As
obesity has become a growing health concern in the United States, there has
been an outcry for the government to adopt policies to regulate one of the
epidemic’s greatest underlying causes: sugar consumption. According to the USDA,
consumption of caloric sweeteners increased 43 pounds per person, or 39%,
between the 1950s and 2000. The increase of consumption has been linked to increased prevalence of obesity, high blood pressure and diabetes.
Some
jurisdictions have turned to alternative ways of thinking and governing to deal
with the expanding epidemic, mainly focusing on taxing the identified cause:
sugar.
Sugar taxes have recently been
touted as the answer to curbing American obesity while also closing gaps in state-level budgets that have seen a
decrease in revenue sources due to the economic crisis over the past four
years. While for some, this solution may seem like a easy and profitable answer
to two growing problems, but the political battle has been waging in many states.
Since 2009 the top soda companies have spent $70 million in 30 states striking down legislation, and have been successful in every one of
those states. Below is an television ad that has run in the Chicago area and in
parts of Minnesota:
The enactment of a
sugar-sweetened tax in Minnesota would be, by almost all accounts, a large
revenue producer. At a tax rate of 1
cent per ounce on soft drinks is projected to bring in over $300 million in 2013, and this
revenue is only on beverages. When the tax is measured against the four
criteria (efficiency, equity, adequacy, and feasibility), a sugar-sweetened tax
is not fully optimal in all accounts.
The tax is inefficient due to the undefined nature of the problem it
attempts to solve. It is somewhat inequitable because the tax is regressive in
nature, though may show some promise if a broader sugar-sweetened tax can be
levied over product specific taxes like those previously attempted. As
mentioned above, the tax itself is a very adequate source of revenue for the
state. The feasibility of the tax is hindered mostly by industry(s) involvement
and lobbying, though there may also be some questions of over-regulation on the
public.
Overall,
we believe that Minnesota should consider a the levying of a broad
sugar-sweetened food and beverage tax due to its overwhelming adequacy as a
revenue source, not to mention the possible public health benefits that could
be an externality of the tax. The main issue with such a tax would be the act
of getting it passed, which would include not only bipartisan cooperation, but
the defeat of industry lobbyist.
Although I may not consider a tax with $300 million revenue as "a very adequate source," the bucks would certainly help:)
ReplyDelete