Tax Right

When I tell folks that I work with nutrition education, they often say what a great thing that is and ask how anyone--policymakers or other stakeholders--could be against it. While helping empower kids to make health-conscious decisions may seem harmless, efforts to change behavior are almost always controversial.

One such controversy has emerged around the proposed New York State tax on some sugar-sweetened drinks. The levy has been roundly criticized; most importantly, perhaps, members of the anti-hunger community have been on the offensive, reasoning that the tax fails to make healthier choices more affordable. This critique has a false premise. It doesn't account for why people choose the drinks they do, or for the need that soft drinks fulfill. To test this, it helps to extend the critique to cigarettes: one rarely hears the argument that tobacco regulations fail to encourage better or cheaper alternatives. Smoking is not a basic need that merits protection as a right. Theoretically, beverages are different—-hydration is a matter of survival. Yet the proposed tax on sweetened drinks is not a matter of hydration; sodas are not essential in any way. On the basis of ensuring that people have access to what's needed to survive, the government has no obligation to subsidize healthier choices above and beyond what already comes through the nearest water faucet.

But sugary drinks aren't rationalized as water-alternatives. They fulfill other needs, such as taste, nourishment and energy. While it's valid to argue that the government doesn't have a right to dictate diet as a matter of choice, the government does have the right--if not the obligation--to intervene when choices impact others negatively. And this is the argument that advocates make: sugary drinks negatively impact communities by heightening chances of diet-related diseases and thereby increasing health-care and publicly-subsidized costs. As far as drinks are concerned, there seems to be broad agreement that sweetened beverages offer little in the way of nutrients. They are often labeled “empty calories.” People may choose them as part of their diet, but sodas cannot replace nutrient-rich food.
Like cigarettes, soft drinks need no alternative. Unfortunately, sodas are so fixed in our diets that tax critics fear that people (and mostly the overweight and under-privileged) will continue to buy sodas and will simply have to carry an undue share of the soda levy. This is not a reason why the tax is unfair but rather a signal as to how dire the need is. And it points to the utter importance of a social marketing campaign that communicates these themes to the public: sugary treats provide empty-calories; soft drinks need no substitute; hydration solutions are as close as the faucet or public water fountain. These messages cannot be merely transmitted. They must be taught, reinforced and discussed, and the tax revenue must be used to fund these and other anti-obesity efforts.

People generally adjust to the state of affairs—-consumers might complain at first about an added penny per ounce, but they would soon forget the tax existed. Coupled with a robust public education effort, however, the tax could address injustices in how unhealthy foods are marketed and sold without infringing consumer rights.

Learn more and take action here.