Philly Soda Tax Would Punish the Poor | Bernie Sanders

[Donkees]

[Actor]

1. He is correct and an example of his continuing to be consistent.

Part of me would like to tax people into healthy behavior as we all end up paying for it in the end, but I say start with the rich.

[Major Nikon]

10. There's very little reason to believe it would work to begin with

[wain]

2. How refreshing

Bernie does get it. Just like a regressive sales tax, a soda tax hits the lower income as a higher percentage of available/disposable income. Sounds as if Bernie is more of a fighter for the little guy.

[iandhr]

3. That is the same argument against a cigarette tax.

However in NYC the very high taxes on cigarette taxes has lowered the smoking rate dramatically and public health improves as a result.


Obesity is a serious public health concern and a small tax on soda can be used to solve a serious health problem.

For the sake of argument. The tax makes a can of coke $1.25 instead of $1. Maybe people will by a small $1 bottle of water instead of the can of soda.

[MattP]

4. Anyone that drinks soda is killing themselves

A soda has 35 to 45 grams of sugar per can isn't that punishment enough

[wain]

6. May be true

But the objective of the soda tax in Philly is to raise revenue, not to reduce consumption or obesity.
Bernie's argument holds true.

[Major Nikon]

9. Not quite

The reduction in smoking wasn't solely based on consumption tax. Things like aggressively enforcing underage purchasing, stopping marketing to children, and severely limiting the places where people can smoke had a far larger effect. So crediting higher cigarette taxes for all (or perhaps even some) of the reductions in smoking and the improvements in public health is pretty hard to support.

Another problem is that there's pretty much no other practical alternatives to cigarettes. People who smoke generally don't migrate to other forms of nicotine delivery devices. Sodas are also widely available in bulk and there's plenty of other sugar delivery devices people are already consuming. So there's no reason to believe even if someone is deterred by a 25 cent increase on a bottle of soda out of a machine that already costs $1.50-2, they wouldn't just buy a 2 liter bottle of store brand soda that currently goes for around 50-75 cents. Or they could just buy a bottle of filtered juice that has almost the same (or more) sugar content.

[randr]

5. If soda was taxed at a rate to subsidize the health costs soda products cause

it would be taxed as high as tobacco.
Most soda is swill with the added benefit of monsanto corn syrup.

[MattP]

7. I visit a disabled friend twice a week he has type 2 diabetes

And i cant get him to stop drinking Pepsi he drinks about 3 or 4 a day, I hate it. He just won't stop but I keep trying to get him to drink more water i try everything a little truvia and lemon its frustrating

[Major Nikon]

11. I don't agree

For one thing, soda isn't solely to blame for the health costs in which you allude, unlike cigarettes which were very much disproportionately to blame for the resulting social costs.

For another, Monsanto doesn't make corn syrup.

[randr]

12. Monsanto makes the corn that makes the corn syrup

It won't be long before we learn that their pesticide/herbicide products are in sodas, as we are finding them in most cereal grains.

[Major Nikon]

13. Farmers make the corn that makes corn syrup

Among other things, Monsanto is a seed manufacturer. They do not produce corn.

[randr]

16. Are you telling me that Monsanto does not produce the "roundup ready" corn seed

that farmers plant to grow the corn that makes the syrup the contains the harmful "roundup" herbicides?

[Major Nikon]

17. I just told you the exact opposite

[randr]

22. You may want to check your facts

http://www.monsanto.com/products/pages/monsanto-agricultural-seeds.aspx

Monsanto seed products are designed to be sold in conjunction with Monsanto herbicide and pesticide products. Farmers are encouraged to plant the seeds and are then beholden to purchase the other products of which larger and larger amounts need to be used for effectiveness.

[Major Nikon]

24. You might want to check my facts

Among other things, Monsanto is a seed manufacturer. They do not produce corn.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1017&pid=361035

[randr]

25. That is a mighty fine line between manufactureing seed

and producing corn. It borders on the absurd.

[Major Nikon]

31. Not to those who are fully literate

pro·duc·tion
prəˈdəkSH(ə n/
noun
noun: production

1.
the action of making or manufacturing from components or raw materials, or the process of being so manufactured.

[zentrum]

8. He's right.

[RiverLover]

14. I disagree with him here. Soda causes health problems, which costs people in many ways.

And diabetes especially.

[Major Nikon]

15. It's more accurate to say the excessive consumption of soda may cause health problems

It's worth pointing out that while the overall reduction of sugary drinks (not just soda) is certainly a worthy goal, implementing a tax that would have little effect on the actual underlying problem, yet adversely impact only those who can least afford it, is probably not the best way to address the problem.

[RiverLover]

18. I'm absolutely sure Coca-Cola would agree with your post.

However, when someone drinks just 1 can of soda per day, it increases their likelihood of developing Diabetes by 26% compared to a non-soda drinker. 1 can. It can also increase the risk of a heart attack by 20%.

