If this doesn't include you - if you're not reading this while shoving a Twinkie down your throat - it surely includes people you know and care about. And even if it doesn't, it includes your money. Because the obesity epidemic is costing us big.
And by "big" I mean obesity-related illnesses (diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure) cost Americans nearly $150 billion annually. That's ten times the cost of the new jobs bill Harry Reid is so proud of (an issue I'll be tackling tomorrow). That's one fifth of a TARP. It's about one quarter of our annual defense budget.
Fatties are officially bending the cost curve, to borrow the political jargon of the day. Problem is, they're bending it in the wrong direction.
It's with that in mind that Michelle Obama started her "Let's Move" program, which is aimed at fighting childhood obesity. And even better, New York's commissioner of health, Dr. Richard Daines, today talked about Governor Patterson's proposed soda tax on the always excellent Brian Lehrer show.
Listen here.
Some highlights:
- More than 10 million New Yorkers are overweight or obese
- The tax aims for three goals: reducing sugared beverage consumption, reducing long-term health-care costs, and bringing in $450 million dollars in new revenue to be spent on health care
- drinks that have more than 10 calories of added sugar per 8 ounces would be taxed 1 cent per ounce
This is both significant and sensible. Significant because giving people an economic incentive to take more personal responsibility for their health has worked before - look at how much smoking has decreased in America as cigarette taxes have gone up.
Sensible because this is both a long and short-term solution. Long term it has potential to slow or halt the obesity epidemic. Short term it puts money in the state's coffers for other health-related programs while only taking a chunk out of an industry (sugared drinks) that runs at a 20% profit and can afford to rejigger their business model.
It doesn't get much better than that.
Now, people will argue (and presumably, vote) against this because the word "tax" provokes a Pavlovian response from most of the populace. And there is a certain percentage of Friedman disciples who will argue against it because they're inhuman sociopaths.
But the reality is we don't live in some fantasy land where people make the right choices all the time. Or even most of the time. We live in a reality where sixty percent of adults allow themselves to become overweight. We live in a reality where kdis and teenagers get as much as 10% of their daily calories from sugared drinks.
In this instance, it's the state's job to step in and protect the populace from those who are irresponsible.
And there's no question that the obese and overweight are being irresponsible. But they're not just gambling with their health or the health of their kids. They're gambling with your money and mine.
Tax 'em. Tax 'em like they're smokers. Just because they can't show some common sense doesn't mean that we can't.
EDIT: It's come to my attention that this may have come off with too snarky and mean-spirited. Which wasn't really my intention (ok maybe a little bit).
Anyway, the point isn't to make fat people feel bad for being fat. Especially since studies have shown that even people of normal weight are at greater risk of developing expensive/deadly diseases down the road if they consume an overabundance of sugar and/or corn syrup.
So no, the point isn't to be a dick. The point is to add some short-term consequences to an action that already has a ton of long-term consequences.
And as a reader pointed out, taxing nutrition-less drinks is just one part of it. Following Finland's model of subsidizing produce instead of, say, corn, wheat and dairy, is another worthwhile step. One that's maybe even more important.
But probably more farfetched as well, since anyone who proposes cutting corn subsidies is guaranteed to lose Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri and a few others out there. Maybe Evan Bayh was right - this shit's broken.
Posts
14 comments:
What determines the "clearly identifiable, nutrition-less" food? Who determines it?
As much as I like the idea, I can’t help but look at the major negative impact which would be on the poverty stricken. I’d rather some part time Wal-Mart worker be able to eat something, anything than starve because they’ve now been taxed out of it.
The real key is to drive the price of healthy food down while driving up the price of the unhealthy foods. There is no reason that one 1 gram of carbohydrates from an apple should cost 10 times as much as 1 gram of carbohydrates from a cookie.
Thanks for the response, Jeff!
I'm willing to bow to the widom of people like Dr. Daines and the CDC when it comes to what has nutritional value and what doesn't. There's near unanimity in any case.
