Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
AAP & AHA Recommending tax on sodas and sugary drinks
Options
Replies
-
-
Sales tax on food is state (or county or city) specific. Here I think it's 1% (much lower than everything else) on food, but that discount doesn't apply to candy (which has a weird definition) or soda or prepared foods, which get the regular tax.0
-
To me, the poverty issue goes to effectiveness. Unless the tax is substantial, the majority of consumers will pay a little more for soda and maybe drink slightly less to spread out the extra cost. It's only people who have literally zero room in their budget who will change their behavior much at all.
I'm not sure -- cigarette taxes and alcohol taxes both seem to have had some effect, and not limited to those with zero room in their budget. How expensive something is usually affects the demand.
My concern about soda is that it has a curve much like alcohol -- many people don't drink any, lots of people drink only a little, but big consumers drink a HUGE amount. This actually distorts the stats about how much sugar Americans (and probably Brits and others) consume in general.
I think if the policy caused people who drink a whole lot to cut down, that would be a positive. (This is actually something I've noticed with people who smoke despite the taxes -- some have cut down on how much they smoke because the cost is so high. And these are people with disposible income, they just have preferences about how to spend it. And yes, anecdotes aren't evidence, this is just influencing my overall take.)Also to effectiveness, the big companies that sell soda don't just sell soda, they sell all sorts of consumer products. So they can just decrease the price of soda to partially offset the tax, and then spread the cost over their entire product line, increasing prices for every item just a few cents that hardly anyone would notice. Only small, local producers would bear a financial burden.
I'm not convinced it's that easy to do this. Alcohol manufacturers make a bunch of other products, and yet there does still seem to be some effect of the taxes (surprised me, but from what I've read of the studies I think this is true). With our brief experiment, it was more like a sales tax where it was added to the list price, so the question is whether the companies would do better cutting the cost of soda, increasing the cost of other products, and customers still seeing the big tax bite at the cash register. I think the tax would still be a deterrent for psychological reasons.
People are odd, though -- when we had the tax people were showing how expensive their 20 oz bottle from 7-11 was, as if 7-11 wasn't already way more expensive than getting a 12-pack from the grocery store. If they were buying serving size bottles (even huge ones) at 7-11, they were already choosing to spend more for their soda similar to what the tax added.
I'm not a big proponent of the tax, to be clear. My main reaction is "who cares," and I think the other things mentioned are probably more interesting, but unfortunately I was listening to that podcast that discussed it, so am all into talking about this now, heh!
Heavy emphasis on "seems too".
If you review the timeframe and time of implementation it shows that societal pressure had the direct impact on usage long before taxation passed.
Similar to weight loss it isn't easy, but it is simple. You focus on what you have control over.
I'm finding the discrepancies between this thread and another one in the general forum where someone is attempting to influence their spouse. Why is it convention wisdom to leave your spouse alone, but yet some believe they can influence an entire population?
"Seems to" because I haven't studied the issue in depth (only read some studies and thought about it casually since we had a tax here) and there are always other factors. If I actually cared about the tax one way or the other I'd study it (and other analogous taxes) more.
The proposal in the OP did specifically demand that a tax be combined with clear ways to measure impact, and I think that makes sense -- generally I think we learn only if specific places try different things and we can study results.
As for the rest, I think you are conflating two separate things. One is at the personal level, how do I lose weight (or otherwise make self-improvements). There, of course you focus on the things you are in control of, and no one is saying it's not possible for people to decide to control their weight.
The other is the societal problem: people on average are fatter today than they used to be for various reasons (less activity required in daily life, high cal food being easily available, cheap, and reasonably tasty with little work involved, environment (food is often always around), cultural reasons). If we recognize this is bad for many reasons, then what can we, as a society, do to address this problem.
Maybe the answer is "nothing," but I am not yet convinced of that.
I'm not singling you out - just an observation on how people justify use of force and individual philosophy.
Prior to doing "something" you must take careful consideration of the consequences - both intended and unintended.
Is it conflation? ...or does this expose a massive inconsistency in current thinking? If it is irrational to expect your spouse to respond positively, then why would one assume doing the same would be effective with thousands....millions of people?
If you cannot account for the unintended consequences of implementing "something", then the rational course is to do "nothing"...unless the consequences are intended.
This is a rather new and likely short term issue - also localized to affluent societies. Man has suffered under centuries of want. We have yet to deal with and manage affluence.
1 -
It is conflation -- and like you this is not personal but something I notice in these discussions.
"How do I do X?" is a separate question from "how do we address the societal problem of Y?"
That's so even if we ultimately conclude "there is no good or effective way to address the societal problem of Y without causing more or worse problems." (I have not concluded that's so in this case, but one could.)
