The 16-year study, to be printed in the journal, "Contemporary Economic Policy," looked at soft-drink taxation and how it impacted body mass index. The BMI is a crude and imperfect assessment, based on height and weight, which many have been convinced is the be all, end all when it comes to health, insurability and an individual's worthiness as a human being.
The study reportedly finds that a 1-percent tax increase on fizzy drinks equates to a BMI decrease of 0.003 points and that overall, such taxes had only a tiny impact on obesity.
|
Advertisement |
"Our results leave open the possibility that large taxes that are communicated to consumers are still worthwhile to consider as policy options, but small tax changes will not work," study author Jason Fletcher said in a news release.
Such statements miss the obvious: The reason soda taxes don't have the net result of whittling our waists is because soda has little to do with the size of our waists in the first place.
Increasing soda taxes might have the effect of reducing soda consumption — which wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, given that pop rots teeth, leaches bones, and gives people of every size an unnecessary sugar zap — but it will not make a fat person thin.
Sin taxes should only be discussed (but not necessarily imposed) in the context of issues that are truly moral issues. Body size isn't a moral issue. It is the result of primarily genetic influences, and the way any given body is able to process simple carbohydrates like sugary cola.
While we would all be better off drinking less soda, government dictums about what to consume — whether in the form of a direct ban on a food or drink, or a backdoor discouragement like a greater tax — should be nipped in the bud.


anti pc wrote on Oct 24, 2009 2:21 PM:
Disagree wrote on Oct 24, 2009 10:34 AM:
well wrote on Oct 23, 2009 11:11 AM:
fuzzhead wrote on Oct 22, 2009 10:24 AM:
WHAT IF wrote on Oct 20, 2009 8:08 PM:
anti pc wrote on Oct 20, 2009 6:21 PM:
pe teacher wrote on Oct 20, 2009 12:15 PM:
Eat Less, Exercise More ! "
Mr. Obvious wrote on Oct 18, 2009 11:36 PM:
However, if you want to be plus size, it is none of the government's business. If you think "they" are trying to run your life now, just wait until "they" are paying for your health care. It's going to get far worse. "
Dr. Tom wrote on Oct 18, 2009 11:27 PM:
The obvious: The reason higher carbon dioxide levels don't have the net result of increasing global warming is because incremental CO2 has little to do with global warming in the first place.
I sure miss all those hurricanes the global warming alarmists predicted - but they just don't seem to be happening. Oh my. "
Eileen wrote on Oct 18, 2009 9:42 AM:
George Garrette wrote on Oct 18, 2009 8:22 AM:
What ever happened to the separation of church and state? Whenever our government (or should I say THE government) wants extra tax money, for liquor or cigarettes they call it a SIN TAX. Now a sin tax on soda. If THE Government would quit trying to dictate to the world on what they can and can not do they could do or not do they could lower the taxes. Thats where most of our tax money is for. "