Two Leading Pediatricians: For Children’s Sake, Tax Soda

At the State House this morning, pediatricians and other health-promoters concerned about obesity officially launched a concerted campaign against sugary drinks and candy. Central to their efforts: a bill to remove the sales tax exemption on soda. Here, two leading Massachusetts pediatricians lay out their arguments.

By Dr. Lynda Young and Dr. Barry Zuckerman

Thirty years ago, a typical pediatrician in Massachusetts might see a single obese child in their office every day or so. Now we see as many as five a day and another four to five who are overweight.

Some of these young patients are already suffering from the health effects of obesity: high blood pressure, heart and liver issues, or Type II diabetes. If these trends are not reversed, many of these children will be destined to live shorter lives than their parents.

‘As pediatricians, we have never seen a medical problem of the breadth and scope of obesity.’

As pediatricians, we have never seen a medical problem of the breadth and scope of obesity. Over the last 15 years alone, obesity rates in Massachusetts have doubled, with one in every three children now either overweight or obese, leaving the state with the 33rd worst childhood obesity rate in the nation. Meanwhile, obesity-related medical costs will add some $1.8 billion a year to the Commonwealth’s already strained health care system.

Preventing and reversing the obesity crisis has become a paramount medical concern for pediatricians across the Commonwealth. As physicians and physician-educators, we see the devastating impact of obesity every day, despite our daily warnings to patients, their families and the public about the importance of taking immediate action to prevent unhealthy weight gain.

One opportunity before us right now is legislation to eliminate the tax exempt status on soft drinks and candy. Nearly fifty years ago, when Massachusetts adopted a sales tax, it decided to exempt the sale of food items. Other essentials of daily life, such as clothing, were exempted as well.

Of course, this was years before the obesity epidemic began to sweep the country. Today, soft drinks can hardly be considered essential food items. To the contrary, overconsumption of sugary beverages has become a major threat to public health, and obesity-related conditions will likely eclipse smoking as the leading preventable cause of death.

Most states have already recognized this. Today Massachusetts is one of only 17 states that do not apply a tax of any kind on soft drinks. It is time to bring Massachusetts in line with the rest of the country.

Why are sugary beverages our focus? Just one soda contains more sugar than most young people should consume in an entire day. Sugary drinks are empty calories, are non-essential and the average American consumes between 45-50 gallons of them each year. Research shows that each additional daily serving of sugared soda increases a child’s risk of obesity by 60 percent.

‘To be sure, even the modest step of eliminating the tax exemption on soda will arouse accusations of “nanny state” overreach.’

The legislation to eliminate the exemption, filed by Rep. Kay Kahn (D-Newton) on behalf of the Healthy People/Healthy Economy Coalition, is not perfect – but it is an important first step. Yes, we and many of our colleagues would prefer to institute a new tax that would deter the purchase of sugary beverages. However, simple elimination of the existing sales tax exemption on soft drinks will do three critical things:

It will eliminate preferential tax treatment for products that should not enjoy the status of essential food items.

It will generate more than $50 million in revenue that could be directed towards anti-obesity programming to help kids.

It will send an important message that Massachusetts will no longer tolerate an outmoded tax policy that is harmful to the health of our children.

To be sure, even the modest step of eliminating the tax exemption on soda will arouse accusations of “nanny state” overreach. But we are not advocating that these items be banned. What we are saying is that tax policy in Massachusetts should no longer favor items that are fueling a public health crisis and a financial disaster. As responsible physicians caring for the Commonwealth’s children, we can hardly say less.

Dr. Lynda Young, a Worcester pediatrician, is president of the Massachusetts Medical Society, the statewide association of physicians with more than 23,000 members. Dr. Barry Zuckerman is chief of pediatrics at Boston Medical Center.

  • X-Ray

    I’m really getting tired of things being taxed under the guise of being “good for us”. If tobacco, alcohol, drugs and eating, drinking, etc is bad for us, let ‘em prove it and ban it. Or just put us all in a padded cell and we won’t hurt ourselves. If we don’t kill ourselves, we will live long lives and S.S. couldn’t handled it. Stop it; there are bigger things out there to be concerned about.

  • http://twitter.com/nostraden63 Sam

    Soda = 1.8 Billion

    Alcohol $ 280 Billion……….Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

  • http://twitter.com/nostraden63 Sam

    And in the Meantime,The Biggest cause of DEATH and DISEASE,Accidents,murders,obesesity,rape,child and spousal abuse Thats Costs the USA still pays pennies in tax like take beer which is the most consumed because of its cheap price and pays only .43 cents a gallon tax yet Costs the Taxpayers $ 280 billion a Year just for ALCOHOL’S USE gets away with MURDER..That Makes SENSE

  • Kim

    Just curious.  Is 33 worst the same as 17th best?

