Obesity

[rowyn]

From this article on an anti-obesity report by the Institute of Medicine:

The panel identifies taxing sugar-sweetened beverages as a "potential action," noting that "their link to obesity is stronger than that observed for any other food or beverage."

 

A 2011 study estimated that a penny-per-ounce tax could reduce per capita consumption by 24 percent.

 

....

 

The committee did not endorse the call by food activist Michael Pollan and others to eliminate farm subsidies that make high-fructose corn syrup, partially hydrogenated vegetable oils and other obesity-promoting foods very cheap. "There is no evidence subsidies contribute to obesity," said Glickman.

 

... So taxing obesity-promoting soda in order to make it more expensive will reduce obesity, but ending subsidies to obesity-promoting foods in order to make it more expensive will not have an effect?  How's that work?  Coke makes you fat but potato chips don't? Soda drinkers are price-sensitive but tortilla chip consumers aren't?  Taxes directly affect price while subsidies do so indirectly so their impact doesn't matter?  What?

 

Maybe I need to find the original report and read it, because this article about it seems to be missing some details. c.c

Comments

[jordangreywolf.livejournal.com]

I think that's a large part of it. Corn ... that's the work of Farmer Brown! Carbonated beverages? Those are just plain UN-NATURAL! In the public mind, the image that comes to mind of where corn comes from involves rustic scenes with fellows riding tractors and living on the farm -- not those big corporate mega-farming operations. Soda, however, is envisioned as coming from these automated, cold, faceless FACTORIES.

Plus, I wonder if corn might not get a bit of an extra boost in subsidies simply because it's strongly associated with Iowa, and Iowa gets a lot of special attention just due to the makeup of our national primary schedules (hence the need to keep Iowa happy).