Rates of obesity in the United States are alarming -- and efforts to reverse the trend seem ineffective. According the Center for Disease Control and Prevention 38 percent of U. S adults are obese and 17 percent of teenagers as well. Another third or so of Americans are overweight. Obesity can lead to serious health conditions such as heart disease and diabetes. Some governments have attempted or considered paternalistic interventions to stem the tide of obesity. New York city, for instance, attempted to ban the sale of soda pop in sixes greater that 16 oz. Other cities such as Berkeley and Philadelphia have passed a soda tax. In Philadelphia distributors are taxed 1.5 cents per once on soda pop and other sweetened drinks: a 2 liter bottle of pop that used to cost $1.79 now sells for $2.79 because of an added dollar in tax.
These laws are intended to help consumers in these cities -- but have they gone too far? Are these laws and taxes justified? Why or why not?
The topic of the government interfering or coercing the public into doing something raises an interesting topic especially when it comes to making something bad for you more expensive. In “Of Liberty” Mills raises this point, “A further question is where the State, while it permits, should nevertheless indirectly discourage conduct which it deems contrary to the best interests of the agent; whether, for example, it should take measure to render the means of drunkenness more costly..” (99) Mills raises an interesting point because drinking pop is not the best thing for a person's overall health but when a person drinking pop they are not harming others and the only thing they are harming is themselves. Also, people should consider that pop is not the only thing that will make a person obese other factors play into obesity such as bad diet, no exercise, and certain health reasons. This then brings up the question of the injustice this tax is doing. The tax may be making pop more expensive but it is just a form of again government corrosion because also people don’t just drink pop to harm themselves they drink it because it tastes good. Additionally, pop is not like alcohol and won’t impair a person's judgment or cause a person to do riskier behaviors or act a certain way, it is just making it more expensive for a person. Besides, who is going to stop a person from just buying two 16oz cans instead of one 20oz can if the person drinks both of the cans instead of just the 20oz can? Overall this tax is unnecessary because all it is doing is making people spend more money on pop which is not inherently going to cause someone to become obese.
ReplyDeleteThe real question to consider here is why the government is implementing these taxes, and the answer is simple: it’s easier than actually doing anything to change the standards of health in the US. For many Americans, especially those living in poverty (and therefore at a higher risk for obesity), it’s much simpler to buy cheap, premade food regardless of the actual nutrition content. Making it harder to buy pop is simply putting the pressure on those who would buy it and not actively putting pressure on anyone to do anything to specifically better their health. And at the same time, impoverished Americans struggling with obesity overwhelmingly can’t pay for healthcare even if they do need it. What the government does do, in terms of providing food for its people, is subsidize the growing of several crops, notably corn. These subsidies are leftovers from Great Depression-era food shortages, others instituted in the 1970s. While food shortage is still an option for many people, it’s a lot more about how it’s distributed than how much is grown, and subsidies ensure that large-scale farmers are paid even if they don’t sell their crops. While the shock of “oh no the government is making our pop cost more” has seen a good bit of limelight, what we haven’t been hearing about is policies that make it easier for low-income people who are by design more at risk for obesity and the health risks that come with it, such as making it easier for them to purchase food with actual nutritional value.
ReplyDeleteYes, it’s interesting to argue about what’s justified and what’s not. But in the long run we need to look at what the outcome of a certain decision or policy is going to be and raising the prices on pop is merely a distraction from the fact that none of many things that could be done to reduce factors that contribute to the cyclical nature of poverty while lining the pockets of industrial farmers. I’m not sure exactly what’s being done with all the extra revenue that’s being taken from these soda taxes, but I would love to see some kind of programming that puts in towards funding for programs like SNAP or a wider distribution of food stamps or even just growing crops that are corn and sorghum and soybeans that are going to end up heavily processed before consumption.
Ultimately what’s going to justify a program like this is its effectiveness, and whether the extra revenue that comes out of sales just disappears into the rest of sales tax or is used for something that will work toward the tax’s supposed goal more effectively than the tax could on its own.
The taxes on Soda are absolutely justified because the government is not the only coercive entity and society, and thus the government has an obligation to combat corporate coercion through paternalistic actions like soda taxes. Assuming we live in an economic system similar to the one we currently have, corporations and companies wield incredible amounts of power. They amass enormous wealth and use those resources to become more powerful and generate more wealth. Companies can pay to have research done on the effects of soda and sugar on people and because they are funding/leading the research it can be manipulated into saying that sugar is not that bad for you. Companies can pay to have enormous systemic advertising campaigns that preach that these sugary products are not that bad for you and hide the real impacts of these products. So, because people need food to survive, sugary foods are much cheaper, and people can’t really conduct their own research or spend time to find more reputable sources, it results in the mass consumption of sugary products like soda. That is coercion. People need food to survive just like people need to obey the law to not get thrown in jail. Because we live in a world in which this exists governments need to combat this coercion. Yes, governments can publish their own research and preach the merits of a healthy diet, but if this clearly isn’t stopping the corporate coercion it is justified for the government to take paternalistic action like raising the cost of sugary products. The funds from these taxes can go into making healthier foods cheaper which actually gives people more options. Additionally, people can still acquire sugary products if they want to, so it is not complete coercion. The net amount of coercion/domination goes down due to these taxes, thus they are justified.
ReplyDeleteI believe that laws limiting the consumption of soda are justified, and should be more widely encouraged. These laws are just based on the harm to self and harm to others principle. The soda companies producing beverages are harming their customer's health in the long run and causing irreversible damage to their bodies if soda is continuously consumed over a long period of time. Similar to tobacco, creating a sin tax on soda would help curb buying excessive amounts of it. However, just increasing the price would not be enough there have to be more affordable healthy options in replacement of soda in order to see a positive change in overall health. The government owes its citizens the right to live healthily and inform them of the dangers related to certain brands and products. It is the choice of the citizen whether to consume soda. The government and the company have an obligation to tell their customers about the unhealthy side effects long term and ensure customers are making the concise decision to drink it while being aware of what long time consumption has on their bodies. However, that is not the case for large soda companies who lie in their ads and leave out crucial information. It would be idealistic to assume that everyone will do their own research and look at government health studies. The reality is that many people do not have the motivation, time, or means to research their food choices. It is up to the government to combat false advertising, and place bans and sin taxes to limit the number of products sold to unsuspecting customers.
ReplyDelete