Will the pop tax reduce consumption?
Monday, Oct 2, 2017 - Posted by Rich Miller
* PolitiFact took a look at claims by pop tax proponents that the new levy will reduce consumption…
“Our Cook County hospital system spends $200 million a year or more treating sugar consumption related diseases,” [Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle] said, noting also that 87 percent of county government’s budget goes into health care. “Obesity, heart disease, diabetes, tooth decay. That’s a tremendous burden on our health care system. And we are facing a public health care crisis in this country related to sugar consumption.” […]
Bloomberg said Cook County’s sweetened beverage tax can bring health benefits by “reducing consumption of unhealthy soda pop and sugary beverages.”
Cook County is only the sixth jurisdiction in the U.S. to enact a sweetened drink tax since Berkeley, Calif., enacted the first one in March 2015. That means there’s been very little formal research on their effects, which makes proving or disproving Bloomberg’s claim difficult.
Academic research in Berkeley and on Mexico’s soda tax has shown declines in sales, however. Anecdotal evidence from tax opponents in Illinois appears to show the same here, as does a recent marketing report in Philadelphia. Studies using modeling schemes to project health outcomes based on reduced consumption also tilt in Bloomberg’s favor.
Cook County’s soda tax may not survive long enough to become part of the extended field study needed to judge the health effects of similar efforts nationwide. But there’s enough evidence out there to rate Bloomberg’s statement Mostly True.
* Related…
* Pepsi sweetened coffers of pop tax foe’s law firm
- VanillaMan - Monday, Oct 2, 17 @ 11:20 am:
LOL
We’re still waiting for that huge drop in heart disease and deaths caused by “second-hand” tobacco smoke outlawed a decade ago.
- BoyBand - Monday, Oct 2, 17 @ 11:40 am:
Cook County Commissioner Richard Boykin should have recused himself from the beverage tax vote. His financial gain should be investigated by law enforcement and he should resign his elected office. I’m very disappointed with Commisiner Boykin.
- walker - Monday, Oct 2, 17 @ 11:44 am:
The pro-tax ads, focusing on health, will reduce consumption. The soft drink companies clearly believe this, since they are now countering with ads of their own focusing on their sugarless products. Advertising does impact sales, sometimes as much as price.
- Slugger O'Toole - Monday, Oct 2, 17 @ 11:48 am:
==We’re still waiting for that huge drop in heart disease and deaths caused by “second-hand” tobacco smoke ==
And safer intersections from Red Light Cameras.
- Anonymous - Monday, Oct 2, 17 @ 11:48 am:
Have surronding Counties seen any corresponding increase in sales?
- Streator Curmudgeon - Monday, Oct 2, 17 @ 12:01 pm:
Saying zero calorie diet soda leads to obesity is like saying root beer leads to alcoholism.
- Hexagon - Monday, Oct 2, 17 @ 12:04 pm:
I’m a soda drinker who doesn’t remotely reduce consumption over the tax. I like the tax, though. Taxpayers and people with health insurance pay the price for unhealthy behaviors. The tax helps put some of that burden directly on the soda users. Now if the federal government would stop subsidizing corn/corn syrup production, the cost of soda might soon reflect its true cost to society.
- titan - Monday, Oct 2, 17 @ 12:19 pm:
The pop tax equates to an effective price increase to the consumer. Raise something’s price significantly and less of it will be bought. Simple economics there.
This situation is somewhat muddied by the neighboring counties not having such a tax. Near the county lines, it may just shift some people’s grocery shopping to a store across the county line.
- Terry Salad - Monday, Oct 2, 17 @ 12:35 pm:
I average about 1 sweetened beverage per year. Even so, this tax has made me purchase water over just about anything (such as unsweetened tea). I support the tax for the same reasons Hexagon does. Now if the federal government would stop subsidizing corn/corn syrup production, the cost of soda might soon reflect its true cost to society. That would do some real good and save money too.
- My thoughts - Monday, Oct 2, 17 @ 12:43 pm:
Until the tax can begin to be applied to those who purchase soft drinks with SNAP benefits, no.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Oct 2, 17 @ 1:12 pm:
===applied to those who purchase soft drinks with SNAP===
Ah, yes. The poors and all their great benefits. Such lucky duckies.
- pskila - Monday, Oct 2, 17 @ 1:12 pm:
@my thoughts are you directly the statement towards the black community? ..cause if you are talking statistics there are more middle age 25-35 white women with 2-3 kids are using SNAP benefits than anyone else, otherwise it’s racist to assume as such. I believe the sales will just decrease and the surrounding counties will get the revenues..Queen Sugar aka Toni Preckwinkle is done in this state and town period with that pop tax increase. She’ll never hold a position in this town again as public official.
- Robert the 1st - Monday, Oct 2, 17 @ 1:27 pm:
Any items that have a sin tax should absolutely be banned for those using assistance dollars. What’s the counter argument? We want working people to be healthy but anyone already on Medicaid can go ahead and develop diabetes?
- City Zen - Monday, Oct 2, 17 @ 1:35 pm:
==Taxpayers and people with health insurance pay the price for unhealthy behaviors. ==
Do we? A single serving of Chicken Kiev has 80% saturated fat and 90% cholesterol content for the day. There are plenty of food items heavy in salt and/or fat that cause just as many health issues as soda. If better health is the goal, why stop at soda?
- City Zen - Monday, Oct 2, 17 @ 1:41 pm:
==there are more middle age 25-35 white women with 2-3 kids are using SNAP benefits than anyone else==
That is to be expected since 60% of the USA population is white, double the African American and Hispanic populations combined.
