Posted on 03/17/2010 12:32:18 PM PDT by presidio9
Is soda the new tobacco?
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. The industry says there are critical differences: in moderate quantities soda isn’t harmful, nor is it addictive.
The problem is that at roughly 50 gallons per person per year, our consumption of soda, not to mention other sugar-sweetened beverages, is far from moderate, and appears to be an important factor in the rise in childhood obesity. This increase is at least partly responsible for a rise in what can no longer be called “adult onset” diabetes — because more and more children are now developing it.
Attention is being paid: Last week, the Obama administration announced a plan to ban candy and sweetened beverages from schools. A campaign against childhood obesity will be led by the first lady, Michelle Obama. And a growing number of public health advocates are pushing for even more aggressive actions, urging that soda be treated like tobacco: with taxes, warning labels and a massive public health marketing campaign, all to discourage consumption.
A tax on soda was one option considered to help pay for health care reform (the Joint Committee on Taxation calculated that a 3-cent tax on each 12-ounce sugared soda would raise $51.6 billion over a decade), and President Obama told Men’s Health magazine last fall that such a tax is “an idea that we should be exploring. There’s no doubt that our kids drink way too much soda.”
But with all the junk food and U.F.O.’s (unidentifiable food-like objects) out there, why soda? Why a tax? And, most important, would it work?
To the beverage industry,
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
I'd really love for someone other than Mark Bittman or Governor (for today) Patterson to explain to me how taxing me an extra couple of bucks a day is fair or beneficial to me. Luckily, I now live in Westchester. When this takes effect, I will be driving up to Greenwhich to buy ALL of my groceries. They have an A&P and a Stop & Shop right across US1 from each other. I generally don't go to bars anymore, but I will also most likely be ordering a beer, instead of a coke.
Well, there is no such thing as second hand soda, so I’m not sure how far the analogy will go.
It directly upsets the livers enzyme balance.
So that's a big issue right there.
I guess this explains why the commie ‘RATS needed to throw out the ten commandments. The commie piggies have decided that it’s their call which are sins and which are not sins. Typical commie garbage.
Tobacco had money. The politicians couldn’t stand to see a pile of money out there and not go grab it. Now they’ve killed tobacco, they need to find another pile of money to go after. This decade, it’s the turn of soft-drink manufacturers with fast food close behind.
When they’ve been bled dry, what’s next?
We’ll tax the air,because we’re the taxman.
The New Prohibition will outlaw alcohol, tobacco products,trans-fats and sugar for out own good.
Speaking of second-hand smoke. Anybody living in a city that has outlawed public smoking, or a state that is outlawing transfats (Mass., Md, Vt., Wa...), should be watching this closely. NY & NYC are the cradles of this sort of stupidity, but once liberals see that it can be done elsewhere, they can’t wait to join the party.
The do-gooder is relentless ... and always needs a target.
’ Joint Committee on Taxation calculated that a 3-cent tax on each 12-ounce sugared soda would raise $51.6 billion over a decade’
NO
When you tax a luxury item(which is what soda is) consumption of that product will drop thereby offsetting the projected amount believed to be raised.
Another item will appear ,like sweeten tea, and many will substitute.
What if it is a pregnant woman drinking the soda?
but there is second hand fat- most noticable in theatres and airlines.
“What if it is a pregnant woman drinking the soda? “
Aha!
Oh that fat might make you uncomfortable. But it won’t harm your health.
Fast forward thirty years. Imagine that you have switched to diet pepsi to avoid the calories in those 5-6 cans of regular Pepsi. Now, following the logic (if you can call it that) of this latest Nanny State power grab, you should pay less for the diet soda, right? Isn’t the goal to charge more only for soda with that evil sugar?
Anyone who has ever bought soda knows that the price of diet soda is always the same as the price of regular soda, no matter what the price of sugar is doing. So if the price of a six pack of Pepsi goes up to ten bucks so will the price of a six pack of diet Pepsi.
These people need to get a life and leave us alone.
It’s just another way for the government to squeeze more tax dollars out of us. Elitist liberals drink Perrier. I wish busybodies like this liberal Bittman would shut up.
This is going to happen (the Fat Tax), as soon as a bunch of Lawyers file a Class Action and gain Billions in compensation for themselves, and every fatass that joins the suit will get a coupon for Diet Coke or Diet Pepsi. Same as Big Tobacco, Big Soda will get their deep pockets attacked...
Nanny state ping.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.