Experts urge 'pop tax' to curb obesity epidemic

[fgummett]

CTV.ca | Experts urge 'pop tax' to curb obesity epidemic (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090916/pop_tax_090916/20090916?hub=Health)Public health experts are calling for a tax on sugary drinks like soda in an attempt to curb an obesity epidemic that is plaguing North America.

Research has linked the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages to a higher risk for obesity, diabetes and heart disease.

To reduce these risks, and reduce the associated health-care costs, a group of public health officials writing in the New England Journal of Medicine propose a tax of one per cent per ounce for drinks that contain added sweeteners.

The report, published in this week's edition of the journal, says another option could be to tax beverages that exceed a specific threshold of grams of added sweetener (for example, one gram of added sugar per 30 ml).

A consumer who normally drinks a 591 ml can of soda per day and switches to a drink below that threshold would consume about 174 fewer calories per day, the experts say.

And a one per cent per ounce tax on sugar-sweetened beverages could raise as much as $14.9 billion at the federal level in the first year alone, they predict.

The authors admit that the exact effect of such a tax would not be known until it is implemented.

However, revenue generated could be used to fund obesity-prevention programs and other public-health initiatives.

"The science base linking the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages to the risk of chronic diseases is clear," the authors conclude. "Escalating health care costs and the rising burden of diseases related to poor diet create an urgent need for solutions, thus justifying government's right to recoup costs."

According to the report, studies show that consumption of sweetened beverages has doubled in a number of countries around the world.

A recent study from the American Heart Association found that Americans consume 22 teaspoons of added sugar per day, much of it from soft drinks and candy. Added sugar comes from sweeteners and syrups that are added to foods during processing or by consumers at the dinner table.

The Association recommends that women get no more than six teaspoons of added sugar per day, while men get no more than nine teaspoons.

Statistics Canada data released this summer suggests that consumption of soft drinks among Canadians fell from 76.4 litres in 2007 to 73.2 litres in 2008.

However, refined sugar consumption jumped by 1.0 kg in 2008, to 23.1 kg.

According to the report, 33 U.S. states already tax soft drinks, to a mean tax rate of 5.2 per cent. However, the experts argue that the taxes are not significant enough to reduce consumption, and the funds raised do not fund health programs.

The experts say that a one per cent per ounce tax would increase the cost of a 591 ml soft drink by 15 to 20 per cent.

By their estimates, such an increase would result in a between eight and 10 per cent decrease in consumption of sugary beverages. This reduction would likely lead to weight loss and a reduction in disease risk, the authors conclude.

While they admit that a tax on soft drinks won't eliminate obesity, they say it will help as part of a multi-pronged approach to the problem.

While the debate is ongoing in the United States, Dr. Yoni Freedhoff of Ottawa's Bariatric Medical Institute, says he is not aware of any formal talks about a soda tax in Canada.

But he thinks it's a great idea.

"Could we use a tax on pop? Certainly," Freedhoff told CTV News. "Taxing sugary beverages, if it decreases consumption and at the same time raises money that can be used for improving the health of society, I think that's a great idea. Certainly we don't need sugary sweetened beverages to survive."

On the other side of the debate, the Canadian beverage industry says the public has no appetite for the tax, and it would likely do little to curb bad eating habits.

"We agree that obesity is a complex health problem," said Refreshments Canada president Justin Sherwood. "However, taxing only one product will not make a difference."

Possibly a better alternative to raising this as a tax, would be to reduce the subsidy paid to corn farmers in the first place. The result of that subsidy is the flood of cheap HFCS. This means that ALL taxpayers are putting money into the pockets of PepsiCoke etc... rather than just those who buy this sugar water.

YouTube - Conspiracy for Fat America & High-Fructose Corn Syrup (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fi6fK1PvQK4&feature=fvw)

[lark 27]

Right on Frank. I hate the fact that I pay for HFCS when I try to avoid it and would prefer if manufacturers didn't keep sneaking it into stuff.

