Soda and the Sin Tax
I am old enough to remember when libertarians and conservatives would object to government interference with tobacco and alcohol by asking, "What next? Will the government start taxing fatty foods and put warning labels on fettuccine alfredo?" I can honestly remember that the proponents of the "serious" regulations dismissed this particularly slippery slope argument as absolutely absurd, that nobody would ever advocate a tax on fatty foods. And yet now, Barry Popkin at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill defends the taxes on soda by pointing out, "We've done it with cigarettes." FULL ARTICLE
Comments (21)
The same point that Murphy makes can be made for taxes on alcohol, petrol, ice cream and red meat.
All are unhealthy or can lead to unhealthy situations. The government however doesn't have a right to meddle in our unhealthy behaviour. But because of public health care that the government pays for, (actually we do, through our taxes) it reasons that since HMG gives us health care, it can force us to behave responsibly. The only answer to this is to question the right of existence of that same public healthcare!
If we don't the next thing will be a tax on helmets. Helmets are dangerous because they allow us to do things that we need helmets for!
Published: March 29, 2006 8:50 AM
Such arguments for sin taxes can be applied endlessly to all kinds of activities:
If you drive a car, your chances of being in an accident are proportional to the distances traveled, so why not a distance tax? It has been shown that women who delay having children have increased risks of breast cancer, so why not a tax on the childless? Time spent in the sun increases the risk of skin cancer, so why not a tax on sunbathers?
Too much of anything has costs, so why not a tax on everything? Busybodies are the the most evil people on the planet.
Published: March 29, 2006 9:45 AM
Great article! Hilarious all the comments about the stupidity of the regulations and the misuse of science.
Yancey -- there's a broader point behind what you're saying. Most of what we take for granted simply *would not have been permitted* if today's safety standards were in force when they first became popular. The government only deigns to allow them because of their pre-regulation history. Cars, bleu cheese, mayo, fireplaces (both the fire risk and the particulate matter they spew), bathtubs, red meat, you name it. And of course, the verdict on whether they are healthy flips every 10 years, which causes me to be a tad skeptical of the supposed confidence they have their findings for the safety of things that have been safely used for a long time.
Published: March 29, 2006 10:39 AM
Standard question:
Did you write a letter of complaint and, if you did, was it published?
Published: March 29, 2006 11:13 AM
I noticed that piece of sad irony myself when the idea of suing fastfood companies began.
Even the onion, which is far from freemarket, made light of this idea in 2000.
This parody article from less than 6 years ago could easily be real news today. http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28407
________
HERSHEY, PA–In one of the largest product-liability rulings in U.S. history, the Hershey Foods Corporation was ordered by a Pennsylvania jury Monday to pay $135 billion in restitution fees to 900,000 obese Americans who for years consumed the company's fattening snack foods.
Jury Takes A Bite Out Of Big Chocolate
"Let this verdict send a clear message to Big Chocolate," said Pennsylvania Attorney General Andrew Garsten, addressing reporters following the historic ruling. "If you knowingly sell products that cause obesity, you will pay."
The five-state class-action suit accused Hershey's of "knowingly and willfully marketing rich, fatty candy bars containing chocolate and other ingredients of negligible nutritional value." The company was also charged with publishing nutritional information only under pressure from the government, marketing products to children, and artificially "spiking" their products with such substances as peanuts, crisped rice, and caramel to increase consumer appeal.
Jurors took less than five hours to reach the decision following a two-year trial covering nearly one million snackers in Pennsylvania, Florida, New Hampshire, Arizona, and Texas. A majority of the unprecedented punitive damages will go toward obesity victims and their immediate families. The remainder will be funneled into weight-loss and youth-snacking prevention programs. ....
Whatever the outcome of the Hershey's appeal, the chocolate industry has irrevocably changed as a result of Monday's verdict.
"For over a century, Hershey's has lived off the fat of the land," Erie, PA, claimant Pamela Schiff said. "Now it's time to pay us back."
Published: March 29, 2006 11:23 AM
Whenever I read articles such as this (the NY Times features one on a daily basis) I pop in a copy of my Oliver Stone's "JFK" and root for Lee Harvey Oswald.
