Soda aficionados, next time you go grocery shopping, be sure to get enough of them, at least for the rest of the year. A panel of researchers and policy makers are advocating for a penny per ounce tax on all sugary beverages, including not only soda, but also energy drinks, many juices and ice teas. President Obama has said it's worth considering. If the proposal becomes law, you'll end up paying 50% more for your 12-pack refridgerator case of Mountain Dew.
Before ""what"" shoots out of your thirsty mouth, these supporters want to assure us that the tax is totally for our own well-being. The resulting price hike would curb obesity on one hand via a decrease in sales and raise money for health care on the other. Thanks to Americans' fascination with sugar, this tax alone could generate about $15 billion in its first year.
A tax on soda sounds reasonable in this case. But juice, simply because of the sugar content in it? I'm wondering whether the commander-in-chief okay with this plan is Obama the president, solemn in suit or Obama the dad, casual in shorts.
The average American devours two to three pounds of sugar a week. A tax on sugar is literally a penalty on the American culture of excess. one cent per ounce on sugary drinks today might set off the domino of food-related tax tomorrow. Soon enough, we would start taxing cheese, 50% of which is fat; all products high in sodium since they are bad for your blood pressure and Southerners' world-famous practice of deep frying everything.And fast food would surely be an eventual target. For frugal college consumers, that means your pantry would mumble a tearful "" bye"" to the beloved peanut butter, burgers, fries and more. Granted, these have long been condemned food choices, but they are part of the American culture you are born into and grew up in. People shouldn't be fined for their own culture, something they have little to no choice over whatsoever..
However, the proposal spares diet soda and other sugar-free drinks. That is to say, instead of embracing the evil of sugar, we can now enjoy the ""safe"" hug of sweeteners. But are they necessarily better than regular sugar? Since sweeteners are a relatively new innovation, hardly anybody is sure about their long-term effects. Aspartame, a popular sweetener approved by the FDA in the 1970s, has been at center of controversy since its inception. In 2006, Italian scientists found linked it to cancer in a major longitudinal study into its effects. But the FDA then declared that the substance is safe at current consumption levels.
Even so, New Mexico and Hawaii were contemplating legislative moves to ban aspartame at the height of this debate. And it turned out many researchers reaffirming aspartame's safety were financed by the industry. Though conflicts of interest have somehow obscured the truth about sweeteners, one message is certain: some of the substitues probably cause no less trouble than regular sugar.
At least for some sweeteners, to stimulate the similar sweet sensation sugar arouses, they have to be structurally similar to cane sugar as well. Before long, these fake ID carriers would trigger the same bodily response sugar does. Now you just slip into all the old habits again! The industry wasn't doing a good job in the early days of the sweetener industry. That's why Diet Coke always tasted weird back then. But now the difference between diet and regular is much harder to distinguish unless you have an incredibly keen sense of taste.
Already frustrated by declining sales, the soft drink industry yelled ""outrageous"" to the tax proposal. Before this tax on sugary drinks actually expands into tax on plain sugar in general, there's one more thing worth trying: package sugar-free drinks with sugar bags. The ad can be: "" Blend ‘n' shake; make your own drink."" Ah! Sugary...
Qi Gu is a junior majoring in journalism. We welcome all feedback. Please send responses to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