[princesslinda]

I saw this on the news last night. I don't like it...too much "big-brother" IMO. I'm fat, but I haven't had a "regular" soda in many, many years, long before diabetes. Next they will have a tax at McDonald's...and finally a tax for "high-fat" foods in general, once it starts, where does it end?

IMHO, if someone wants to drink a regular soda instead of a diet one, they should have that choice, for the same price. Let it be a matter of personal responsibilty/choice.

[butterflykisses]

HFCS is perfectly fine, didn't you see their commercials? ;)

[fgummett]

I saw this on the news last night. I don't like it...too much "big-brother" IMO. I'm fat, but I haven't had a "regular" soda in many, many years, long before diabetes. Next they will have a tax at McDonald's...and finally a tax for "high-fat" foods in general, once it starts, where does it end?

IMHO, if someone wants to drink a regular soda instead of a diet one, they should have that choice, for the same price. Let it be a matter of personal responsibility/choice.I agree Linda... I don't like these "big brother" taxes either -- especially as they would go off half-cocked based on poor science. But in this case it's not even needed... get rid of the corn subsidies (encourage the farmers to switch to crops that we actually need) and these cheap "fillers" will no longer be so attractive to the industrial food processors.

[notme]

I think if they tax the "pop" companies, they should be taxing candy bar companies, ice cream companies, cookie companies, bakers......

No really, I have to agree with Linda. This is just too much "Big Brother". Taxing cigarettes isn't helping. Generally, people aren't quitting because it cost too much, they are quitting because it is damaging their health.

[GrammaBear]

encourage the farmers to switch to crops that we actually need ?

What would you suggest instead of corn? Living in the heartland of America and being surrounded on four sides by corn fields, what are the alternatives for a farmer to make a decent living?

[fgummett]

How much HFCS do we need so we don't starve? Are farmers in business just to fill their fields with crops, or to provide food that we need? I don't want to see farmers struggling either, but the ones really making the money out of the current deal are Pepsico and the like.

Maybe this woman is just a conspiracy nut but she seems mild-mannered and makes points which jibe with what I have read elsewhere YouTube - Conspiracy for Fat America & High-Fructose Corn Syrup (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fi6fK1PvQK4&feature=fvw)

[notme]

Is it true that almost half the corn that is produced is used for ethenol and a very small percentage is used for HFCS? There are tons of uses for corn. Feeding livestock, ethenol, seed, just eating the darn stuff. I would think that HFCS could be easily replaced with another sugar source.

If people weren't using the products, they would find other foods to produce.

[foxl]

encourage the farmers to switch to crops that we actually need ?

What would you suggest instead of corn? Living in the heartland of America and being surrounded on four sides by corn fields, what are the alternatives for a farmer to make a decent living?

Soybeans are one. Also used for inks, plastics, animal feeds ...

But other than that, the majority of big-field, factory crops are GRAINS.

I HAVE seen some pretty huge sunflower fields too, but they are not as common.

[genie86333]

I really don't think a "pop tax" would work. I was a pop-a-holic since I was a teen. I *did* switch to diet before Dx because I finally realized that was a huge part of the weight I was putting on.

However...I *still* drink a lot, although it's diet, despite the fact that the prices of soda have gone up a lot in the last few years (or maybe it's just that where I live now, it's a lot more expensive - almost twice the price for some brands!) So if a bit of "pop tax" was added? I would have done the same thing - keep buying it & probably still drinking the same amount.

[Gordonm]

Yea it is only the soda making the American population fat. That will solve the obesity epidemic. Typical government program at work. Raising taxes to feed their pockets.

[lark 27]

Would a pop-tax be a cure for obesity? definitely not. Could it help, I think so. I've had friends quit smoking when taxes go up on cigarettes. It also helps add some cost to an artificially cheap product.

