Just what the doctor ordered: A soda tax?
Just what the doctor ordered: A soda tax?
June 11, 2006
BY JIM RITTER Health Reporter. Copyright by The Chicago Sun Times
The American Medical Association, meeting in Chicago this week, will consider a controversial proposal to fight obesity by taxing soda pop.
A committee of the influential doctors' group is recommending the AMA lobby for a "small" federal tax on sugar-sweetened soft drinks, with proceeds going to anti-obesity efforts such as physical activity programs and healthier school meals.
The committee did not specify how high the tax should be. But a consumer group, Center for Science in the Public Interest, estimates that a 1 cent a can tax would raise $1.5 billion a year. That's more than the advertising budget of McDonald's.
A 12-ounce can of Pepsi contains 150 calories of sugar or high fructose corn syrup -- the equivalent of 10 teaspoons of sugar or a 3.2-ounce reduced-fat ice cream cone at McDonald's.
In the late 1970s, teens drank nearly twice as much milk as soft drinks; now they drink twice as much soft drinks as milk. Pop is "devoid of nutritional value" and contributes to increasing obesity rates, the AMA committee said.
The committee cited one study that found the odds of a child becoming obese increases 60 percent for each additional can of pop consumed each day. However, the committee report noted that other studies have found no link between soft drinks and obesity.
The AMA committee also endorsed soda pop taxes imposed by state and local governments. Diet pop, flavored milk and sugary fruit drinks should be exempt, the committee said.
Can Congress stomach this?
More than a dozen states have passed soft-drink taxes, but in recent years several states have repealed such taxes. States typically use soft-drink taxes for general purposes, rather than for obesity programs.
Taxing soft drinks is "misguided," said Kevin Keane of the American Beverage Association. "It will not move the needle one ounce in addressing health and wellness issues."
Doctors should know better than to target a single food, Keane said. "People consume a lot of calories every day. Why pick on one particular product?"
Of course, soda pop is not the only cause of the obesity epidemic. But pop makes an easy target because it has no redeeming nutritional value, said Michael Jacobson of the Center for Science in the Public Interest. "It's a simply defined category of food that's pure junk."
The AMA's House of Delegates can accept, reject, amend or table the committee's recommendation. An AMA endorsement of a soft drink tax could be "extremely useful" to legislators who push such measures, Jacobson said.
However, he added that a federal soda pop tax is unlikely. "Tax increases are not popular with this administration or Congress," Jacobson said. "It would be dead on arrival."
jritter@suntimes.com
June 11, 2006
BY JIM RITTER Health Reporter. Copyright by The Chicago Sun Times
The American Medical Association, meeting in Chicago this week, will consider a controversial proposal to fight obesity by taxing soda pop.
A committee of the influential doctors' group is recommending the AMA lobby for a "small" federal tax on sugar-sweetened soft drinks, with proceeds going to anti-obesity efforts such as physical activity programs and healthier school meals.
The committee did not specify how high the tax should be. But a consumer group, Center for Science in the Public Interest, estimates that a 1 cent a can tax would raise $1.5 billion a year. That's more than the advertising budget of McDonald's.
A 12-ounce can of Pepsi contains 150 calories of sugar or high fructose corn syrup -- the equivalent of 10 teaspoons of sugar or a 3.2-ounce reduced-fat ice cream cone at McDonald's.
In the late 1970s, teens drank nearly twice as much milk as soft drinks; now they drink twice as much soft drinks as milk. Pop is "devoid of nutritional value" and contributes to increasing obesity rates, the AMA committee said.
The committee cited one study that found the odds of a child becoming obese increases 60 percent for each additional can of pop consumed each day. However, the committee report noted that other studies have found no link between soft drinks and obesity.
The AMA committee also endorsed soda pop taxes imposed by state and local governments. Diet pop, flavored milk and sugary fruit drinks should be exempt, the committee said.
Can Congress stomach this?
More than a dozen states have passed soft-drink taxes, but in recent years several states have repealed such taxes. States typically use soft-drink taxes for general purposes, rather than for obesity programs.
Taxing soft drinks is "misguided," said Kevin Keane of the American Beverage Association. "It will not move the needle one ounce in addressing health and wellness issues."
Doctors should know better than to target a single food, Keane said. "People consume a lot of calories every day. Why pick on one particular product?"
Of course, soda pop is not the only cause of the obesity epidemic. But pop makes an easy target because it has no redeeming nutritional value, said Michael Jacobson of the Center for Science in the Public Interest. "It's a simply defined category of food that's pure junk."
The AMA's House of Delegates can accept, reject, amend or table the committee's recommendation. An AMA endorsement of a soft drink tax could be "extremely useful" to legislators who push such measures, Jacobson said.
However, he added that a federal soda pop tax is unlikely. "Tax increases are not popular with this administration or Congress," Jacobson said. "It would be dead on arrival."
jritter@suntimes.com
posted by Carlos T Mock at 8:56 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home