December 17, 2007
Taxing Soda
Whether you call it soda, pop, or cola, you'll have to pay more to buy it if Gavin Newsom gets his way: Matier and Ross report that Mayor Newsom is thinking about taxing city vendors of sugary soft drinks to pay for his Shape Up SF kid fitness programs.
The thinking's that the fructose corn syrup that gets added to your Coke [we grew up in the South, so we call 'em Cokes, though we've noticed ourselves switching over to the term "soda" the longer we live here. Will we start saying "hella" next too?] is extremely fattening, and reports show that kids get up to 10% of their daily caloric intake from it. This causes obesity, and obesity costs the city tens of millions of dollars in health-related expenses. Ergo, taxing the people who sell the sody pop in question, presumably with the thought that that'll make the drinks more expensive and kids'll skinny up as a result.
For what it's worth, the state is also thinking about labeling sugary drinks with warnings that they can cause diabetes. It is no fun living in this state anymore! (though we do miss the warnings about raw eggs we used to get when we'd order Caesar salads.)
Map of the distribution of the terms pop, soda, and Coke in the US. Soda is yellow, pop is blue, and Coke is red.
|
If all the kids slurping sodas instead of real food grow up to be skinny and fit, who's going to park in all the handicapped spaces? Society needs fat people to free up real parking spaces for the rest of us!
Our whole area is just covered in dots regardless of the term
Pop? Nobody says that in the Bay
Screw sugar. Carcinogens rule (not to mention caffeine, naturally). Coke Zero 4-evah.
Some friends just returned from traveling around Asia and tell me that in Thailand (I think,) all cigarette packages come with big pictures of various diseases prominently displayed on them. So you might get a pack with a big picture of a black smoker's lung, or a cancerous trachea, etc. Brilliant idea, IMO. So maybe that 32 oz. soda should come with a picture of an obese person on it to serve as a suitable warning?
If the problem is that obesity is costing the city too much money, why don't we just stop giving government health coverage to fatties? There, problem solved.
Put the Coca back in the Cola.
The little tykes will never be hungry at all.
I'm from the south and I grew up calling it pop.
Anyway, the idea that a warning on a sugary drink will make a teen stop drinking it makes me almost pee myself with laughter. Like they're going to look at it and say "holy shit! Coke is bad for you! I thought it was good for you, loaded with Vitamin C!" and throw it down in terror.
Worked pretty well with cigarettes. Oh, wait...
But anything to stick it to the corn lobby works for me. I'm so sick of seeing high fructose corn syrup in EVERYTHING. Et tu, Orowheat??
Oh wait, I'm from Oklahoma. Maybe that's not the south, maybe it's just "middle part."
I'm from the south as well (NC) and none of my friends ever said, soda, pop or cola. We just call everything by name, usually Coke. If I was at a restaurant and said Coke and they only serve Pepsi I would know to order something else.
Anyway, yeah, anything to keep people from getting fat would be nice. I'd pay a few more $ to keep minivans off the road cause you know that's what fat people drive...
save for booze, i would love to see sugar banned. it's an awful drug. but only outlawed for a short while. i really do believe in the power of fad dieting.
This southern gal uses term "soda pop" - that should please the vast majority of America.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjMMs2scTSI
Hey, maybe people will grow to appreciate juice and water a little more after this! It'd be nice...
I'm not anti-soda/pop/carbonated drinks in general, but realizing the sheer amount of people out there who drink that in lieu of something just a fragment more natural makes me depressed.
You do realize that may (most?) juice has just a must sugar as soda/pop/whateveryoucall it, no? Also, high fructose corn syrup is not worse per se, than sugar (their composition is about the same once the sucrose is broken down by the enzymes in your gut).
The issue is that all the corn subsidies in this country has created a glut of corn at low prices, from which high fructose corn suryp is derived, and at such low subsidized prices manufacturers add it to almost anything.
For an in-depth, and I do mean in-depth (500+ pages with medical references), review of the whole fat vs. carbohydrate obesity hypotheses check out Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Tubes.
The best thing to drink these days is Izze. Yummmm! I don't care if stupid Pepsi bought them.
Gavin, you have taken away my bottled water, and now you want to take away my sody pop too?
@aleph1:
Actually, corn prices are on the rise world-wide. We are using corn as fuel (like E85) as well as for some plastics.
Your point still stands, but at some juncture HFCS will no longer be cheaper than cane sugar:
http://economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10250420
hiliarious line in the movie "Slither" "Goddamnit, we're out of Mr. Pibb, and we all know that Mr. Pibb is the only Coke I like!"
Everyone in the theater was scratching their heads at that one but I thought it was a great line. This said by the character as they're blasting zombie alien things.
I'm not sure about the mayor's taxation idea, but I do know I feel a lot better (and weigh about 15 pounds less) than I did when I was drinking three or four cans of soda a day.
As 2006 turned into 2007, I knew I had to reduce my soda consumption or face increased risk of developing Type II Diabetes. I still wanted to be able to have the occasional pop here and there, but I knew I had to stop using soda as my "go-to" drink. Deciding to change was easy, but actually making the changes required focus, dedication and orientation to task. The good news is I succeeded, and you can, too.
Instead of drinking three or four cans a day, I now drink no more than three cans a week, if that. Before having a soda on Sunday (Dec. 16), I hadn't had one since Halloween. Nor had I craved one. It's all about freedom of choice now, not mindlessly engaging in old, detrimental patterns of consumption. I estimate that I've saved at least $800 this year by drastically reducing my soda intake. Heavy soda-drinking takes its toll on the pocketbook, even without Mayor Newsom's proposed tax!
As far as the taxation question goes, let the problem soda drinkers fret about that one. Get your own soda consumption under control NOW. Visit my Web site at www.takeabreakfromsoda.com to learn more. You may even want to enjoy a nice glass of water as you read.
Cheers,
"Huck"
www.takeabreakfromsoda.com
I'm not sure about the mayor's taxation idea, but I do know I feel a lot better (and weigh about 15 pounds less) than I did when I was drinking three or four cans of soda a day.
As 2006 turned into 2007, I knew I had to reduce my soda consumption or face increased risk of developing Type II Diabetes. I still wanted to be able to have the occasional pop here and there, but I knew I had to stop using soda as my "go-to" drink. Deciding to change was easy, but actually making the changes required focus, dedication and orientation to task. The good news is I succeeded, and you can, too.
Instead of drinking three or four cans a day, I now drink no more than three cans a week, if that. Before having a soda on Sunday (Dec. 16), I hadn't had one since Halloween. Nor had I craved one. It's all about freedom of choice now, not mindlessly engaging in old, detrimental patterns of consumption. I estimate that I've saved at least $800 this year by drastically reducing my soda intake. Heavy soda-drinking takes its toll on the pocketbook, even without Mayor Newsom's proposed tax!
As far as the taxation question goes, let the problem soda drinkers fret about that one. Get your own soda consumption under control NOW. Visit my Web site at www.takeabreakfromsoda.com to learn more. You may even want to enjoy a nice glass of water as you read.
Cheers,
"Huck"
www.takeabreakfromsoda.com
This blows. Another regressive tax that will only inconvenience poor people. Designed by people who haven't sniffed an under $100k/year in their lives.
And I know life isn't always fair, but it really sucks when your vice is singled out for taxation, but others are ignored.
A bit intrusive for my tastes.
You know what’s taxing? Matier and Ross’ obnoxious insistence on alliteration: “City floats fee for sellers.” “Newsom sets sights on soda.” Gives me a headache. Or is that the caffeine? Never mind.