Soda Tax Scam Goes Hollywood
The food finger-waggers were out in full force in Los Angeles
yesterday. At a committee hearing more akin to a three-ring circus, state senators “explored” a supposed
link between sugar-sweetened beverages and obesity.
The hearing, called by
state senator Alex Padilla, featured “Twinkie tax” creator Kelly Brownell and
a gaggle of other public health activists lining up to “prove” the link
while congratulating the panel for its “historic” hearing. The senate panel
members played the part by showing their shock and outrage, with one senator
absurdly declaring that “I would like to end the Pepsi
Generation.”
Ultimately, of course, this kangaroo court was looking to lay
the framework for government intervention. Brownell, true to form,
happily served up the goods by offering his pet penny-per-ounce tax on sugar-sweetened
beverages as an action the legislature should consider.
All the showboating missed the larger picture: Sweetened beverages are not a
unique contributor to obesity, and taxing them is not an effective way to slim
waistlines. Sweetened beverages account for a very small amount of our
caloric intake. A scientific review published last year
in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition evaluated the evidence of
12 major studies and found virtually no association between
the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages and children’s weight. And a
study published online just last week found no association between sugar-sweetened beverage
consumption and youth weight gain over a 5-year period.
How ludicrous were some of yesterday’s proceedings? One senator showed
incredulity at the notion that calories from one type of food are the
same as calories from another. But it’s true—calories are simply a measure of energy,
whether they’re found in apple juice, soda, or a soy latte. And
blaming soda for obesity misses the fact that drinks like apple juice actually have
more calories per ounce than soda.
If lawmakers really want to get serious about rising obesity rates, a
good place to start would be educating people about balancing calories “in” with
calories “out,” and making sure that everyone gets enough of the latter.
Singling out one kind of beverage or food for a public flogging scores easy PR
points, but it’s not going to make a dent in the public’s pants size. You’d
think a publicity-adrenaline junkie like Padilla would know how to tone it down
every so often. But you’d be wrong.
















Soda Tax Scam Goes Hollywood
Thank You for your Comment
We review some comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Center for Consumer Consumption
Wow, another lobby that get's to be an 'expert' here!
Actually, it looks like Soda is a big problem. A guy did the Spurlock-Super-Size-Me trick only did not drink any soda. His health improved over the month.
It's the processed sugars that are the problem, and corn/soy/canola subsidized industrial farming is the root cause of this, and many of the other problems today.
Simple sugar is vastly healthier than high fructose corn syrup. Claiming that soda is better for you than apple juice is criminally dishonest.
Stanford recently completed one of the most thorough studies in diet ever done, and the stand out for effectiveness at losing weight and improving health was the low carb type.
- Submariner November 6, 2009 4:09PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review some comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I get it
Tax everything except low carb food ! This is clearly superior to just taxing soda pop alone.
Honestly, this "tax it till nobody uses it, and spend the revenues on health care programs" mentality is flawed. We're seeing this with tobacco . People are quitting, yes, but that leaves the government with no revenues. Well, it so happens that some programs have been designed to operate on these revenues. So when only a handful of people are paying this tax, what happens to the programs? They can't operate, that's what. The entire system is counterproductive by design.
The idea is of course to tax everything bit by bit. Expanding government costs.
- Starlon
November 6, 2009 6:39PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review some comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I agree, Submariner
I don't have a problem with a tax on soda and corn-sweetened "juice" drinks. More revenue for the state and probably a few less cases of Type II Diabetes. Win-win.
- Babaroni
November 6, 2009 7:10PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review some comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.