Published: March 29, 2006 12:16 PM
The biggest problem with sin taxes is that it makes the government a huge stakeholder in the sin which is being taxed. Consider cigarettes, do you think that any cigarette company would be allowed to fail with the billions in excise taxes being collected? How about the state's behavior after the big tobacco settlement? The states were filing briefs on behalf of Phillip Morris in the recent case in Illinois when a multi-billion dollar judgement was going to sink it.
Published: March 29, 2006 4:40 PM
Government is sin. Better tax it.
Published: March 29, 2006 4:49 PM
Professor Murphy,
I applaud you for your excellent article regarding Soda and the Sin Tax. Your well articulated points brought a smile to my face, as I have always believed that skepticism directed towards business and industrial research is justifiable, but the same skepticism needs to be applied to government or special-interest funded science.
Indeed, the AP article reads far from objective after you pointed out that the author/s demonstrated that all skeptics had ties to the beverage industry, and that proponents were from government and health advocacy groups. It wasn't as if the beverage industry skeptics denied soda consumption being a factor in obesity -- they just felt it was a stretch to conclude soda was causal, or the single largest cause. Plenty (I'd warrant most) of scientists not affiliated with the beverage industry would agree; thanks for stating that so clearly. I wonder if the authors sought out skeptical scientists, or if they contacted beverage companies asking for comment, and the beverage companies referred the quoted individuals?
The article states "That research was paid for by industry, a factor that can affect study outcomes, said Kelly Brownell, a psychologist and food policy researcher at Yale University and a vocal advocate for curbs on soda and fast food." I agree: association can affect study outcome. I feel it is prudent to be watchful of industrial research. This does not mean, however, that affiliation with industry necessarily makes one biased, only possible. Why aren't the author/s similarly concerned with government sponsored research? Just because one group operates for "profit," and the other operates for "public health", doesn't make either agent more pure of motive than the other, especially since nothing is impure about providing the consumer something they want through voluntary exchange, even if it is bad for them.
BP gas and oil currently supports my graduate education; I admit I want to obtain results that please the company and leads to future partnership. The same can be said for government or special interest funded projects. I'm willing to wager that I'd be more likely to get future National Institute of Health grants, for example, if my results stated a statistically significant cause of a problem, rather than a likely affiliation but inconclusive relationship. Being funded by government would push me just as much as industry to reach conclusions that would benefit, well, me and my career. This does not mean I would intentionally lie, distort, or do anything aside from analyzing the data . All it means is that for me to pursue and accept funding, I would first have a hypothesis with certain assumptions attached, and that I hope to validate my hypothesis and gather evidence supporting my assumptions so I could acquire more funds in the future. Could my outcome be affected? Yes, in the sense I would try to support any initial assumptions that could lead to future research. Neither source of funding would necessarily lead to more truthful results, only more attractive headlines.
I criticize the article for stating that "those making the case against soda include some of the nation's top obesity researchers at prestigious institutions like Harvard and Yale." Affiliation with those universities doesn't make your work more prestigious or better than a scientist at Wichita State. Each study and research group stands on their own merit for their results. Yes, generally the more prestigious universities attract great scientists (but mainly much more grant money), but that doesn't make their work more credible than the quoted skeptic, Adam Drewnowski, director of nutritional sciences at the University of Washington in Seattle. I feel the article attempts to discredit Mr. Drewnowski, stating he owns stock in a beverage company. Fair enough, I believe it is good journalism to note his stockholding. It is bad journalism, however, not to mention which journals the new reports are being published in. The article may be for the general public, but as a scientist, the journal work is published in has more merit of prestige than institution. I've always felt general science articles, despite a lack of sexiness, should reference the appropriate journal in the first paragraph, or at least a footnote at the end.
I am taking a scientific journalism class for fun (maybe as an alternative career), beginning next week, and I'm going to keep the original article as an example of bad science journalism.
Published: March 29, 2006 5:19 PM
I can remember not too long ago when people who were blowing smoke in my face at resturants were pretty smug. I also remember debating the drug war with these same people telling them that cigarettes would become illegal soon and the war on drugs was just starting. Naturally they looked at me like I was crying about the sky falling.
Today, I am accused of crying about the loss of all our rights under the constitution, especially the bill of rights. Again, it's "Oh, Eric stop crying about government".
