Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

It's arguably, imo definitely, as bad for your health as tobacco and alcohol, especially when consumed in large quantities, including diet sodas which may actually be worse than regular sodas.
The increase in soda consumption correlates directly with the increase in obesity and heart disease. Soda isn't the sole cause of America's health problems, but it is a primary one if not the leading one.

So why are soda adds targeting children not demonized the way tobacco and alcohol adds are?

Why isn't there a push to plaster images of massively obese individuals on soda products like the push to put images of cancer victims on tobacco products (mainly cigarettes)?

Why are children allowed access to this dangerous and addictive product?

Why is there not a "sin" tax on soda and perhaps other sweets as well to deter the purchase of such goods and generate government revenue?

It's politically unfeasible to sin-tax foods. Most citizens don't consider food to be a drug and vice taxes for consumables are usually drugs only.

Yes. New taxes always go over so well with the general population.

But not fruit sodas.

Individuals already have the power to simply *not* consume soda...

ShumaGorath wrote:It's politically unfeasible to sin-tax foods. Most citizens don't consider food to be a drug and vice taxes for consumables are usually drugs only.

Wasn't the same argument made against tobacco? I think soda isn't too far away from being demonized to the point tobacco is. Alcohol is taxed and it a consumable, in fact it was a staple of the human diet for centuries.

LordofHats wrote:Yes. New taxes always go over so well with the general population.

And?

Melissia wrote:But not fruit sodas.

Huh?

Vaerros wrote:Individuals already have the power to simply *not* consume soda...

Strong first post. Same case with tobacco and alcohol and yet they are taxed. Taxes on tobacco products are obscenely high.

Wasn't the same argument made against tobacco? I think soda isn't too far away from being demonized to the point tobacco is. Alcohol is taxed and it a consumable, in fact it was a staple of the human diet for centuries.

Yeah, but in the end public perception of tobacco as a drug defeated public perception of tobacco as an untaxed right. The train from Dr. Pepper to diabetes is hard to see for most. Smoked up black lungs on the other hand was easy.

Research in America found that a 35% tax on drinks sweetened with sugar sold in a canteen, which added about 28p to the price, led to a 26% drop in sales. Studies have estimated that a 20% levy on such drinks in the US would cut obesity by 3.5% and that adding 17.5% to the cost of unhealthy food products in the UK could lead to 2,700 fewer deaths from heart disease

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/may/16/fat-tax-unhealthy-food-effect?newsfeed=true

dæl wrote:

Research in America found that a 35% tax on drinks sweetened with sugar sold in a canteen, which added about 28p to the price, led to a 26% drop in sales. Studies have estimated that a 20% levy on such drinks in the US would cut obesity by 3.5% and that adding 17.5% to the cost of unhealthy food products in the UK could lead to 2,700 fewer deaths from heart disease

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/may/16/fat-tax-unhealthy-food-effect?newsfeed=true

That looks worthwhile to me.

Amaya wrote:

Melissia wrote:But not fruit sodas.

Huh?

It was a joke.

Political will aside, I really wouldn't be opposed to a tax on luxury foods in general. Basically anything without real nutritional value, Soda, Candy, Pastries, Snack Chips, Ice Cream etc.. Also, anything that's expensive enough that nobody buying it is living off of it, say anything that costs in excess of $10/lb (in todays money, adjusted forward for inflation).

I mean I already pay a Meals Tax whenever I eat somewhere, I wouldn't be pissed if I also had to pay a tax on my junk food and lobster. I'd probably want it to be less than the state meal tax, maybe something around 5%. It really couldn't hurt anyone none of those are items people need. It could rake in a few bucks, and I really doubt it'd affect purchasing habits on those items too much.

That'd piss McDonald's off, their fries would be taxed extra oh noes!

Amaya wrote:

Vaerros wrote:Individuals already have the power to simply *not* consume soda...

Strong first post. Same case with tobacco and alcohol and yet they are taxed. Taxes on tobacco products are obscenely high.

Tobacco causes damage over a period of time to those around you. Alcohol, well add it to an idiot and a vehicle and you can start to guess why it may be as well.
The main thing it likely comes down to is that it is PC to hate those people but not the fat people yet.

It's the consumer's choice to purchase such an item in the first place.

If they're interested in preserving their health, they'll not take things overboard with the soft drinks. If they don't care, then yes, their health could suffer, and it would be their own fault.

French Fries went up in price in my area. Soda is already 3$ for a 2 liter. Though I do live in chicago

Asherian Command wrote:French Fries went up in price in my area. Soda is already 3$ for a 2 liter. Though I do live in chicago

Last time I checked, I could still get a 3 Liter bottle of Jolly Treat brand soda for about $1.50.

Chongara wrote:

Asherian Command wrote:French Fries went up in price in my area. Soda is already 3$ for a 2 liter. Though I do live in chicago

Last time I checked, I could still get a 3 Liter bottle of Jolly Treat brand soda for about $1.50.

do you live in inner city chicago? If yes, then you know it is actually cheaper to buy food from Fast food than the walmart.

