“Fat” tax being debated on Diane Rehm show

15th October 2009

“Fat” tax being debated on Diane Rehm show

posted in Fat Bias, Health, Nutrition & Fitness, Politics, Rachel |

The Diane Rehm show is currently debating the current “fat tax” proposed tax on soda and sweetened beverages on the first hour of the show (which started at 10 a.m. EST). Here’s the topic and lineup of guests:

Soda pop, obesity and spiraling healthcare costs. Studies that link soft drink consumption to America’s growing obesity epidemic have led to calls for a new tax on sugary soft drinks. Arguments for and against.

Kelly Brownell, director, Yale University’s Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity.

J. Justin Wilson, senior research analyst, Center for Consumer Freedom.

David Kessler, former commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration and author of “The End of Overeating”

To give you an idea of the tenor of the conversation… the first listener email read suggested taxing fat people $10 for every extra pound. Yes, he was serious.

I blogged about this issue when New York proposed a tax on soda in the name of reducing obesity. Brownell himself has said in a recent news report that a soda tax may result in an average annual weight loss of maybe two pounds, but it would bring in millions in revenue to help state budgets in plummeting financial deficits. That to me suggests that this tax isn’t about obesity or health care; it’s about using fat people as a convenient and socially acceptable justification to shake the national couch cushions for spare change.

If you didn’t catch the show this morning, audio archives are available here.

Click to Bookmark

This entry was posted on Thursday, October 15th, 2009 at 10:54 am and is filed under Fat Bias, Health, Nutrition & Fitness, Politics, Rachel. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

1 On October 15th, 2009, Lu said:

This tax isn’t about obesity. It’s about money. You’re right.

posted on October 15th, 2009 at 10:58 am

2 On October 15th, 2009, Mina said:

I’m fat, and I have no problem with a soda tax, really. The branding needs some work, call it a High Fructose Corn Syrup tax, or a soda tax, instead of an obesity or fat tax.

Personally I drink maybe one soda a week that isn’t diet (mostly Jones or something else sweetened with sugar instead of HFCS) so the tax wouldn’t affect me at all.

We need revenue, I get that. So tax soda, but don’t do it under the guise of “health”.

posted on October 15th, 2009 at 11:38 am

3 On October 15th, 2009, Bethface said:

I bought a two-liter of soda the other night for a special family treat. Before that I hadn’t bought a soda in almost two years. So this tax wouldn’t get much money from me. But what I find just so annoying is a close friend who is a size 4 drinks the stuff like it is water.

It is just one more thing in which I am fearful or embarrassed to do. I don’t fly on planes cause I can’t afford that extra seat, refuse to be seen anywhere near a fast food joint. And now don’t want to buy soda because I have once again been shamed into it.

I actually heard to people debating whether or not fat people should be forced into fat camps where their food and exercise are watched. At first I thought they were being sarcastic but then I realized they were serious.

posted on October 15th, 2009 at 11:46 am

4 On October 15th, 2009, Meredith said:

Diane Rehm has always been anti-fat. She has hosted several OMGChildhoodObesity! shows, and she has had every author of every popular diet book on to talk. She has had shows about the dangers of adult obesity, too, and how obesity impacts health care. In one episode, she even had an FA voice on there, but the FA guy was just ridiculed by the rest of the panel the whole time.

I like DR on pretty much all other topics, but she can really get my dander up on obesity issues.

posted on October 15th, 2009 at 11:57 am

5 On October 15th, 2009, Alyssa (The 40 year-old) said:

Here’s an idea: how about taxing the wealthy?
Oh wait, we can’t do THAT! They might feel alienated!
Guess we better tax the fatties, instead. After all, they’ll be too humiliated to complain!

I seriously weep for the future.

posted on October 15th, 2009 at 12:18 pm

6 On October 15th, 2009, spoonfork38 said:

It appears that taxing hatred and stupidity would be a bonanza . . .

Sorry. Bad week.

posted on October 15th, 2009 at 12:29 pm

7 On October 15th, 2009, Brundle said:

I agree with the idea of taxing “luxury” food items to generate needed revenue. Soda, potato chips, cookies… foods typically eaten for entertainment rather than nutrition. I agree that the thought behind that should not be “tax fatties” but “tax nonessential luxury products”!

posted on October 15th, 2009 at 12:39 pm

8 On October 15th, 2009, Mhorag said:

I wish I had been on that show, because I would have told them how I have NEVER drank soda of any kind – not even as a little kid. In fact, I hate carbonated beverages of all types, because I don’t like the feel of it as I swallow. I’m still fat, though. I’ve also never smoked, I don’t drink (2 oz. of wine with Christmas Eve dinner doesn’t make me an alcoholic, or even a social drinker), I haven’t purchased fast food in over 2 years, and I don’t drink sweetened non-carbonated drinks (Snapple, Ocean Spray, etc.). So how is taxing this stuff going to make me lose weight again?

You want to tax soda/chips, etc. to raise money for state budgets? Then say so. Don’t say it’s because people are too fat, all because of evil soda.

posted on October 15th, 2009 at 1:01 pm

9 On October 15th, 2009, Kelly said:

Let me get this straight. We’re going to continue using the Farm Bill / agribusiness system so corporations can make bazillions – including producing way too much corn and sticking it in all our foods :: thereby creating artificially low-priced calories in junk food – then tax the consumers who eat or drink them?

