Letters of Response by Fizer et al.

George Orwell must be very pleased with himself. A sugar tax brings us one step closer to having a screen in every kitchen where Big Brother can watch us to make sure we finish our vegetables and only have one slice of cake at dinner.

The government has no right to try to tell me how I should be spending the money I earn to buy the food that I want to eat. If I want to buy a Milky Way bar and eat it, I can and I will, even if I have to pay a few cents extra for it.

ANDREW FIZER, BERKELEY

By arguing that sugar alone should be the ingredient we tax in unhealthy foods, policymakers are sending a dangerous message that sugar is the only thing that people should be thinking about when they make decisions about what to eat.

Sure, sugar isn’t great for you. There’s a well-documented link between sugar and diseases such as diabetes and obesity. But focusing on sugar as a target for taxes de-emphasizes the importance of regulating other ingredients, such as saturated fats and sodium, which are equally damaging to people’s health, especially where obesity is concerned. What good does it do to tax a soda when it comes as part of a value meal with a greasy, fatty double-bacon cheeseburger? (For the record, bacon, beef, and cheese are all fairly low-sugar foods. Does that make them any less worthy of an additional tax if the goal is to try to improve the public’s health?)

The idea of a sugar tax is simply too narrow to effectively improve public health on a large scale.

ANNALISA BROWN, CHATTANOOGA

I think a sugar tax is a good step toward alleviating the stress that other people’s poor choices put on the rest of the country.

When someone eats so much sugar that he winds up diabetic, he is obviously going to wind up with more medical expenses. But the added cost does not stop there: the more people who let themselves become unhealthy, the more the cost of healthcare goes up for everyone else. I exercise regularly, I eat healthy, and I generally just try to take good care of myself. People like me, who make good personal decisions, should not bear the burden of paying for other people’s bad habits by having their health insurance costs increase by hundreds of dollars every year.

As for the added cost of the tax itself: A sugar tax targets people who tend to buy junk food anyway, so the cost increase from the taxes themselves would be minimal for people who make good choices. Moreover, the taxes might help to keep those people from continuing to make bad choices by getting them to buy different foods.

As long as the taxes are being put toward helping to cancel out other additional costs to individuals, I think the soda tax is a step in a better direction for all of us.

ERICA BEAUDOIN, PORTLAND

Suppose that you’ve had a long day, and all you want at the end of it is an ice-cold bottle of Mountain Dew. Last week, that 20-ounce Mountain Dew would have cost you $1.19. But you live in California, which just instituted a “health impact fee” of 2 cents per ounce on sodas that are sweetened with sugar. Now, that ice-cold Mountain Dew will cost you $1.59.

528

I could point out that the cost of the soda has increased by over a third of its original price. I could tell you that drinking sugar-sweetened soda contributes, as Donald Marron reminds readers, to obesity, diabetes, and other unpleasant health conditions. But I would still bet good money that you would buy that ice-cold Mountain Dew and guzzle every drop of it, extra forty cents be damned.

The idea behind taxing sugar-sweetened foods and drinks is well-intentioned, but the reality is that the tax is highly unlikely to inspire any fundamental changes in consumer behavior. Branding and habits are both strong forces, and charging two extra cents to the ounce (which would come to $1.35 for a two-liter bottle of soda) is not going to be enough to get through to people who are bound and determined to have their Coke, Sunkist, or whatever brand they want.

Donald Marron also mentions that taxes could potentially focus on sugar content, which is a terrific point that manufacturers should see as an opportunity. For instance, if Mountain Dew suddenly cut the amount of sugar in its drinks in half, most consumers would scan the little note on the label championing this new, healthier Dew (which would of course have the same great taste as before), then proceed to buy it as planned. By spending money on finding healthier options for sweeteners and rebranding themselves as companies that are committed to health-consciousness, companies could potentially avoid higher taxes on their products and prevent themselves from winding up the subject of unflattering headlines about how sugar is making Americans fat and unhealthy.

Bottom line: Governments might be well-intentioned in imposing sugar taxes, but that intervention alone is not enough to get consumers to change their ways or to help make America healthier as a country. Companies need to take the lead.

JENNIFER RANDALL, BOSTON

Donald Marron’s essay raises a number of good questions about whether or not taxing sugary drinks would result in a net public health benefit, but the most important question is not raised: How would cities and states use these new tax revenues? Marron recognizes that such taxes disproportionately affect poor people. If revenues from these new sugary drink taxes are simply placed in general funds, isn’t this just another way of raising taxes on the poor, and letting the rich off the hook? Sugary drink tax revenues should be devoted to poverty issues and public health initiatives for the poor. After all, the poor are the ones paying for it.

JEFF SIMPSON, CLEVELAND