Critics condemn it as an intrusion of basic American rights, or a direct attack upon those who are already poor enough. But the grim reality is that across the country Americans are getting alarming more and more obese. In 1997, only three states had an obesity rate above 20 percent of the population. But in 2007, every single state besides Colorado was at least 20 percent obese, and in a few cases over one-third of the population of a state was obese.
The government obviously recognizes this as well. Their proposed solution, which has already been implemented in some states, has been casually called the ìobesity tax.” It is a federal tax on sugar-sweetened drinks ó Coke, Sprite, Mountain Dew, Fanta ó all non-diet sodas.
The proposal suggests a penny-per-ounce tax on said drinks, or a standard fee to be added to refillable fountain drinks. Drinks with sugar substitutes wouldnít be subject to the tax, though some would argue that since we donít know the long-term effects of sugar substitutes, far worse things could come of them in the long run.
People everywhere are up in arms about this idea. We have the right to eat whatever we want, and since eating habits are formed at such a young age, any dieter will tell you that they are really hard to break. On top of that, many sodas contain caffeine, so once they hook you itís much harder to quit them, as opposed to quitting candy or cake, which have no physically addictive qualities. A tax might initially make people angry, but if it works and people lose their addiction, then isnít it worth it in the end?
What we could really use is a complete revamping of the fast food industry. But even I, one of the least business-minded people you will probably ever meet, am not so naÔve as to suggest that fast food restaurants would willingly give up the foods that have made them so very popular. Can you imagine Taco Bell without crispy chalupas and cheezy nachos? What would Burger King be without their burgers ó Tofu King? Salad King?
Granted, Congress as a whole seems to be against the idea thus far. But statewide the idea is catching on. The majority of the Union takes part of the revenue generated from unhealthy foods and/or soda. President Obama has been quoted supporting the idea, and the health insurance industry is a fan as well, since healthier people obviously equals fewer hospital visits, which equals less money for insurance companies to spend. And the money generated from the tax would go towards programs run by the government on health awareness, so itís absolutely a win-win situation.
The thought that taxing these drinks is a violation of our basic rights is a moot point as well ñ weíre still allowed to drink sodas if we want. This is an accountability tax. Itís the same as the variety of taxes on other products. And insurance rates usually increase if someone has a bad medical history or has been the cause of a car accident and so on. Since our government canít legally ban things without very good reason, they have to do what they can to protect us from things that are bad for us. Cigarettes are addictive and they too have a tax. A tax on drinks that are high in calories yet low on nutrition is no different.
Statistics found online at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.