That I think that there is a societal problem (increased obesity rates) does not mean that I think individuals NEED governmental policies to be able to lose weight. Clearly not, I lost weight myself. What it means is that I think people are people and we aren't fatter now (or than other countries) because we are collectively (or on average) less disciplined or lazier or what not, people haven't changed. It's because circumstances have changed (food availability, which is GOOD (but has some ill effects), and also culture and lifestyle due to modern conveniences (which again is mostly good but).
So the question is are there changes that could be made so that even with most people not wanting to spent a lot of time actively working on their weight (or worrying about how much they eat or fighting their impulses) that fewer people got obese?
Requiring chain restaurants to post calories seems like one good thing. Designing cities, towns, and villages so as to be more walkable is another. Bike paths. Not marketing soda to kids or having soda in schools and modeling healthy meals in schools, as well as incorporating some activity into school days all seem like positive things. (Most of these things already seem to be happening.) Are there some other things? Maybe. Best way to find out is for various places to try various things and see how they work.0 -
It is conflation -- and like you this is not personal but something I notice in these discussions.
"How do I do X?" is a separate question from "how do we address the societal problem of Y?"
That's so even if we ultimately conclude "there is no good or effective way to address the societal problem of Y without causing more or worse problems." (I have not concluded that's so in this case, but one could.)
That I think that there is a societal problem (increased obesity rates) does not mean that I think individuals NEED governmental policies to be able to lose weight. Clearly not, I lost weight myself. What it means is that I think people are people and we aren't fatter now (or than other countries) because we are collectively (or on average) less disciplined or lazier or what not, people haven't changed. It's because circumstances have changed (food availability, which is GOOD (but has some ill effects), and also culture and lifestyle due to modern conveniences (which again is mostly good but).
So the question is are there changes that could be made so that even with most people not wanting to spent a lot of time actively working on their weight (or worrying about how much they eat or fighting their impulses) that fewer people got obese?
Requiring chain restaurants to post calories seems like one good thing. Designing cities, towns, and villages so as to be more walkable is another. Bike paths. Not marketing soda to kids or having soda in schools and modeling healthy meals in schools, as well as incorporating some activity into school days all seem like positive things. (Most of these things already seem to be happening.) Are there some other things? Maybe. Best way to find out is for various places to try various things and see how they work.
Why do you see these issues as separate?
Before trying "various" things ask these questions:
Compared to what?
At what cost?
What objective evidence do you have?
Who benefits from enacting this change?
Who suffers from enacting this change?
Also consider that society may be at 80% positive, so any attempts to make things "better" hold a much higher chance of making things worse.2 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »
More restrictive than they already are?0 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »
More restrictive than they already are?
It is my understanding in most states one can use SNAP benefits on added sugar drink, chips and cookies.
IMO the program should be designed to get nutrient dense food to those in need. Personally I would support higher benefits if they would remove nutritionally poor items from the eligibility list.3 -
It is conflation -- and like you this is not personal but something I notice in these discussions.
"How do I do X?" is a separate question from "how do we address the societal problem of Y?"
That's so even if we ultimately conclude "there is no good or effective way to address the societal problem of Y without causing more or worse problems." (I have not concluded that's so in this case, but one could.)
That I think that there is a societal problem (increased obesity rates) does not mean that I think individuals NEED governmental policies to be able to lose weight. Clearly not, I lost weight myself. What it means is that I think people are people and we aren't fatter now (or than other countries) because we are collectively (or on average) less disciplined or lazier or what not, people haven't changed. It's because circumstances have changed (food availability, which is GOOD (but has some ill effects), and also culture and lifestyle due to modern conveniences (which again is mostly good but).
So the question is are there changes that could be made so that even with most people not wanting to spent a lot of time actively working on their weight (or worrying about how much they eat or fighting their impulses) that fewer people got obese?
Requiring chain restaurants to post calories seems like one good thing. Designing cities, towns, and villages so as to be more walkable is another. Bike paths. Not marketing soda to kids or having soda in schools and modeling healthy meals in schools, as well as incorporating some activity into school days all seem like positive things. (Most of these things already seem to be happening.) Are there some other things? Maybe. Best way to find out is for various places to try various things and see how they work.
Designing areas to be more walkable is a fine goal but in many areas it would be 40-50 years + until much progress is seen as it's not economically practical until you get to the replacement cycle of existing infrastructure
1 -
It is conflation -- and like you this is not personal but something I notice in these discussions.
"How do I do X?" is a separate question from "how do we address the societal problem of Y?"
That's so even if we ultimately conclude "there is no good or effective way to address the societal problem of Y without causing more or worse problems." (I have not concluded that's so in this case, but one could.)
