Then They Came for the Fresca
The growing ambitions of the food police.
By William Saletan
Sept. 22, 2009

Quote :

"A nonalcoholic sequel to the Whiskey Rebellion seems to be brewing. And Slate may be joining it. I'll call it the Fresca Rebellion, in honor of our editor, David Plotz, a hard-core addict of the citrus-flavored soft drink. For a long time, the only discernible libertarian around here was Jack Shafer, a man unable to wean himself from speech, guns, and other annoying constitutional amendments. But lately, other folks seem to be getting a bit Ayn Randy. On Saturday, Jacob Weisberg blew the whistle on New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg for trying to ban outdoor smoking in public parks ('First They Came for the Marlboros'). Yesterday, Daniel Engber went after the hypocrisy and overreaching of soda-tax advocates. And I've become such a knee-jerk defender of burgers and fries that I'm tempted to seek funding from the Competitive Enterprise Institute. What's going on here? Most of us used to be good liberals. Are we getting conservative in our old age? I'd say it's the opposite. We're what we were five or 10 years ago: skeptics and fact-mongers with a bias for personal freedom. It's the left that's turning conservative. Well, not conservative, but pushy. Weisberg put his finger on the underlying trend: 'Because Democrats hold power at the moment, they face the greater peril of paternalistic overreaching.' Today's morality cops are less interested in your bedroom than your refrigerator. They're more likely to berate you for outdoor smoking than for outdoor necking. It isn't God who hates fags. It's Michael Bloomberg. In Engber's case, the provocation is scientific. To justify taxes on unhealthy food, the lifestyle regulators are stretching the evidence about obesity and addiction, two subjects on which Engber is burdened with contrary knowledge. Liberals like to talk about a Republican war on science, but it turns out that they're just as willing to bend facts. In wars of piety, science has no friends. In my case, the provocation is partly scientific and partly libertarian. But mostly, it's a shift in the slippery slope. One of my basic rules is that slippery slopes run both ways. If you've never seen it, go watch that Monty Python sketch about Dennis Moore, the Robin Hood copycat who keeps stealing from the rich and giving to the poor until he realizes he's now stealing from the poor and giving to the rich. You have to notice when the balance of power and zeal has shifted from one party to the other. Engber points out that 40 states have enacted special taxes on soda or junk food. And the soda taxers are becoming ever bolder. Their latest manifesto is an article in the New England Journal of Medicine, co-authored by the health commissioner of New York City, the surgeon general of Arkansas, and several others. It declares soda fair game for government intervention on the grounds that 'market failures' in this area are causing 'less-than-optimal production and consumption.'"

http://www.slate.com/id/2229194

This is a good read--it's funny and makes some important points. As you know, I've been railing against the "food police" here (and elsewhere) for years.

You'd better watch out, folks. These food nazis may be coming after something you like pretty soon.

9/23/2009 8:23:37 AM

People are too stupid to eat healthy, we live in the fattest country in the world, and I have to pay for it through higher health insurance.

Until all three of those facts change, I support any such "food police."

9/23/2009 8:25:35 AM

Yeah, you've pinpointed the problem: people like you.

9/23/2009 8:34:22 AM

SIN TAX

get rid of the sin tax and then there can be no tax on soda and junk food.

9/23/2009 8:49:05 AM

How much do you weigh hooksaw? Any estimate of your BMI?

9/23/2009 9:03:56 AM

I read through that dutch study cited by the article you linked. It's completely based on generous arbitrary assumptions with some scant reference data. It also doesn't take into account the non-healthcare-related costs of obesity.

That, combined with the biased tone of the articles, makes me doubt the objectivity of these conclusions.

9/23/2009 9:12:10 AM

More government overseers telling grown adults what they can and can't put in their bodies, for the good of the children don't you see.

http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/health/FDA-Kisses-Non-Menthol-Flavors-Goodbye-60502762.html

Quote :

"Menthol flavoring is used in about 25 percent of all cigarettes sold. And menthol smokes are getting "increasingly popular" with teenage smokers, USA Today reported. A study has even found that menthol cigarettes are harder to quit than regular tobacco cigarettes, the newspaper reported. Mike Siegel, a professor at Boston University's School of Public Health, said it doesn't make much sense to exempt the most popular flavor from a ban. "You know, you need to be consistent," he told NPR. "If it's so important that we ban cigarette flavorings, then ban them." Of course, Phillip Morris USA -- which supports the federal ban on flavored cigarettes -- is unlikely to get behind a ban on menthol."

