President Obama set the soft-drink industry fizzing recently when he mentioned the possibility of a "soda tax" on sweetened beverages as a way of combating America's obesity crisis.
"I actually think it's an idea that we should be exploring," he told Men's Health magazine. "There's no doubt that our kids drink way too much soda." The notion of a soda tax got a lot of people riled up, and in the hullabaloo, the White House downplayed the prospect of any possible legislation. But it might have died too quickly.
Sure, a tax on sugary beverages seems unfair, especially to lower-income Americans who spend a larger percentage of their money on sugary drinks and snacks. And it's hard to know where to draw the line: Many iced teas, energy drinks, chocolate drinks, fruit punches and even vitamin waters are sweetened. And why should soda lovers pay a penalty while Twinkie eaters get off scot-free (at least until their first heart attack)?
On the other hand, something must be done. The prevalence of obesity among America's children has roughly tripled in the past 30 years, and the health burden that we are foisting upon our kids as a result is horrific. One in three children born in 2000 will be diagnosed with diabetes in his or her lifetime, a disease whose effects include blindness, amputation, coma and death. This is not the children's doing -- it is ours. We owe it to them to find a solution.
A subsidy we can do without
Diabetes is a disease linked with obesity, and the main contributors to our rising obesity rate are twofold: Food manufacturers have increased portion sizes, and they've filled many of our favorite foods with empty calories, often with additives such as high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS). From 1970 to 1990 alone, our intake of high-fructose corn syrup rose more than 1,000% per person, paralleling our skyrocketing rates of obesity.
So let's forget about a narrowly targeted soda tax for the moment. I propose something different: a calorie-added tax.
Like the gas-guzzler tax, the calorie-added tax (CAT) kicks in whenever a food is produced using high-fructose corn syrup -- aderivative of corn that's many times sweeter than cane sugar. The corn syrup is used in so many products -- from ketchup to soda to bread to candy to yogurt to cereal to Tater Tots -- because it's so cheap. And it's so cheap because American taxpayers subsidize industrial corn growers, to the tune of nearly $5 billion a year. (Imagine how much we could do for our roads, bridges, schools and returning war veterans with that money.)
If we can make the corn syrup less cheap, food manufacturers will stop trying to sneak it into so many of our foods. At the very least, it would diminish the incentive manufacturers now have to add the corn syrup to products that don't need it, and allow companies that choose not to use the chemical to compete with the mainstream corn peddlers.
This tax would make an enormous impact on America's health, and pocketbook. In the forthcoming book The New American Diet, Men's Health editor-at-large Stephen Perrine and journalist Heather Hurlock report on new research that shows how high-fructose corn syrup can negatively impact our bodies. It does so in two ways: First, it can inhibit your body's ability to use leptin, the naturally occurring hormone that signals when you're satiated. In some people, it can actually convince us that we're starving, even when we've eaten our fill. (Imagine that: We're spending $5 billion annually to trick our own minds into eating more.)
Second, too much of this corn syrup can have dire consequences on your metabolic health. That's because the sweetener is composed of 55% fructose. When consumed in excess, this type of sugar is readily converted to fat in your liver, and it has been shown to raise triglyceride levels and decrease insulin sensitivity -- risk factors for heart disease and diabetes. Though fructose is just fine in small doses (it's one of the natural sugars found in fruit), Americans are consuming it in higher doses than at any time in human history.
A fairer approach
Add to these facts a recent study in the journal Environmental Health that found samples of the corn syrup also contained mercury -- a metal that can cause neurological damage, especially in kids. So we're basically poisoning Americans in multiple ways and subsidizing it with our tax dollars.
Now, would a tax on sweet stuff hurt lower-income Americans? Potentially -- if it were a sales tax. But not if it were a calorie-added tax, which would function similarly to our gas-guzzler tax. This tax is added to any car sold in the USA that doesn't get 22.5 miles per gallon. As a result, consumers who opt for the 12mpg sports car have to reach deeper into their wallets before they drive off the lot.
Just as we have the choice between a Ford Focus (with no gas-guzzler tax) and a Lamborghini Gallardo (which is hit hard by the gas tax), we would have "Ford" soda, ketchup and salad dressing (no HFCS, no CAT) and, well, "Lamborghini" soda, ketchup and salad dressing (with all the high-fructose corn syrup you want). If consumers want to pay more for this sweetener, they can. But lower-income Americans would have lower-cost options that are healthier for them.
More options, cheaper food, lower health care costs, and fewer of our children losing life and limb -- literally -- to diabetes. Sounds like a win/win/win for consumers everywhere.
David Zinczenko is the editor in chief of Men's Health and the editorial director of Women's Health and Children's Health magazines.
To see more of USAToday.com, or to subscribe, go to http://www.usatoday.com
Copyright 2009 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.