That I think that there is a societal problem (increased obesity rates) does not mean that I think individuals NEED governmental policies to be able to lose weight. Clearly not, I lost weight myself. What it means is that I think people are people and we aren't fatter now (or than other countries) because we are collectively (or on average) less disciplined or lazier or what not, people haven't changed. It's because circumstances have changed (food availability, which is GOOD (but has some ill effects), and also culture and lifestyle due to modern conveniences (which again is mostly good but).
So the question is are there changes that could be made so that even with most people not wanting to spent a lot of time actively working on their weight (or worrying about how much they eat or fighting their impulses) that fewer people got obese?
Requiring chain restaurants to post calories seems like one good thing. Designing cities, towns, and villages so as to be more walkable is another. Bike paths. Not marketing soda to kids or having soda in schools and modeling healthy meals in schools, as well as incorporating some activity into school days all seem like positive things. (Most of these things already seem to be happening.) Are there some other things? Maybe. Best way to find out is for various places to try various things and see how they work.
Why do you see these issues as separate?
Because they are on their face separate questions.
One is about doing something as an individual, and one is about addressing societal problems.
For example, it's quite easy, IMO, to get a good education in science and math if you want to. That doesn't change the fact that as a society we undervalue education, especially in STEM, and there are fewer people in the US who become skilled in these things than is desirable. If I tried to start a conversation about how to encourage STEM education in the US and get more people involved, and people kept saying "well, I got educated in STEM, so it's possible," that would not be addressing the question I was asking.Before trying "various" things ask these questions:
Compared to what?
At what cost?
What objective evidence do you have?
Who benefits from enacting this change?
Who suffers from enacting this change?
Sure, but the point is that we lack evidence and people have theories they want to try out (and reasons why they think their plan will work in a certain way). If voters in one place try something, that provides evidence for the rest of us going forward. If it doesn't work or has negative consequences, you end it.1 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »
More restrictive than they already are?
It is my understanding in most states one can use SNAP benefits on added sugar drink, chips and cookies.
IMO the program should be designed to get nutrient dense food to those in need. Personally I would support higher benefits if they would remove nutritionally poor items from the eligibility list.
Take the debates you see here among people who have anything from a reasonable idea of what they're talking about to people who are extremely well versed regarding nutrients and foods.
Now have a bunch of state and federal gov't officials trying to formulate a budget have these same debates with the $$ being the bottom line rather than the quality of the acceptable foods list.
Bloodbath
6 -
It is conflation -- and like you this is not personal but something I notice in these discussions.
"How do I do X?" is a separate question from "how do we address the societal problem of Y?"
That's so even if we ultimately conclude "there is no good or effective way to address the societal problem of Y without causing more or worse problems." (I have not concluded that's so in this case, but one could.)
That I think that there is a societal problem (increased obesity rates) does not mean that I think individuals NEED governmental policies to be able to lose weight. Clearly not, I lost weight myself. What it means is that I think people are people and we aren't fatter now (or than other countries) because we are collectively (or on average) less disciplined or lazier or what not, people haven't changed. It's because circumstances have changed (food availability, which is GOOD (but has some ill effects), and also culture and lifestyle due to modern conveniences (which again is mostly good but).
So the question is are there changes that could be made so that even with most people not wanting to spent a lot of time actively working on their weight (or worrying about how much they eat or fighting their impulses) that fewer people got obese?
Requiring chain restaurants to post calories seems like one good thing. Designing cities, towns, and villages so as to be more walkable is another. Bike paths. Not marketing soda to kids or having soda in schools and modeling healthy meals in schools, as well as incorporating some activity into school days all seem like positive things. (Most of these things already seem to be happening.) Are there some other things? Maybe. Best way to find out is for various places to try various things and see how they work.
Why do you see these issues as separate?
Because they are on their face separate questions.
One is about doing something as an individual, and one is about addressing societal problems.
For example, it's quite easy, IMO, to get a good education in science and math if you want to. That doesn't change the fact that as a society we undervalue education, especially in STEM, and there are fewer people in the US who become skilled in these things than is desirable. If I tried to start a conversation about how to encourage STEM education in the US and get more people involved, and people kept saying "well, I got educated in STEM, so it's possible," that would not be addressing the question I was asking.Before trying "various" things ask these questions:
Compared to what?
At what cost?
What objective evidence do you have?
Who benefits from enacting this change?
Who suffers from enacting this change?
Sure, but the point is that we lack evidence and people have theories they want to try out (and reasons why they think their plan will work in a certain way). If voters in one place try something, that provides evidence for the rest of us going forward. If it doesn't work or has negative consequences, you end it.