As always with new regulations, follow the money to find out which company stands to profit most.

9/23/2009 6:48:45 PM

Quote :

"How much do you weigh hooksaw? Any estimate of your BMI?"

What is the relevance of his weight?

Second, BMI? More junk(food?) science.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106268439

One of the best articles debunking BMI around imo.

9/23/2009 8:19:40 PM

Quote :

"I've been railing against the "food police" anything and everything here (and elsewhere) for years"

i'll take the transfat police over the morality police any day.

but more to the point, why dont you like america, hooksaw? perhaps you should consider Saudi Arabia. they've got the morality patrols out in full force.

9/23/2009 11:18:40 PM

^ Q. When have you seen me policing morality or calling for same? A. Never.

For the gazillionth time, I'm not a social conservative--never have been and never will be. I just get tired of seeing the social conservatives constantly bashed and the leftists acting as if conservatives have the market cornered on hypocrisy. It just ain't so.

You set up an either-or fallacy, schmoe. Can't a society exist without either the food police or the morality police?

And for old times' sake:

9/24/2009 10:10:10 AM

no, junk food should be investigated, and some of the worst offenders should be banned.

here's why:

transfats, for instance, are in foods most likely to be marketed towards lower income people, directly harming the very people who can least afford to be chronically unhealthy.

so they develop a host of long term health problems, lose more of their already-diminished earning capacity, are forced to use E.R.s and regional trauma centers as their primary healthcare provider, eventually go on disability collect welfare for the rest of their lives, and further entrench the "can't do mentality" in the eyes of those around them.

this damages the economy on multiple fronts, drives up healhcare costs, puts downward pressure on our nation's GDP, and makes our country less safe from other nations who wish us ill.

OTOH, two fags want to get married does nothing to harm the economic structure, probably makes them happier and more productive, thereby increasing the tax revenue and ultimately putting upward pressure on the GDP.

9/25/2009 3:02:00 AM

Quote :

"food police"

I like the sound of that.

9/25/2009 3:36:07 AM

How about instead of taxing foods that are killing us and make us obese, we just stop subsidizing foods that are killing us and making us obese?

Even some government guidelines against those foods would be nice. I'm thinking of something like the food pyramid, but not a disaster.



[Edited on September 25, 2009 at 7:23 AM. Reason : sdf]

9/25/2009 7:11:46 AM

Quote :

"People are too stupid to . . . "

this is the basis of every totalitarian regime in the history of mankind. "Your betters know more than you, just do what we say." The worries about socialism are not unfounded.

Quote :

"we live in the fattest country in the world, and I have to pay for it through higher health insurance."

I hear this a lot. I'd like to see empirical evidence on exactly how much more you pay due to obesity. More to the point, if we weren't so sensitive about not offending people, we could start charging the obese themselves for the additional cost of insuring them. I still don't get this aversion some have for making people financially responsible for their decisions.

Quote :

"so they develop a host of long term health problems, lose more of their already-diminished earning capacity, are forced to use E.R.s and regional trauma centers as their primary healthcare provider, eventually go on disability collect welfare for the rest of their lives, and further entrench the "can't do mentality" in the eyes of those around them."

I have a simpler solution. Instead of restricting my rights to compensate for the poor decision making of other people, why not deny them disability and welfare? Am I cruel? No. I just think you should be held responsible for your decisions and doing so would provide a much stronger impetus for change.

Quote :

"OTOH, two fags want to get married does nothing to harm the economic structure, probably makes them happier and more productive, thereby increasing the tax revenue and ultimately putting upward pressure on the GDP."

Homosexual men are more likely to have HIV, gonorrhea, syphilis, and anal warts than heterosexual men. Obviously homosexuality is a less desirable lifestyle choice which results in higher overall health costs for Americans. Certainly it should be banned right? I mean, I thought it was only the right who looked at people in terms of monetary value and not transcendent values. How dare these men engage in risky behavior that might cause financial trouble to me due to costly and inefficient government funded health programs.[/satire]

9/25/2009 9:25:04 AM

it's funny that the authors uses fresca as his example. fresca is basically flavored, carbonated water and would be unlikely to be taxed because there's really not all that much unhealthy about it. it's 2 calories per 8 oz.

