The Chronicle of Higher Education recently profiled Kelly Brownell, director of Yale University’s Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity, and his decades-long advocacy of soft drink taxes, an idea that once attracted derision but today “doesn’t seem so radical.” The Chronicle notes “growing evidence of a link between price and consumption,” citing recent reports that appear to lend credence to Brownell’s crusade. Despite opposition from free market economists, the beverage industry and groups like the Center for Consumer Freedom, the proposal has purportedly gained traction in legislative circles, rippling outwards from cities and states to the upper echelons of federal government. Counted among these supporters is Thomas Frieden, who once co-authored a paper with Brownell and now directs the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Moreover, according to The Chronicle, “[t]he professor is aware that the renewed interest in his idea is, at least in part, prompted by the budget…
Tag Archives SSBs
Facing budget shortfalls in the upcoming fiscal year, several state and city legislatures are reportedly considering a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages. Kansas Senator John Vratil (R-Leawood) this week proposed a bill (S.B. 567) that would tax such products, including energy and sports drinks, at the rate of one penny per teaspoon of sugar. According to its proponents, the measure would add a dime to the cost of a typical 12-ounce soft drink and raise approximately $90 million per year. “The thinking is No. 1, we need money,” Vratil was quoted as saying. “But perhaps just as importantly, obesity is a real, growing problem.” See The Kansas City Star, March 9, 2010. In addition, Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter has introduced a FY 2010-11 budget that includes a 2-cent-per-ounce tax on the distribution of sugary drinks. Media sources have apparently likened the measure to current excise taxes or the 10 percent “liquor-by-the-drink” tax.…
“In their critics’ eyes, producers of sugar-sweetened drinks are acting a lot like the tobacco industry of old: marketing heavily to children, claiming their products are healthy or at worst benign, and lobbying to prevent change,” begins New York Times columnist Mark Bittman in this article questioning whether aggressive public health initiatives, like those deployed to discourage smoking, could similarly curb soda consumption. Noting that Americans drink “roughly 50 gallons per person per year,” Bittman contests the value of industry claims that “in moderate quantities soda isn’t harmful, nor is it addictive.” His article goes on to summarize the arguments made by policy makers and advocates in favor of “a special tax on soda, similar to those on tobacco, gasoline and alcoholic beverages.” In particular, he cites the Rudd Center’s director, Kelly Brownell, who maintains that, “Unless food marketing changes, it’s hard to believe that anything else can work.” “In the…
Yale University’s Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity has announced a March 9, 2010, webinar to discuss “the rationale, relevant science, and economic and policy considerations of soft drink taxes.” The conference will reportedly update participants about the latest developments in state and local policies since July 2009, when director Kelly Brownell presented the center’s first webinar on this topic. The Rudd Center has consistently supported taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages to “improve public health and generate considerable revenue for states, cities, and the nation,” according to its website.
A recent study has allegedly linked soft drink consumption to an increased risk of developing pancreatic cancer. Mark Pereira, et al., “Soft Drink and Juice Consumption and Risk of Pancreatic Cancer: The Singapore Chinese Health Study,” Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, February 2010. Using data from 60,524 participants enrolled in the Singapore Chinese Health Study, researchers determined that individuals who consumed more than two carbonated, sugar-sweetened beverages per week “experienced a statistically significant increased risk of pancreatic cancer… compared with individuals who did not consume soft drinks after adjustment for potential confounders.” In addition, the study did not find a similar association for juice consumption. “The high levels of sugar in soft drinks may be increasing the level of insulin in the body, which we think contributes to pancreatic cancer cell growth,” one author was quoted as saying. Other scientists, however, have noted some limitations of the study, which was the…
According to this article, pressure from the beverage industry has made policymakers think twice about imposing a tax on sugary beverages, which some have viewed as a way to address both revenue deficits and obesity. The reporters discuss how Congress has handled the issue since the Obama administration indicated an interest in the tax in 2009 and public health advocates testified before a Senate committee urging support for the proposal. They note how a coalition of business interests “operating under the name Americans Against Food Taxes,” quickly mobilized an array of organizations, including the National Hispanic Medical Association, to lobby against the tax. Kelly Brownell, director of Yale University’s Rudd Center on Food Policy and Obesity, apparently responded to the involvement of health groups in the industry initiative by saying, “It’s all about payback. Public health advocates ran into the same phenomena when seeking to increase taxes on tobacco.” The…
New York Governor David Paterson (D) has released a 2010-11 executive budget proposal that calls for “a new excise tax of approximately one penny per ounce on sugared beverages linked to obesity ($465 million).” According to the proposal, which claims that obesity-related disease costs the state’s health care system $7.6 billion annually, the so-called soda tax “will discourage consumption of those unhealthy products and improve long-term health outcomes.” The legislature has until April 1, 2010, to enact a budget for the upcoming fiscal year. Past efforts to institute a levy on sugar-sweetened beverages have met with opposition. “[Paterson] has proposed a soda tax before, then caved, after orchestrated industry protests across the state,” noted a January 19 New York Times editorial that urged the governor to “resist and keep the tax.” In addition, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) has praised the initiative, deeming it a “courageous…
Nearly 20 organizations reportedly testified last week about the purported link between sugar-sweetened beverages and obesity at a special joint hearing of California’s Senate Select Committee on Obesity and Diabetes and the Senate Health Committee. Several researchers reportedly linked sugar-sweetened beverage consumption and obesity, but an American Beverage Association representative cited research showing that 5.5 percent of calories come from sweetened beverages and that a lack of exercise and other foods also contribute to obesity. She said that solely targeting soft drinks will fail to properly address the obesity issue, claiming research has shown that half of adults who don’t consume soft drinks are also overweight. Senator Elaine Alquist (D-San Jose) reportedly chided industry representatives: “To be told that all calories are equal, that sweetened soda pop is not contributing to obesity . . . the public is not stupid. We know you can do better.” See The Los Angeles Times;…
The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) has issued a paper claiming that a state tax on sugar-sweetened beverages “would yield billions of dollars in new revenue and counter the alarming risks of obesity, poor nutrition, and displacement of more healthful foods and beverages.” Echoing similar proposals published in the New England Journal of Medicine and by the Institute of Medicine, the CSPI report calls for “a modest new (or extra) tax of five cents per 12-ounce serving” that would nationally raise state revenues by “more than $7 billion annually, ranging from about $13 million in Wyoming to about $878 million in California.” The paper also includes a chart detailing “‘nickel-a-drink’ state revenue projections, based on national consumption data and pro rated for each state’s population.” “President Obama is exactly right when he says kids are drinking too much soda,” stated CSPI Executive Director Michael Jacobson in a September…
“It may take more than an analogy with tobacco to convince voters,” argues Daniel Engber in the first of two recent Slate articles questioning the effectiveness of a proposed federal tax on sugar-sweetened beverages and other “hyperpalatable” food products. Titled “Let Them Drink Water: What a Fat Tax Really Means for America,” the article asserts that state-levied soda taxes have thus far “turned out to be way too small to make anyone lose weight.” It states that any successful effort to deter consumption would require redefining soda as drug, not a beverage. “It’s hard to draw a line, though, between foods that are drugs and foods that are merely delicious,” opines Engber, who notes that under this regime, “Doughnuts are a drug; brioche is treat.” He concludes that fat taxes, which “[discriminate] among the varieties of gustatory experience,” would create an “apartheid of pleasure” that disproportionately affects those consumers most…
