Kelly 1

Northern Illinois University

Soda Tax in America to Reduce Obesity Rates

Mary Grace Kelly English 104 Kelle Sills April 13, 2014

Kelly 2 Objective summary: In this paper, I will discuss how implementing a tax on soda in all fifty states will reduce the obesity rates in America. First, I will talk about the detrimental effects that soda has on our bodies such as obesity, dental issues, and weakened bones. Next, I will talk about the Los Angeles School Ban and the New York Soda Ban and why they failed. I will then explain the history of sin taxes in America and how this will contribute to my proposal of a soda tax. Lastly, I will explain how protecting Americans rights, sending revenue to health care, education, and consistency of the soda tax will help citizens approve the tax.

Kelly 3 Thirty-three year old Abbey Arndt was an avid soda drinker. She would indulge in a cold drink of the sugary beverage every morning, afternoon, and evening. In her early twenties, Arndts weight began to skyrocket in proportion to her soda drinking habits, and she weighed 314 pounds at her peak. In addition to being obese, she also experienced a mouthful of cavities, recurring mood swings, and inconsistent energy levels. I'd get lethargic midmorning, so I'd grab a soda, thinking it would give me a pick-me-up. I'd be a little hyper, but then half an hour later, I would practically be asleep at my keyboard (Kanigel par 1). Abbey Arndts soda drinking habits are strikingly similar to the average American today. According to Thomas Farley, commissioner of the New York City Health Department, obesity directly causes 6,000 deaths per year in New York alone (Arumugam par 4). The American obesity rate is increasing each day, and the U.S. legislature must first reduce the consumption of soda in order to solve this problem. Over the past two decades, the American government has been making strides in this issue by placing various bans on soda. However, these bans have had an abundance of loop holes and have been eventually lifted. Because soda is so detrimental to our health, the United States should place a sugar tax on each soda beverage in all 50 states in order to reduce the overall consumption. SODAS DETRIMENTAL EFFECTS ON THE HUMAN BODY Obesity. Since soda is mainly composed of sugar, water, and syrup, there are virtually no nutritional benefits upon consumption. Research has found that soda consumption is directly linked to obesity and weight gain. A new Gallup poll showed that 48% of adults consume at least one can of soda per day. The average daily consumption of soda among those adults was 2.6 glasses of soda (Saad par 1). In those 2.6 glasses of soda, these adults would be adding 225 calories to their diet from sugar alone. In one month, they would be consuming

Kelly 4 roughly 7,000 extra calories, which can also translate to 2 pounds. Over the course of one year, adults consuming 2.6 glasses of soda a day would be adding a striking 24 pounds (Kanigel par 7). Research has also found that children who regularly consume sugar have a greater chance of becoming obese than adults. Dutch researchers found the link to obesity from soda consumption by conducting a study in which 641 normal-weight children aged 4 to 12 either drank a cup of soda or a sugarless drink per day. The children were unaware of which drink they were receiving. The study found that after a year and a half, weight, waist size, and body fat increased significantly in the children who received soda (Nutrition Action Health Letter par 1). According to Danish study, researchers found that drinking any kind of soda dramatically increases fat build up around the liver and skeletal muscles. Fat in these two specific areas directly contributes to insulin resistance and diabetes (Main par 2). As seen in the studies discussed above, soda plays a large role in obesity in the United States. According to Thomas Farley, commissioner of New York Citys Health Department, obesity leads to more deaths than any other health problem besides smoking. Farley stated, If we can reduce obesity rates in New York City by just 10%, it could save hundreds of lives each year. Regulating soda would benefit Americans by lowering the rate of deaths linked to obesity each year (Kanigel par 6). Tooth Decay. Each sip of soda is similar washing the mouth with acid. Poonam Jain, director of community dentistry at Southern Illinois University School of Dental Medicine explains how soda eats up and dissolves the tooth enamel. She tested the effects of soda on human teeth by measuring its pH, which is an indication of acidity. Jain found that soda has a striking pH of 2.5. This statistic is comparable to battery acid, which has the lowest pH of