9/25/2009 10:12:49 AM

its a SIN TAX.

all or nothing.

9/25/2009 10:14:17 AM

Fresca tastes like shit, and that's all I got to say about that, and that's the bottom line 'cause Stone Cold said so.

I'm not going to ban shitty food, but someone needs to stop subsidizing all that damn corn and put real sugar back in Pepsi.

9/25/2009 10:23:00 AM

^^^^ You made some good points, JCASHFAN.

^^^ Do you check anything before you pop off (pun intended)?
The Truth About Diet Soda
The authors of Eat This Not That reveal some hard truths about low-calorie sodas.

Quote :

"Hard truth No. 1 Just because diet soda is low in calories doesn't mean it can't lead to weight gain."

Quote :

"Hard truth No. 2 Guzzling these drinks all day long forces out the healthy beverages you need."

Quote :

"Hard truth No. 3 There remain some concerns over aspartame, the low-calorie chemical used to give diet sodas their flavor."

http://health.msn.com/nutrition/articlepage.aspx?cp-documentid=100236887>1=31036

^^ And for you.

Demonizing, and/or Taxing, Soda Edward L. Glaeser is an economics professor at Harvard.

Quote :

"Obesity is a serious problem and high-calorie sodas contribute to that problem. But that doesn’t make the case for giving soda the same treatment that was earlier given to cigarettes. All soda drinkers, even the rail-thin ones, suffer when soda consumption is either taxed or vilified. The costs imposed on them need to be weighed against the benefits of reducing obesity."

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/22/demonizing-andor-taxing-soda/

Duke experts skeptical about 'soda tax' proposal

Quote :

"But Binks, research director at the Duke Diet and Fitness Center, said the negative consequences of smoking are more direct and severe than those associated with drinking soda. [quote]'It doesn't mimic the situation with smoking as much as people would think,' Binks said. He added that tax revenues should be allocated for a comprehensive and concentrated educational program, and that an excise tax coupled with government subsidies for healthy alternatives would be the best way to ensure that public preference is steered in a healthy direction."

Quote :

"'When we put taxes on goods, we can't anticipate all the consequences,' Fullenkamp said. 'They will always exist and always frustrate policy makers.'"

Quote :

"Economics aside, Binks said a shift in public preference away from soda will not guarantee that preference will shift to healthier food items, as it is just as likely that consumers will choose equally unhealthy food items. 'In principle and spirit, I would say that I agree in using some global approach to influence the food industry,' Binks said. 'My first concern is that sometimes, the reactionary taxation of a single food item might not be the best way to do it.'"

http://tinyurl.com/y8reehf

^ Wow! PinkandBlack and I actually agree--except for the "Stone Cold" part.

9/25/2009 10:41:54 AM

Why does that suprise you? I call you out for acting stupid, not for having bad opinions (then again, you do want to bomb iran like RIGHT DAMN NOW).

Well, that and not engaging people's arguments (like the Iran thread).

[Edited on September 25, 2009 at 10:51 AM. Reason : .]

9/25/2009 10:48:35 AM

^^your point? pretty sure these taxes don't affect diet sodas.

and just to be clear, i don't think this tax is the answer. i think ending the subsidy for corn would do far more good for our country than this tax (and it would be much easier to carry out).

[Edited on September 25, 2009 at 11:05 AM. Reason : .]

9/25/2009 10:56:42 AM

^ If you actually read the article, you would see that WS is quoting the authors of the New England Journal of Medicine mentioned in hooksaw's excerpts. Those authors say that even though diet sodas do not have any calories, they lead to people over eating other foods ("its okay to eat another slice of cake, I had a Fresca for lunch instead of a Mr. Pibb!"). As a result, they said that taxes on diet sodas may have to be considered in the future.

9/25/2009 11:16:34 AM

The idea of relying on continued consumption of bad things to combat the effects of bad things is a little dumb, no? I mean, funding health care with taxes on bad things? Why not find something that people won't stop having as much of b/c of this? I guess you could argue that less health care will be needed, but there's plenty of other things we eat that contribute. Sodium, cholesterol, carbs, calories. Why not find other revenue streams or reorganize and get your money elsewhere?