- Terry Salad - Monday, Oct 2, 17 @ 2:00 pm:
==Taxpayers and people with health insurance pay the price for unhealthy behaviors. ==
City Zen, this statement remains true. Sure, chicken kiev is loaded with fat, but HFCS is arguably toxic. We can pick the poisons to regulate.
- Chris - Monday, Oct 2, 17 @ 2:19 pm:
“Saying zero calorie diet soda leads to obesity is like saying root beer leads to alcoholism.”
I’d like to read that peer reviewed study that comes to a definitive conclusion about the effect of artificial sweeteners on people. Everything I’ve ever seen is a lot of maybe, maybe not.
I assume that you have a link to the study, given your certainty on the subject.
- anon2 - Monday, Oct 2, 17 @ 2:21 pm:
City Zen: Would you support taxes on a broader range of unhealthy foods in addition to pop? Or is this just a talking point?
- anon2 - Monday, Oct 2, 17 @ 2:21 pm:
Price affects behavior. That’s a truism.
- Chicago Cynic - Monday, Oct 2, 17 @ 2:48 pm:
They asked the wrong question.
Will this reduce sales in Cook County?
Absolutely, but that is only partially connected to the consumption question. From now on, I will only buy in Cook County if I’m in a restaurant. So using the sales metric they will think the tax is working. Except I haven’t reduced my consumption one jot. I simply buy my beverages in Lake County. I guarantee there are thousands and thousands of people just like me who are close enough to the border that it’s worth the ten minute drive to avoid the tax…just out of principle. I also buy my water and gas there. Probably save $40-50 a month this way.
They should ask the right question if they actually care about the answer.
- City Zen - Monday, Oct 2, 17 @ 3:04 pm:
anon2 - If better health is the goal, why stop at soda? Why not a $2 surcharge on the fettuccine alfredo at Olive Garden vs none on spaghetti w/ marinara? I’d imagine a fast food lunch every day does far more damage to your health than the accompanying soft drink.
There are some restaurants by my house selling grandpa beers (Hamms, PBR, etc) cheaper than a fountain drink with the soda tax. Now I have a financial incentive to drink a beer instead of soda. (full disclosure - I don’t need that incentive). Guessing that’s not the expected result.
And I agree that price affects behavior. If the state and feds substantially increased the motor fuel tax, we might be driving smaller, lighter, and more fuel efficient cars.
- My thoughts - Monday, Oct 2, 17 @ 3:13 pm:
Where did I state anything about race pskila?
- FLEA - Monday, Oct 2, 17 @ 3:13 pm:
I bet ADM wished they never coined the term “high fructose corn syrup”.
- anon2 - Monday, Oct 2, 17 @ 3:24 pm:
=== If better health is the goal, why stop at soda? ===
So if the county of Cook extended the sale tax to lots of junk food, then would you support it?
- Robert the 1st - Monday, Oct 2, 17 @ 3:47 pm:
I think City Zen is pointing out this tax has nothing to do with health. Just another government heist.
- Anon312 - Monday, Oct 2, 17 @ 4:17 pm:
If taxes are a tool of the government to punish behavior they deem unhealthy, then why do they tax wages?
- Lost in Chicago - Monday, Oct 2, 17 @ 4:29 pm:
If consumption and sales go down, thus yielding lower tax revenue, will Madame President have to layoff all of those same employees she said she had to layoff this summer if the court overturned her tax? Or will she tax candy to make up for it?
- Lurkin' MBA - Monday, Oct 2, 17 @ 5:04 pm:
There is a lot of talk about the pros and cons of sugar and taxes. Not much said about the pros and cons of the expenditures causing the opportunity for this tax.
- Sweet Lou - Monday, Oct 2, 17 @ 6:35 pm:
Given the tremendous health benefit this tax will generate, it is time to take the next logical step and further tax other sugar heavy foods/beverages. Candy bars, cookies, ice cream, milk shakes and so on. JB is about to take a big tax hit.
- anon2 - Monday, Oct 2, 17 @ 8:35 pm:
=== is it time to tax other sugar heavy foods/beverages? ===
Is that what you do or would support?
- TinyDancer(FKASue) - Monday, Oct 2, 17 @ 11:52 pm:
It worked with tobacco.
*one 12 oz. can = 39 grams of sugar
*daily sugar limit = 25 grams (women) and 38 grams (men)
Sugar has no, none, zero nutritional value
If diet soda gets swept up in this, so be it - it ain’t good for you either.
And as of today, we are blessed with a plentiful supply of cheap fresh water.
(We can tax the cookies and candy next year.)
- PhD - Tuesday, Oct 3, 17 @ 8:36 am:
Ideally, the tax should separate zero calorie beverages from high calorie beverages. There is no solid evidence that very low calorie beverages contribute to serious negative health outcomes.
Tax consumption items that are tied to poor health outcomes. Tobacco is taxed. Alcohol is taxed. Fluid with high calories should be taxed.
- TinyDancer(FKASue) - Tuesday, Oct 3, 17 @ 9:24 am:
The jury’s still out on diet soda, but it ain’t lookin’ good:
http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2014/09/17/349270927/diet-soda-may-alter-our-gut-microbes-and-the-risk-of-diabetes
- TinyDancer(FKASue) - Tuesday, Oct 3, 17 @ 10:02 am:
Here’s the 411 on sugar:
http://sugarscience.ucsf.edu
and
http://sugarscience.ucsf.edu/the-growing-concern-of-overconsumption/#.WdOmWkzMy9Z
- TinyDancer(FKASue) - Tuesday, Oct 3, 17 @ 10:05 am:
Still want your soda?
Watch “The Men Who Made Us Fat:”
Part 1:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2cxvfg
Part 2:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2cxvgs
Part 3:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2cxw8e
- Fume Pas - Tuesday, Oct 3, 17 @ 12:38 pm:
https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/protection/improve_health/index.htm