Seattle will tax sugary soda — but not diet

[Dashinka 25,856]

I love how they spin the tax in the opening sentence.  I am sure the distributors will just eat this tax and not pass it on to the consumers.  Since this tax appears to be primarily targeted at minorities and the poor, can this be considered progress?

 

By

Daniel Beekman

Seattle Times staff reporter

 

The Seattle City Council on Monday approved a new tax on distributors of sugary drinks such as soda pop.

Proponents said the tax would reduce consumption of unhealthful beverages and help the city provide better access to nutritious foods in low-income neighborhoods and communities of color.

They said soda companies market heavily to children in those communities, where more people struggle with sugar-linked health problems such as obesity.

 

The vote was 7-1, with Councilmember Lisa Herbold voting no, and Councilmember Kshama Sawant absent.

 

A handful of other cities and counties have adopted similar taxes, including Berkeley, California; Philadelphia; and Cook County, Illinois, which includes Chicago.

“It’s a huge win for Seattle,” said Victor Colman, director of the Seattle-based Childhood Obesity Prevention Coalition.

“It’s not a panacea for the problem of childhood obesity, but it’s a huge marker to take this step. Consumption drops will happen, and we’re going to see stronger health in the communities that need this the most.”

 

Monday’s action followed months of debate over the tax, initially proposed by Mayor Ed Murray. Business groups and some labor unions warned that the plan would burden entrepreneurs and result in job losses.

 

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/seattle-city-council-says-yes-to-soda-tax/

[OriZ 3,165]

The only way I find this could be beneficial(and I said it before in a different thread) is if they took the extra revenue and used it to subsidize healthier drinks like 100% juice. Although I think it's dumb diet isn't included as it's often just as bad if not worse than regular in many ways.

[Dashinka 25,856]

9 minutes ago, OriZ said:

The only way I find this could be beneficial(and I said it before in a different thread) is if they took the extra revenue and used it to subsidize healthier drinks like 100% juice. Although I think it's dumb diet isn't included as it's often just as bad if not worse than regular in many ways.

I know, this is a somewhat redundant thread.  You are correct, why not include diet, and also those high calorie coffee beverages as well.  Like the others (NYC, Phil, etc.) it is really an experiment in social engineering or another example of the nanny state in action.  I doubt the expected tax revenues will meet their projections, but yes, the tax revenues they do get should subsidize healthier alternatives to help make them more affordable.  Regardless, the groceries just outside of Seattle may start seeing a bit more business. 

[Teddy B 17,252]

45 minutes ago, OriZ said:

The only way I find this could be beneficial(and I said it before in a different thread) is if they took the extra revenue and used it to subsidize healthier drinks like 100% juice. Although I think it's dumb diet isn't included as it's often just as bad if not worse than regular in many ways.

 

31 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

I know, this is a somewhat redundant thread.  You are correct, why not include diet, and also those high calorie coffee beverages as well.  Like the others (NYC, Phil, etc.) it is really an experiment in social engineering or another example of the nanny state in action.  I doubt the expected tax revenues will meet their projections, but yes, the tax revenues they do get should subsidize healthier alternatives to help make them more affordable.  Regardless, the groceries just outside of Seattle may start seeing a bit more business. 

It does appear that this is the hopeful result of this new tax. It states in the first paragraph that: " Proponents said the tax would reduce consumption of unhealthful beverages and help the city provide better access to nutritious foods in low-income neighborhoods and communities of color."

 

I'm not usually a fan of more gov't in our lives, but I do believe that healthier nutrition programs and taxes on junk food like this one are for the greater good. Right now the system is rigged against the poor that cannot afford to eat a healthy diet, they really have no choice but to buy and eat junk food to survive. If these programs work, there will be fewer unhealthy obese people in need of expensive health care treatments throughout their lives. In turn they will live longer healthier lives and the costs of healthcare for everyone will be lower, because everyone pays into the insurance pool no matter if they are healthy or not. If this program and others like it can help curb obesity, then it's a win for everyone.

[Dashinka 25,856]

Just now, Teddy B said:

 

It does appear that this is the hopeful result of this new tax. It states in the first paragraph that: " Proponents said the tax would reduce consumption of unhealthful beverages and help the city provide better access to nutritious foods in low-income neighborhoods and communities of color."

 

I'm not usually a fan of more gov't in our lives, but I do believe that healthier nutrition programs and taxes on junk food like this one are for the greater good. Right now the system is rigged against the poor that cannot afford to eat a healthy diet, they really have no choice but to buy and eat junk food to survive. If these programs work, there will be fewer unhealthy obese people in need of expensive health care treatments throughout their lives. In turn they will live longer healthier lives and the costs of healthcare for everyone will be lower, because everyone pays into the insurance pool no matter if they are healthy or not. If this program and others like it can help curb obesity, then it's a win for everyone.

Yes, I saw that, but it was unclear what that statement actually meant.  Why not just use it to subsidize the cost of the healthier options to make them more affordable?  If "better access" means this then we are in agreement.

[Teddy B 17,252]

7 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Yes, I saw that, but it was unclear what that statement actually meant.  Why not just use it to subsidize the cost of the healthier options to make them more affordable?  If "better access" means this then we are in agreement.

That is how I read it, basically the tax is a subsidy toward healthier foods.

