Education better than taxes in effort to curb obesity rates
OKLAHOMA City Mayor Mick Cornett has led initiatives aimed at producing a healthier population, but he’s not a fan of trying to force those changes through gimmicks such as soda taxes. Many residents of Philadelphia would likely agree.
Since Jan. 1, Philadelphians have been paying an additional 1.5 cents per ounce for sugary drinks. The city council approved the tax at the urging of Democratic Mayor Jim Kenney, who said it would have a beneficial effect on peoples' health while generating revenue for infrastructure and pre-kindergarten programs.
As critics of the plan have noted, the soda tax is 24 times more expensive than Pennsylvania’s taxes on beer. And, it’s unpopular. A receipt posted to one person’s Facebook page showed more than $3 in tax added to the cost of a 12-pack of Propel, an energy drink with a sticker price of $5.99.
The complaints have led Kenney to criticize businesses for “gouging” consumers in order to generate opposition to the tax. As Jeffrey Dorfman, professor of economics at the University of Georgia, wrote last week at forbes.com, “Apparently, he expected the tax to be borne completely by wholesalers and retailers.” That’s not how it works, of course.
Nor is it clear that jacking up the price of soft drinks will necessarily generate better health outcomes. Dorfman said the consensus of economic research on this topic shows that diets don’t improve much. “We still buy sodas, and to the extent that we switch our shopping patterns and diets as a result of the tax, the foods we switch to are not particularly healthier than the sugary drinks we were drinking before the tax,” he wrote.
In an article at Economics21.org, Daniel Banko-Ferran, a senior economics major at Swarthmore College in Pennsylvania, noted a Harvard professor’s study that said the Philadelphia tax could produce a 55 percent decrease in the consumption of sugary drinks intake in the first year, and a 1 percent drop each year thereafter. “But this assumes that the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages would not be replaced by close substitutes,” Banko-Ferran wrote. “This is unlikely,” he said, noting the discrepancy in price between sodas and some beers.
A soda tax did reduce consumption of those drinks in tony Berkley, Calif. But such taxes hit the lowestincome population the hardest, and Philadelphia’s poverty rate is one of the highest among the largest U.S. cities. A 24-ounce drink that previously cost 99 cents now costs $1.35. That’s a real pinch when you’re making $15,000 per year.
“If we want people to live healthier lives, we need to focus on educating them on their dietary choices,” Banko-Ferran wrote. This is the path Cornett has chosen, to his credit.
In August, he joined the Oklahoma Beverage Association and the Oklahoma Grocers Association in starting an initiative called “Balance Calories Oklahoma.” The program makes calorie information more visible where soft drinks and other beverages are sold, with a goal of reducing beverage calories consumed per person in Oklahoma City by 20 percent by 2025.
“I still think people need to have the ability to make their own decisions on how they consume their calories,” Cornett said then. It’s the better way to govern.