An interesting twist on combating the growing obesity epidemic is developing.
This fall San Francisco’s Mayor Gavin Newsom plans to introduce legislation that would charge retailers who sell sugary beverages a fee—levying a soda sales fee. The hope is that the extra fees will financially discourage people from consuming a lot of extra, empty calories.
According to the SF Gate article, Newsom only needs approval from the Board of Supervisors to levy a fee on retailers. A tax on individual cans of soda and sugary juice would require voters’ approval.
Motivation Behind the Soda Fees
According to Newsom, he was motivated to move forward with legislation for a soda fee after a new study on the relationship between soda and obesity was released. Researchers from UCLA demonstrated a link between soda and obesity in California. In this study researchers reported:
Adults who drink at least one soft drink a day are 27 percent more likely to be obese than those who do not.
The study, Commissioned by CCPHA (California Center for Public Health Advocacy), provides scientific evidence of the direct contribution of sugar-sweetened beverages to California’s $41 billion obesity epidemic.
Opposing the Fees
Understandably, the American Beverage Association has fought attempts to implement soda taxes. They released a statement about the new study.
If our goal is to address obesity, then educating consumers about the importance of balancing calories consumed from all foods and beverages with the calories expended through physical activity is what matters – not demonizing any one particular food.
Another soda fee opponent is Jim Lazarus, vice president of the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce. His group wonders:
Does this mean there’s a fee on candy bars, on ice cream, on potato chips? Where do you draw the line?
It is his belief that the additional small fee, which will probably be passed on from the retailer to the consumer, would not be enough to dramatically change people’s habits. Lazarus believes the the soda fee is just another revenue source for the city.
What do you think? Do you think adding a fee to sodas, in the current economic climate, where people are already counting their pennies, may make a difference in decreasing the amount of soda consumed?
Do you think other empty calorie foods should be taxed as well?
A new study commissioned by the California Center for Public Health Advocacy (CCPHA) is provides scientific evidence of the direct contribution of sugar-sweetened beverages to California’s $41 billion obesity epidemic.
Researchers at UCLA, lead by Susan Babey, examined sugary drinks and their effect on state spending and consumers’ health published in the report, Bubbling Over: Soda Consumption and Its Link to Obesity in California. Babey pointed out:
Soda is cheap, sweet and irresistibly marketed to teens. Not enough teens know about the health and dietary risks of drinking huge quantities of what is essentially liquid sugar.
Hear what Dr. Harold Goldstein, another study author and executive director for CCPHA has to say about the study and their findings. To get to his interview, advance to 1:47.
Main Findings
Researchers from study reported that 41 percent of children (ages 2 – 11), 62 percent of adolescents (ages 12 – 17) and 24 percent of adults drink at least one soda or other sugar-sweetened beverage every day. In addition regardless of income or ethnicity, adults who drink one or more sodas or other sugar-sweetened beverages every day are 27 percent more likely to be overweight or obese.
Key Findings
Key findings from the soda research include:
$41 billion—Amount spent treating obesity in California each year.
41 percent—Kids ages 2-11 who drink at least one soda every day.
62 percent—Adolescents 12-17 who drink at least one soda every day.
39 pounds—Amount of sugar consumed over one year if you drink one soda a day.
17 teaspoons—Amount of sugar in a 20-ounce serving of soda.
278 calories—Increased number Americans consume each day compared with 30 years ago.
43 percent—Share of new calories attributable to soda.
Recommendations from CCPHA
The CCPHA recommends:
Cities, counties, businesses, health care providers, religious organizations, the state legislature, and Congress—and each of us as individuals—can help reduce consumption of soda and other sugar-sweetened beverages and their contribution to California’s obesity epidemic.
Some of the additional recommendations that can be taken by individuals, workplaces and others:
Individuals—Reduce consumption of soda and other sugar-sweetned beverages in the family.
Workplaces—Limit or replace soda and other sugar-sweetened beverages in vending machines. Incorporate information about soda and other sugar-sweetened beverages into workplace wellness programs.
Cities & Counties—Provide and sell only healthy beverages at city and county sponsored events, especially those attended by children and adolescents. Limit or exclude soda and other sugar-sweetened beverages in vending machines in property owned or leased by cities and counties.
California Legislature—Impose an industry fee on soda and other sugar-sweetened beverages. Earmark funds for community-based prevention programs. Prohibit marketign of soda and other sugar-sweetened beveratges on public school campuses K-12.
Congress—Tax soda and other sugar-sweetened beverages. Earmark revenues for community-based prevention programs. Require the Federat Trade Commission to develop and implement standards for soda and other sugar-sweetened beverage advertising aimed at children under age 12.
Limiting access to and imposing sales tax on sodas and other sugar-sweetened beverages may just be the tip of the iceberg in finding economic ways (or disincentives) to combat the growing obesity epidemic.
A study published in the The Journal of Law and Economics by researchers at the City University of New York is showing what many parents and teachers already knew to be true, that television ads are contributing to childhood obesity.
In a research study supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases researchers Chou, Rashad and Grossman estimated that the effects of television fast-food restaurant advertising on children and adolescents are playing a role with children being overweight.
These researches predict that a ban on fast-food restaurant advertising would reduce the number of overweight children ages 3–11 in a fixed population by 18 percent and would reduce the number of overweight adolescents ages 12–18 by 14 percent.
In addition, eliminating the tax deductibility of junk food advertising would produce more declines of between 5 and 7 percent in these outcomes.
With estimates that children see over 30,000 television commercials a year and a third of them are for junk food, it is likely that eliminating junk food ads would go a long way in helping manage the advertising world’s contribution to promoting childhood obesity.
These findings go along with earlier ones conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation which found that “The vast majority of the foods that kids see advertised on television today are for products that nutritionists would tell us they need to be eating less of, not more of, if we’re going to get a handle on childhood obesity.”
There has been some debate going on in regards to the terms that should be used to indicate a child’s weight status.
For adults the categories are Underweight, Overweight and Obese, but these terms have been avoided in children.
Some doctors have avoided the blunt terms in particular “obese.” Instead, they refer to children many would consider too fat as being “at risk for overweight,” and “overweight” for those others would consider obese. These fuzzier labels let pediatricians “off the hook” when counseling patients who need to lose weight.
Dr. Reginald Washington, a committee spokesman and member of the American Academy of Pediatrics stated that the reason for not using the actual terms has been of “fear that we’re going to stigmatize children, we’re going to take away their self-esteem, we’re going to label them.”
Recommendations
A committee of medical experts American Medical Association and funded by federal health officials including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended that the terms overweight or obese be applied to children.
The recommended terms are more accurate, but don’t mean that doctors need to be insensitive about using the terms.
The recommendations were endorsed by most of the organizations on the committee, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Dietetic Association, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and the American College of Preventive Medicine.
The CDC will consider whether to adopt the recommendations.
Reason for Concern – More Obese and Overweight Children
About 17% of U.S. children are obese and one-third are overweight, using the committee’s recommended definitions. Those numbers are rising, putting children at risk for diabetes, high blood pressure, cholesterol problems and other ailments more commonly found in adults.
An interesting twist on combating the growing obesity epidemic is developing.
A 
A study published in the The Journal of Law and Economics by researchers at the City University of New York is showing what many parents and teachers already knew to be true, that television ads are contributing to childhood obesity.
There has been some debate going on in regards to the terms that should be used to indicate a child’s weight status.
