In her article, Dr. Peeke took on the concept of taxing beverages to solve obesity. In doing so, she also challenged the comparison of taxing cigarettes – which contain a known carcinogen – to curtail smoking to taxing soda to reduce obesity. Conclusion? “The health consequences of inhaling smoke into your lungs day after day were clear and indisputable.” But will a soda tax solve obesity? “Of course not, and worse still, such taxes may have the opposite effect.”

Dr. Peeke’s article is definitely worth the read. While it may be her viewpoint, that viewpoint is based on her medical experience, published literature on the topic of sugar-sweetened beverages and obesity, and economics. Importantly, Dr. Peeke stresses that if we want to solve obesity, taxes simply aren’t the solution. As she states, “One food or beverage never resulted in global obesity … to drop excess weight we must connect our brains to our bellies and take responsibility for how and what we eat.”

We couldn’t agree more. Thank you, Dr. Peeke, for bringing some common-sense to the ongoing debate on this issue.

Political forecasters argue that President Obama will be doing more to put forth a more populist message in an effort to regain some popularity, particularly since the future of a major administration initiative is in questionable standing on Capitol Hill.

As the President makes his appeals to a Joint Session of Congress tonight, we at Sip & Savor bet that he might need to stay hydrated by sipping some water (hm, bottled or tap?) stashed behind the podium. Be sure to tune in with us to check it out.

He and his team have reiterated that campaign promise easily more than a half dozen times in the past six months or so. And that’s great. Yet, the prospect of raising taxes still seems to linger out there.

We just want to give a friendly reminder that a tax on soft drinks is a tax on the middle class. And it’s a tax on lower-income workers. It’s a discriminatory and highly regressive tax, as the Congressional Research Service pointed out in a study it conducted. And this discriminatory, regressive tax would be placed on hard-working individuals already struggling through a recession. Not good timing. Not that there’s ever a good time for a tax hike on families.

We encourage lawmakers to keep the President’s pledge and these facts in mind as they move forward with the admittedly difficult challenge of passing a meaningful health care reform package.

A message worth heeding as the Congress comes back to work today. And the President is ready to give a big speech on health reform tonight.

If our leaders learned anything over the August recess we hope it’s that taxpayers are leery of any reform that costs them more money without giving them something they don’t already have or need or want. Regular, hard-working folks aren’t in a position to pay more for much right now – especially if there’s no value, benefit or priority in it for them.

Well, while there are some good, sound ideas for improving health care out there by lawmakers in both parties (ideas that get to lowering costs, for example), the activists have been busy with a singular focus on pushing for a tax on soft drinks and other beverages to pay for health care reform. So, heading into the next phase of this important debate, it might behoove lawmakers to keep a few facts in mind when it comes to this idea.

1.) A soft drink tax simply won’t work. There’s a book of evidence supporting this point. Just a few highlights. A.) West Virginia and Arkansas are two states with excise taxes on soda like the one being talked about in Washington. Those states have the fifth- and sixth-highest obesity rates in America, according to the CDC. B.) This week, University of Chicago researchers concluded: “Current state-level tax rates are not found to be significantly associated with adolescent weight outcomes.” C.) A George Mason University study showed that a 15-cent tax per can of soda would reduce a person’s Body Mass Index by just .02 (40 to 39.98). That’s not even measurable on a bathroom scale! D.) Even the leader of an American Heart Association panel that issued a study last week on childhood obesity conceded that there is “limited evidence” that a soft drink tax would work. We appreciate that piece of candor, which many activists lack, but as one can see, there’s actually a great deal of real-world evidence showing that a soft drink tax won’t work. Bottom line: We can’t tax our way to better health. These taxes are just a façade for a money grab, pure and simple.

2.) A soft drink tax further squeezes the middle class struggling through a recession. The tax is discriminatory and regressive. The Congressional Research Service did a study showing that the tax burden would by far be borne most by those who can least afford to pay it. Furthermore, 96 percent of the tax would be paid by low-income and middle-class families – in all, those earning less than $250,000 a year. It doesn’t seem wise to be taxing people’s groceries in the middle of a recession. Bottom line: Didn’t leaders promise not to tax the middle class in this last election?

3.) Government shouldn’t tell people what to eat. The strong majority of Americans believe it is an over-reach by government to use the tax code to tell them what to eat or drink. They don’t view it as government’s role. It’s an uninvited intrusion into basic elements of people’s lives. Bottom line: Lawmakers cross this line at their own risk. Just ask leaders in New York and Maine, whose beverage tax ideas were overwhelmingly rejected by the public.

4.) A complex health system needs comprehensive solutions. You’re not going to solve the complexities of health reform with a tax on soda pop. In fact, you’re not even going to make a dent in the problem. Bottom line: This country’s got much bigger problems if its leaders are building a new health system on such a shaky foundation as a tax on food. Seriously!

