Question 3
Question 3:
With
information from studies like the SSB article that show deleterious effects of
sugar beverages. How do you feel about
states having “soda” taxes and removing pop and sugary drinks from school
ground? Do you think this helps to curve some of the behaviors long term or
not? If you do not agree what are some
things you would suggest to get populations off of sugary drinks from a
government, society or professional standpoint?
posted by Unknown @ 6:33 PM
31 comments
31 Comments:
I honestly think these taxes provide an incentive for people to consume more. It goes with the saying "you want what you cant have". I think it drives people to want/consume more and really does not have a positive effect long term. I understand that there are good intentions with these movements, but I personally do not think they will make a difference. From a professional standpoint, knowledge is power. I feel as future dietitians it is our responsibility to educate the population about eating healthy and taking care of our bodies. Ultimately, they will decide what they want to do with that knowledge.
I can see both sides of the argument. The part of me that thinks government shouldn't determine our freedom of choice says no. However, I'm starting to come around to the idea that soda really should be more expensive than healthy drinks. In fact, I think this should hold true to all food. Fresh fruits and vegetables should be heavily subsidized so that people can afford to buy and eat them, while junk food should be less affordable.
I think the taxes are ultimately a good thing-the increased tax is basically treating pop like cigarettes. I know I would likely drink less pop if it cost more! However, I do agree with Alana, people want what they can't have- especially children and adolescents. I think that it may decrease the amount of pop a child drinks in a day during the school year but it does not teach the child anything long-term. It is important to teach children and adolescents about not only pop, but other drinks such as Gatorade, Powerade, juice, and other SSB, and what healthier alternatives are. Although, I have to say, after working at a health fair for middle school children and teaching about fast food, they really don't care what happens to them long-term. It is hard to get through to them.
Sarah S. said...
I do not think that the increased taxes will have much of an effect. People will find ways to afford what they want, regardless of the taxes. I also do not think that the government should be able to take away choices. I think that is a sure-fire way to get people fired up FOR SSBs instead of against them, as they will view this type of action as a personal choice infringement. The ultimate way to curb SSB consumption is to get people to understand and CARE about the long-term effects it can have on their bodies.
I think that adding extra tax to foods like sugary beverages goes again peoples rights. If people want to drink pop, they can drink pop. Additionally, I don't think that IF a tax was places on sugar it would have much of an effect. I think people would just be onto the next unhealthy thing. I think our job is to focus on the good rather than the bad.
Overall, the tax doesn't seem beneficial to the child long-term. I agree that eliminating soda from schools decreases the amount of soda children are consuming during the day but it has no effect on their behaviors outside of school. The whole "teach a man to fish," if you eliminate soda from schools, the children will find ways around it and/or increase consumption outside of school. Providing alternatives and education may teach them the long term risks and decrease their overall consumption. I agree with Kelsey in that middle school children have little concern for their long term health and it is hard to get through to them. Being part of an organized sport (having coaches be an influence) may help decrease the soda consumption. Many high school athletes decrease their soda consumption during season and sometimes altogether (they may provide a good role model to the middle school demographic).
Although I do not agree with these taxes and agree with most of you on this blog that it will get people fired up about consuming more soda pop. But, I see where the government is coming from on this issue. Children are going to be the first generation where they do not survive their parents. We are seeing children in their early teens develop diabetes. While food cannot be blamed for the obesity and diabetes epidemics in this country we know that it is a definite factor. I am drawn on this issue because with the state of health of our children we are leading to health care costs through the roof. I do however believe these taxes are sending the wrong message. If obese people stop drinking sugary drinks they will not be in the clear or safe from developing conditions like heart disease and diabetes. Because these taxes focus on one factor of the problem I believe that they are not the cure but will hopefully make people think twice before they buy the product. I think labeling should be different on soda pops. Maybe something to the extent of cigarette package labels? Possibly reducing the package sizes and encouraging the soda companies to promote smaller soda can sizes as a way to reduce consumption and watch portion amounts. Are taxes the cure to childhood obesity? I think only time will tell.
Kelsey brings up a good point that soda is not the only SSB culprit. Placing taxes on soda may seem to be beneficial, but this will probably encourage consumption of other beverages (gatorade, powerade, etc) in place and will contribute just as much, if not more, calories as soda would.
I beg to disagree with most of you. Currently, where I work, the concept of "Differential Pricing" is being practiced. This implies that the healthier or 'good for you' items are priced lesser than regular SSB items. For Example, water is cheaper than Soda.
