Tax sugary drinks to fight obesity, WHO urges governments - By Stephanie Nebehay

Found here. My comments in bold.

------------------

There is just so much wrong with this my head is spinning. I will try to deal with the total inanity of what is written here without blowing my cool. We'll see how that goes...

-----------------

 

Governments should tax sugary drinks to fight the global epidemics of obesity and diabetes, the World Health Organization said on Tuesday, recommendations industry swiftly branded "discriminatory" and "unproven". (The first sentence begins the idiocy. First the imperative "should," as if governments ought to be obligated to control the lives of people. Second is the stated reason, to "fight the global epidemic," as if obesity was a communicable disease. Third is the idea that government tax policy is a tool to engineer outcomes.)
A 20 percent price increase could reduce consumption of sweet drinks by the same proportion, the WHO said in "Fiscal Policies for Diet and Prevention of Noncommunicable Diseases", a report issued on World Obesity Day. (That is, put a tax of 20% on sugary drinks, and consumption decreases 20%. Which of course will not happen, because people who want to drink sugary drinks will do so despite government disapproval. But if the tax is effective in reducing consumption, then the promised tax revenue will not flow into government coffers. 

Let's say a soda costs a dollar, and people buy 1000 sodas. Adding the tax makes it $1.20, or $200 in tax revenue. But consumption reduces by 20%, so on 800 sodas are sold. That makes the actual revenue $160. But we can't have a drop in revenue, can we? So naturally government increases the tax to 25%.

Now the revenue is back up to $200 (.25 x 800). But consumption drops 5%! only 760 sodas were sold, and actual revenue is $190. Gotta raise taxes again.

The question is, if consumption has decreased, have people simply bought fewer sodas, or have the people who had more money purchased the same amount of soda while those who could not did without? 

Did the tax actually improve anyone's health? We don't know what else people might be consuming instead of sodas. In fact, behaviors tend to shift to avoid taxation. Now maybe people are buying more chocolate or fast food.

Bottom line is that people with unhealthy diets will not change because of taxation.)

Drinking fewer calorific sweet drinks is the best way to curb excessive weight and prevent chronic diseases such as diabetes, although fat and salt in processed foods are also at fault, WHO officials said. (Apparently governments should tax all unhealthy foods.)

"We are now in a place where we can say there is enough evidence to move on this and we encourage countries to implement effective tax on sugar-sweetened beverages to prevent obesity," Temo Waqanivalu, of WHO's department of Noncommunicable Diseases and Health Promotion, told a briefing. (Sheer arrogance. "We" say this, and "you" do that.)

Obesity more than doubled worldwide between 1980 and 2014, with 11 percent of men and 15 percent of women classified as obese - more than 500 million people, the report said.

"Smart policies can help to turn the tides on this deadly epidemic, especially those aimed at reducing consumption of sugary drinks, which is fuelling obesity rates," former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg, a WHO ambassador for noncommunicable diseases, said in a statement. ("Smart" policies like Bloomberg's failed plan to limit beverage sizes to 16 ounces.)

The global soft drink market is worth nearly $870 billion in annual sales. 2016 could be the year of the sugar tax, as several large nations consider levies on sweetened food and drinks to battle obesity and fatten government coffers. (An inadvertent admission that this is actually about fattening government, not thinning the obese.)

GLOBAL TREND

The U.S.-based soft drinks industry's lobbying arm - whose members include Coca-Cola Co, Pepsico Inc and Red Bull - strongly disagreed with what it called "discriminatory taxation".

"It is an unproven idea that has not been shown to improve public health based on global experiences to date," the Washington-based International Council of Beverages Associations said in a statement. A comprehensive approach based on the whole diet was needed for a lasting solution to obesity, it said. (Actually, it is an unconstitutional idea that government ought to have to power to legislate societal outcomes.)

The non-alcoholic beverage industry was making available more options with fewer calories and reformulating existing drinks to reduce calories significantly, the group said.

An estimated 42 million children under the age of five were overweight or obese in 2015, said Francesco Branca, director of WHO's nutrition and health department, an increase of about 11 million over 15 years. (Where? Worldwide? In the US?)

The WHO said there was increasing evidence that taxes and subsidies influence purchasing behavior and could be used to curb consumption of sweet drinks.The United States has the most obesity per capita, but China has similar absolute numbers, Branca said, voicing fears that the epidemic could spread to sub-Saharan Africa. (Interesting that WHO admits that taxation acts a deterrent. What then are we to make of those who are in favor of taxing the wealthy? Wouldn't that be a deterrent to making more money, i.e., punish peoples' success?)

"This is tax on sugary drinks which is really by definition all types of beverages containing free sugars and this includes soft drinks, fruit drinks, sachet mixes, cordials, energy and sports drinks, flavored milks, breakfast drinks, even 100 percent fruit juices," Waqanivalu said. (I can't wait for the new bureaucracy that will detail all this out.)

In Mexico, a tax rise in 2014 led to a 10 percent price hike and a 6 percent drop in purchases by year-end, the report said. (Hm. It was only a few paragraphs ago that a 20% tax was being recommended on the basis it would reduce consumption by 20%.

A tacit admission is that an increase in tax increases the cost of the product because companies sell less of the product. Notice how the author does not tell us the amount of the tax.)