But juice can be just as bad, very hard on the body to take that kind of sugar hit.

Everyday we're drinking less & less sugary drinks in the US as a population - that's only bad for the industries selling it.

Since the news that its so harmful isn't reaching poor communities, the higher cost will & they can save money & their health by switching to water.

[Major Nikon]

19. Spare me the guilt by association nonsense, please

Regardless of who you think agrees with my post or not, you certainly didn't post anything that contradicts it. Just one can per day is already slightly greater than the average soda consumption per capita in the US. By any measure that's a lot of soda. So yes, lots of soda = bad. An occasional soda = not so bad.

I'm also pretty sure your unreferenced source of the data you are quoting doesn't say what you think it says.

Everyday we're drinking less & less sugary drinks in the US as a population - that's only bad for the industries selling it.

Not when those same industries are also selling the alternatives.

[RiverLover]

20. You seem heavily vested in this. I actually have a nutrition background so the subject is near &

dear to me. I'm sure I am quoting an article, or 20, that I've read.

Look, whether you want the situation to continue as it is with the poor communities harming themselves with these drinks or not, what you think, what I think, isn't going to make a difference in which way this goes.

So drink up. I don't care.

[Major Nikon]

21. Well I have a red phone to the almighty that trumps any unverifiable claim you care to make

See how easy that was?

And regardless of whatever expertise you care to claim anonymously, I'm still quite sure what you are quoting doesn't say what you think it says because I'm quite familiar with the most extensive study available on the subject. The fact that you didn't quote your source in the first place and then failed to do so again when called on it is very telling.

Look, whether you want the situation to continue as it is with the poor communities harming themselves with these drinks or not, what you think, what I think, isn't going to make a difference in which way this goes.

I never claimed otherwise and I'm pretty sure that situation is the same with all social subjects. If that deters you from discussing them, then be my guest.

So drink up. I don't care.

I drink almost no sugary drinks, and I can assure you I am just not that interested in your personal choices either.

[RiverLover]

23. Wow. Here's a hint, google soda and diabetes. Harvard disagrees with you.

(There are other planets besides Earth. Do I need to provide links for that as well?)

[Major Nikon]

30. Here's a hint. Contradicting an assertion I never made is strawman gibberish

I never claimed excessive sugar consumption isn't associated with negative health effects. In fact, I specifically said it was. Please try to read what I wrote more carefully.

Just one can per day is already slightly greater than the average soda consumption per capita in the US. By any measure that's a lot of soda. So yes, lots of soda = bad.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1017&pid=361233

(There are other planets besides Earth. Do I need to provide links for that as well?)

This is your assertion:

However, when someone drinks just 1 can of soda per day, it increases their likelihood of developing Diabetes by 26% compared to a non-soda drinker. 1 can. It can also increase the risk of a heart attack by 20%.

I called bullshit. So no, if you don't want to support your assertions, you don't have to provide links for anything.

[RiverLover]

35. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/healthy-drinks/soft-drinks-and-disease/

Its beautiful in my corner of the world. The perfect day. I'm so grateful & am going to enjoy it now to the fullest.

I sincerely wish you the same!

[Major Nikon]

36. Thank you for verifying what I already knew

First of all, let's compare what you said, with what your link says:

However, when someone drinks just 1 can of soda per day, it increases their likelihood of developing Diabetes by 26% compared to a non-soda drinker. 1 can.

Here's what your link says:

People who consume sugary drinks regularly—1 to 2 cans a day or more—have a 26% greater risk of developing type 2 diabetes than people who rarely have such drinks.

Right away even the casual observer will notice "1 to 2 cans a day or more" of "sugary drinks" becomes "just 1 can of soda". So you either intentionally or ignorantly altered both the quantity and type.

This is where the bullshit starts, but not where it ends.

Notice also how you say "increases their likelihood", which your link most certainly does not say. Your link is (unsurprisingly) saying that people who consume much more sugary drinks than average have a 26% greater risk of diabetes. So what's the difference? Your link provides an assertion of correlation while you (falsely) assert causation. Big difference. It's very possible (and highly likely) that people who consume huge amounts of sugary drinks are also making other piss poor nutritional and lifestyle choices which also increase their risk of diabetes and would be captured by that 26% figure.

So as I said from the very beginning, your source doesn't say what you think it says, and you should be commended for (belatedly) providing me with the opportunity to demonstrate that for you. Gotta love it when I know your source better than you, eh?

Its beautiful in my corner of the world. The perfect day. I'm so grateful & am going to enjoy it now to the fullest.

Nah, just kidding. I can find better ways to amuse myself.

I sincerely wish you the same!

[Ed Suspicious]

26. You know what else exacerbates diabetes? Bread. Potatoes. Bananas. Apples.

Pasta. Fruit juice.

[Sunlei]

28. over processed white breads I agree. The others not so much if people don't over consume them.