The root of the problem is that we don't pay the real price for food. A pop tax helps resolve that, but also improved governmental policies on subisides and farming are needed. Subsidies make it cheap to fill foods up with HFCS and fat from soybeans. Food companies are good at making that stuff taste good. This combination good and cheap is tough to beat. Of course we can say that a person that consistently chooses to drink the pop or eat the twinkies has to pay the price (obesity or health concerns) for their decision, but the reality is other's pay (tax dollars go to pay the subsidies for one thing. Add to this discussion the cost to the environment of chemicals used to grow corn cheap that then get into the ground and water, and concerns with genetically modified food--81% of the soy grown in the U.S.--and the petro used to ship all this from the fields to the factory to the next factory to the distribution plant to the grocery store, and shared health care costs, and the fact that cattle at factory feedlots are fed cheap corn for feed instead of naturally grazing and all the concerns the mass meat production brings).

OK enough of a rant on a somewhat non-Diabetes related topic.

Below is a portion of a Michael Pollan article, and here's the link:
...........Michael Pollan........... (http://www.michaelpollan.com/article.php?id=88)
"For the last several decades--indeed, for about as long as the American waistline has been ballooning--U.S. agricultural policy has been designed in such a way as to promote the overproduction of these five commodities, especially corn and soy.

That's because the current farm bill helps commodity farmers by cutting them a check based on how many bushels they can grow, rather than, say, by supporting prices and limiting production, as farm bills once did. The result? A food system awash in added sugars (derived from corn) and added fats (derived mainly from soy), as well as dirt-cheap meat and milk (derived from both). By comparison, the farm bill does almost nothing to support farmers growing fresh produce."

[Penny]

Ohio is thinking about taxing all food...maybe it will get too expensive to eat at all and then the fat problem will be solved. :D

[lark 27]

Ohio is thinking about taxing all food...maybe it will get too expensive to eat at all and then the fat problem will be solved. :D

LOL. I love it! :) I know IL had a 1 or 1.5% tax on food and WI doesn't, but I think I've lived somewhere else where food was taxed at the same rate as other saled (TN or CA-- I can't remember).

[Chef Barrae]

I have one question. Were you all against the tax on cigarettes and other tobacco products as well? Did you call for tobacco growers to grow other crops to make a living? Or critisize the government for being "big brother?" This is much the same. Instead of trying to stem the tide of cancer, it will try to stem the tide of obesity in children, which has become one of the most purvasive problems in youth and is causing a marked increase in obesity and diabetes in youngsters. They are the largest group drinking sugar laden drinks. This tax is not just on soda pop but also on juices made with sugar. So long kool-aid, Juicy-juice, and the rest of the HFCS drinks that are bludgeoning our children. I, for one, am happy to see this. And the billions of dollars that this tax will raise could go towards healthcare for all Americans, which as I understand it, is the plan.

[fgummett]

I'm in favour of reducing the amount of cheap HFCS on the market... not just in pop but in pretty much any/every processed or packaged food out there... including bread, hot dogs, pickles... you name it ;)

My understanding is that one of the main reasons HFCS is so cheap (and by that I mean cheap to the industrial food complex... NOT necessarily to the customer) is because of massive (tens of billions of dollars) of subsidies paid to corn farmers by the USA government. If some of that money could instead be used to assist those farmers switch to possibly healthier crops (so they don't lose their livelihoods) that could still leave the rest in the Government coffers to be [potentially] used for health promotion/care.

The trouble I have with adding a food tax is that the science is unclear... yes we know the link between smoking and lung cancer, yes we know the link between sugar and obesity/diabetes, but what about fat... do we start taxing fat, or fast food... what is next..? What are the social implications... right now it is cheaper to buy pop than apples because HFCS is so cheap... if we tax the pop but don't reduce the price of the apples... then what happens..?

[Chef Barrae]

Okay, wait. I have another question then. Are the farmers that you want the subsidies taken away from, growing HFCS or are they growing corn and there are companies buying it to manufacture HFCS? We know the answer. So, why penalize the farmer for something the manufacturer is doing?

[fgummett]

Why subsidize farmers to grow a crop that we don't need :confused: especially when the artificially low price of that crop is leading to a health crisis... how does that make any sense, except to the shareholders of pepsico etc..?

...some of that money could instead be used to assist those farmers switch to possibly healthier crops...

How much HFCS do we need so we don't starve? Are farmers in business just to fill their fields with crops, or to provide food that we need? I don't want to see farmers struggling either, but the ones really making the money out of the current deal are Pepsico and the like.

