Question 2
Do you think soda taxes, such as the one in the Berkeley,
California are effective strategies in reducing SSB consumption?
posted by Unknown @ 8:32 PM
14 comments
ISU Dietetic Internship Journal Club
Objective: To become familiar with current scientific literature on a variety of nutrition topics and to gain experience in gathering, organizing, critically evaluating, presenting and facilitating group discussion of the literature and the implications to practice.
14 Comments:
I do think soda taxes are effective since individuals may be discouraged to purchase less soda than they would if it costed less. Taxing soda companies may also help increase the prices of the drinks when they arrive to the consumers, so they may be less likely to purchase as much. However, I do not think it would stop people from purchasing it. It may even encourage companies to produce cheaper options and use other forms of cheaper sweetener (if there is one cheaper than corn syrup!).
However, as long as soda is an easy option at every fast food restaurant, dine-ins, and convenience stores, they will be purchased by many. I think education of what SSBs, especially soda, can do to an individuals' long-term health can actually be more effective than soda tax. As mentioned in the article, a study found the sample adolescents purchased less SSBs when they were shown how much sugar and calories are actually in the beverage, translated in a way they can understand.
Obviously, the general public would not read the nutrition facts label on a soda can (especially at a restaurant), and be able to understand how much 39g of sugar is. So I think education is key!
I am really not on the "soda tax" train. I think there are better ways that we can utilize our resources than focusing on one "bad" food. I think promotion of alternative beverages and healthful options would be the place to focus. Just like when marketing a low sodium/DASH diet, clients may be more receptive and adherent to a high potassium, calcium, magnesium, and fiber diet. I think the portrayal of a positive addition is always more widely accepted than a negative elimination. We do not want people to be afraid of food or jump on the fad diet bandwagon - we are hoping for a healthy, balanced diet that incorporates proper portion sizes and moderation.
I think one of the biggest changes we could make would be to charge for refills of SSBs in restaurants. This is similar to a tax, but really makes you think twice about consuming more soda/juice instead of expecting a foodservice employee to automatically refill your drink.
We have one of the safest water supplies in the world - I wish we would see more marketing for water! A similar campaign to the Got Milk marketing could really make a difference.
I agree with Jenn. I am not a fan of the taxation option. Think about how well that works with cigarettes. Education really is key like Vivian said. The promotional campaign using the “it takes X amount of minutes of jogging to burn off this beverage,” seemed to be pretty effective. The article specifically mentioned suggesting better alternatives as an addition to the campaign. The point of purchase decision is where a promotional campaign of this type would have the most effect. Reminding the public of simple facts like this as they are making that decision of whether to pick up the SSB or something better and then giving them the information to make a better choice could be really effective. The information we provide needs to be actionable.
For a tax to even be noticeable, it would have to be significant. Short term it may help some, but a problem also exists in that the tax just becomes part of the accepted price for the next generation. The tax would be more effective for the generation experiencing the price jump than the generation after who only knows the higher price. Once the tax becomes part of the accepted culture, the reasoning behind it fades from public awareness and the opportunity to educate on this reasoning is lost.
I am also not a fan of soda taxes and I feel that they would be more effective at generating revenue than they would be at reducing overall consumption of SSBs. Unless it is a ridiculously high tax I do not foresee this being very effective at all. Individuals that consistently purchase large quantities of SSBs will more than likely not be swayed by such a small proposed tax (1 cent per ounce). However, it certainly does make alternative beverages look like a much more attractive option when there is a side-by-side price comparison of the two in the stores. Retailers could help consumers to make this distinction by organizing their inventory in such a manner that assists with making healthier and less expensive choices.
An additional benefit to SSB taxation outside of reducing overall consumption would be that this revenue generated from the taxes could be put towards positive marketing campaigns for alternative beverages. As Jenn mentioned, we have one of the safest water supplies in the world and I agree that there needs to be much more marketing for simply drinking water (aka the best thing for you). You can easily lose count of the number of SSB and beer commercials seen in any given hour of television programming however the advertising for simply water is non-existent. As Vivian pointed out, I also feel that education should be a key component. There should be a lot more marketing campaigns focused on addressing the positive health benefits to drinking just plain water!
I am not a fan of the extra tax on soda because I don’t think it would be effective. Just like Gina mentioned, taxes on tobacco products continue to raise but that is not what causes people to stop buying tobacco products. Nicotine is addicting, but studies have shown that sugar is slightly less addictive than cocaine. When people have a soda craving, they won’t think twice about the tax. I also think when people put a restriction on food that makes people want to have it more, so the tax could back fire.
As Vivian mentioned, education is important, but I also think the environment has a huge influence! I could have someone give me a daily lecture me about why I shouldn’t eat Cheetios, but I will still eat Cheetios sometimes. That’s why I think the environment is so important because it effects our decision making and can prevent some of those impulsive purchases. I think we would benefit from making environment changes such as placing the healthy food items at eye level on the shelves, making the salad bar the first item at the cafeteria or buffet, having fruits and veggies at the checkout instead of candy, and increasing healthy food advertisements.
I think that taxing "bad" food items, such as soda can only have so much of an effect and ultimately not worth the resources and efforts to apply the additional taxes. I agree with Vivian's point that it may discourage people buying it as frequently, however if a person enjoys drinking a diet coke everyday, they are going to drink the diet coke everyday regardless of the extra couple of cents it may cost.
I love your thinking Jenn about needing more promotion for drinking water! Such a large majority of people order SSBs when they go to the grocery store or out to eat and are consuming very minimal drinking water on a daily basis.
I agree with you Gina that a slight tax increase would not be effective for long term change. If you think about gas prices, I am sure that a person who lived 50 years ago, disregarding inflation, would refuse to drive a car if gas was costing around $3 per gallon, whereas since it has been such a gradual increase over the years, we hardly think anything about the high gas prices. This would be very similar to increasing taxes on soda. The change would not be significant enough to have a large effect.
So far in the discussion, everyone is in agreement that taxation on soda is not the most effective approach. Vivian brought up the importance of education to the consumer. Many others also agreed with this approach. However, I also thought Abby made a good point about how even though we are told something is not good for us, it might not deter us from buying/consuming it anyway. I also think that we become conditioned to the negative claims about foods. For example, how many times have we been repeatedly exposed to the idea that SSBs are “bad” for us or make us gain weight, etc? There seems to come a point where those words lose their meaning when we hear them so frequently. Jenn makes an excellent point about spinning messages in a positive light. Instead of bashing the negative foods, why not create campaigns like the popular “Got Milk” campaigns?
John also mentions how soda taxes are meeting their purpose of discouraging the consumption of SSBs, but rather just creating more revenue. Do you think some places that have implemented this soda tax are using it as more of a way to create revenue as opposed to promoting healthier beverage consumption?
Excellent ideas Abby and John about reorganizing the beverage cooler/aisle. This would be a much simpler change rather than dealing with the bureaucracy of taxation, and honestly, I think it would be more effective. There would still be some difficulty in achieving this rearrangement. Last I knew, companies either paid premiums or had some sort of contract agreement for certain locations in shelf space in grocery stores. We would have to work with the beverage companies to maybe make the shift within their own product lines. Most beverage companies have a water, juice, or some sort of lower calorie,healthier beverage under their umbrella. It would still be a hard sell though for a company who is focused on maximizing profit. Or... if we were to take the legislation route, maybe governing product placement to some degree, i.e. what types of beverages are allowed at eye level and which are limited to the bottom of the beverage cooler in gas stations. Either way I think we should look primarily at options requiring less monitoring and legislation that are equally and maybe more effective than the tax.
Ugh...groan. There is an mperks reward for carbonated beverages that just popped up on my page for reward options. Five dollars off next purchase if you spend 25$ on carbonated beverages. Exact opposite of what we're going for. What happened to all of the fruit and veggie reward options? I'm disappointed. The advertising and promotion for soda is pervasive.