5.) It’s soda pop, for Pete’s sake. Like most foods, regular soft drinks have calories. Soda pop is a fun, refreshing beverage meant to be enjoyed. It’s nothing more, nothing less. So the money-seeking, agenda-toting, self-proclaimed we-know-what’s-best-for-everyone-busybodies should stop making soda out to be more than what it is. Our industry certainly doesn’t. The compendium of science says all calories count, regardless of the food source, when it comes to maintaining one’s weight. That’s irrefutable. And it drives the advocates crazy. Bottom line: You can be a healthy person and drink regular soda. Tens of millions of Americans are proof.

In summary, it’s not hard to let your imagination go if Congress and the President pursue a tax on soda, juice drinks, sports drinks and other beverages as some propose. (That’s right – this tax isn’t just on soda but on any beverage with even a little bit of sugar in it, including teas and juices.)

If government starts taxing simple pleasures like soda, where does its long arm stop once it realizes that didn’t work? Tax cheeseburgers? Fries? Shakes? All products with sugar? Any products with any taste? Evidence shows it still won’t change people’s behaviors; just burden them with more taxes.

Let’s focus on improving the health care system with meaningful and sustainable solutions — not with distracting one-offs like taxing people’s food. People have enough burdens right now. Leave them alone.

As the wise man said: “In an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle class.”

Today, we came across an interesting perspective from a neutral source that’s worth sharing. This is an anecdotal piece of writing, but it’s one with relevance that we think most of us can relate to on some level.

Now, we present this not to suggest that there’s no childhood obesity, or that we shouldn’t focus as a nation on reducing it. But in order to address childhood obesity, we must put the issue in its proper context. Not the sound-bite context that advocates and some in the media choose. The sensationalism. And we must seek comprehensive solutions based on education, balanced diets and exercise in order to effectively deal with the problem. Taxes don’t make people healthy.

As we’ve always said about soft drinks. Yes, regular soda has calories; at about 140 per can that’s not an inordinate amount of calories…but regular soda does have them.

But let’s keep things in perspective. Soft drinks are a refreshment beverage meant to be enjoyed. And you can be a healthy person and enjoy regular soft drinks. Tens of millions of Americans are proof.
Jack Cashill, an Emmy-award-winning writer and producer based in Boston, adds to this perspective in his column. Click on the hyperlink and enjoy.

As we wrote yesterday, the compendium of science makes one thing perfectly clear: all calories count when it comes to weight, regardless of the food source. The latest reinforcement of this principle comes from a study by a Harvard researcher published in the New England Journal of Medicine and funded by the National Institutes of Health.

Yet advocates continue to argue that soft drinks are a unique contributor to obesity. At a CDC summit yesterday, Director Thomas Frieden cited a Health Affairs report from this week that found obesity-related conditions now account for 9.1 percent of all medical spending. And since 1998, the obesity rate has risen 37 percent, according to Health Affairs.

Interesting. Since 1998, the sale of soft drinks has declined by 9 percent. So the data shows that soft drinks are clearly not a unique contributor to obesity since obesity rates are climbing, while soft drink sales are dropping over the past decade (largely because our companies make such a wide range of beverages now.) Furthermore, according to CDC data, West Virginia and Arkansas have the fifth and sixth highest obesity rates in the nation. They’re also two states with unique excise taxes on soda.

Not only is there no smoking gun on a unique tie between soft drinks and obesity, there’s no bullets in the gun. Heck, there’s not even a gun, except maybe a toy one. This is why advocates reach back three decades for data – to contort the numbers to meet their advocacy goals. They don’t speak in the reality of the here and now. That’s disappointing.

Though, we do give Director Frieden credit for conceding yesterday that he was not speaking for the administration, rather expressing his own personal opinions carried with him from New York.

Does regular soda have calories? Yes. But so do nearly all foods. Clearly people are getting the vast majority of their calories from foods other than soft drinks. And importantly, they’re not burning off nearly as many calories as they consume.

The data and the science simply don’t support government reaching into the family shopping cart to tax non-alcoholic beverages, or any other foods for that matter, on a drummed up charge of combating obesity. The effort won’t work. And people view it as an over-reach when government tries to tell them what to eat or drink.

Plus, a beverage tax won’t do a thing to improve health care, reduce obesity or raise nearly enough sustainable money to make a dent in the $1 trillion-plus health care reform plans being talked about.

All it will do is cost hard-working families more money at a time when they’re already squeezed by this down economy.

We appreciate the CDC director advocating for better health. It’s his job and a worthy effort. We, too, support better health in America — and we’re doing our part by creating a bevy of beverages of all calories and sizes, as well as implementing national School Beverage Guidelines that slash calories in schools.