Maybe this woman is just a conspiracy nut but she seems mild-mannered and makes points which jibe with what I have read elsewhere YouTube - Conspiracy for Fat America & High-Fructose Corn Syrup (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fi6fK1PvQK4&feature=fvw)

[notme]

I have one question. Were you all against the tax on cigarettes and other tobacco products as well? Did you call for tobacco growers to grow other crops to make a living? Or critisize the government for being "big brother?" This is much the same. Instead of trying to stem the tide of cancer, it will try to stem the tide of obesity in children, which has become one of the most purvasive problems in youth and is causing a marked increase in obesity and diabetes in youngsters. They are the largest group drinking sugar laden drinks. This tax is not just on soda pop but also on juices made with sugar. So long kool-aid, Juicy-juice, and the rest of the HFCS drinks that are bludgeoning our children. I, for one, am happy to see this. And the billions of dollars that this tax will raise could go towards healthcare for all Americans, which as I understand it, is the plan.


I think if it was only soda causing obesity, I would probably be pretty much for the taxation. My gripe is there as so many other causes for obesity other than pop. Cigarettes are the leading cause of lung cancer, not the only cause, but it is the leading cause.

I don't drink soda very often, almost never and it is always diet. So if they made it illegal, I wouldn't suffer much.:T However, I think that it is unfair that they only tax one bad food or drink and blame it as the leading cause of obesity. I think the government is just going to far looking for a way to tax us more for something that should be a personal responsibility.

As for cigarette tax, I don't really have a problem. Cigarettes are addictive. Soda is not. I don't have a problem with alcohol tax, it can also be "addictive" and cause many medical problems. I don't drink enough alcohol for them to get too many taxes out of me anyhow. What I do drink, I will happily pay my fine. :cool:

[Chef Barrae]

Why subsidize farmers to grow a crop that we don't need :confused: especially when the artificially low price of that crop is leading to a health crisis... how does that make any sense, except to the shareholders of pepsico etc..?

Then why not take away tax breaks for Pepsico and Coke instead or whomever manufactures HFCS? I am sure that the corn already grown can have many other uses. You are blaming the farmers for something they are not doing. Even if the corporate tax breaks are removed I am still in favor of a soda pop tax. That's because one of the largest groups that purchases these sugary drinks are low income families and it would hopefully prohibit them from purchasing it and find other healthier choices. Education also plays a large part in this because people have to learn what are healthy foods that they should eat. Have you ever heard about the children of the Apalachian's? You should read about their diet and how it effects them.

[notme]

Have you ever heard about the children of the Apalachian's? You should read about their diet and how it effects them.

Wow...I did see that Diane Sawyer report and it was really frightening. I think it was Mountain Dew? that was ruining their teeth. I was really sad to watch that story. I would definitely say those kids were addicted to their sugary pop. Maybe I should alter my previous post. It was sad how much they drank.

[fgummett]

Of course I realise the harm that pop causes, but are you seriously suggesting that the answer for impoverished children is to add more taxes?

BTW where do you see that I am "blaming" the farmers? How does my suggestion in any way harm the farmers if they are helped financially to move into still profitable but different varieties of crops? They could even grow something that we need to stay healthy... subsidize that by all means, and provide it to the folks who really need it.

[Chef Barrae]

Wow...I did see that Diane Sawyer report and it was really frightening. I think it was Mountain Dew? that was ruining their teeth. I was really sad to watch that story. I would definitely say those kids were addicted to their sugary pop. Maybe I should alter my previous post. It was sad how much they drank.

That's right. I think it was cheaper than buying milk? That was the reason that babies drank it in their bottles? So, yes, taxing soda pop to make it out of reach for low income familes is a good idea. It is a beginning. Education about healthy eating must exist in schools as it used to in a health class. I also believe quite strongly that the good old citizenship class needs to be brought back. Education is dictated state by state, right? I mean the curriculum. So, somehow because these classes have disappeared, perhaps there are those who would rather see people in the dark or ignorant for some reason. IDK.