Kelly 5 1. Jain explains, The acidity can dissolve the mineral content of the enamel, making the teeth weaker, more sensitive, and more susceptible to decay. In essence, slowly drinking soda does more harm to the teeth than quickly drinking it. After each sip of soda, the body works to neutralize the acidified saliva. If one drinks the whole can within a minute, the saliva will return normal in twenty minutes. Humans typically sip on soda for an hour and a half, and the mouth stays acidic the whole time (Kanigel par 19). A University of Michigan analysis showed the relationship between drinking soda and damaged teeth. By using the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, they found that adults who drink three or more sodas a day have a 62% increased chance of decayed, missing, and filled teeth than those who drink soda less (Kanigel par 20). This shocking statistic puts into perspective how damaging soda truly is to the human tooth enamel. By reducing the consumption of soda in the United States, millions of Americans each year would be saved from these health problems. Weakened Bones and Osteoporosis. In the 1950s, people on average drank three glasses of milk per every glass of soda. Today, Americans drink roughly three glasses of soda per every glass of milk. With this swift decrease in the calcium from milk, osteoporosis has now become a common health threat for 44 million Americans (Main par 5). In addition to the loss of calcium, the acidity of sodas has also been shown to weaken bones. Research over the past two decades has shown that adolescent girls are affected most by bone loss. According to the Harvard School of Public Health, a study in 2000 found that girls who drank sugary soft drinks were three times as likely to break their arms and legs as those who did not consume sugary drinks. This loss of calcium in the adolescent phase is detrimental for women later in life. Dr. Grace Wyshak believes this to be a huge problem because girls

Kelly 6 will be more susceptible to fractures later in life if they don't acquire optimal bone mass in adolescence (Kanigel par 23). These bone loss and osteoporosis problems due to soda would decrease in Americans if there were a soda tax limiting consumption. PAST SODA BANS IN THE U.S. AND WHY THEY FAILED The Los Angeles Ban. In 2003, the Los Angeles Unified School District voted to ban the selling of soda and other nutritionally poor drinks before, during, and until one half hour after the end of the school day. This new ban applied to all 736,000 students in the districts 677 schools. This decision was driven by public health advocates who were hopeful of a decrease in obesity in children living in the Los Angeles area. Dr. Harold Goldstein, executive director of the California Center for Public Health Advocacy, had hoped that the success would usher in a new era when schools are safe havens where students make food choices free from intense marketing and ready availability of foods with little or no nutritional value (Late par 5). After the ban was lifted shortly in 2005, researchers from the University of Illinois began to research why it failed. They found that students in schools with soda bans were just as likely to consume sugary beverages as students in schools without bans. In fact, students who were subject to a soda ban at school were even more likely to consume sugary drinks on a daily basis. The only positive outcome of the Los Angeles ban was that students who rarely drank sugary beverages were less likely to purchase the drinks in schools that had the ban. After examining why this ban failed, the four researchers in the UIC study concluded that, The public health impact of these policies may be minimal. In the contemporary obesogenic environment, youth have countless ways to obtain sugar beverages through convenience stores, fast-food restaurants, and other food outlets throughout their community (Kaplan par 4).

Kelly 7 The New York Ban. In 2012, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg proposed a groundbreaking soda ban where restaurants would be fined for serving sugary beverages that are larger than sixteen ounces. In addition to fighting obesity, this ban would prohibit large soda companies from selling mass amounts of soda that have no nutritional value for humans. Nancy Neiman Auerbach, a professor at Scipps College, explained that, This ban sends a signal to large soda manufacturers and fast food chains that anything does not go. That is, there are and should be limits to the externalizing of costs that get borne by the public in order to reduce costs and increase profitability of large producers (Velasco par 6). This ban unfortunately never went into effect so there was no improvement in obesity rates. Shortly before the ban was supposed to be placed, a group led by the American Beverage Association sued New York City, and this caused the New York State Supreme Court Justice Milton Tingling to completely block the ban. Supporters of blocking the ban included soft drink manufacturers, the National Restaurant Association, and many New York City residents who feared that this government regulation was infringing on their rights. The American Beverage Association claimed that the New York City government was neglecting the peoples freedom of choice. They explained that individuals should have the power to choose what foods and beverages are right for them, and no government policy should infringe on that decision regardless of how well-intentioned Mayor Bloomberg may be (Trinko par 5). U.S. Supreme Court Justice Milton Tingling expressed his disproval for the ban by calling it arbitrary and capricious because it did not apply to all soft drink selling vendors in New York City. There were an abundance of loopholes because only restaurants could be regulated under the bans rules. This means that most convenient stores would still allow the

