Rowyn (rowyn) wrote,


From this article on an anti-obesity report by the Institute of Medicine:

The panel identifies taxing sugar-sweetened beverages as a "potential action," noting that "their link to obesity is stronger than that observed for any other food or beverage."


A 2011 study estimated that a penny-per-ounce tax could reduce per capita consumption by 24 percent.




The committee did not endorse the call by food activist Michael Pollan and others to eliminate farm subsidies that make high-fructose corn syrup, partially hydrogenated vegetable oils and other obesity-promoting foods very cheap. "There is no evidence subsidies contribute to obesity," said Glickman.


... So taxing obesity-promoting soda in order to make it more expensive will reduce obesity, but ending subsidies to obesity-promoting foods in order to make it more expensive will not have an effect?  How's that work?  Coke makes you fat but potato chips don't? Soda drinkers are price-sensitive but tortilla chip consumers aren't?  Taxes directly affect price while subsidies do so indirectly so their impact doesn't matter?  What?


Maybe I need to find the original report and read it, because this article about it seems to be missing some details. c.c

  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.