Also most documentaries, news articles and other media depict how people often consume fast food and SSBs as they are cheaper than Fresh produce or healthier foods. So, lets give the tax hike a chance and see where it goes. As Molly says, only time can tell. Somehow, I feel (not overnight, but) eventually there will be changes in the shopping and consumption patterns; or so, I hope.
I personally think that the higher tax on soda would not be beneficial. I feel that if people want a soda they will buy the soda no matter that tax placed on it. I fell the increased taxes on cigarettes is not stopping people from smoking, they just have to may more for their addiction and I feel the same would be true for soda.I do agree however that pops and sugary drinks should be removed from school. I know there are proposed regulations for schools where they may not be able to sell anything but water, milk, and 100% juices during the lunch hour. Obviously this has not been passed yet and may never get passed but I think this would be a huge step in the right direction. Schools are not gas stations or convenient stores for students. They should only provide healthy drink options for the kids. If they want a pop after school than they can get that on their own time.
Carly Johnson said...
I believe having a higher tax on soda won't change anything. How much would the Polar Pop go up to? A whopping $1.25 (that would be the extreme end) instead of $0.79? That wouldn't stop anyone from getting their caffeine fix. Now I do agree with removing pop and sugary drinks from schools. I remember back in middle school when the Fruitopia drink machine was removed and it was like the end of the world. But, then everyone got over it and chose a healthier option instead since that was the only thing offered.
I feel like as a dietitian, we need to push consulting the young kids early on in life so they don't form a bad habit in the first place. I don't know how feasible this would be going into grade schools, middle schools, and high schools, but it would be of great help! If all of the dietitians in the world volunteered a couple hours of their time to present at school assemblies, I believe it would make a big difference in the world. Even if the words touched just a few students at a time, it is still making a little difference.
I agree with Teju that the tax has potential. I watched a webinar about something called the Healthy Beverage Initiative. It is an attempt for hospital cafeterias to encourage more healthy beverage consumption by pricing the regular soda at a much higher selling price than water or milk. They have studies that show people did decrease their purchase of SSBs when it was priced higher.
I don't agree with the idea of implementing a soda tax, as I am a proponent of choice and free-will. In a society that is already becoming highly-regulated, I don't think this method is beneficial. More powerful is someone choosing on their own to not consume something negative for their health, because this is an internally motivated vs. an externally motivated choice. We know that internal motivation is more effective in long-term behavior modification.
I do however agree with the removal of sugary drinks from school grounds. I do not think they have a place in a learning environment where they may exacerbate poor behavior and performance in class. If we promote a healthy environment at school, it may help encourage kids to learn to make healthy choices outside of school. My high school took out soda and candy (and coffee) machines when I was a junior, which seemed to help because it removed the immediate source of the junk foods. As to whether this translates to life once kids graduate, I am not sure, because once in the real world those foods are available all the time.
To Amy Sammis, you make a great point about the cost of healthy vs unhealthy foods. I would guess that cheap soda is related to the subsidy of corn and the proliferation of HFCS as a cheap sweetener in recent years. I am not so sure whether subsidies are beneficial, even if they were balanced toward healthy food, as they promote an imbalance in the food market and make it difficult for small-time farmers to survive. I spent time in New Zealand, a country that has no farm subsidies, and I remember their food (particularly produce) being very affordable. Their farmers also have a very high standard of living compared to the farmer poverty we have in the US.
I definitely agree with no pop in schools; regarding the adult population is an entirely separate debate.
My high school in Illinois only had water machines and I thought it was great. My high school in Ohio had pop machines and also a little snack shack store that kids could purchase junk food at in between classes. From my experience on either end of the spectrum I much prefer the former.
Teju I agree with you! I think the price difference would definitely impact some people’s choices. You are completely right about how people say they buy fast food because it is cheaper than healthy food (of course I don’t believe healthy food is more expensive and I think this is just their excuse to buy fast/junk food). But then why don’t we increase the tax/price of these unhealthy foods and lower the price of healthy items? It would be a great incentive for people to start eating healthier.
I do not think that a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages would have a significant effect on health long-term. However, I do think that they should be eliminated from schools. I feel like an increase in government spending on things to coutneract the BILLIONS of $ spent on SSB advertising would be effective. Things like education, media advertisements, etc. It's interesting to think about what it would be like if RDs and other health advocates had the same resources that large "junk food" companies do. Now, they can barely compete.
I don't know if "soda" taxes are the best idea simply because they have been trying to do that with cigarettes for years and people just complain more while buying their smokes. I almost think something drastic needs to happen such as adding labels to soda with warnings about the health effects of too many calories over time.