Well cigarettes are almost illegal, and in many public places they are illegal. So, we're still on the slippery slope there. But our rights are slip sliding away, and I don't see anything that is going to turn it around. People don't care until it affects them personally. That's how government does it. They attack one area at a time. Fat will be comming soon.
I'm just saw my doctor who had to fill out a special prescription form to get me some cough medicine (they normally generate these using laptops and a central printer so they are fast and legible - and even auto-signed) stating it was a controlled substance, and also wouldn't give me any anti-botics until the "cdc recommended" 13 days of no improvement passed. Today a recommendation, tommorw an order.
Published: March 29, 2006 6:48 PM
Eric
You write, 'Today, I am accused of crying about the loss of all our rights under the constitution, especially the bill of rights. Again, it's "Oh, Eric stop crying about government".'
Same sort of thing happens to me from time to time. But in the end, one by one your friends and neighbours get a state-bite and then they begin to realise that everything aint quite right.
Lately I am having great fun laughing at my neighbours. They have been cited for building an extension to their house which is "over height." They've gone about 6" over in one corner but that one thing led to other City Council intrusions and now they have had the "consent" withdrawn. Down it all must come. That is going to cost big time. And of course the bank is mumbling about the mortgage and some personal loans.
"Whose house is this?" Bruce demands. "Not yours." I respond. "You supported these guys. You've supported all sorts of law and regulations they've been instituting. You lobbied and voted for some of themm yourself. Every time we had a conversation about this sort of thing you justified it. So, you deserve what you worked for, mate. You deserve what you got." He doesn't talk to me now but that's OK as he won't be my neighbour for much longer. Hopefully the new people won't be a pack of socialists!
In the end people get what they want. Trouble is the risk of them taking the rest of us with them on their journey to hell.
Sione
PS ever notice how fat people are often happy? Why is that?
Published: March 29, 2006 7:43 PM
Kaye is exactly right -- it is the existence of the welfare state which creates a path for the intellectual leap to regulating or prohibiting all (and I do mean all) human behavior. As long as the state bears some burden for (potential) externalities created when people engage in certain activities, the state will demand a say in what those behaviors may be.
If so, what shall the Austrian Economists and libertarians do to best slow, stop, or reverse the tide of state intervention in liberty? What is the 'game plan,' first to wean the masses from the government dole then wean the government from incrementally restricting liberty? V Harris
Published: March 29, 2006 9:52 PM
"Ever notice how fat people are often happy?"
As a fat guy, I can offer some insight. I don't go through life in constant fear that something I eat, drink, or smoke will shorten my life. A long life will not offer much enjoyment if you live in fear of death.
Screw the health Nazis. Eat, drink, and be merry. Here are some of my favorite things.
1. rare steaks over 50 ounces
2. 10 pints of beer over 9%ABV
3. smoking more than 5 cigars in a day
I can't do them all everyday, but the days I have done one or more from the list have been great days.
Published: March 29, 2006 9:56 PM
If so, what shall the Austrian Economists and libertarians do to best slow, stop, or reverse the tide of state intervention in liberty?
Do nothing. You're not going to reverse it; anything you to do slow it only prolongs the life of the state. Instead, let it increase, all the sooner to reach the point where the state collapses. Just keep talking about what's wrong, and getting libertarian ideas into people's heads so that when it does collapse, something better can follow.
Published: March 30, 2006 1:25 AM
the statement that soda CAUSES obesity is simply false, and any scientist worth his salt would know that.
For A to cause B requires that the occurrence of A is both necessary and sufficient to get result B. the existence of a single obese person who doesn't drink soda disposes of the 'necessary' component, and the existence of a single non-obese person who does drink soda disposes of the 'sufficient' component. That people who fit these criteria exist is beyond doubt.
ergo - soda does not cause obesity. Even if it may be cited as a contributory factor, it shares this characteristic with all other foods containing calories. Im surprised Prof. Murphy didn't point this logic out in specific terms - it woul dhave added much to his otherwise on-the-button article....
Published: March 30, 2006 2:07 AM
"PS ever notice how fat people are often happy? Why is that?"
Because the unhappy ones go and do something about it like I did and lose 47 pounds. :) Without any government help, at that!