I think if you make enough awareness about diabetes, heart disease, et al, it will do the trick. Taxes weren't what got trans fat out of foods.

9/25/2009 11:25:10 AM

hooksaw,

Glad you made this thread. I was going to the other day, but forgot.

I'm really surprised at the number of people that are okay with this.

9/25/2009 11:42:43 AM

Whole foods sells their name brand 365 soda which uses can sugar instead of corn syrup.

its nice.

and its 50 cents a can.

9/25/2009 12:05:58 PM

I prefer the Mexican Coke, or the Cheerwine w/ sugar you can get in the Greensboro area.

9/25/2009 12:57:45 PM

corn syrup sucks balls

9/25/2009 1:04:05 PM

Quote :

"I'm really surprised at the number of people that are okay with this."

Unfortunately, I'm not surprised at all, Socks``.

^^ Wow, we actually agree again--about Coke. I get my Mexican Coke by the case from the Costco in Raleigh.

9/25/2009 1:14:20 PM

All the Krogers in the Roanoke area have that Coke. I'm disappointed that they got rid of Pepsi Throwback so early. I should have stockpiled that stuff.

brb, time for a Pepsi break.

9/25/2009 1:44:26 PM

So, why are we proposing taxing sugary drinks again?

Drink More Diet Soda, Gain More Weight?
Overweight Risk Soars 41% With Each Daily Can of Diet Soft Drink

Quote :

"June 13, 2005 – People who drink diet soft drinks don't lose weight. In fact, they gain weight, a new study shows. The findings come from eight years of data collected by Sharon P. Fowler, MPH, and colleagues at the University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio. Fowler reported the data at the annual meeting of the American Diabetes Association in San Diego."

http://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20050613/drink-more-diet-soda-gain-more-weight

Study: Artificial Sweeteners Increase Weight Gain Odds
Fake Sweeteners, Lack of Calories May Trick Brain
Feb. 11, 2008

Quote :

"A Purdue University study released Sunday in the journal Behavioral Neuroscience reported that rats on diets containing the artificial sweetener saccharin gained more weight than rats given sugary food, casting doubt on the benefits of low-calorie sweeteners."

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/OnCall/story?id=4271246&page=1

Symptoms: Metabolic Syndrome Is Tied to Diet Soda
February 5, 2008

Quote :

"Researchers have found a correlation between drinking diet soda and metabolic syndrome — the collection of risk factors for cardiovascular disease and diabetes that include abdominal obesity, high cholesterol and blood glucose levels, and elevated blood pressure."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/nutrition/05symp.html

9/25/2009 1:46:42 PM

People think that they can eat more of a diet food than of a regular food. It's not like diet drinks cease to follow the laws of physics when they enter the body.

9/25/2009 1:54:39 PM

^ The sarcasm was unnecessary. Why are we taxing sugary drinks when "diet" drinks are actually worse?

[Edited on September 25, 2009 at 1:59 PM. Reason : And it's more complicated than that. Diet foods actually trick the body. ]

9/25/2009 1:58:38 PM

Chill out, I was stating a fact for the purpose of stating a fact.

Diet drinks are not as bad if you drink them in the same amounts and don't pair them with other unhealthy crap. People drink a Diet Coke and then think it's ok to go have a baconator. This is really stupid. The #1 rule to healthy living is...will power.

Of course, then you have the health food lunatics who are all "ASPARTAMINE! ASPARTAMINE! AAAAAHHH! IT KILLS!", but that's not worth addressing.

[Edited on September 25, 2009 at 2:03 PM. Reason : /]

9/25/2009 2:02:27 PM

Quote :

"Taxes weren't what got trans fat out of foods."

Trans fats are still in foods. You can't go to a fast food restaurant, including Subway or Jimmy Johns (not sure about Jersey Mikes) and not eat transfats.

9/25/2009 2:03:03 PM

we should tax all of them. None of them are good for you.

if we some how tax beer and cigarettes we should be taxing soda as well. We already give enough damn money to the corn growers.

9/25/2009 2:03:07 PM

We should tax pickles for sodium content. And hot peppers. And flavored water. And Mexican food.

You could go on and on.

