TO THE EDITOR:
In the past two decades, the U.S. has experienced a “dramatic increase in obesity.” Interestingly enough, however, carbonated soft drink consumption has stayed relatively stable over the same time period (beginning at less than 50 gallons per-capita in 1990, peaking at about 55 in 1997, and back down to under 50 in 2008).
Of course, a diet heavy in soda will help contribute to an overweight lifestyle, but so will poor food choice, big portions, and lack of exercise. Perhaps we should levy a fee every time someone goes a day without at least 30 minutes of exercise. Should we mandate federally approved diets and daily calisthenics?
Ms. Dugan (“Soda tax: A solution to a big problem,” Nov. 18) dismisses the concerns of the soda tax opposition as those of the, “you guessed it,” soda companies, who think the tax would be bad for business. This is a valid concern, given that the soft drink industry employs over 180,000 workers, and that the universal consensus among economists holds that tax hikes are bad news in a recession.
These tax hikes in particular will be regressive, affecting low-income individuals who drink soda more heavily than wealthier ones (who might be found drinking a naked juice at Starbucks, which contains more sugar than Coke).
Another justification employed by Ms. Dugan is the lowering of healthcare costs. The kicker is, according to a 2008 study published in PLoS Medicine, obesity prevention does not lower healthcare costs, it raises them. Non-lethal diseases are far more expensive than lethal, obesity-related diseases.
David Deerson
Outreach Coordinator
College Libertarians
