Mr. Mayor, try for that soda tax again!
Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter says his twice-failed soda tax will not be proposed again this year. That's too bad. Accumulating scientific evidence says it could help the city cope with a major public health issue: obesity.
Mr. Mayor, try for that soda tax again!
Michael Yudell
The Inquirer reported Monday that Mayor Michael Nutter’s twice-failed, 2-cents-per-ounce tax on sugary beverages — aka the soda tax — would not be resuscitated in City Council this year. “At the moment, the sugar-sweetened beverage tax is not on my radar screen,” Nutter said in an interview.
This brings great relief, for the moment, to the lobbyists and pro-soda activists who seem more interested in the bottom line than in the health and waistlines of Philadelphians. Similar tax efforts in 30 states have failed, including one recently in Hawaii that would have added a 17-cent levy to a single-serve bottle of soda. According to Center for Science in the Public Interest, since 2009 PepsiCo Inc., Coca-Cola Co., and the American Beverage Association have spent approximately $70 million to lobby against soda tax efforts nationwide.
For Mayor Nutter, the proposed tax is designed to address two concerns: the considerable contribution of sugar-sweetened beverages to the obesity (also here) and diabetes (also here) epidemics and an effort to raise revenue for the city’s struggling public school system. As we wrote in a previous post, obesity is a dire concern in Philadelphia, and the City of Brotherly Love ranks first in obesity and overweight residents among big cities in the United States.
According to the Philadelphia Department of Public Health, as of 2008, 64 percent of adults and 57 percent of children ages 6-11 were either overweight or obese – and in North Philadelphia, nearly 70 percent were. That same document noted that “Philadelphians drink approximately 60 million gallons of sugar sweetened beverages annually.”
Creating barriers to the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages seems to work, according to peer-reviewed scientific research. One study, from the Harvard School of Public Health, followed the soda-drinking habits of students in the Boston Public School system following its ban on sales of sugar-sweetened drinks in their public high schools in 2004. According to that study, by 2006, there were significant reductions in the consumption of sodas in the two years after implementation of the ban.
The scientific literature also suggests that a soda tax can, if large enough, significantly reduce the consumption of sugary drinks. Two studies from the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale University show that the taxes are likely to work. One of the studies showed that a “modest tax on sugar-sweetened beverages could both raise significant revenues and improve public health by reducing obesity.” The other study predicts that a tax raising the cost of sugar-sweetened beverages by 20 percent – similar to the 2-cents-per-ounce that Mayor Nutter originally proposed – “could lead to an average annual reduction of 3.8 pounds per year for adults.” This study points out that these taxes also can raise “considerable revenue for public health and obesity prevention programs.”
Still another study found that a nationwide penny-per-ounce excise tax on sugary beverages would “reduce consumption of these beverages by 15 percent among adults ages 25-64,” saving $17 billion in obesity-related medical costs over a 10-year period. That’s hefty savings to the bottom line and a great quality of life improvement.
Even a study that found “no measurable effects on soda consumption or obesity among children overall” from sodas taxed at around 4 cents per unit did find that even such a small soda tax reduced consumption among kids most at-risk for obesity, including lower-income children, African American children, and children who watch “a great deal of TV.” This particular study, done by scientists at the Rand Corporation, also found that the way soda is currently taxed in some places has too little impact on price to make much difference and that an excise tax, such as the per-ounce tax proposed by Mayor Nutter, would be more effective. “To have a measurable effect on consumption, taxes need to be tied to consumption,” the study said, and that “they need to be larger than the existing state variation in sales taxes.”
Finally, a study published Monday in Circulation, an American Heart Association journal, found that “men who drank a 12-ounce sugar–sweetened beverage a day had a 20 percent higher risk of heart disease compared to men who didn’t drink any sugar-sweetened drinks.”
With accumulating evidence of the dangerous health effects of sugar, particularly of sugar-sweetened beverages, it is our collective responsibility to act. Philadelphia City Council twice rejected the mayor’s soda tax, and the mayor now says that it is off the radar, at least for this year.
Yet every year that we fail to make a difference is a year that sees Philadelphians’ consuming more sugar and more soda, and becoming less healthy. It’s not enough to say that this is a problem of personal responsibility. This is a tragedy for our community. And we need to do something about it now.
Read more about The Public's Health.
Great idea if it is at least state wide and preferably nationwide. Also an overall sugar tax would make more sense (and cents).— BLKMD
Comment removed.- Comment removed.
- Ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous.— kelprod2
- Comment removed.
- "Similar tax efforts in 30 states have failed" ... Just give it up! The majority just does NOT support this concept. The people clamoring for a 2 cents per oz. soda tax are probably the same people who want gas prices high. (for the good of the environment) I'm sure at SOME POINT something will be passed, but right now isn't the time & 2 cents per oz. seems like an over-reach. In some cases the tax imposed would be more than the product itself. $1.19 2 L soda - tax = $1.35)
— Kennedy - Dr. Yudell. We are taxed enough in Philadelphia. The Mayor has better things to do. This type of behavior modification starts with parents, not with our tax money.— Paul Deon
- @Paul Deon. Thanks for your comment. And, I agree. Parents have an important role to play in correcting this problem. But I also believe that we all do too. It starts with education about the health effects of consuming too much soda. But I also think a tax is necessary as well. I am an occasional soda drinker, and I would happily pay a little extra for a can of soda if the price to drink it discourages kids (and adults too) from buying too much of it, and if the tax goes to support schools, anti-obesity programs, or other programs that promote nutritional health. Are there any circumstances in which you’d support a tax on soda? — publicshealth
- I have lived in over 10 cities and Phatadelphia continues to not only be the heaviest, but it seems that all women with muffin tops and men with beer bellies wear their extra weight with pride. Tax the sodas, they are an evil drink that only makes the shareholders richer, and there are absolutely NO benefits from drinking this evil drink. If a citizen wants it enough, he or she will pay extra for it.
Now as for more tax, why not? It's not like Nutter knows how to clean the streets of leaves or plow the snow (based on my observations). Maybe if there was more money from soda, it will help cover other costs. Probably expenses used on, you guessed it, those drinking soda.— MelAngeel - Comment removed.
- This seems like a no-brainer. I'm often puzzled by the way such smart ideas can stir up such controversy. Other than soda manufacturers and distributers, I can't think of anyone who would be negatively impacted by a soda tax.— Izzy812
- Comment removed.
- Let's forget Dems and Repubs.....Let's stick to the issue.
The soda tax has been rejected twice. Let's stop trying to beat a dead horse. Move on.— jiminphila - yeah--! It's just so much more convenient to tax the homeowner with a mortgage while the freeloaders paying nothing benefit from the theft of our incomes. If your goal is to make this welfare city--you have a good start. Obviously, you're not aware of the consequences of your actions like any typical Democrat--just keep jamming the people who pay and give the freeloades and the political hacks more.— crystalrainbowspirit1