  • Anonymous

    This is a tough issue that the medical community is trying to figure out how to tackle as well. Taxing soda is not going to change people’s habits, but perhaps the tax could be funneled into education and medical costs. Parents need to be educated about the devastating effects of empty calories on their children. They need access to answers and medical systems that have effective treatments to handle the epidemic. http://whatstherealcost.org/video.php?post=five-questions

  • Anonymous

    My 3rd grader, who has a taste for sugary carbonated beverages, has learned how to read  nutrition labels and he’s started pointing out to me that the “healthier” juice alternatives I offer him instead of the coveted soft drink actually have more sugar per serving.

    • J Power

      Yes, fruit juices are also high in sugar, although I would suggest that they also offer health benefits, such as vitamins and fiber, that sodas (typically) do not.  For a parent, it would seem that juice would be the better sweet drink alternative.  But I think you’ll find that nutritionists would recommend water as the best alternative to any drink containing sugar.  Personally I add water to most fruit juices before drinking them.

      And someone please correct me if I am wrong here – but I think the carbonation poses some threat to bone density as well. 

      • Anna

        Phosphoric acid is the culprit regarding loss of bone density and yes, it’s a prominent ingredient in soda; mostly colas.  

  • J Power

    “Arouse accusations of “nanny state” overreach”?  Absolutely.  Although I agree that soda consumption is a contributing factor to high obesity levels in children, I do not agree with singling out any one food item for attack by government.  I mean, where does it end?  Perhaps we should eliminate the tax-exempt status of all sugary foods, such as Twinkees and ice cream. 

    I believe it is true that children of poorer families are more at risk for obesity than their more affluent counterparts.  So why not decrease taxes on other household items so families of at-risk children can afford healthier food options?

    There are two broader issues here:
    1. Health and nutrition education for all – especially parents of at-risk children
    2. With freedom of choice comes freedom to make bad decisions – NO MORE GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION!!!!!

    • Reasonable?

      J Power-

      If we acknowledge the federal subsidy for corn and the state tax exemption for ‘sugary foods’, we can reframe this issue as ending existing government interventions rather than adding new ones. 

      Historically we know that taxation is better moderator of behavior than prohibition.  Taxing behaviors that have is highly correlated with harm does not seem like an unreasonable move. 

      The key is to be surgical in the policy by targeting the best known root cause in order to minimize unintended harm. My concern is that saying  “soda” misses the target.

      This is similar to another NPR story around trying to ban “chocolate milk”.  Pure chocolate is virtually sugar free, but in most schools it is sweetened by HFCS….

      • J Power

        Reasonable? –

        I wholeheartedly agree with you on removing the federal subsidy for corn.  The effect would be far more reaching than just soda.

        But “government-induced” behavior modification?  Sounds scary to me.  Alcohol prohibition is terrific example of how this does not work.  And in the specific case of alcohol consumption, I’m not convinced that taxation affects consumption either.

        What I personally struggle with is the overall idea of government intervening in anyone’s personal behavior at all.  For example, I do not agree with adding taxes to certain foods or beverages in an effort to modify consumption.  But what about the environment?  I’m afraid that without government intervention, most of the strides that have been made in this area would not have been possible. 

        Trying to reconcile these issues is my personal dilemma.  I have recently aligned myself with the Libertarian Party, but I have difficulties with some of their tenets.

        Your thoughts?

        • Reasonable?

          J Power,

          I would recommend the book “Darwin Economy” on this topic.
          It’s about one way to think about regulation while embracing market based approaches.
          “Nudge” is also a good one, but more paternalistic.

          • J Power

            Thank you so much for your kind reply.  Take care.

  • Lee

    “Reasonable” hit the nail on the head. Get rid of farm corn subsidies. The Fed will save money. Soda will cost more, because HFCS will cost more, and it will have the same effect as a Soda Tax without the overhead for merchants.

  • Reasonable?

    Why not address the fundamental problem here? We need to eliminate the subsidies for corn and by extension high fructose corn syrup.  That would address soda, sports drinkis and many snacks in one fell swoop. 

    Could MA enact a corn tax to be an innovative leader in this realm?
    If many states started taxing corn in proportional to the federal subsidy maybe the inertia on the federal level could be broken.