Soda Tax Gathering Momentum

Is “Sugar” Now the Source of All Health Problems in America?

www.blog.snowbeverages.com

I qualify the following by saying that this statement is merely my opinion and not intended to be presented as scientific fact:

I woke up today unable to contain my frustration about the misleading information I am seeing in regard to the proposed soda tax and also the disproportionate focus some are trying to put on to the consumption of sugar alone.

Sugar has calories. Yes, we know that. But let’s be clear: lots of healthy foods (like say, fruit) contain sugar and also, if you consumed NO calories, well, you wouldn’t do very well…. Of course there is a major obesity problem in this country. There is also a general health crisis in this country. However, trying to somehow place the blame entirely on sugar or on beverages like soda that are sweetened with sugar, is myopic at best, and misleading at worst.

For instance, a lot was made recently in the press about a study released that concluded that there is a link between regular consumption of traditional soft drinks and pancreatic cancer. My dad just recovered from pancreatic cancer which nearly killed him a year ago. I am particularly sensitive to severity and risks of this illness. If you look at the anecdotal information passed around in the popular press on this study you will find that they claim that people who consumed soda regularly over prolonged periods of time were, according to that study, 87% more likely to contract pancreatic cancer. However, in that same study, they point out that people who consumed juice had no greater incidence of pancreatic cancer. Juice typically has an even higher sugar content and calorie count than even traditional soda. (Granted, the sugar is naturally occurring and was not “added”—but nevertheless, it is THERE.) So, people who drank soda got pancreatic cancer, but people who drank juice (with MORE sugar and calories) did not. Conclusion (according to that study): it was the SUGAR in soda that got people sick. I have not seen anyone in the press call them on this. I still can’t figure out why. In addition, did anyone ever stop to think that people who drink traditional soda everyday may also be more likely to have other unhealthy habits that are contributing factors (such as smoking or lack of exercise)?? Here’s my favorite part: what about the OTHER ingredients in traditional soda?? They often contain artificial sweeteners, preservatives like potassium sorbate or sodium benzoate, and many other artificial ingredients. Is there any chance that any of those chemicals might contribute to a greater incidence in cancer? Not according to that “study”—it’s the sugar. Just the sugar, everyone. Calories kill. I guess we all need to stop eating.

At Snow Beverages we pride ourselves on making healthy products. I have been a vegetarian since 1980 (when I was 14) and I am committed to never making a product that contains any ingredient that is unhealthy. Is sugar unhealthy? No. Is TOO MUCH sugar unhealthy? Of course. However, as I stated earlier, orange juice has substantially more calories than our soda. Is orange juice unhealthy?....

Traditional soda contains unhealthy ingredients. We simply don’t use them. Diet soda contains many ingredients that I would never let me family consume. I have two five year old twin sons. I have absolutely no problem with them drinking a little Snow Natural Soda + Vitamins. I would never let them drink traditional diet soda. Rather than have our children misled and pushed into drinking diet soda (with it’s chemical artificial sweeteners and it’s preservatives that some claim are low-level carcinogens) why not teach them to look at health from an overarching and global perspective? Let’s be responsible and teach them to be as well. They should eat balanced and healthy diets. They should try and avoid chemical ingredients. They need to exercise regularly. If they do this, they will not become obese. Taxing soda won’t save them. It will temporarily put some money in the depleted state coffers and then it may have a myriad of other negative long-term economic effects (such as layoffs at local soda manufacturers, a strain on already-strapped low income families, etc.) but this “band-aid” attempt to raise revenue that is posing as some sort of “quick-fix” for the health and obesity problems in our state and our world, is really nothing more than an ill-founded and misrepresented lie.