[Ed Suspicious]

29. If I eat 100% whole wheat breads I spike just as highly as I do with white bread.

[Sunlei]

32. you may have to give up todays over processed breads all together. Try bake your own?

when I see movies and pictures from the 50s and 60s most people weren't overweight yet they ate 'store bought breads'. Something changed in those recipes and it fattens people just like livestock are fattened.

[Major Nikon]

34. The difference is in the quantity consumed and the lack of physical activity

Suburbanization, technology, and two car families changed the way people lived and commuted, technology that increases production changed the way people work, and modern food processing, preparation, and convenience changed the way people eat.

The recipe hasn't fundamentally changed since the 50's and 60's. The quantity has. More calories + less activity = fatter people which is just like livestock are fattened.

Calories

[markpkessinger]

38. I assure you Wonder Bread was just as processed then . . .

. . . as it is today. And if anything, there are far more, and far healthier choices available to the typical consumer now than there were then. But I can tell you what has changed, and significantly so: portion sizes. Some of this has been driven by restaurants, and since people today eat outside the home with far greater frequency than they did in the '60s and '70s, and thus restaurant portion sizes likely influence home portion sizes also.

There has been significant research on this topic, that has pointed to several things in combination: (1) restaurants that have aggressively marketed ever larger portion sizes (including the portion sizes of soda); (2) the widespread use of significantly larger dinner plates, which encourage one to put more food on them; and (3) the fact that people have a tendency to eat whatever quantity is put before them, even when only part of that quantity is sufficient to make them feel full. Here's a link to an abstract of a 2002 study by the National Center for Biotechnology Information (a division of the National Institutes of Health) that provides some fascinating and informative details: The Contribution of Expanding Portion Sizes to the US Obesity Epidemic.

If anything, the fact that we are, collectively speaking, more sedentary than we were 50 years ago should mean that we eat less, because our energy requirements are less.

But additionally, I hypothesize another contributing factor: the fact that so many of us today eat our meals, even when we are physically with other people, in effective isolation, as we tend to our phones, iPads, etc. I know that in my family, growing up in the '60s and '70s, dinner was considered family time, and it was sacrosanct. We were absolutely expected to be there. And we conversed: about what was going on in school, with a friend, with the family, or about current events and politics. Having a radio or TV blaring while we ate would have been unthinkable. Whether or not one is eating with a nuclear family or not, when one is actively engaged in conversation over a meal, one eats differently. One pauses more, whether to listen intently or to contribute. The entire activity slows down. Eating is not merely a necessary but distracting activity from some other pursuit; for the duration of the meal, it IS the pursuit! And when one eats more slowly, the body has more time to register the feeling of being full. When one rushes a meal, it is much easier to scarf down quite a bit more food that one actually needs in order to be satisfied, because it is eaten before the body has a chance to register the sensation of having had enough. (No research to back that one up -- just my own hypothesis.)

[markpkessinger]

37. So does salt cause health problems; and so does excessive consumption ...

... of simple starches like breads and pastas.

Breads and pastas break down into sugars in the body as surely as if one had eaten a candy bar. And MOST Americans consume far more of these products than they need and certainly more than they should. Part fo the reason is that they are filling and relatively cheap. I'm sorry, but as a non-obese diabetic (I've never been obese, or even overweight, in my life, but was diagnosed at age 49 (6 years ago) as a Type II diabetic) I can tell you we are kidding ourselves if we think imposing a sin tax on soda represents a serious effort to combat either obesity or diabetes.

If we're talking about keeping sodas and juices out of, say, public schools, hey, I'm all for it. (At the same time, let's fund school lunch programs sufficiently so that they don't serve so many starchy foods). But to demonize this one product, when in fact there are many products, and many factors, contributing to the rise of obesity and diabetes, is dishonest. And effectively penalizing adults who choose to consume it (especially poor ones) represents the very worst kind of paternalism!

And the fact is one could make a similar case, using the same kind of rationale (i.e., product 'x' correlates (not causes, mind you, but correlates) with 'y' disease, therefore we need to impose a tax on product 'x') for an endless array of food products and categories. There is literally no end to it.

[Sunlei]

27. Soda is a very high profit item its from a syrup mix, thats why it's pushed for sales.

perhaps restaurants and all soda sellers could wave the 'tax' if they sell lg. ice flavored waters and no calorie drinks at half the price?

[Major Nikon]

33. Bottled water is even more so because you don't even have the expense of syrup

I have no doubt that retailers will simply find ways around the tax and consumers will seek out those loopholes to get their sugar fix anyway, assuming the tax has any effect on consumption at all and there's not much reason to believe it would.

I'm against all regressive taxation, but even if it were to be implemented the smart way to go about it is to use the revenue on public awareness campaigns. The plan Hilary is endorsing is both wrong at the method by which it collects revenue and the purpose for which it's used. Bernie is right to oppose it.