[Chef Barrae]

Of course I realise the harm that pop causes, but are you seriously suggesting that the answer for impoverished children is to add more taxes?

BTW where do you see that I am "blaming" the farmers? How does my suggestion in any way harm the farmers if they are helped financially to move into still profitable but different varieties of crops? They could even grow something that we need to stay healthy... subsidize that by all means, and provide it to the folks who really need it.

I see. I did not realise that you meant to subsidize the farmers to grow other crops in the place of corn. But still and all, if corn can be an alternative energy source, then why take it away?

[fgummett]

That's right. I think it was cheaper than buying milk? That was the reason that babies drank it in their bottles?Wouldn't it make more sense to subsidize the milk rather than to tax the pop :confused: Do you think these mothers don't realise what they are doing but maybe have no choice... taxing them gives them even less choice.

I get the impression there is a patronising attitude to the poor and underprivileged. I don't like it.

[Chef Barrae]

Wouldn't it make more sense to subsidize the milk rather than to tax the pop :confused: Do you think these mothers don't realise what they are doing but maybe have no choice... taxing them gives them even less choice.

I get the impression there is a patronising attitude to the poor and underprivileged. I don't like it.

First of all, if you are referring to me as being patronising to the poor then you have completely misinterpreted my words. I believe that people who need help should be able to get it. There already are programs for subsidising the purchase of milk, etc. for young children. The WIC program comes to mind but I do not know how much it has been cut over the years and perhaps more money should be budgeted by the federal government for it and other programs like it. I am an advocate of education. Like I said, in my opinion, both a soda pop tax and education should go hand in hand but I also said that I believe the curriculum choices are dictated by each state. Removing a bad choice is not a bad thing. And no, these mothers that I referred to do not know what they are doing by feeding their children Mountain Dew and junk food. And yes, they are so far from things living in the Appalachian Mountains that they simply do not have access to a grocery store but only a gas station or convenience store to do their grocery shopping. The adults themselves are addicted to Mountain Dew as well.

Here is a link to the news story I am talking about:

What It's Like Living in Appalachia - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=6862142)

[fgummett]

On one hand we have farmers being paid by the Government (USA is big in this but not the only one) to produce a crop to levels that are surplus to demand... thus keeping the price too low for the farmers to sell it at a profit... hence they need the Government to help them stay in business... so that hopefully one day they can look forward to a long and healthy retirement, financially secure.

A not-insignificant by-product of the cheap price of corn is massive profits by firms like Pepsico in the form of HFCS which is in just about every processed and packaged "food" out there.

My suggestion is to re-establish the "real" market price of corn by removing the Government subsidies... while still providing financial aid to the farmers in programs that help them move to other fair market price produce. This suggestion frees up the tens of billions of dollars from the corn subsidies to be used, possibly even in health promotion/care. It could also make significant inroads into the all of products containing HFCS... not just soda-pop.

On the other hand we have desperately impoverished and undereducated people living in a very remote part of what is supposed to be one of the richest countries in the World. They have little money, few choices, little hope and poor health. Putting a direct tax on the little they can afford reduces their choices even more... it does not provide them with the more money they would need to choose milk or whatever instead of pop.

So I say yes to more education, yes to free milk and meal programs for the children at their schools, ease their burdens and give them a way out of poverty but *not* by trying to force behaviours by raising taxes on them. Put more money in their pockets* and give them the choice. Put yourself in that position... would you rather have everything in the grocery store too expensive for you to buy but get a food parcel from the Government each week... or would you prefer to have money in your pocket and reasonable prices (including on fresh produce from the farmers above) at the store so you can make your own food choices?

*and no that doesn't automatically mean "welfare"... it could mean local development, jobs, infrastructure... a real way out of the poverty cycle.

[fgummett]

On one hand we have farmers being paid by the Government ... so that hopefully one day they can look forward to a long and healthy retirement, financially secure.Apologies all.. that came across as harsh and was not my intention. We ALL need farmers to stay in business... they are the ones who keep us fed :)

[art]

Art urges EXPERTS to shut up and get a life.