Anyway, I like your approach, Sione. I've adopted a similar strategy. I point out the stupidity and immorality of government tyranny to friends and relatives, and let them stick up for the state if they wish. Then, when the state decides to screw them, I remind them they're just getting what they asked for.
Recently, my parents complained about the proposal of new laws that restrict or ban the sale of vitamins in Canada; I reminded them that they vote again and again for politicians who favour controlling what people eat and ingest — food, drugs, and whatnot. Now they reap the results of giving corrupt men that kind of power.
Published: March 30, 2006 6:05 AM
Somtehing I haven't seen brought up yet in this dialog is that very few if any beverages in the US that are sweetened naturally with items that add calories (rather than adding nasty chemical aftertaste and potentially more dangerous side effects than obesity) use sugar. The ingredient of choice is 'High Fructose Corn Syrup.' This is actually a modified starch, that may very well be more conducive to obesity than real sugar, due to the insulin reactions it leads to in the body.
And why use HFCS rather than sugar? Because government subsidies raise US sugar prices to about double their worldwide level.
Where is Brad Edmonds to complain about the 'Government in My Soda"?
Published: March 31, 2006 8:53 AM
There are sin taxes on soda already, at least in some states. I know that in New Jersey 10 years ago, there was sales tax charged on soda, candy, and other "non-essential" foods, but no sales tax on lettuce and milk, etc...
Also, in addition to being anti-industry, many academics feel that research funded by the Dept. of Defense is biased, but research funded by other branches of the government is not. Sounds logical to me!
Published: March 31, 2006 1:23 PM
Kathryn,
According to a study from Harvard, the research conducted supporting free-markets is biased beyond all salvation.
Published: March 31, 2006 1:35 PM
Over here at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, home of Barry Popkin, we have a legislator who floated the idea of a tax on soda. She wanted to use the proceeds to have the public schools provide breakfast to every student every morning. So you have to pay taxes on your soda, but the upside is you're no longer responsible for feeding your own kids. This place is a fountain of good ideas.....
Published: March 31, 2006 5:24 PM
Basically the government is finding ways of taking more money from the people in order to fund THEIR priorities. Naming it a "Sin" tax is a way of saying "Sure you can do this, but it will cost you a little extra" - The amount of second hand smoke an average non-smoker inhales on a daily basis is so minor as to be comparable to the effects of smog and your other standard air pollutants such as bleach when your wife cleans the house and fumes from spray can air freshner's. Granted than none of these are very good for your health, but if these "Sin" taxes are applied to everything that might in some way affect the health of you or others EVERYONE would be outraged. Add a tax to bleach, add a tax to air fresheners, add another tax to gasoline, raise all of these price by $1.00 or even $4. Sure people have to have these things, people are "ADDICTED" to a clean, nice smelling home, and they have to get to work everyday to pay for these items, so lets raise gas tax as well, because it does pollute the atmosphere and disperses toxic fumes. I know you are thinking "Toxic?", yes - carbon monoxide gas is poisonous and HAS killed people.
Now that we have covered adding items to the "Sin Tax" list lets make a new list based off of the rising cost of medicare and medicaid. Fat people, you all know who you are, dragging us all down with your sugar encrusted donuts, carbonated beverages, and candy bars. Lets have a "FAT TAX". Lets base this off of sugar, sodium, carbohydrates, and fats. Lets "UNCLOG" the arteries of society so us skinny smokers can join the politically correct overweight society saying "if i put out my smoke would you put down your donut?" I think thats a great slogan, I don't want the morbidly obese taking extra "handicapped parking spaces because they are too fat to walk, I don't want to pay extra because their arteries are clogged with "sugary goodness". I say spread the wealth, lets find more things to tax so you tree hugging hippies can not only have the money to fund your own "Garden of Eden" societies where no one is fat, no one is drunk, no one smokes, and no ones is happy, so you tree hugging hippies can sit around all day and gripe about everything and make everyone else hate your stinking guts.
Just a thought, I hope everyone has a nice day.
BTW I think all "Sin Tax" should be abolished and the government should find a more equal way of coming up with the money they need to spend on important projects that target the living quality of AMERICAN CITIZENS such as healthcare, schools, and of course HOMEland security.
Published: May 26, 2006 2:58 PM