The “Alliance for a Healthier NY” has a website. According to my two-minute search for the domain name on Go Daddy it appears to have been registered as recently as February 4th of 2010. There is no way I could find to contact them. I would be interested to know who is funding them. On their site, there are a plethora of FAQs addressing many of the major questions related to this issue. I find them to be extremely biased, one-sided and in fact, in many cases, rather misleading. Below are a few examples, along with my comments below their answers:

Q. What are sugar-sweetened beverages?

AHNYN Answer: For the proposed tax, sugar-sweetened beverages are soft drinks that contain more that 10 calories per 8 ounces. They include sweetened water, soda, sports drinks, “energy” drinks, colas, sweetened bottled coffee or tea, and sweetened fruit or vegetable drinks containing less than 70% natural fruit or vegetable juice. Milk, milk products, milk substitutes, dietary aids, and infant formula are exempt.

Stu’s Comment: So, for some reason if it is juice or milk-based the amount of calories is suddenly unimportant?? This seems arbitrary and absurd, and purely politically-minded.

Q. Why tax only sugar-sweetened beverages? Other foods, like Twinkies and Ding Dongs, provide empty calories.

AHNYN Answer: There is significant evidence linking sugar-sweetened beverage consumption with obesity and other health problems. Studies that follow people for a long time show that people who consume more sugar-sweetened beverages gain more weight. One article that reviewed many studies found that drinking sugar-sweetened beverages had the strongest link with overweight and obesity, more than any other food-related behavior. When people drink a sugar-sweetened beverage, they do not compensate (i.e., reduce their concomitant or subsequent caloric intake) for the additional calories from the drink. So the calories from the drink become "extra" calories.

Stu’s Comment: Do I even need to respond? I guess they are claiming that soda is “the worst” and they just sort of “skip over” the question about Ding Dongs. If they actually care about health and/or obesity, why not tax Ding Dongs too? [By the way, out of respect for the Ding Dong people I would like to point out that I didn’t reference their brand—they did…]

Q. Shouldn’t all sodas be taxed, diet and non-diet? Diet sodas are not good for people, either.

AHNYN Answer: While drinking diet soda is not recommended, the evidence linking its consumption with poor health outcomes and/or obesity is weaker than the evidence for sugar-sweetened sodas. The most healthful drinks are water and low-fat or fat-free milk.

Stu’s Comment: What study done by independent researchers concluded that taxing soda will force people to give it up, avoid diet soda, and somehow switch to milk (wait—only low-fat milk, since regular milk isn’t being taxed either) and water??? Clearly this has nothing to really do with “health” or diet soda, which is, in my opinion, dramatically more unhealthy than consuming some natural cane sugar, would be taxed doubly. In addition, I guess they missed the studies that claim that diet soda confuses the sweetness receptors in the brain and leads to the body’s mismanagement of sugar and insulin levels. Some claim that diet soda actually ends up backfiring and causing more obesity than it prevents. There is all sorts of data saying that people who drink diet soda are more likely to be obese. I wouldn’t quote those sources because I think that is also confusing, but let’s not pretend that diet soda is some kind of magic cure for obesity.

Q. Won’t taxing non-diet soda just encourage people to drink diet soda, which is not really a healthier alternative?

AHNYN Answer: With increased public awareness surrounding the tax, we expect people to switch to healthier beverages like water and low-fat milk.

Stu’s Comment: Why? The assumptions here are unbridled….

Q. Aren’t people opposed to a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages?

AHNYN Answer: A majority of New York adults support a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages. In a poll conducted by the Healthcare Education Project in January of 2010, 78% of the people polled supported a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages if the revenue raised was to be used to prevent healthcare cuts.

Stu’s Comment: So…. I guess they are certain that the people of the state of NY aren’t actually concerned about those “health care cuts” they reference in passing and completely (in my humble opinion) twist out of context.

The fact is, people should eat and drink healthy and natural products. Taxing any beverage that has sugar in it (even natural cane sugar) will not solve any widespread health problem or any obesity problem. It may cause more economic damage than it provides in tax revenues. Furthermore, it detracts from a comprehensive and responsible dialogue on these important and timely issues or their actual solutions. Don’t be fooled.