Kelly 8 sale of soda over sixteen ounces because they are regulated by the state. After seeing the amount of loopholes in this ban, Bloomberg tried to convince the state to ban all drinks over sixteen ounces in convenience stores too, but this failed. He also tried to tax soda, put warning labels on them, and prohibit food stamps from purchasing sugary drinks, but this also failed. Bloomberg expressed his intentions for wanting to place the ban when he stated, We strongly believe that, in the end, the courts will recognize the Board of Healths authority to regulate the sell of beverages that have virtually no nutritional value, and which consumed in large quantities are leading to disease and death for thousands of people every year (Velasco par 15). In response to New York Citys attempt to ban soda, Mississippi created a law known as the anti- Bloomberg law. Mississippi State Senator Tony Smith labeled Bloombergs efforts as a misguided attempt to battle obesity. Mississippi lawmakers passed legislation prohibiting the government from regulating the size of sugary drinks. In essence, this ban would prohibit any bans on soda to ever be placed in the state of Mississippi (Haltom par 4). From the Los Angeles School Ban and the New York City ban, one can learn that it is difficult to place a ban on soda because of its many loopholes. Citizens begin to believe that small governments are only placing bans to gain more power, and this lead to the Mississippi Law. In conclusion, with the history of failed bans within the last two decades, the United States should place a tax on sugary drinks in order to reduce consumption and obesity rates (Petracca par 3). HISTORY OF SIN TAXES IN THE UNITED STATES A sin tax can be defined as an effort by governments to lower the consumption or use of certain products that it deems morally or socially objectionable (Creighton 124). In

Kelly 9 order to focus on the implementation of soda taxes in the United States, it is important to first understand the history of American sin taxes. Alcohol. In 1791, Alexander Hamilton urged Congress to pass a sin tax on all whiskey in the United States. Many argued that the primary reason for implementing this tax was to produce more money in order to help pay off the large national debt from the Revolutionary War. Secretary Hamilton explained to the people that it was placed to be, more as a measure of social discipline than as a source of revenue. However, the taxing of alcohol resulted in a steep decrease of its overall purchase in the United States (Creighton 124). In the end, the Whiskey tax led to public outrage, which eventually lead to the repeal of the tax. Tobacco. Originally, sin taxes on tobacco were for the sole purpose to create more money for the government. During the Civil War, the tax on tobacco was the most important source of government revenue. In recent history, taxes on tobacco have been implemented to ensure the wellbeing of citizens. In 2009, President Obama signed a law that tripled the federal excise tax on tobacco products. This tax has seen a slow decrease in the purchase of tobacco products over the past five years. The long-term health effects of smoking and secondhand smoke have provided the political justification for continued expansion of sin taxes against tobacco (Creighton 126). THE TIMELINE SODA TAX PROPOSALS IN AMERICA By examining the history of sin taxes in America, it is important to find a way to tax soda in a fashion where it does not cause public uproar and unrest in citizens. More and more states are beginning to consider the taxation on soda to reduce consumption.

Kelly 10 New Yorks Soda Tax Proposal in 2008. In 2008, a group of child and healthcare advocates in New York proposed a tax on soda that would be one penny per ounce of drink. This was expected to reduce consumption by 13%, which is about two servings per week per person. The main goal of this tax is to make soda more expensive in hopes that less people will consume it (Creighton 129). However, this tax was never fully implemented because the people believed that it would once again infringe on their rights. Kansass Soda Tax Proposal in 2010. In March of 2010, Kansas state senate tried to implement a similar tax in which each teaspoon of sugar in a non-juice drink would cost an extra penny. This would have increased the price of a twelve-ounce soda can by ten cents and generate over $90 million in only a year. This tax was never enforced because people complained that the soda tax would kill jobs by reducing the need for soda production. Also, citizens were complaining that this tax would constitute unwelcome government intrusion on the American diet (Kiviat par 3). WHY SODA SHOULD BE TAXED IN ALL 50 STATES It is clear from past attempts to tax soda that citizens disapprove of such taxes because they believe that it either infringes on their rights or is a trap by the government to receive more revenue. If this issue is handled in the right way, it will satisfy citizens while lowering obesity rates in America. Infringing on American Rights. Citizens are wary of buying into the soda tax because they fear the same result as past soda bans. Soda bans can outrage citizens because it is completely limiting them from what they can and cannot have. However, a soda tax does not infringe on rights because they are still allowed to buy soda as much as they want. The main