I would like to believe that soda machines and soda sales should be limited on school grounds, however, I do agree with many others that putting a limit on soda has the potential to lead to over consumption. It is generally human nature to want more of what you can’t have and I believe this can apply to this situation. It is an individual’s right to choose what they want to drink. I think in order to lower consumption of these beverages emphasis should be placed on the negative health factors and risks it can cause as well as promotion of fresh fruits, vegetables, and health benefits of a nutrient dense diet.
I like Carly's idea about RDs talking to the student in their schools. I think this could be beneficial especially for the younger students in the elementary schools.
I dislike the idea of increasing taxes on SSB and related unhealthy foods, but also dislike the fact that many perceive (and perhaps rightly so) that healthier foods are expensive. However, I do think that the foods and beverages children have available to them in schools does affect their choices long-term. For example, my preference for chocolate milk began only after introduction to it in kindergarten. Therefore, I do believe it is very important for schools to monitor the foods/drinks they make available to their students.
I don't think a soda tax is very beneficial. People will buy them if they want them, which is fine. However, I do approve of removing soda and sugary drinks from the school ground. It is hard to promote the healthier school lunch options when the kids can opt out and buy SSB instead. Kids are drawn to sweet things its hard to say that soda isn't very healthy when they can buy it from the school.
I like Teju's perspective on the tax. If it doesn't dissuade people from buying it, it could help change the perception that healthier foods are more expensive.
I think these taxes have about the same chance of affecting consumption as the cigarette and alcohol taxes have had. That being said, wouldn't it be nice if the tax money from SSB would go into a program that helped promote healthy eating? As far as removing soda from schools, I think it's a good idea to model a healthy food environment. However, I am doubtful that it will have a long term effect on kids soda consumption. Just as with school lunch, whether you love or hate the new regulations, what kids get at school only accounts for about 1/3 of their daily intake. The remainder of what kids consume is greatly influenced by parents and peers.
I think an increase in price on SSBs is only helpful if there is a large decrease in price of the healthier options. It would allow people on a tight budget to afford the healthier items versus the SSBs.
I do believe that soda should be kept out of schools. At my high school when they removed the soda machines many people were upset, but over time it was just the normal thing and instead you chose a different drink option. Yes, some children will just bring a soda from home, but there will be some that will reduce their consumption by it not being available at school. With the removal of the unhealthy drinks they need to be replaced by plenty of healthier drink options.
I agree that removing sugary drinks from school grounds one step towards getting populations off sugary drinks. I am not so sure about "soda" taxes though. Just like tobacco and alcohol taxes, it may prevent some people from using these products, but for the most part people still drink and smoke regardless of how much it costs them. I believe the problems is the popularity of SSB. Advertisements for these products are everywhere. Some people even think it is cool to drink super caffeinated/sugary drinks for the burst of energy they get. Only by reducing the exposure of advertising and the popularity of SSB, do I believe the population will reduce their consumption of SSB.
Although I do not agree with a sugar tax, I do agree with Amy and Teju that healthier options should be cheaper, such as subsidizing fruits a vegetables. Instead of making a big deal to the public about taxing sugar, the government could just make it much easier to afford a healthier diet. This way, people who want to eat healthier are rewarded and people care less about their health still have to right to choose unhealthy foods.
Carly Johnson said...
Thank you Angela for reminding me that what kids get at school only accounts for about 1/3 of their daily intake. I am not going back on what I said about it being a good idea that soda machines be removed from schools, but it is a good point. Kids will eat and drink what they want when they are at home sadly. Removing the soda machines may even make kids crave it more. You always want what you can't have.
I think some very good comments have been made about making healthier items cheaper rather than putting a tax on soda. I often think of things like this at McDonalds where a cheeseburger is $1 and a salad is $5.
As far as taking soda machines out of school, I completely agree with what Angela said in regards to modeling a healthy food environment. While a lot of choices are made outside of school, having healthy options in school will help introduce children to those more nutrient rich options.
I just volunteered at a school where they have the vending machines turned off during school hours. I thought that was a great idea.
I agree with Angela these taxes are going to do about as much good as the cigarette, alcohol and tanning bed taxes.
I liked Lynetta's example about not wanting chocolate milk over plain milk until she attended school. I would have to say the same thing applies for me. A lot of things are learned while at school and children spend most of their lives there, so of course the food options will be very influential on them. It is important for that influence to be a positive one.
Post a Comment
<< Home