by Steven Witkin ‘16

America is not as healthy as it used to be. It may not be so evident in the halls of Sherwood, but one in three adult Americans are obese. These adults are more prone to deadly diseases, cancers and diabetes. The average obese adult has an annual medical expense that is $1,429 higher than those with a normal weight, which cost the country $147 billion in 2008. A significant reduction in the prevalence of obesity would save money and make the United States a healthier place. An excise tax on soft drinks, as proposed on the state level in California, New York and Washington, would discourage unhealthy tendencies and provide a significant source of revenue to the government.

Caloric intake from sugared drinks has nearly tripled in the past few decades, corresponding with a surge in obesity. Children now consume more calories from soda than milk. In an effort to curb the obesity epidemic, multiple states have proposed soda taxes, usually $.01 per ounce, most have been opposed or abandoned. The Obama Administration suggested a soda tax in 2009, only to be opposed by interest groups.

If passed, a penny per ounce soda tax would add just 12 cents to a can. It may not seem like much, but a two-liter bottle would incur a 68-cent tax, and a 24-pack of 20 ounce bottles would cost an extra $4.80. A Yale University study found that the added price would not only deter more than 10 percent of impulse buyers, but, if applied nationally, generate anywhere from $2 to $9 billion each year. It has been suggested that funds generated by a tax would go towards healthcare, disease and obesity research and be used to subsidize fruit farmers, resulting in cheaper and more available fresh fruit.

Why only tax soft drinks? A soda tax is a  voluntary tax. People would not have to pay the tax if they do not wish to drink soda. Sweetened beverages are impulse foods, foods which are not needed but are consumed on a whim. Soda is not necessary to everyday life. It provides no nutrition other than empty calories from liquid sugar. With soda becoming more readily available and fresh fruit prices rising, more Americans choose soda as a snack. The rise in the price of soda achievable by a tax could effectively deter the impulse to drink it, and promote the healthier and cheaper choice of drinking water. The Rudd Center for Obesity at Yale supposed that a penny per ounce soda tax could reduce soda consumption by 10 percent, cutting an estimated 8,000 calories a year out of each American’s diet and reducing the risk of obesity.

The majority of the opposition to the beneficial tax lies in the lobbying group Americans Against Food Taxes. Claiming to be “a coalition of concerned citizens,” the group is funded by the American Beverage Association, Coca Cola, McDonald’s, Burger King and many others, the providers of an overwhelming majority of soda in the United States. Claiming that excess sugar from soda does not cause obesity, which it has been proven to do, the group spent $17 million in 2010, during which it succeeded in stopping New York State’s proposed soda tax. A group of corporations wishing to protect their economic gains should not be the main factor in preventing a country from becoming healthier.

An excise tax on soft drinks, even at a state or county level, would reduce the chance of obesity, while only adding 12 cents per can for those who drink soda. The United States is going to do anything to improve the obesity epidemic and reduce the cost of disease. It’s not right that corporate lobbying groups stop America from reaching its health goals.