As for the idea of this tax hurting poverty-stricken families, I'm not sure I see how. Switching from cola to tap water not only encourages better health (a 16 oz can of cola will have upwards of 50 grams of sugar), but also saves mom and pop some money.
The only people this hurts will be the soda companies... and since they're running at a 20% profit margin, they can afford it.
I do agree strongly with your last paragraph, but I don't think there's a politician in America who has the balls to run on that platform. Angry Iowans are scary!
Don’t misinterpret, I’m all for the concept. I think the only way it affects me is in my libation consumption.
You’ll get the tap water over soda, sure, but how are you getting the broccoli over French, err, freedom fries? How do you get someone to choose tilapia over fried chicken or a Big Mac?
Psychologically, the body is programmed to eat and consume constantly. Going against primal instincts is really what you are looking to do.
I came for the punch, somebody told me there would be punch.
Does the government subsidize or give tax incentives to healthy food sources/suppliers? Maybe that could be an alternative route to taxing fat.
@Jeff: I agree with you to an extent that it's swimming upstream, but that just means we shouldn't make it so easy to go with the flow.
@Jesse: You're right in that subsidizing healthier foods is a worthwhile step, and one I'd advocate for (in fact, I'll do some real research and produce an article on it in the coming weeks).
But the problem is that, right now, it's politically untenable to pull our money from corn, rice, wheat or dairy. Voting blocs in swing states are too tied to those subsidies for any politician to touch them.
Which is a shame, but not at all surprising.
No one's yet mentioned the impact of a bad public school education as it relates to bad nutritional choices later in life. Personally, I think the government should give incentives to schools that both teach kids about nutrition, in addition to providing healthy school lunches. Cuz that behavior, once learned, cannot be unlearned. I also would love if parents and teachers stopped using sugar as a reward for good behavior. Although sometimes that's the only way to get those brats to shut up.
The soda tax is not going to make anyone lose weight. It's not high enough to discourage most people from drinking soda. Also, I'll have you to know I rarely drink soda — lots of water for me — and I'm pretty fat. Metabolism, biochemistry and physiology are a lot more complicated than just "calorie in, calorie out." There are even very important medications that make people gain a lot of weight. Would you also tax birth control, seizure, diabetes and blood pressure medications? Losing weight takes work and reliable information to break through the bad habits and misinformation out there. I applaud government efforts to help, but this measure is just an excuse to squeeze more money out of New Yorkers.
My first reaction to this idea, which I'm still holding out hope that you're proposing ironically, was the sort of unmitigated rage I haven't felt since they banned smoking in Boston bars, for the good of the staff, who all smoked. (All of them still smoke.) So thanks for me feel alive again, Matt.
I don't vote for representatives so they can go to Washington and legislate what I eat, drink, or smoke. I'm not soliciting opinions from them on my diet, which includes Coca-Cola. I drink a can at lunch. I usually don't finish it. If I wanted to drink twelve, that would be my prerogative. I pay for my health insurance, and if I thought I were paying a fair market price, I'd offer to pay more to cover my 6-10 oz of soda, and my beer, and my cheeseburger, and my lack of cardio. Instead, they're busy handing out bonuses to the employees who reject the highest percentage of claims. Not the highest percentage of fraudulent claims, or the highest percentage of totally unnecessary claims. Regular claims. And when they kick something back, your doctor seeks to collect it from you, leaving you to spend a few quiet afternoons weeding through your policy so that the health insurance you pay for will be provided to you. If you're picking a fight to save money, pick that one.
Anyway, it's a slippery slope, meddling in people's diets and behaviors. I vote we ban men over 40 from using free weights. They are bulking up, and they are tanning, and some of them are even dyeing their hair, and it is undignified. That is all.
@Alyce: I think this proposal actually highlights the fact that there's more to weight loss than "calorie in, calorie out." The point is the types of calories you take in every day matter just as much as the amount.