[IAMX 3,055]

Meh,  just a pointless money grab. If they were serious they'd go after a lot more than soda. Someone mentioned juice in this thread..  juice is worse than soda. 

[Dashinka 25,856]

Just now, IAMX said:

Meh,  just a pointless money grab. If they were serious they'd go after a lot more than soda. Someone mentioned juice in this thread..  juice is worse than soda. 

Interesting that they are treating Starbucks with kid gloves.  Regardless, Seattle is relatively small, and it's borders are unprotected, so like I said in an earlier comment, the stores in the suburbs will probably see an uptick in business.

[IAMX 3,055]

2 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Interesting that they are treating Starbucks with kid gloves.  Regardless, Seattle is relatively small, and it's borders are unprotected, so like I said in an earlier comment, the stores in the suburbs will probably see an uptick in business.

Pretty much. Money grab by the government and marketed as a feel good movement by the nanny state left. 

[OriZ 3,165]

12 minutes ago, IAMX said:

Meh,  just a pointless money grab. If they were serious they'd go after a lot more than soda. Someone mentioned juice in this thread..  juice is worse than soda. 

Vehemently disagree.

[IAMX 3,055]

10 minutes ago, OriZ said:

Vehemently disagree.

The damage juice causes for ordinary Americans is way worse than soda, not only is it ridiculously rife with natural sugar but they add even more to virtually every brand sold. Look at the ingredients list, one of the first ingredients is sugar. It's quite unnecessarily unhealthy having nearly 30g of sugar per serving when the vitamins provided can easily be supplemented. Even better, the fruits themselves often provide a slower method of digestion. Juice just goes through the body and as simple carbs are easily a culprit of obesity given how quickly they overload the livers storage causing it to frantically convert the excess glucose into fatty acids. It doesn't cause one to be satiated either, the body quickly needs more food. 

Edited June 7, 2017 by IAMX

[OriZ 3,165]

7 minutes ago, IAMX said:

The damage juice causes for ordinary Americans is way worse than soda, not only is it ridiculously rife with natural sugar but they add even more to virtually every brand sold. Look at the ingredients list, one of the first ingredients is sugar. It's quite unnecessarily unhealthy having nearly 30g of sugar per serving when the vitamins provided can easily be supplemented. Even better, the fruits themselves often provide a slower method of digestion. Juice just goes through the body and as simple carbs are easily a culprit of obesity given how quickly they overload the livers storage causing it to frantically convert the excess glucose into fatty acids. It doesn't cause one to be satiated either, the body quickly needs more food. 

That is false. In fact we do check the ingredient list of pretty much everything we buy, and the 100% fruit juice we get does not have any added sugar(here is just one example - http://juicyjuice.com/products/juicy-juice-fruit-juice). While the sugar content might be similar to soda, I'll take natural fruit sugar over added sugar or corn syrup any day, plus who said you have to drink a whole bottle every day? Plus, the nutrients you get from fruit juice you cannot get from soda. Also, you can ask Teddy, I know alot about supplementation, especially with my wife's issues - we have a whole list of what we call the "arsenal". Some supplements are good to take, yes we take vitamins. HAVING SAID THAT, Supplementation form does not work as well as consuming it and never will. Consuming it directly from food will always be your best option. I've been doing my homework on this for many years and will never agree with someone saying fruit juice is the same as soda, that's just lusicrous to me. I do agree that eating fruit is better, but for those who can't afford to have much fruits or vegetables at least they can get something from juice. 

[Teddy B 17,252]

4 minutes ago, OriZ said:

That is false. In fact we do check the ingredient list of pretty much everything we buy, and the 100% fruit juice we get does not have any added sugar(here is just one example - http://juicyjuice.com/products/juicy-juice-fruit-juice). While the sugar content might be similar to soda, I'll take natural fruit sugar over added sugar or corn syrup any day, plus who said you have to drink a whole bottle every day? Plus, the nutrients you get from fruit juice you cannot get from soda. Also, you can ask Teddy, I know alot about supplementation, especially with my wife's issues - we have a whole list of what we call the "arsenal". Some supplements are good to take, yes we take vitamins. HAVING SAID THAT, Supplementation form does not work as well as consuming it and never will. Consuming it directly from food will always be your best option. I've been doing my homework on this for many years and will never agree with someone saying fruit juice is the same as soda, that's just lusicrous to me. I do agree that eating fruit is better, but for those who can't afford to have much fruits or vegetables at least they can get something from juice. 

I can definitely attest to that, I have read the "Ori Chronicles", lol! You've definitely done your homework.

[OriZ 3,165]

Just now, Teddy B said:

I can definitely attest to that, I have read the "Ori Chronicles", lol! You've definitely done your homework.

 

Another example with one of my personal favorites:

 

http://www.oceanspray.com/Products/Juices/By-Type/100-Juice/100-Juice-Cranberry-Pineapple.aspx

[Teddy B 17,252]

6 minutes ago, OriZ said:

 

Another example with one of my personal favorites:

 

http://www.oceanspray.com/Products/Juices/By-Type/100-Juice/100-Juice-Cranberry-Pineapple.aspx

You and I have had this juice conversation in the past. I know you do not like the sugar substitutes that are put in the diet and light juices and for good reasons. But I prefer the diet/light over the 100% juice because of the higher cals and sugar in the regular juice.