At risk of going off topic, I would argue that the US favors education in STEM over arts and foreign languages in a pretty major way.3 -
I'd actually add foreign languages to my illustration, along with STEM. I'm thinking more of things where I think there's a shortage of educated people in the fields.1
-
Theoldguy1 wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »
More restrictive than they already are?
It is my understanding in most states one can use SNAP benefits on added sugar drink, chips and cookies.
IMO the program should be designed to get nutrient dense food to those in need. Personally I would support higher benefits if they would remove nutritionally poor items from the eligibility list.
Take the debates you see here among people who have anything from a reasonable idea of what they're talking about to people who are extremely well versed regarding nutrients and foods.
Now have a bunch of state and federal gov't officials trying to formulate a budget have these same debates with the $$ being the bottom line rather than the quality of the acceptable foods list.
Bloodbath
We've discussed this before and I thought our little community manages our differences quite well:
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10591008/food-stamps-restriction#latest
I think we came up with much better ideas than those enacted.1 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »
More restrictive than they already are?
It is my understanding in most states one can use SNAP benefits on added sugar drink, chips and cookies.
IMO the program should be designed to get nutrient dense food to those in need. Personally I would support higher benefits if they would remove nutritionally poor items from the eligibility list.
Take the debates you see here among people who have anything from a reasonable idea of what they're talking about to people who are extremely well versed regarding nutrients and foods.
Now have a bunch of state and federal gov't officials trying to formulate a budget have these same debates with the $$ being the bottom line rather than the quality of the acceptable foods list.
Bloodbath
We've discussed this before and I thought our little community manages our differences quite well:
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10591008/food-stamps-restriction#latest
I think we came up with much better ideas than those enacted.
I side with the community here as well 😉1 -
Just say no to any and all product specific taxes. All they do is create a huge black market.
Always a very bad idea.4 -
I'm not sure if our Seattle soda tax has been a success yet... it raised over $10 million during the first half of 2018, and the money is earmarked for research and public health initiatives, particularly in lower income areas. I don't think people are unhappy with the Seattle Council for enacting the law, though (see the report). People tend to be pretty health-conscious up here. However, I'll be looking forward to Part II of the study, which would hopefully show us if people are making better health choices - or if different tactics are needed. I just can't accept that we should do nothing, however, when record numbers of children are developing Type II diabetes.
https://www.king5.com/article/news/local/seattle/seattle-soda-tax-raises-10-million-in-six-months/281-581830494
https://www.scribd.com/document/385782218/Evaluation-of-Seattle-s-sweetened-beverage-tax
QUOTE:
"Whether or not the tax if effective is currently being studied. $520,000 from the tax's revenue has been set aside to fund research conducted by the University of Washington analyzing the effects of the soda tax on Seattle's population and businesses. A recent baseline report was released analyzing the initial effects of the tax. Since the tax revenue is so high, there is speculation as to whether or not the tax is actually working to dissuade people from purchasing sugary beverages."
[/end quote]
I have no concerns over the dreaded "Nanny State," as I would personally prefer if the government completely bans cigarettes and vaping, full stop. My quality of life has been much improved since the shunning of smokers and banning from restaurants and other public places - I have severe smoke allergies.3 -
Just say no to any and all product specific taxes. All they do is create a huge black market.
Always a very bad idea.
Gas tax is pretty hefty, I've never heard of anyone buying black market gas. Do you really think people are going to buy black market soda to avoid a ten cent tax? That doesn't sound very likely to me, it sounds like a boogeyman.2 -
We have had a sugar tax in the UK for a while. I noticed some places only stock diet versions of the drinks or you pay extra for the full sugar version0
-
NorthCascades wrote: »Just say no to any and all product specific taxes. All they do is create a huge black market.
Always a very bad idea.
Gas tax is pretty hefty, I've never heard of anyone buying black market gas. Do you really think people are going to buy black market soda to avoid a ten cent tax? That doesn't sound very likely to me, it sounds like a boogeyman.
True, but it is pretty common for people who live in a state with high gas taxes go across the border to a neighboring state with lower gas taxes if they live near the border.1 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Just say no to any and all product specific taxes. All they do is create a huge black market.
Always a very bad idea.
Gas tax is pretty hefty, I've never heard of anyone buying black market gas. Do you really think people are going to buy black market soda to avoid a ten cent tax? That doesn't sound very likely to me, it sounds like a boogeyman.
True, but it is pretty common for people who live in a state with high gas taxes go across the border to a neighboring state with lower gas taxes if they live near the border.
Doesn't seem very rational considering the time it usually takes to go somewhere else. For most people, taking a rational account of the value of their time, it rarely makes sense to even drive to a different gas station for a better price if it involves going out of the way.
Also, doesn't sound like a huge black market.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 391 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 923 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions