ReplyWell let's see, the Chinese smoke much more than we here in the US, however they seem to be on a roll economically. So do most of the Asian countries. This country smoked like chimneys in the 40's 50's and 60's and was the envy of the world. Any person of any size where I worked was fired or let go if they weren't productive.
Perhaps we should have the underweight pay higher rates for medical as well as those Caucasians that just can't stay out of the sun. Maybe we should charge drivers less medical is they are wear a helmet while driving.
The key word is "potential." I'll end it here, as we will invariably continue to disagree. Thank you for the discussion.
ReplyThe problem is we're not talking about "potential" we're talking about likely. No one is talking about taxing cheese graters because it's possible for you to cut your finger grating cheese, get a severe infection, have your finger amputated, and thus cost the health care system with all your medical bills. The idea is to tax an item that is likely to cause future associated medical conditions - like cigaretttes and alcohol, as has been previously mentioned by many posts.
ReplyYour original point was about someone living a long time and ultimately costing the system more. While it MAY be possible for someone to live to 112 and end up costing more in health care than an obese person who has a sudden heart attack at 55 with no other prior medical conditions, there is nothing in particular to target for the 112 year old. When there is an identifiable item that is known to cause health problems, is not a necessary aspect of life as we know it (like the car), and taxing it can garner revenue to fight the very health problems that item may cause, why not tax it?
California NY NJ and Ct contribute around 40% of the fed revenues. I think the problem is the do nothing congressmen and women, and senators that represent these states (including my own) and subsidize the rest of the country, especially those true blue "red" states that want the govt off their backs but gladly take subsidies.
ReplySpoken like a good Nazi....
ReplyWhat did I post that is incorrect?
ReplyAmerica doesn't need to bail out California. Your idiot senators need to get back your fair share of the federal pie. For every buck you send to DC, the state gets about 0.65 back. Get that up to $.75 and poof!no more problems. The golden state pays about 30% of the fed revenues.Ironically the red state goobers are the real welfare queens and kings in our wonderful nation.
ReplyI don't think it'll lead to weight loss, in any significant way.
I think it will have a bigger effect than taxing cigarettes, since so many MORE people drink soda than smoke. However, it'll just make consumers more aware of potentially-healthier alternatives. But that's no guarantee they'll actually consume them.
ReplyWell only the poor eat junk food and drink soda so that'll work *end sarcasm*
ReplyI don't think it will help anything at all. Increasing the price of gas didn't do a lot to curb usage, taxing beer/alcohol, cigarettes, etc., didn't stop people from smoking and drinking. Plus, I personally don't think that diet soda should be taxed like regular soda because it has no calories and doesn't contribute to the obesity problem (I know a lot of people disagree, but drinking diet soda will not make you fat all on its own).
I agree with the idea about the government subsidizing fruits and veggies and not subsidizing corn any more. It might even things out a bit, but the food industry will not be happy, considering that every processed food out there is composed of corn, soy and/or wheat.
ReplyActually, diet sodas are worse than regular sodas. Aspartame is a suspected cause in the increase in brain cancer and is linked to other chronic disorders. Also, studies show that it tends to increase hunger-- actually making people want to eat more.
ReplyI agree. Taxes aren't the answer and the gov't needs to get out of the subsidy biz. You're also right that the food industry would NOT be very happy about that at all since everything processed is made out of corn, soy or wheat.
ReplyI say boycott processed foods. Though it may be unrealistic, I believe it would solve a ton of our health problems. Even if everyone did that for just one day I think it might send a message.
No! It's just going to make fat people poor!
ReplyBravo Jen. The government should slim down before adding another tax.
I see the food Nazis are out in this thread.
ReplyThe snack tax was tried in California in the 80's (or maybe early 90's) and it failed miserably. It was a nightmare for store managers deciding on what was a snack and not a snack and then figuring out what tax to charge. And it was a nightmare for deciding deciding what is a snack. Taxing soda won't make a bit of difference in a person's weight.
And why should I have to pay more if I choose to drink a soda now and then? Next we'll get into the juices, and one could argue they are just as bad. Or granola bars. Or butter? Why not add tax to butter? Or fat? How about fatty nuts? Oh, that isn't the right kind of fat? Which research are you looking at?
Like I said, it was tried in California and it FAILED. Let fat people eat. They might die sooner and then won't be a financial burden on the system.
ReplyAnother big problem with this is that soda is priced cheaply now because it is targeted at the poorest sector of the population. There is no reason a bottle of water should be more expensive than a soda, except that the company knows a person who will buy the water also likely has the money to spend on it. Take Dasani versus Coke. Dasani is the same water that the company uses in making Coke, but somehow it costs more than Coke, which has other ingredients added as well.
ReplyI do not think that junk food should be taxed. People should have the option to make both good and bad decisions by their own volition. I am somewhat poor and so do not get to enjoy the same things that richer people enjoy on a more regular basis. However, I can enjoy a nice soda and some pizza now and then. Usually I do eat a few chocolate bars, some chips and a soda for lunch, pizza and fries for dinner-- by the standards of most-- my diet is quite bad. Despite this, I am not unhealthy (am actually a tad underweight at 108 and less than 15 percent body fat). My blood work always comes back far better than what is normal for a person in my age range (late thirties) and I have low rather than high blood pressure. Indeed, I am qite active and so may need the calories that soda and pizza provide. Why then am I going to be charged extra for this modest pleasure- particularly when I do not have much and am not being hurt by my habits. I should be able to enjoy my junk food without having the government interfere.
ReplyAlso, I agree most of the so-called healthy alternatives are just as bad as the full calorie/fat products. Indeed, if I have baked chips I have to keep eating them to feel satisfied while if I have fried chips, I can satiate my craving more quickly.
And yes-- many juices are just as bad as soda.
Reply