–Stu Strumwasser

CEO of Refreshiliciousness

Snow Beverages, Inc.

www.blog.snowbeverages.com

Fuck Bloomberg and his Bullshit Puss-ass "I care about you" shit ! It would have made a lot more sense for him to have not run for his illegal third term ! But he did ! As for this soda tax nonsense, It's pointless . You can't squeeze that 6 billion out of a soda tax ! All It's going to do is give manufacturer's that excuse they've been looking for to start laying even more folks off !

1. Get Feds to subsidize agribusiness (e.g. corn, which produces high fructose corn syrup far cheaper than cane producers).

2. Sell highly processed and highly profitable "food" to middle and lower class families.

3. Get budget strained states (e.g. NY State) to tax unhealthy "foods" (e.g. sugar drinks) instead of taxing the wealthy.

4. Keep tax policy focused on "bad" behaviors and regressive tax schemes (e.g. East River Tolls).

5. Repeat.

6. Profit!



;-)



.

Big deal. So don't buy soda. It's cheaper and healthier to buy drink mixes like Crystal Light anyway. Soda isn't a necessity. It's not like they're taxing something people cannot live without.

This tax is a scam. Just like every other "vice" tax. Its just smoke and mirrors, they dont care about anyones health, they just want the money. I enjoy sugary sodas, it drink MANY of them a day, have for years and years. I'm actually about 40 pounds UNDERWIGHT, why should I have to pay this tax? Instead, they want my to drink the soda that tastes like ass, and causes CANCER... Awesome...

40 pounds underweight, you should eat some food. Lots of people have smoked for years and aren't sick. So cigarettes are not unhealthy? People can still drink soda if they want to. No one is taking away something you need. Jeez.

The point is that the sugar is soda makes you gain weight. This is NOT the case with me. Also, Why should I have to pay more, or choose an other (less healthy, and cancer causing) option, when this one works well for me. I like sugar. It's natural. My point is STOP TAXING EVERYONE TO DEATH!

First they came for the cigarettes. And I did not speak out as people breathed easier.

Then they came for the calories. And I did not speak out as people slimmed down.

Then they came for the salt. And I did not speak out as people's blood pressure returned to normal.

Then they came for my soda. And there was nobody left who gave a shit about my whining.

I say add a tax on annoying self-righteous people who don't want to spend their own time and money helping others but are willing to take money from the rest of us to pay for their struggle to run other people's lives.

what a waste of time. i personally love paying a cigarette tax. it has me smoking less, and if i have to do such an idiotic thing, then i might as well be paying for other, worthwhile things while i am at it.

As all the smokers point, laugh, and say "I told you so."

Between chemo sessions.

then keep things as they are and no one should complain that things are broken and don't get done, including health care. taxes are a great way to get otherwise tight people to contribute to the system. if you absolutely HAVE to have the ribs of that pig, then you should be taxed. and this will help those who cannot make wise choices to think twice about their bad behaviors.

Who the F is complaining about things being broken. How about getting rid of 50% of the idiots on the state payroll and leaving the residents of NYS alone... oh no, we can't do that. Lets just chase more people with brains out of the state and leave on the few idiots who cant leave or people getting a paycheck or handout from the state... at least until things go bust.

taxing anything that is not necessary, such as those things thought of as "sin" taxes, is a great idea. we have to pay for all of the preemption that we indulge in, as well as the very expensive bombs that go along with that. everyone wants health care. and our roads and bridges need help. all things that are not essentials should be open to taxes. the problem with a majority of folks is that they want obama to fix everything, as long as they personally don't have to pay for it. i drink, and i don't mind paying extra for wine to pay for health care, for example. soda is completely nonessential, so if people want it really badly, then throwing in a few cents to cover what this country needs is a great solution. all anti-tax people are one big reason why little gets accomplished. i also go to the movies, which i don't need to do. i am perfectly willing to throw in another buck (it's already exorbitant) to fund ailing schools.

If you're so willing to part with your money I'm sure the state will accept.

Just leave the rest of us out of it.

The state has no business levying additional taxes on products like soda.