But the concept of taxing beverages as a means to reduce obesity just won’t work. The proof is in the data. The contemporary data.

So as Congress spends its final two weeks before the summer recess working on health care reform, we thought we’d provide some interesting data each day this week. We’ll share some information – all documented and verifiable on your own — that pretty resoundingly undermines the arguments of our critics who claim that juice drinks, soft drinks, sports drinks and other non-alcoholic beverages should be singled out for taxation to pay for reform. We’ll use data, science and good old common sense.

Today’s mythical argument: that soft drinks or sweetened beverages are a unique contributor to obesity.

The truth: The compendium of science has shown time and again that what impacts weight the most is calorie balance. How effectively does one balance the calories they consume with the calories they burn? In other words, if you consume more calories than you burn, you’ll gain weight. And vice versa. Science and common sense working together. Love it.

This fundamental fact of calorie balance as it relates to weight was reinforced in a recent study lead by a Harvard University researcher that was published in the New England Journal of Medicine. The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health.

The study demonstrated, once again, that calories count when it comes to losing weight – regardless of the food source. In other words, a calorie is a calorie, and whether the calorie comes from one food source matters no more or no less than if it comes from another food source.

Bottom line: On matters of weight, whenever you hear a researcher claim that calories from a beverage matter more than calories from any other food or beverage…well, let’s be kind and say they’re twisting the data a bit to support their point of view. The fact is the science and data don’t support their claims.

We like this point on calorie balance because it combines proven science (yet another study conducted by, funded by and published by renowned individuals and institutions), with solid data and a gigantic dose of common sense.

To these leaders, the tax is a non-starter. At its national assembly, LULAC members passed a resolution taking a first stance against food and beverage taxes – whether at the federal or state level.

In a news release Thursday, LULAC National President Rosa Rosales said: “In these tough times, we do not want to be taxing the people who would be directly impacted in the local communities. We will make sure that these hard-working Americans retain their tenuous hold on financial security by shielding them from even more burdensome new food and/or beverage taxes.”

The LULAC resolution cites the global recession, the economic stress families are facing and the highly regressive nature of food and beverage taxes as major reasons lawmakers should not pursue such options.

We appreciate and applaud LULAC and its members for speaking up on this issue. And we hope it helps lawmakers further understand the real concern amongst hard-working families about the negative impact a tax on groceries would have on their financial security.

The way the cost curve lens is being applied to the current debate, and the varying proposals on the table, is whether reforms will “bend” the cost curve. In other words, will reform stop the ongoing escalation in costs and bend the curve downwards through lower costs. Right now, the Congressional Budget Office says many of the reform plans being discussed won’t bend the curve, instead “the curve is being raised.”

Bending the curve is a tough challenge. As we write here often, health reform is not easy otherwise legislators would have done it by now. Which is why the president and lawmakers get credit for taking on this issue; but they must do so in a manner that truly protects and benefits the middle-class as promised.

Some of the proposals for funding health care won’t do anything for the cost curve. They’re simply money-raisers; Band-aids for a big, complex problem. That category is certainly where we place the notion of discriminatory taxes on consumer products – including a potential tax on soft drinks, juice drinks, sports drinks, teas, vitamin waters, flavored waters and other non-alcoholic beverages.

A tax on soft drinks and juice drinks won’t bend the health care cost curve. Just as disconcerting, a tax on these beverages won’t bend the cost curve for the overall family budget either. It would simply extend the rising cost trend straight up for families. Families are paying more for everything right now and they’re not getting raises to meet those increased costs in these tough times.

Looking forward, as health care costs continue to rise in future years without a bend in the cost curve, lawmakers will be very tempted to keep reaching into the grocery cart to tax other foods and consumer products to pay for these growing costs. This is one reason why so many industries and consumer groups(including grocery stores, restaurants and food manufacturers) have joined the Americans Against Food Taxes Coalition. They fear the slippery slope once Congress starts reaching into the grocery cart for more money.

This is another example of where lawmakers need to be careful on this issue. A tax on soft drinks and juice drinks won’t scratch the surface of helping to improve health care in America. But reaching into the grocery cart with new taxes will make a sizeable impact on the growing everyday costs of Americans – hard-working families who are already struggling through a recession.

The reality of the intricacies of our health care system – and all the ways it’s become the expensive and inconsistent system that it is – makes one wonder why some lawmakers are even considering a tax on juice drinks, soft drinks and other beverages as part of this equation?

The complexities of health care reform are not going to be solved by a tax on soda pop. And if some lawmakers believe it can be even part of the solution, their health care plan has far bigger fundamental problems than a simple beverage tax can solve. We’re in trouble if we need to start taxing groceries to fix America’s health care system.