Art

[ShottleBop]

Jenny Ruhl posted about fructose and its links to metabolic issues just yesterday, in her blog, "Diabetes Update": September 18, 2009

High Fructose Intake Raises Liver Fat

As I blogged last week, it is liver fat not, as we have been told for years, visceral fat, that appears to be responsible for the metabolic disorders associated with obesity.

Intrahepatic fat, not visceral fat, is linked with metabolic complications of obesity. Elisa Fabbrini et al. PNAS Published online before print August 24, 2009, doi: 10.1073/pnas.0904944106>The abstract of the above study is pretty tough going. Fortunately, you can read a clearer explanation of what this study found in this report in Diabetes in Control

Diabetes in Control:Liver Fat Has Greater Impact on Health than Abdominal Fat

A new study reported last week gives important information about an important factor that causes fats to be deposited in the liver: Fructose.

Fructose overconsumption causes dyslipedemia Lê KA, et al. Am J Clin Nutr. 2009 Jun;89(6):1760-5. Epub 2009 Apr 29.

In this study twenty-four human males, 8 normal who were the controls and 16 "healthy offspring of patients with type 2 diabetes" were fed two different diets, each for a week. The first was a control diet (the makeup not specified in the study abstract but undoubtedly it was the the usual high carbohydrate diet favored by nutritionists). Then all the subjects they were fed a diet that contained 3.5 g of fructose per kilogram of the subject's fat free mass and 35% more calories than the control diet.

This is a lot of fructose. Back of the envelope calculations suggest it would be 145 grams of fructose for a 140 lb woman at the high end of normal BMI and 255 grams for a 200 lb man with 20% body fat.

Liver and muscle tissue were studied with 1-H magnetic resonance spectroscopy and insulin resistance was also measured with a two step insulin clamp.

The finding here was that the high fructose/high calorie diet raised intrahepatic cellular lipids--i.e. fats in the liver cells--by 76% in normal people and 79% in those with relatives with Type 2 diabetes.

The high fructose/high calorie diet raised intramuscular cellular lipids much more in controls than people with diabetic relatives--47% in the normals, 24% in those with diabetic relatives. This probably reflects the insulin resistance of the people with diabetic heritages. The high fructose/high calorie diet raised VLDL-triacylglycerols, the lipid fraction most closely linked with heart disease, +51% in controls and 110% in the people with diabetic relatives.

The high fructose/high calorie diet raised fasting hepatic glucose output 4% in control: +4% and 5% in those with diabetic relatives. The researchers also concluded that it decreased the subjects' liver insulin sensitivity.

With this in mind, you'd want to ask yourself what kind of diet would provide 3.5 grams of fructose per pound of body weight each day. Research using data from the 1970s found that For most sex/age groups nonalcoholic beverages (eg, soft drinks and fruit-flavored drinks) and grain products (eg, sweet bakery products) were the major sources of fructose.

There is only a tiny amount of fructose in wheat, so the fructose attributed to in baked goods here came from the sugar and corn syrup they contained. Table sugar, sucrose, is made of glucose bonded to fructose, and is one half fructose. High fructose corn syrup may be anywhere from 55% fructose to 90% fructose. There is no way of knowing the actual percentage of fructose in any food you buy that lists high fructose corn syrup on the label.

The 1970s data showed that the average person's intake of fructose from all sources averaged 37 grams a day, with young males eating an average of 54 grams a day. Since the 1970s, our food supply has been invaded by high fructose corn syrup which you will find in everything from bread to soup to beans to salad dressing. With 41 grams of high fructose corn syrup in every 12 ounce can of Pepsi, it's likely that the average daily intake is at least double that common in the 1970s. And then there are all those milkshakes-sold-as-coffee-and-tea like the Starbucks Apple Chai Infusion with its 74 g of sugars. . . .

So while the average person might not be eating as much fructose as the amount used in the study that showed high fructose intake causing liver fat build up, they may be eating up to 2/3rds that amount. Given the massive impact the high fructose diet had on liver fat, this latest study adds convincing evidence that fructose does, in fact, play a big part in the so-called "obesity epidemic" and in the rising incidence of Type 2 diabetes.