Really? The state has no business taxing soda? They've been taxing my tampons all my life, and those are a lot more necessary that soda.

Soda has always been taxed. Soda is taxed now, so comparing it to tampons makes no sense. They are talking about a "soda tax" which would be in addition to the almost 9% plus bottle deposit....

accept a donation that is.

I think inyourider should pave his own roads, fill his own potholes, let his internet company charge whatever they want with no regulation even if he can't afford to log in Gothamist, pick through his food and pull out the impurities that go with slack regulation, dig his own well, put out any fire that starts in his house, fight his own crime, let cars spew as much pollution in his face as they want and then pay for his own lung cancer surgery or asthma treatment and negotiate his own deal with foreign nations for the minerals he needs in his cell phone. Because I don't want to subsidize this fool.

Right because we need the money to get all those things done.

Its not as if we pay income tax or sales tax already is it?

Your tangent on regulation is completely irrelevant.

Unless you believe that the revenue generated by this proposed tax would directly fund the state soda inspectors.

If this tax is the panacea to all of our health care woes and the tax is about stopping unhealthy activity, why stop with soda? Unprotected sex can be an unsafe activity, just like soda consumption. STDs cost billions of dollars a year in medical care. How about we tax those who engage in the risky behavior?

What about lactose intolerance? I'm sure it amounts to millions in health care costs a year. Blacks and Asians are predisposed to losing the enzymes need to break down lactase. So how about we put a tax in Bed-Stuy and Queens' bodegas on ice cream, cheese, yogurt and milk since these can be a burdensome cost and can possibly be detriment to one's gastrointestinal system.

Eating fried food has absolutely no nutrition value. How about levying a FF tax? I'm sure the Chinese-Americans who love having their humble businesses saddled with a tax on their General Gao's? Or the African-American Palace fried chickens.

It's so absurd. If you believe the garbage the Albany supporters are spouting, I just want to ask: Why the hell do you think it's for anything other than filling in budget gaps?

If I was a dictator, I could levy a tax on pencils and pens and use creative accounting to claim that I'm saving millions by reducing the hours of a pencil plant being open and thus creating less emissions and negative externalities on the environment. I mean, you would really eat this up?

Ice cream is taxed. And surely you must be joking. People who are lactose intolerant don't cost us anything. They're just gassy, and only if they eat dairy.

Of course I was picking frivolous examples. But back in the '70s when your parents drank a soda every now and then, and their generation didn't look like blimps...could John Doe from 1972 ever envision a soda tax?

+1

From 'Thank You For Smoking':

"The number 1 killer in America is cholesterol, and here comes Senator Finisterre who's clogging the nation's arteries with Vermont cheddar cheese."

As much as I think soda water I'm not for any legislation, ESPECIALLY taxes, that remove or restrict our freedom.

So then you're pretty much not for any legislation? Go join the tea party in Somalia...

Right, because that's the only other alternative.

Why don't you go suck off a Senator?

Now that's freedom, bro!

That's a cop out. At some point you need boundries to keep the fat people from eating all the rations.

Why stop at soda? How about lowering the taxes on anything healthy?

They've got this whole think turned around. They should offer subsidies for using Brooklyn lard to power the MTA and water taxis.

Please raise my taxes

Til I can't afford to eat

Then I will be thin

If a penny an ounce is going to save lives, improve well being, reduce healthcare costs, and bring peace on earth, why not tax those evil non-diet soda drinkers even more?

It's cynical not to think the tax is just another way to line the pockets of politicians and bring even more corruption to the state.

The state and our federal government is never happy with the income they received. It's always the saying "no money". We need more taxes, more revenue.

Between the tax on soda, the bottle/can deposit, and cheaper gas, it may be worth it to pay the toll and head to Wegman's to do my grocery shopping.

"the soda tax is a fix that just makes sense. It would save lives."

If New Yorker City dwellers were so concerned about saving their lives over nickle dime shit like drinking soda, they would move out of the city and at the same time save money.

Legalize marijuana!

hell yea! Weed Power!

