A recent poll by Harris Interactive/HealthDay of 2,100 adult respondents reveals more than 56% oppose government taxes on sugary drinks and candy, with slightly more than 21% saying they were in favor of such a tax.
“This is a strong vote against the “nanny state,"" said Humphrey Taylor, chairman of The Harris Poll.
“The idea of taxing calorie-rich candies and sodas may be popular with some public health advocates, who see them as major causes of the nation’s obesity epidemic, but it is very unpopular with the public," Taylor said.
The poll results come at a time of rising debate over the potential health impact of taxing “junk food." Many U.S. states do have sales taxes on soda, but they are small and not aimed at driving down Americans’ thirst for sugary drinks, said Kelly Brownell, a professor of psychology at Yale University and co-founder of the school’s Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity,
“Sales taxes were intentionally kept small so they wouldn’t affect consumption," said Brownell, a long-time advocate of a bigger tax that would make consumers think twice about that sugary drink
For several years, Brownell and his colleagues have pushed for a penny-per-ounce excise tax on sweetened beverages (not just soda). That would ultimately boost the cost of sweet drinks by about 20 percent. And unlike sales taxes, which consumers do not see until they get to the cash register, excise taxes show up on the sticker price—when people are making the decision to buy or not.
In a 2011 study, Brownell’s team estimated that a national penny-per-ounce tax would cut Americans’ sugary drink intake by one-quarter. The researchers also projected that the tax could generate $79 billion in revenue over five years.
A number of states and local governments have proposed such a tax but they’ve gone nowhere.
The proposals have popped up in states like Vermont and Texas, big cities like New York and Philadelphia, and in smaller communities. Last year, voters in two California cities, Richmond and El Monte, rejected ballot initiatives that would have levied sugary-drink taxes.
The respondents in the Harris Interactive/HealthDay poll echoed those voters. Besides disliking the taxes, many doubted the potential health benefits—51% disagreed with the statement, “Sales taxes on candies and sodas would help to reduce obesity." Only 26% agreed.
A bigger percentage seemed to have a philosophical opposition to such taxes: Two-thirds agreed with the statement, “It should not be the role of government to influence what we eat and drink to make healthier choices."
J. Patrick Mohan, Interim President of the Corn Refiners Association poses an industry position that dovetails with those consumer sentiments, “As we continue to debate the root causes of our nation’s obesity epidemic, we need to rely on science and facts. Not look for quick fixes such as attempting to legislate behavior through arbitrary consumption limits that draw focus away from developing real solutions to complex issues."
Chris Gindlesperger, senior director of public affairs for the American Beverage Association said about the poll, "The data here shows people don't want the government telling them what to eat or drink," adding, "taxes don't make people healthy, diet and exercise do that."
Justin Wilson, senior research analyst for the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) argued that, “People prefer incentives to penalties."
The Washington, D.C.-based CCF opposes soda taxes and other “sin" taxes, saying there’s no evidence they would actually help curb the U.S. obesity problem—and that no single food can be pinpointed as a cause of obesity.
Says Mohan in agreement, “Decades of scientific research have produced overwhelming data showing that establishing a healthy overall dietary pattern and lifestyle is a more effective strategy for decreasing obesity than singling out or restricting one particular nutrient or food."
Wilson said government “incentives" could include building more sidewalks and “green spaces" so that Americans, especially kids, can get outside and exercise.
“Creating more green spaces is a perfect role for government," he said.
“This is a strong vote against the “nanny state,"" said Humphrey Taylor, chairman of The Harris Poll.
“The idea of taxing calorie-rich candies and sodas may be popular with some public health advocates, who see them as major causes of the nation’s obesity epidemic, but it is very unpopular with the public," Taylor said.
The poll results come at a time of rising debate over the potential health impact of taxing “junk food." Many U.S. states do have sales taxes on soda, but they are small and not aimed at driving down Americans’ thirst for sugary drinks, said Kelly Brownell, a professor of psychology at Yale University and co-founder of the school’s Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity,
“Sales taxes were intentionally kept small so they wouldn’t affect consumption," said Brownell, a long-time advocate of a bigger tax that would make consumers think twice about that sugary drink
For several years, Brownell and his colleagues have pushed for a penny-per-ounce excise tax on sweetened beverages (not just soda). That would ultimately boost the cost of sweet drinks by about 20 percent. And unlike sales taxes, which consumers do not see until they get to the cash register, excise taxes show up on the sticker price—when people are making the decision to buy or not.
In a 2011 study, Brownell’s team estimated that a national penny-per-ounce tax would cut Americans’ sugary drink intake by one-quarter. The researchers also projected that the tax could generate $79 billion in revenue over five years.
A number of states and local governments have proposed such a tax but they’ve gone nowhere.
The proposals have popped up in states like Vermont and Texas, big cities like New York and Philadelphia, and in smaller communities. Last year, voters in two California cities, Richmond and El Monte, rejected ballot initiatives that would have levied sugary-drink taxes.
The respondents in the Harris Interactive/HealthDay poll echoed those voters. Besides disliking the taxes, many doubted the potential health benefits—51% disagreed with the statement, “Sales taxes on candies and sodas would help to reduce obesity." Only 26% agreed.
A bigger percentage seemed to have a philosophical opposition to such taxes: Two-thirds agreed with the statement, “It should not be the role of government to influence what we eat and drink to make healthier choices."
J. Patrick Mohan, Interim President of the Corn Refiners Association poses an industry position that dovetails with those consumer sentiments, “As we continue to debate the root causes of our nation’s obesity epidemic, we need to rely on science and facts. Not look for quick fixes such as attempting to legislate behavior through arbitrary consumption limits that draw focus away from developing real solutions to complex issues."
Chris Gindlesperger, senior director of public affairs for the American Beverage Association said about the poll, "The data here shows people don't want the government telling them what to eat or drink," adding, "taxes don't make people healthy, diet and exercise do that."
Justin Wilson, senior research analyst for the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) argued that, “People prefer incentives to penalties."
The Washington, D.C.-based CCF opposes soda taxes and other “sin" taxes, saying there’s no evidence they would actually help curb the U.S. obesity problem—and that no single food can be pinpointed as a cause of obesity.
Says Mohan in agreement, “Decades of scientific research have produced overwhelming data showing that establishing a healthy overall dietary pattern and lifestyle is a more effective strategy for decreasing obesity than singling out or restricting one particular nutrient or food."
Wilson said government “incentives" could include building more sidewalks and “green spaces" so that Americans, especially kids, can get outside and exercise.
“Creating more green spaces is a perfect role for government," he said.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment