A Sweet Dilemma

There has been a subtle buzz in Washington lately of placing a "luxury" tax on our sugary beverages in an attempt to curb consumption and, consequently, curb the growing obesity trend in America. We've seen this same move with cigarettes and, much to their credit, Congress has started the ball rolling on a smoke-free country with smoking on the decline. However, exporting this idea toward sugary treats, especially soft drinks, will not have the same effect simply because it is a completely different product and use.

To begin with, let's understand what worked for cigarettes in terms of decreasing smoking. The fact of the matter is, the cigarette tax alone wasn't the sole reason for the radical decrease in smoking that we see today (Galea et al. 2008). It was a part, yes, but not nearly the whole reason behind it. The country has been swept with a social stigma about smoking that caused cigarette smoking to be banned in most public institutions, including restaurants, bars, and other "hang-out" areas. Thus, inherently it wasn't the cigarette tax alone that caused the downshift in smoking. Studies even show that the decrease in smoking at the advent of the cigarette tax was negligible at best, causing most smokers simply to move to a cheaper brand of cigarettes which were created specifically for them to afford (2008). It is in fact the elimination of smoking venues that caused the decrease and not specifically the tax itself.

Applying this same logic to our savored soft drinks, it is obvious to see how the plan will inevitably fail to meet Congress' expectations. Once again, historically speaking the consumption of soft drinks has remained relatively the same over the course of the last two decades or so. Though if you notice, or remember, the cost of bottled soft drinks went from seventy-five cents, to one dollar, to now a dollar and a half, and people are still buying them. Personally, I work at a Wal-Mart in Texas as a cashier, and I have noticed no significant decrease in the amount people consume (buy), even when these price jumps occur.

The question now turns to whether the same social stigma can be introduced through the tax like what happened with cigarettes. The answer, I believe, is no. We have already seen the extreme stigma against obesity in the past, all these radical diets and foods specially designed for losing weight. We have books, movies, and all kinds of other media pounding, or rather used to pound, on how bad it was to be "fat". Yet, in today's society, we should take note on an interesting new trend taking place, and that is for people to be happy being with their size (Adamy 2009). We're seeing a backlash of the extremism instituted against big people through recent books and movies being released basically describing how ostracized they've become in society. Now, people are beginning to understand how hard it is for them and how it is not necessarily a food problem, but a genetic one, a stressful one, or even a depression one (2009).

With this in mind, I believe that the same social stigma's have foundered in modern America and without that, there won't be any great decline in the sale and consumption of sugary beverages. People aren't about to stop drinking their favorite refreshment because the government makes it a few cents higher. Even if the price hike was over fifty cents, I think there would be no noticeable decrease since it has already happened before with no dramatic decrease in consumption. New, cheaper soft drinks developed by local companies have instead replaced any loss in sales from the larger sodas. While major soft drinks may suffer slightly, it only makes room for their cheaper alternatives to thrive, and the American public still gets their sugar fix.

To end on a personal note, I haven't shorted myself my favorite thirstbuster even when it was hiked from seventy-five cents to about a dollar and a half. That's a hundred percent increase. I also know that I'm not the only one still buying these soft drinks. If Congress decides to pass this tax though, it will do some good in my mind. I believe that the tax, as it is intended by the numbers, could go to support health-care for those who are overweight (Adamy 2009). It could go to help Medicare and the skyrocketing medical costs. So, the tax isn't all bad. Yet, it won't curb consumption, not the way the cigarette tax did.

References

Adamy, J. (2009). Soda tax weighed to pay for health care. The Wall Street Journal, Retrieved from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124208505896608647.html

Galea, S., Link, BG., & Stubar, J. (2008). Smoking and the emergence of a stigmatized social status. RWJF, Retrieved from http://www.rwjf.org/pr/product.jsp?id=33068