How Sweet It Is
Given the fact that we are consuming sugar sweetened beverages (SSBs) – the single greatest source of added sugar in the American diet – at an average rate of “70,000 ‘empty calories’ per person” per year, we probably should all be obese diabetics by now. Thankfully we aren’t quite yet.
A new Health Affairs study provides a comprehensive analysis of factors at the intersection of SSBs and health. Its authors calculated that slowing SSB consumption by 15 percent through a penny-per-ounce tax could generate $13 billion in revenue and save $17 billion in health care costs over a ten-year period, preventing 2.4 million diabetes person-years, 95,000 coronary heart events, 8,000 strokes and 26,000 premature deaths.
We’ve been down the road of taxing unhealthy foods before. There are pros and cons worth discussing. Bottom line, getting serious about improving health and reducing health care costs includes changing consumption. The greater the number of fronts a given idea can address, the more it deserves our attention. If a penny-per-ounce tax could put the country on a path to evening out imbalances related to food affordability, consumption behavior and healthcare system utilization, then it deserves our reasoned consideration.
Why not tax soft drinks. We tax and restrict access to other consumables that can contribute to disease (e.g., tobacco and alcohol). Paradoxically we subsidize soft drink consumption via support for growing corn.
Comment by Paul Mittman — January 18, 2012 @ 3:49 pm
When this article came out, I posted this same question to the Healthy Maricopa group–only one or two answers and they were basically “this is a non starter in Arizona”. I think many see it as a way to get funding to do good work in this area but the political will isn’t there or they see it as a source of funding that may be taken for other “needs” as we have seen with the tobacco lawsuit dollars and therefore are hesitant to take this on. How do we change this?
Comment by Pat VanMaanen — January 18, 2012 @ 5:18 pm
The very term non-starter is a frustrating one. My guess is that the individual who spoke this way was specifically considering the political situation, which makes perfect sense given the position lawmakers have publicly taken on taxes. So the question then bounces back on us all – if Arizonans think it makes sense, what next?
Comment by Jon — January 18, 2012 @ 5:27 pm