This letter was sent to the chair of an American Medical Association committee on the idea of taxing soft drinks to fight obesity, in advance of the committee's formal meeting on the topic:
November 8th, 2006
H. David Bruton, M.D.
Chair
Reference Committee L
American Medical Association
Dear Dr. Bruton and Ms. Tenoever:
I am writing to express my opposition, and that of my organization, the American Council on Science and Health, to the AMA proposal supporting the addition of "small federal, state, and local taxes" on sugar-sweetened soft drinks, for the stated purposes of having such revenues "earmarked for the prevention and treatment of obesity, as well as public health and medical programs that serve vulnerable populations." As you state, another likely consequence of such taxation would be a decrease in the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) due to the price increase resulting from these taxes.
There are numerous reasons why this plan is not likely to be a benefit to public health. While ACSH is in full agreement with other public health groups that obesity is increasing in the U.S., and should be combated with effective methods to prevent a spectrum of obesity-related disease, the levying of taxes on SSBs is not going to have a significant preventive (nor curative) effect on obesity, and such a policy has associated adverse consequences that need to be balanced against any conceivable beneficial effect.
1. Taxing SSBs in the name of countering obesity implies that these beverages, among all other consumer products, are primarily responsible for increasing obesity. This is clearly not the case, even if one assumes that SSBs might contribute to obesity in those who overindulge in them. Obesity is multi-factorial, and singling out SSBs as a "bad food" denies any role for these beverages in a healthful, balanced diet, which is neither true nor fair.
2. Such taxation singles out the beverage industry as ripe for the plucking to finance an anti-obesity campaign -- and worse, assumes the right to create and subsidize a special health program for a poorly-characterized "vulnerable" population -- for which that industry should not be held accountable, alone among food makers and marketers. The SSB tax would be, in effect, confiscatory: "The power to tax is the power to destroy," as Chief Justice Marshall said in 1819; why should the beverage industry be forced to tithe to various governments to solve problems not of its own making (or at the very least not entirely of its making)? Why not call for "small taxes" on the computer games or television industries, whose products may contribute to the sedentary condition of today's youth and thus to their obesity at least as much as SSBs?
3. These taxes would clearly be regressive, hitting the poorest the hardest. Your retort to this, which I could paraphrase as "Well, those folks are the fattest, and therefore most likely to benefit from the programs we hope to finance on their backs," is self-serving at best, presuming without evidence that this taxation will have the desired effect.
4. There is a paucity of evidence that such a tax would reduce overall consumption; there is a paucity of evidence that reduced SSB consumption would have any impact on obesity; indeed, there is little evidence that "obesity prevention" programs have worked up until now.
5. Lastly, even if appropriate allocation of such funds was likely to be effective against obesity, trying to earmark confiscatory tax revenues for a specific purpose has been shown, time and time again, to be wishful thinking. All we have to do is recall the billions recovered from the nefarious cigarette industry in 1998's Master Settlement Agreement, which was adopted after repeated assurances from various government officials at all levels that the monies recouped would be devoted to anti-smoking education, cessation programs, and youth prevention programs -- all for naught, as the huge settlements were hijacked by officials needing budgetary support for highways, bridges, and schools. The SSB tax revenues, already vaguely earmarked both for obesity "prevention" and for public health and medical programs that serve "vulnerable populations," would themselves be vulnerable to diversion as politicians and state and local officials deem necessary for their own short-term needs.
While the AMA shows good intentions in its quest to reduce obesity, this taxation scheme is the wrong way to go about it. ACSH voices its strong opposition.
Thank you for allowing us to weigh in.
Respectfully,
Gilbert Ross, M.D.
Executive and Medical Director
The American Council on Science and Health