Kelly 11 goal is to discourage citizens from buying soda and to eventually lower obesity rates in America (Creighton 136). Governments Revenue. Citizens are beginning to question the governments real reasons for wanting to implement a soda tax. In 2010, the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute asked residents of New York if they supported or opposed the idea of a soda tax. Thirty-one percent supported the tax and sixty-six percent opposed it. Then, they were asked if they would support a soda tax if the money were used to fund health care. In this poll, forty-nine percent were in favor and fifty-one percent opposed. In conclusion, if the government uses the money from the soda tax to benefit citizens by supporting health care, people will be more likely to approve of the tax. Education. The next step in getting citizens to approve the soda tax is to educate them on how bad soda is for their bodies. The soda issue in America is very similar to the tobacco issue. In the early 1900s, sales in tobacco were thriving. It was not until the 1960s when more and more research about tobaccos harmful effects was unveiled. Today, children are being educated in schools about the harmful effects of tobacco. When Obama implemented the most recent Tobacco tax, there had been less opposition than in the past because people were beginning to realize that this tax was in their best interest (Kiviat par 6). As citizens become more and more aware of the harmful affects of soda on our bodies, they will be more accustomed to the idea of a soda tax. Consistency. The last step in successfully implementing a soda tax in all fifty states is to create a tax that has no loopholes. In the past, soda taxes and bans were not successful in reducing obesity rates because people were able to find ways around them. It would be necessary for every single pop vendor to tax pop in order to stay consistent. For example,

Kelly 12 there should be taxes on every distribution of soda directly from the factory. This includes a tax from soda companies to restaurants. Eventually, buying soda in mass amounts would become too expensive for restaurants budgets, and they would have to search for alternatives such as juice (Creighton 135). CONCLUSION In conclusion, there needs to be a soda tax implemented in the United States that considers the citizens best interest. This means that all revenue from this tax should go towards healthcare, citizens should be educated about the harmful effects of soda, and the tax should stay consistent throughout all vendors. On a small scale, we as citizens can start boycotting soda products by no longer buying them. Now that we are educated on how bad soda truly is for our bodies, we can spread the word and start informing our friends and family about our decision to stop drinking soda. In particular, we must first educate parents so that their children do not grow up in an environment where soda is a common drink. By supporting this soda tax, we will be able to reduce obesity rates in the United States by making the purchase of soda unattractive to customers.

Kelly 13 Works Cited Kanigel, Rachele. "It Raises Diabetes Risk and Robs Bone. It's Wrecking Our Teeth. And It's Making Us Fat. The Culprit? SODA." Prevention 58.10 (2006): 160-207. EBSCO. Web. 23 Mar. 2014. Arumugam, Nadia. "Why Soda Ban Will Work In Fight Against Obesity; Food Regulations Have Proven Record." Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 14 Sept. 2012. Web. 21 Mar. 2014. Saad, Lydia. "Nearly Half of Americans Drink Soda Daily." Nearly Half of Americans Drink Soda Daily. N.p., 23 July 2012. Web. 13 Apr. 2014. Nutrition Action Health Letter. "Getting Fat on Sugary Drinks." Academic Search Premier. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Mar. 2014. Main, Emily. "9 Disturbing Side Effects of Soda." Care2. N.p., 11 Mar. 2012. Web. 13 Apr. 2014. Late, Michele. "L.A. Schools Ban Sales of Sodas." Academic Search Premier. Nation's Health, Web. 21 Mar. 2014. Kaplan, Karen. "Schools' Soda Bans Don't Stop Sugary-drink Consumption, Study Says." Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 07 Nov. 2011. Web. 13 Apr. 2014. Velasco, Schuyler. "Soda Ban Overturned, but the Battle Is Far from over." Christian Science Monitor (2013): 1. EBSCO. Web. 23 Mar. 2014 Trinko, Katrina. "Soda Ban? What about Personal Choice?" USA TODAY, 11 Mar. 2013. Academic Search Premier. Web. 21 Mar. 2014. Petrecca, Laura. "Judge Blocks NYC Drink-size Limit." Academic Search Premier. USA

Kelly 14 Today, 12 Mar. 2013. Web. 21 Mar. 2014. Creighton, Robert. "Fat Taxes." Journal of Legal Medicine 31.1 (2010): 123-36. Print. Kiviat, Barbara. "Tax and Sip." Time 12 July 2010: 51-52. EBSCO. Web. 23 Mar. 2014.