ShareThis Page

The soda tax: A sour aftertaste

| Friday, Oct. 21, 2016, 8:30 p.m.

The cost of sugary drinks is on the ballot in some California and Colorado cities as the nanny state attempts to extend its reach. But past experience more than suggests the initiatives, if successful, will leave voters with a sour taste.

The intent of soda taxes is to reduce rates of obesity and diabetes. The consequences, as studies show, are a reduction in jobs more than calories and, at best, questionable health benefits.

Trouble is, government interventions like soda taxes typically gain momentum, from state to state, while the consequences are shoved aside.

A university study of Mexico's one-peso-per-liter tax on soda found that the levy cost about 10,000 jobs, prompted cross-border shopping and posed an enforcement nightmare, according to Geoff Parker, CEO of the Australian Beverages Council. Meanwhile the tax reduced consumption by only 3 percent.

Elsewhere, researchers from Ohio State and Cornell universities found that calories were not significantly reduced by a soda tax as households bought more beer.

And Philadelphia's not-so-sweet sweetened beverage tax of 1.5 cents per ounce has prompted a lawsuit. City lawyers call the levy a “political choice of necessity.”

And what exactly is the “necessity” of driving soda shoppers elsewhere unless — heaven forbid — a soda tax becomes uniform across the country?

Government has far more pressing matters than pinching consumers for their beverage choices.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me