Opinion
Lab

See how this opinion breaks down by gender, political spectrum and generation — and who shares your view.

Gender

AGREEDISAGREE
Male
Female
Non-binary
Log in to see how you compare
Share to
https://www.parlia.com/o/united-states-should-tax-sugary-drinks-promote

5 comments

For
ywang5y ago
**TL;DR: A tax on sugary drinks can incentivize people to adopt a better diet and improve long-term health outcomes. For this reason, the U.S. should tax sugary drinks to promote healthy diets.** The U.S. has a widespread problem with healthy diets. Around 40% of Americans are obese, and about 10% have diabetes. The issue has caused economic loss, reduced productivity, and exacerbated racial inequality. [1] Sugary drinks have served as an important source of the problem. One-third of added sugar in American diets comes from beverages for both adults and children. [2, 3] Only a national-scale sugary drink tax could act as an effective disincentive. When local governments imposed such a policy in the past, people avoided the tax by purchasing drinks in close vicinities. [1] In Mexico, the national sugary drink tax proved very effective in changing public behaviors. Consumptions of targeted drinks decreased by 5.5% in the first year and 9.7% in the second. [4] If imposed in America, the tax can save 500,000 lives and $100 billion in health care expenditures. [5] Therefore, this tax has meaningful health, economic, and social benefits. For this reason, The United States should tax sugary drinks to promote healthy diets. [1]. Reeves, Richard. 2020. "Promote Health Equity By Taxing Sugary Drinks And Doubling Support For Community Health Centers". Brookings Blueprints For American Renewal & Prosperity. The Brookings Institution. https://www.brookings.edu/research/promote-health-equity-by-taxing-sugary-drinks-and-doubling-support-for-community-health-centers/ [2]. Moshfegh, Alanna, Anne Garceau, Elizabeth Parker, and John Clemens. 2019. "Beverage Choices Among Adults: What We Eat In America, NHANES 2015-2016". Dietary Data Brief. Food Surveys Research Group. https://www.ars.usda.gov/ARSUserFiles/80400530/pdf/DBrief/21_Beverage_choices_adults_1516.pdf. [3]. Moshfegh, Alanna, Anne Garceau, Elizabeth Parker, and John Clemens. 2019. "Beverage Choices Among Children: What We Eat In America, NHANES 2015-2016". Dietary Data Brief. Food Surveys Research Group. https://www.ars.usda.gov/ARSUserFiles/80400530/pdf/DBrief/22_Beverage_choices_children_1516.pdf. [4]. Colchero, M. Arantxa, Juan Rivera-Dommarco, Barry M. Popkin, and Shu Wen Ng. 2017. "In Mexico, Evidence Of Sustained Consumer Response Two Years After Implementing A Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Tax". Health Affairs 36 (3): 564-571. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2016.1231. [5]. Lee, Yujin, Dariush Mozaffarian, Stephen Sy, Junxiu Liu, Parke E. Wilde, Matti Marklund, Shafika Abrahams-Gessel, Thomas A. Gaziano, and Renata Micha. 2020. "Health Impact And Cost-Effectiveness Of Volume, Tiered, And Absolute Sugar Content Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Tax Policies In The United States". Circulation 142 (6): 523-534. doi:10.1161/circulationaha.119.042956.
··
I think taxing things we wish to discourage is a pretty effective technique. For example in the UK, our tobacco products are taxed heavily in a bid to deter smokers. A 20 pack of cigarettes on average here will cost around £10 ($14). Whilst this will not discourage those who are already hooked, I do think it has gone a long way to discourage casual smokers from taking it up more frequently. Couple that with the fact that unhealthier diets are linked to lower income families due to the ridiculous 'bang for buck' of fast food places, and I think you could potentially see these families going elsewhere. However I do think that it can't just be a tax increase for it to be effective. Healthier options would need to perhaps get tax reductions (if possible, not 100% on how food and drink is taxed) and therefore become a cheaper option, to ensure that people are encouraged to make their diet healthier.
··
Mixed
catrinw5y ago
**TL;DR A tax on sugary drinks is beneficial, however, I do not think it will inspire people to change their whole diet to a healthier one**. I think this is a great idea, however I am unsure how effective this is at actually promoting a healthy diet. It might not inspire people to uptake a healthier diet but rather turn attention to other sugary treats which are not taxed. In the UK, a sugar tax on soft drinks was introduced in April 2018. The tax has proven to be very successful as it has led to a 28.8% fall in the amount of sugar contained in such beverages. This is great as people are consuming less sugar through their drinks which will benefit their health. However, evidence has also shown that the English are actually consuming more sugar since the tax introduction; it seems that the tax has not had much influence inspiring people to make healthier changes to their diet. PHE found that there had been a 0.5% increase in the amount of sugar that people are consuming in the UK. Other industries aside from sugary beverages have added more sugar to their products. In sweets and confectionary there was a 0.6% rise in the sugar content and 0.5% increase in puddings. Therefore, taxing sugary drinks definitely has benefits, however it does not necessarily inspire people to adapt their diet to a healthier one. They are still able to get their 'sugar hit' from other food products. Perhaps, what is more important than tax is education about nutrition. WORKS CITED: Campbell Denis, 'English consuming more sugar despite tax and anti-obesity drive' (20 September 2019), https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/sep/20/britons-consuming-more-sugar-despite-tax-and-anti-obesity-drive#:~:text=It%20shows%20that%20the%20sugar,sugar%20contained%20in%20such%20beverages.&text=The%20amount%20of%20sugar%20people%20consumed%20from%20such%20products%20rose,by%203.1%25%2C%20PHE%20said.
··
Against
**TL;DR- A tax on sugary drinks may promote healthier diets in the US, as the sugar in many beloved beverages is often higher than you'd think. However, there is much evidence to suggest that a sugary drinks tax may not be very effective.** One reason for this is that it would be quite difficult to decide on what classes as a 'sugary' drink. For example, fresh orange juice is very high in sugar, yet it is also an easy way to consume one of your 5 a day (which should be encouraged for a healthy diet). Fresh orange is also high in vitamin C, and the sugar in the beverage is also usually natural (with no added refined sugar). There is also diet sodas to consider, for example, there is about 12 grams of sugar in one serving of orange juice, and none in a can of diet coke. Yet between these two, the more sugary option would also be the healthier option. There are also drinks which are carbonated, but still have many health benefits, such as kombucha, which is high in probiotics. Kombucha usually comes in a can mixed in with carbonated water etc, so they sometimes are quite sugary. The large unsweetened bottles of kombucha are generally more expensive also, compared to their canned counterparts. Many drinks like these are technically full of sugar, however sometimes the benefit (fruit, vitamins, etc.) outweighs the risk (sugar). Also, if a tax on sugary drinks alone was introduced, these calories could still be made up for on other sugary snacks.
··
ywang5y ago
I think the issue is that far more Americans are drinking traditionally defined "sugary drinks" than juice and Kombucha. Hence, I would expect the outcome of such a tax to be mainly positive. Furthermore, the tax scheme can be used to fund more healthy diet policies, such as providing free and healthy school lunches for children. These programs can have a better effect on healthy diets than the sugary tax itself. You are very correct in pointing out some of the externalities of the policy. However, I would argue that in this case the positive outweighs the negative.
··
Sign up or log in to post a comment.
Are we missing an argument?
Make the case or invite a friend to comment!