I agree that taxation is not the answer for the soda problem. Putting a tax on soda would punish those who practice moderation by making them pay more even though they might not buy it regularly and it would associate soda with a "bad food" which we try to encourage that there is no such thing as a bad food. I also think sodas are not the only sugary drink that is a problem. For example, some sports drinks and kid's juices have more sugar than soda so if you taxed soda for their sugar content you would have to tax juices and other beverages and soon there would be a large amount of products that would need to be taxed. I also think marketing strategies and educating consumers can be more effective than taxation. Education would be seen as helpful as taxation would seem like a punishment. Consumers would much rather feel like they are being helped by the government rather than being punished in my opinion.
Abby you mentioned the importance of the environment in our decisions on what to consume. I think this is a great point we are so heavily influence by those "impulse" items stores place at the front of the store. If the stores replaced the "impulse" items with fresh fruit or packaged vegetables I am sure that fruit and vegetable sales would increase. Creating more grab and go fruit and vegetable drinks might be an avenue soda companies might want to look into.
Going along with Abby's idea, I think that Gina brought up a good idea of having the government in some way control product placement in stores. If the government had an area at the front of the store reserved to promote fruits, vegetables, and positive food choices maybe some people would be more inclined to purchase these products as opposed to the current soda and candy options being pushed at the cashier line currently.
While I think money is a large factor in individual's purchases I'm not sure taxation would decrease SSB intake. And once a taxation is added to SSBs what about "junk" food? When would the taxation end? As most have stated I believe education would be a better alternative to taxation. Maybe even giving upperclassmen high school students a grocery store tour could be beneficial in decreasing processed food intake and preparing them for life on their own.
Gina that is disappointing about the mperks reward you found! Like others have stated, possibly giving discounts or benefits to companies that promote fruit and vegetable intake could help promote healthy options.
I am all for government intervention when it comes to reducing the consumption of sugar sweetened beverages, I am just not sure if imposing a tax is the best way to do it. I remember a few years ago the mayor of New York attempted something similar and it did not go over well. I think people certain have the freedom to drink whatever they want in whatever amounts they want. That is why I think government intervention in the form of mandatory educational promotion would be a better way to go. Although it is small, just the fact that big soda companies are writing lines on their websites like "insert product name here should be consumed as a part of a balanced diet" (or however they choose to phrase it) is a start in the right direction in terms of educational promotion. It at least might catch consumer's attention or raise some sort of awareness.
I agree with Jenn and John about increasing advertisement for water as a method of adding healthy alternatives to a person's diet rather than trying to persuade them to eliminate. And now that I think about it, I have never seen or heard [on the radio] an ad for just water and its health benefits. Sure people may know they should be drinking 8 cups a day or so (or many probably do not know!!) but people don't know why we should be drinking that much water.
I also agree with Jenn that refilling sodas at restaurants should cost a fee so people are not drinking cups after cups of soda at one meal and they are more conscious of what they are consuming.
Having been at Hy-Vee for quite a few days, I've been paying attention to some of the products that offers "fuel saver" points for their rewards program. And I have noticed a lot of soda and "junk food" options offering this fuel saver program, which definitely encourage people to purchase more of them. So I think major grocery store chains can play a huge role in reducing consumption of SSBs and other "junk foods" by not offering rewards for them but for healthier options such as produce and water since the majority of the population will have to go to a grocery store some time.
Abby and Viv bring up good points about the importance of food environment. I think the observation about Hy-Vee fuel points just goes to show the importance of politics and money in every issue and debate in our nation, even the sugar sweetened beverage discussion! I am just wondering why even some brands of water wouldn't offer fuel saver points since many water brands are ultimately owned by a bigger company such as coca-cola.
Also, Amanda, I'm not sure if any locations who have imposed the tax have done so with the objective of creating revenue. That is an interesting point. Honestly, I feel like you can never know the true motivation for anything when it comes to big business. But taxing to make a profit does make sense. After some googling, I found out that there are 1.9 billion servings of coca-cola sold world wide every day. Can you imagine if 1 cent for every serving purchased went into your bank account!? The consumers might not notice or even care about a 1 cent increase, but I would be ecstatic if I woke up with 19 million extra dollars in my bank account.
Post a Comment
<< Home