9/25/2009 2:04:47 PM

^^^ Doesn't mean diet sodas are actually causing problems. As we like to say, correlation does not equal causation. From one of the articles you linked:

Quote :

"Fowler is quick to note that a study of this kind does not prove that diet soda causes obesity. More likely, she says, it shows that something linked to diet soda drinking is also linked to obesity. "One possible part of the explanation is that people who see they are beginning to gain weight may be more likely to switch from regular to diet soda," Fowler suggests. "But despite their switching, their weight may continue to grow for other reasons. So diet soft-drink use is a marker for overweight and obesity.""

Even the ABC News article that was linked showed that causation was not clearly established.

Regarding the main topic, I don't think its going to have a dramatic impact on sales and alter consumption habits unless you're talking about a 100% increase in price. Also, where do juices fall in? Juices consumed in large quantities can be just as bad.

9/25/2009 2:05:35 PM

It's amazing how trusting hooksaw is of science, as long as the issue is not climate change.

9/25/2009 2:06:18 PM

^ That's hilarious--the science hasn't been going your way lately, has it?

^^^ And do you know that they aren't 100 percent certain that high cholesterol causes heart disease either?

[Edited on September 25, 2009 at 2:20 PM. Reason : .]

9/25/2009 2:16:35 PM

Quote :

"We should tax pickles for sodium content. And hot peppers. And flavored water. And Mexican food. You could go on and on."

well maybe we should tax nothing!

seriously do people eat jars of pickles every day? NO

9/25/2009 2:20:16 PM

^ Most people eat way too much sodium every day, though.

And did you catch this part from above, PandB?

Quote :

"'There was a 41% increase in risk of being overweight for every can or bottle of diet soft drink a person consumes each day,' Fowler says."

[Edited on September 25, 2009 at 2:23 PM. Reason : .]

9/25/2009 2:21:34 PM

lol

"my way"

How quaint.

9/25/2009 2:22:43 PM

^ So, you agree that the planet is cooling, troll?

9/25/2009 2:24:23 PM

GLOBAL WARMING IS GLOBAL COOLING!

9/25/2009 2:27:46 PM

Quote :

"the science hasn't been going your way lately, has it?"

Well, there's the IPCC's recent reports that...wait, never mind, you don't care.

Back to food.

Sin taxes are a bad idea and are dependent on continued "sinful" behavior and run the risk of underfunding whatever program they're tied to. Sure, if you want to discourage consumption, tax it, but not for the purpose of funding something that will be at its mercy.

It's like my reason for not backing the Fair Tax. Funding is dependent on consumption. You might cut comsumption, which is fine, but do you want services to decline w/ purchasing power?

^^^^ yes, that's because people drink a 0 calorie drink and trick themselves into thinking it's then ok to go have a 500 calorie snack. people are dumb. i discussed this (roughly).

[Edited on September 25, 2009 at 2:30 PM. Reason : .]

9/25/2009 2:28:11 PM

i agree.

all of these taxes are pointless.

but if they help get money back from the huge subsidizes paid to corn produces then that would help.

9/25/2009 2:30:42 PM

we could get rid of corn subsidies

9/25/2009 2:34:22 PM

Quote :

"we could get rid of corn subsidies"

exactly, and save the cost of administering said subsidies and the cost of collecting said taxes.

Win-win. Unless your goal is to maximize the revenue flow you control from your position in the US Congress.

9/25/2009 2:36:49 PM

^^^^ Apparently, you don't care about the facts about "global warming"--like many here who drank the Kool-Aid:

Quote :

"Forecasts of climate change are about to go seriously out of kilter. One of the world's top climate modellers said Thursday we could be about to enter one or even two decades during which temperatures cool. 'People will say this is global warming disappearing,' he told more than 1500 of the world's top climate scientists gathering in Geneva at the UN's World Climate Conference."

Quote :

"Few climate scientists go as far as Latif, an author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. But more and more agree that the short-term prognosis for climate change is much less certain than once thought."

Quote :

"The NAO is now moving into a colder phase."

http://tinyurl.com/ljnlvc

But take it to one of the CC/GW threads. This one is about the food fascists.

[Edited on September 25, 2009 at 2:40 PM. Reason : .]

9/25/2009 2:39:15 PM

... because climate change is about thermometers, and not about humanities effect on the climate.

It's kind of you to make it clear though that you don't now, and never have, understood the issues.

9/25/2009 2:45:10 PM

who in this thread is actually arguing in favor of this tax again?

9/25/2009 2:46:16 PM