Asherian Command wrote:

Chongara wrote:

Asherian Command wrote:French Fries went up in price in my area. Soda is already 3$ for a 2 liter. Though I do live in chicago

Last time I checked, I could still get a 3 Liter bottle of Jolly Treat brand soda for about $1.50.

do you live in inner city chicago? If yes, then you know it is actually cheaper to buy food from Fast food than the walmart.

No. I apologize if I came off like I was trying to dispute what you said. I was just quoting the soda prices in my area.

I thought it was already going through political hoops to get soda taxed heavier. Hope it eventually goes through-I like soda, but I know it's bad and I'd support a heavier tax on it. I don't drink a lot, but I'd drink less if it had a heavier tax. (Leave ginger ale alone, as it's good for you when you're sick)

Vaerros wrote:It's the consumer's choice to purchase such an item in the first place.

If they're interested in preserving their health, they'll not take things overboard with the soft drinks. If they don't care, then yes, their health could suffer, and it would be their own fault.

This is also true of tobacco and alcohol, yet both of those are taxed?

Amaya wrote:

Vaerros wrote:It's the consumer's choice to purchase such an item in the first place.

If they're interested in preserving their health, they'll not take things overboard with the soft drinks. If they don't care, then yes, their health could suffer, and it would be their own fault.

This is also true of tobacco and alcohol, yet both of those are taxed?

I don't necessarily agree that those items should be taxed so heavily.

dæl wrote:

Research in America found that a 35% tax on drinks sweetened with sugar sold in a canteen, which added about 28p to the price, led to a 26% drop in sales. Studies have estimated that a 20% levy on such drinks in the US would cut obesity by 3.5% and that adding 17.5% to the cost of unhealthy food products in the UK could lead to 2,700 fewer deaths from heart disease

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/may/16/fat-tax-unhealthy-food-effect?newsfeed=true

There are too many economic issues for a punitive soda and french fry tax to be realistic. Hypothetically, a 35% tax on soda and fast food leads to a 26% drop in sales. That means a 26% drop in product revenue for McDonalds, BK, Wendy's, Coca Cola, and Pepsi. In order to compensate, McDonald's franchise holders will be forced to fire 26% of their employees to cut operating expenses. If each McDonald's employs 60 people, 15 people lose their jobs. 15 people multiplied by the 12,800 franchises in America equals 192,000 lost jobs. Yep, try selling that to the American people.

Taxing is not the way to dissuade unhealthy eating habits. Education and awareness are the keys. Increase support for nutrition education in schools at all levels (elementary, middle school, high school) Promote healthy food being served at school during breakfast and lunch time. Promote recess time for young school children so that they may get out and exercise for an hour every day.

Whatever happened to personal responsibility? There would be 2,700 fewer deaths from heart disease and obesity in the UK if 2,700 people took personal responsibility for their health and their actions. Put down the fries and the coke, pick up an apple and a bottle of water.

Melissia wrote:That'd piss McDonald's off, their fries would be taxed extra oh noes!

I remember when McDonald's switched from orange soda to Hi-C. If I remember right it was because Hi-C was perceived as healthier for children than the orange soda, and it was primarily kids that drank the latter.

I will never forgive them for ruining my childhood.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Amaya wrote:It's arguably, imo definitely, as bad for your health as tobacco and alcohol, especially when consumed in large quantities, including diet sodas which may actually be worse than regular sodas.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that you'll live longer drinking a case of Coke everyday than you will drinking a case of beer every day. Your liver would certainly function better at any rate.

Your liver will be healthier, but not much else will be. Have fun with obesity, diabetes, and heart disease.

Amaya wrote:Your liver will be healthier, but not much else will be. Have fun with obesity, diabetes, and heart disease.

Get those any alcohol consumption on that level.

Or any calorie consumption for that matter, not considering exercise.

Soda companies would not like this at all. They would do everything in their power to stop this. Taxing sodas would cut out such a large part of their market.

Switch to diet?

Meh, I'd still drink it no matter the cost. I'm drinking one as I speak with 2 cans on my shelf.

I say skip taxing specific drinks and food and just have a fat tax. The more overweight you are the more you're taxed. People lose weight and America gets to profit off of all the obesity. Everyone's happy...except the fatties.

I don't drink soda in general. I drink maybe five cans of pop a year, maybe less. I just stopped drinking it when I started university, and it doesn't even sound good anymore. That said, I don't know if I would support a tax on it. There are definitely a lot of people who drink way too much, but I feel like that's their choice and their problem, and like other people have said, someone drinking soda doesn't affect other people the way second hand smoke or driving while drunk does, (or doing anything that's potentially dangerous while drunk really).


I must say though, whenever a thread like this comes up, I find the ease at which many posters toss about disparaging and insulting remarks about overweight or obese people to be absolutely disgusting.