According to the Reuters article, Tax soda, pizza to cut obesity, researchers say
U.S. researchers estimate that an 18 percent tax on pizza and soda can push down U.S. adults’ calorie intake enough to lower their average weight by 5 pounds (2 kg) per year.
I’m not sure what “average” is supposed to mean here. What little I can glean from the article indicates that they’re saying that the combined average weight of U.S. adults would drop by five pounds in a year. That is, if you sum the weight of all the adults and divide by the number of adults, the result will be five pounds less than the previous year’s result. That’s a pretty astonishing number, especially if they claim that those results will continue for any length of time. That average five pound loss would be a higher percentage of the total weight every year and as the years go by there would be fewer people contributing to the loss.
I suppose I’ll have to find the actual research paper if I want to make any sense of things. The reporting in this article is, like most medical or science reporting I see in the mainstream press, chock full of logical holes and “conventional wisdom” presented as fact. For example, the article repeats the oft-reported statistic that two-thirds of Americans are either overweight or obese. That statistic is based on a questionable sampling of BMI results, and the BMI standard is the subject of quite some debate. That said, there does seem to be an overabundance of fat people.
That taxation is successful in changing behavior is no big surprise. We’ve seen government attempt to limit teen smoking by making it more expensive, and it appears to work. Although it never works as well as proponents say it will work. And, if our experience with taxing tobacco is any indication, it’s unlikely that taxing “unhealthful foods” will have anywhere near the effect that these researchers claim.
I can imagine new Food Taxation Boards popping up around the country, contracting with Certified Food Health Consultants whose team of researchers investigate the Healthful Food Score of every type of food imaginable. They’ll change labeling requirements so that every box of anything you buy at the supermarket, convenience store, or vending machine will have a letter grade indicating its Healthful Food Score. Of course, due to political considerations (i.e. powerful representatives from states like California), foods made with organic sugar will have a higher score than foods made with plain old sugar. That’s what we need, another obese bureaucracy whose mandate is to make us healthy. Oh, the irony.
I wonder if the article’s mention of the estimated $147 billion annual cost of obesity in the same paragraph advocating taxation was meant to imply that taxation could offset those costs by any significant amount. Probably not, although I suspect a lot of people will read that paragraph and think that the taxes will raise $147 billion per year. I’d be surprised if the taxes raised even ten percent of that.
The researchers did raise an interesting point, though: government subsidies of the corn industry artificially lower the cost of corn syrup, making sodas and other sweetened foods much less expensive. But then they make a mistake when they recommend that federal subsidies should go to producers of more healthful foods, rather than suggesting that government eliminate food subsidies altogether. All too often, as in the case of tobacco, government can’t decide what it wants to do. It props up the tobacco industry with subsidies and then taxes the heck out of it in order to limit consumption. Wouldn’t it be more reasonable to just eliminate the subsidy? Or is that too sensible a thing for a government to do?
I don’t know about anybody else, but I’m more than a little uncomfortable with the idea of yet another corrupt bureaucracy sticking its hand out, this time demanding tribute if I decide to indulge in a bit of junk food.