And let's face it, most people don't understand just how bad a single soda is for them. An adult should have 40 grams of sugar a day. In one Coke, there's 52 grams. That's pretty significant.
As for legislating against birth control, diabetes medication, etc, nobody's suggesting that because it would be a red herring to do so. The fattest segment of our society are teens and kids, and it's not because they're more likely to be on birth control or diabetes medication. It's because they're getting a larger portion of their calories from sugary drinks.
FWIW, childhood obesity has increased 300% since 1980. Here are a couple of interesting links on that:
http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/trends.html#State
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/79/4/537
@Mike: Sorry bud, but you're conflating a tax with an outright ban. Not the same thing at all.
I do share your disgust with the current state of government re: Health care, big business, etc. And I agree with you that government and health care related bureaucracy suck and need reforming.
However, that doesn't change the fact that the American taxpayer is shelling out $150 billion a year on diseases that have become epidemic as our sugar intake has gone up.
http://www.dietsinreview.com/diet_column/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/obesity-and-high-fructose-corn-syrup.jpg
And let's be clear: that processed sugar is about as useful to you as eating a table cloth would be.
You want your vices, you pay for it.
Slowly making something too expensive to afford is a slow ban. A sudden smoking ban would've resulted in cigarette smuggling and public resistance. If the outcome weren't the same, the elimination of that vice, you wouldn't be advocating on its behalf. I also put too much sugar in my coffee. Jump on that when you get a chance, mommy.
I've enjoyed the discussion.
Don't forget to have a Kit-Kat and a blast of grape soda before bed!
Taxing soda is not going to make kids live a less sedentary, more active lifestyle. It's not going to make their parents cook them healthy meals instead of giving them fast food. The tax is not going to slap their hands if they reach for Doritos, Snickers, pork fried rice, Moons Over My Hammy or any of the hundreds of bad food choices. Nor is it going to remove the exorbitant amounts of sugar in foods that are marketed as healthy, like yogurt, ketchup, wheat bread and cereal. It's just a useless new tax. I guess my main point is: Why soda? Why attack one bad food when there are millions out there?
The primary problem is psychological rather than behavioral. Taxing will address the behavior portion but will make it feel like a punishment when in reality people need to be psychologically conditioned against doing that which is a negative.
If people *wanted* healthy food, fast food places would provide it. McDonalds offers salads, but it doesn’t sell as well as Big Macs. KFC now offers grilled chicken, but it doesn’t sell as well as the fried chicken. The primary reason for this is the conditioning.
I travel enough for work and pleasure that I see the options out there. I do a decent amount of calorie counting, far more than the average individual, and traveling is just counterproductive to any sort of diet regimen. The primary reason for this is that the healthy food we need can only truly be obtained at home based on the paucity of healthy options available.
If a tax on “bad food” drove people’s behavior towards “good food,” thus making “good food” more available then that would be great. Ultimately, it would only be addressing behavior and not the psychology.
@Alyce: Sugary drinks is a starting point because so many studies have traced the obesity epidemic in general and the childhood obesity epidemic in particular to the intake of processed sugars. And soda/sugary drinks are nothing but processed sugars.
As I said earlier, adults are supposed to have 40 grams of sugars a day, none of them processed. Children are supposed to have significantly less.
Yet in a 16 ounce soda, there are 52 grams of processed sugars.
Obviously big macs and fritos don't have much nutritional value, but they at least have something. Soda, on the other hand, might as well be poison.
@Jeff: A multi-faceted approach, one that addresses both behavior and psychology would be better - and that's part of why this tax is a good idea, since the revenue it generates would go toward both childhood and parental educational programs.
Frankly, I'd like for the state to do more. Tax sugars and use the money to subsidize local farms who grow produce like lettuce, tomatoes and apples. Establish urban farms - generating blue collar jobs, property taxes and cheap produce - using Valcent's vertical farming model:
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1934027_1934003_1933961,00.html
Give restaurants and markets that use ingredients from local farms tax breaks. Use the power of the wallet to fix problems.
Post a Comment