Last week we introduced you to the concept that changing the prices of foods via taxes or subsidies appears to change food purchasing habits and presumably, what people eat. We also touched on the fact that soda is being singled out for tax hikes in places like New York and Philadelphia.  The thinking is, “Tax it and people will drink less.  Less soda means fewer calories taken in.  Fewer calories means reduced body weight.  Reduced body weight means less obesity.  Less obesity means fewer health problems such as diabetes and heart disease.  Fewer diseases means savings in healthcare costs.”

Or the short version, “Taxing soda will save the (local or state) government money by reducing healthcare costs and, in fact, may be a source of funds to support public health initiatives.”

So that’s the thinking.  But why pick on soda?

For one thing, the obesity epidemic is a result of our population eating too many calories and not getting enough physical activity.  There have been some studies that have attributed most of the increase in calories to sweetened beverages.    We reported on one such study in our “Watch Out for Liquid Calories” blog.   Briefly, from 1965 to 2002 Americans increased overall calorie intake by nearly 200 calories.  More than 150 of those calories came from sweetened beverages.  So soda is a problem.

Second, a study published last week in the Archives of Internal Medicine¹, showed that between 1985 and 2006, soda prices actually decreased when inflation was taken into consideration whereas the price of milk increased.  The researchers calculated that if the soda price had increased by 10%, 7% less soda would have been consumed.  In a statistical model, a $1.00 increase in soda price was linked to lower calorie intake and lower body weight.  So taxing soda may help reduce the problem of excess calories.

Third, it is fairly easy to cut out soda.  There are plenty of other beverages – like water – to take it’s place.  So reducing soda intake is a simple dietary change. 

Finally, and top of the list for some people, is that sweetened beverages such as regular soda, fruit drinks, sweetened tea and coffee, and other sweetened beverages provide only calories – no nutrients.  For example, 8 ounces of soda contains about the same amount of calories (about 100 calories) as an 8-ounce glass of orange juice.  But the OJ has vitamin C, folate and other important nutrients.  The  soda has nada.  So there are much healthier alternatives to drinking soda.

There are a lot of good reasons to support a soda tax.  It just might be a good public health strategy because it may reduce soda – and calorie – consumption while at the same time raising money for the public health coffers. 

But we must ask, what gets taxed next?  Ice cream?  Candy?   There is no easy answer to this issue.  What are your thoughts?

¹ Duffy KJ, et al.  Food price and diet and health outcomes:  20 years of the CARDIA study.  Archives of Internal Medicine.   2010;170(5): 420-426.