A new study from the US Department of Agriculture shows that by taxing sweetened drinks, such as sodas, more consumers opt for the comparatively cheaper, more nutritional beverage options. On average, if the price of soda increased by 20 percent, adults would consume 43 calories less per day by drinking more milk or juices instead, which amounts to not gaining an extra 3.8 pounds of body weight over a year. For children, reduced calorie consumption from sodas would result in 4.5 pounds of body weight not gained.
Sightline cited the study and came to this conclusion:
While it’s not as if a 20 percent surcharge on soda would solve the nation’s obesity problem, neither is it the case that prices don’t make a real difference. So to the extent that weight gain is a serious problem for public health, it seems that prices may play an important role in solving it.
Personally, I’d love to see some revenue-neutral version of a steep Pigovian tax on sugary products. The revenue could be easily redirected toward uses that would boost equity, such as a tax rebate for low-income individuals, or a general sales tax reduction, or perhaps even funding for health programs. There’s no real public benefit to cheap empty calories, and an abundance of ways to lend a financial helping hand where it’s needed.
No related posts.
Comments RSS You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
I disagree with Sightline’s implication that sugary products cause a negative externality to society. While excessively eating junk food will indeed lead to increased medical costs (and eventually be a drain on healthcare, public resources etc), I’m not comfortable calling it an externality of the product. Its consumption does not necessarily lead to negative externalities in the same way, for instance, consumption of gasoline necessarily depletes natural oil reserves and raises CO2 levels.
I say we focus on un-subsidizing corn before going after soda. Though, I guess in this example that’s the same thing…