Here's one soda drinker that doesn't mind crossing the Hudson into New Jersey if it's cheaper. I would buy in New Jersey just to spite Bloomberg. I would also order over the internet just to spite Bloomberg.

This tax is nothing but a sugar rush for those scoundrels in Albany.

Lowering taxes? LOL.

Dammit, replied to the wrong person.

Why don't they just ban high frutose corn syrup like they did trans fat? That's the main killer ingredient in these drinks.

Yeah, because consuming an equivalent amount of sugar is so much less bad for you.

Actually, it is. Fructose induces far more glycation in the human body than sucrose does, and glycation is one of the major components of the aging process. It's not just a matter of calories. And HFCS doesn't just provide a little more fructose, it's a lot more fructose.

answer: The Corn Refiners Association

Word.

Agreed.

What about sodas that don't use HFCS like GuS soda and Izze? Should they be taxed the same? And shouldn't Snapple and other drinks be taxed like "VitaminWater" (that actually has 0 vitamins)?

If you want to tax sugar tax sugar. If you want to tax HFC syrup tax that as well. Hell you can even tax the amount of CO2 in drinks.

Picking out specific formulations of complex products for taxation as a means to control (and profit though) individual habits is hazardous, overtly complicated and will lead to companies making "juice" more like soda but not enough like soda to be taxed as soda. It will also lead to more convoluted and contrived legislation based solely on what is popular at the time... just like cabaret laws and pinball machine bans.

This is a prime example of stupid legislation. I can't wait to read the definition of "soda." If you want to tax sugar tax all sugar, tax all salt, tax all corn syrup.

oh baby tax me! yeah that's right tax me good!! oooohh!

Don't make me tax you hard! It's gonna get messy ;)

this drivel is so funny

"But the soda tax is a fix that just makes sense. It would save lives. It would cut rising health care costs. And it would keep thousands of teachers and nurses where they belong: in the classrooms and clinics."

haha. and they're doing it for the kids too right? if they cared about HEALTH they would be taxing calories. they dont. they will tax diet soda, green tea, seltzer, everything. all you morons who support this...well there I said enough

i guess i don't understand why we subsidize corn farmers so that soda can be produced and sold inexpensively,

and then we turn around and tax soda because it is unhealthy.

The corn lobby is massive and powerful. Why do you think corn-based ethanol gets produced even though it has negative energy balance?

the answer: politics. no logic required

A tax isn't going to stop people from drinking soda. It's just going to put more money in the state's pocket. I don't have a problem with the tax; I just think it's a little disingenuous to say it's going to change people's habits.

This is not to change people's habits. that's the lie they want you to believe. The real reason is that the state is almost bankrupt and they need revenues from whatever stream they can get it. Taxing and increasingly popular food item is a step that makes people think government is working on their behalf.

It's shown to have made a big impact with regard to cigarettes. If it makes people use this crap less AND puts money into the state's coffers, it's win win.

Yeah, but the government's stance on cigarettes is kind of horrible.

If cigarettes are so deadly, and the government cares about our health so much, make them illegal or make it where Health Insurers can decline coverage to people who smoke. Charging more just says "we don't care if you live or die, we just want some more money."

Same thing with this soda tax. As it stands now, soda is still half of the price of orange juice and about even with the price of water (which should be free, but that's another matter.) This tax on sugary soda won't make orange juice or water any more of a bargain, so essentially, this just becomes a money grab.

The other thing I wonder about these "nuisance" taxes is: if these politicians got their way, everyone would stop smoking cigarettes and stop drinking sugar filled soda.... and their tax revenue would dry up. The only way these taxes help is if the public DOESN'T stop buying these products.

If everyone stopped smoking and drinking soda the money saved on government-provided health care would far outweight the loss of tax revenue.

actually cost does play a factor when this sodas are cheaper than natural fruit juices. But Bloomberg is just a phony, his campaign staff were provided with free water, red bull and yet the volunteers were given coke, sprite and other unhealthy items.