Public Health in Oregon - Join The Conversation

A tax on sugared beverages is one political approach aimed at reducing the increasing rates of obesity.  While the tax may be small, it will generate enough consumer attention to influence individual decision to purchase such items, or not.  The intent of the “sin tax” is to generate revenue to fund public health programs and services addressing and reducing obesity and related chronic diseases.  According to the Revenue Calculator for Soft Drink Taxes, available at Yale University’s Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity web page, http://yaleruddcenter.org/sodatax.aspx, Oregon in 2010 is estimated to generate $182,687,173 in tax revenue. 

In an attempt to resolve the obesity epidemic, and to increase education of obesity, and related chronic diseases, this tax fails to take into consideration the culture of poverty.  Increasing food expenses can greatly influence the daily cost of living for this community.  Disadvantaged by a lack of knowledge and vision connecting the problem, in this case obesity, to the solution, taxation for prevention to consumption of sugared beverages and foods, marginalized communities become institutionally victimized. 

It is not to say that taxation is in “bad”, however it fails to look at increasing access to affordable, nutritious foods.  Lower income communities have markets with lower quality food, greater distance between markets, and are infiltrated with fast food options.  While this tax is an upstream approach in preventing future rates in obesity, it penalizes the consumer, while product manufacturers and crops are untouched.  At a structural level, obesity can be combated with increased attention and priority for the re-implementation of physical activity in schools, the establishment of nutritional standards for meals offered in public schools, and food stamp purchase regulations.  A tax can influence behavior, however for a solution, the entire system needs to be evaluated and addressed.

Let’s not kid ourselves that an extra penny tax on soda, candy or any other high-calorie, low-nutrition food or beverage is going to prevent anyone from buying them or make a dent in obesity rates.  One cent is not a meaningful tax from the consumer’s point of view, although it may still rile the food and beverage industry as well as the “tea party” crowd.

If we want to raise money for prevention AND make a dent in the glut of cheap, high-calorie foods and beverages on the market, how about getting rid of federal corn subsidies which cost an average of $5 billion annually and flood our markets with high-fructose corn syrup?

Even a state tax on these beverages only serves to somewhat offset the federal spending that subsidizes their main ingredient.

I don’t think we should consider taxing beverages until we’ve thought through and addressed the upstream problems including federal policy.  Other policy changes (menu labeling, increased PE minutes in schools and strengthening school nutrition standards, for example) will go further to reducing obesity without the alienating effects of beverage taxes.

Researchers at Yale University report that national junk food taxes could generate more than $1.8 billion per year from the following items:

<ul>
<li>A one-cent per 12-ounce soft drink tax would generate $1.5 billion per year;</li>
<li>A one-cent per pound of candy tax would generate $70 million per year;</li>
<li>The proposed potato chip tax would generate $54 million per year; and </li>
<li>Proposed taxes on other snack foods, fats and oils would generate $190 million per year.271</li>
</ul>

I don’t think that any one effort would put a big dent in any one problem, but collectively, these efforts could empower and educate consumers, persuade legislators to support constituents and force industry to provide better products since buzz alone doesn’t move them. 

Just imagine what could we do with those revenues that would benefit our health?