More and more cities and counties in the United States are starting to tax sugary beverages, which negatively affect Americans’ health. Even though it is an effective way to reduce sugar and sweetener intake, there is a more straightforward and practical one focusing on taxing sugar but not soda. The reason for it is that it is likely to reduce consumer burden, as well as sugar consumption, and make manufacturers reformulate some of their beverages. Hence, it is crucial to pay more attention to the issue and reconsider its different aspects.
Donald Marron, a director of economic policy initiatives at the Urban Institute, and his colleagues concluded that taxes should be on the amount of sugar. They modeled several taxes emphasizing sugar content, which either vary proportionately depending on its amount or apply only to most sugary beverages. For example, South Africa has adopted the former model, while Britain uses the latter. At the same time, several cities in the United States have passed soda taxes. Nevertheless, Marron discovered that both approaches focusing on sugar content are effective, though penalizing high-sugar drinks leads to less soda consumption.
On the other hand, soda taxes are not only about reducing sugar consumption and consumer burden but also about money. Even though taxes applying to most sugary beverages improve the health of Americans more effectively, they are less cost-effective. Therefore, volume taxes are more realistic on the local level despite more modest health effects. However, Marron’s findings have attracted much attention of many experts and organizations, including the American Heart Association. It encourages local governments to consider the results of Donald Marron’s work and continues to support those who use less effective models as well.
Work Cited
Dewey, Caitlin. “The Case for Taxing Sugar, not Soda.” The Washington Post. 2016.