Sounds like this will continue to work out GREAT for agri-business!

posted on October 15th, 2009 at 1:02 pm

10 On October 15th, 2009, Shannon Russell said:

Oooooooooooooh, thanks for posting this. I’ve been wanting to hear a good debate on this subject and I absolutely LOVE Diane. She’s so damned cool. And such a badass for still being on the air.

Peace,
Shannon

posted on October 15th, 2009 at 1:16 pm

11 On October 15th, 2009, Rachel said:

Not to mention that post-9/11 and now that we’re in an economic recession, the government is urging citizens to spend even more to help jumpstart the economy. Well, which is it? Do they want Americans to spend more or reduce consumption?

Speaking of Big Food… Diane Rehm read an email on the show from a woman in the South, who said that Coke there was cheaper with dinner than milk. And yet soda is the problem? It seems to me that the government’s inability to subsidize healthier foods is the real problem here.

posted on October 15th, 2009 at 1:18 pm

12 On October 15th, 2009, SteveD said:

Look out down the road. Federal Sales Tax to pay for all the programs we have.

But seriously I am for the Soda Tax. I think we buy 1 case of Soda a month. Graphfruit Diet for me and Coke for Wife.

I would like to see more funds for Defense. Replace some old Fighter Planes, More Troops and better benefits for the Troops. Plus Healthy Care for all and such.

Of course who wants to be taxed like in GB (England)?

I am overweight and more taxes on Soda won’t change anything for me, Unless it’s excessive then I just won’t buy it. Ie 100% tax or such BS. That would hurt our Economy more than help.

I am reading they are considering giving Vets and SSA people another $250 because they are not getting a raise this year. 13B I think it would be better spent on supporting the benefits programs. Ie Money for Cops, Firemen and Social Programs.

posted on October 15th, 2009 at 1:24 pm

13 On October 15th, 2009, Writer Writing said:

Whenever DR talks about obesity on the show, I change the channel. She always ignores my emails when I take the time to respond like they ask, so I know she’s not really interested in hearing my opinion as a fatty. Plus she’s really, really anti fat.

posted on October 15th, 2009 at 1:43 pm

14 On October 15th, 2009, Godless Heathen said:

I’m all for a soda tax if every cent is spent expanding food stamp and WIC coverage. That might actually be a sensible solution, expanding the coverage for real food so people don’t have to resort to sugared beverages as a cheap source of calories, which is why you’ll never see it enacted. But hey, it’s a luxury item for people who aren’t standing in line at the employment offices, lets all jump on the “tax it” bandwagon.

Lets tax the everliving hell out of everyone over the federal poverty level instead, see how ya’ll like it when I label your “luxuries” expendable.

posted on October 15th, 2009 at 2:36 pm

15 On October 15th, 2009, Shannon Russell said:

I lean toward taxing soda, but not as a way of reducing obesity. I’m just mistrustful of high fructose corn syrup (I’d rather have natural sugar) and I don’t think soda is healthy (regular or diet). I listened to the show and even the pro-tax guy said there wasn’t any physiological difference between sugar and corn syrup, but I still don’t trust it. I still drink soda (though I’m trying to cut back), but I would be in favor of taxing it to pay for healthcare, most definitely. You can’t have a strong national infrastructure without taxes, and I have no problem with cigarette or alcohol taxes.

I’m glad you posted this show, though. It was highly informative.

Peace,
Shannon

posted on October 15th, 2009 at 2:40 pm

16 On October 15th, 2009, Jackie said:

“I actually heard to people debating whether or not fat people should be forced into fat camps where their food and exercise are watched. At first I thought they were being sarcastic but then I realized they were serious.” – Bethface

I’d love to have told these people, “I’m Jewish, and I’d perfer if you two stopped talking like Nazis, thnxkbye.

posted on October 15th, 2009 at 3:02 pm

17 On October 15th, 2009, *e* said:

I have no words. Will there be an ugly tax next? I wonder what items would be taxed in the name of fixing ugly… Geez.

posted on October 15th, 2009 at 3:30 pm

18 On October 15th, 2009, Seegz said:

I caught the show this morning. I appreciate Dianne Rehm, but like others have said, when approaching this particular subject, she’s biased. I cannot believe she actually read the first email out loud, or even that such a notion was allowed to pass. I did like the “tax the cigs, not the smoker” idea.

However, I agree with taxing soda, and not just soda, but junk food in general. I don’t drink it often and it really does your body more harm than good. It never fails to make me roll my eyes when I hear things like that first email on the show I mentioned, that some gym-rat thinks we should tax the fatties because he feels like taxing things that are bad for you is oppressing his Amurrcan right to use them. If they were so health-conscious in the first place, they wouldn’t be drinking enough soda for a tax to matter to begin with. So obviously, since all roads lead to fatties to these people, we’re the ones who they’ll try to demonize.

The anti-tax guy sounded like a total slime.

posted on October 15th, 2009 at 4:59 pm

19 On October 15th, 2009, Sydera said:

How on earth is the whole state supposed to lose an average of 2 lbs with this tax?

The people who buy sodas now are going to have to lose, like 100 each. Not that many people are daily soda drinkers if you’re not counting diet.

I wish HFCFs was outlawed…because it’s unnatural and unhealthy. But that will never happen (nor will this tax) because the country’s food economy runs on cheap corn. If we make corn expensive to buy…well, I’d be delighted. But it’s not going to happen because of the power the Industrial Food companies have.

posted on October 15th, 2009 at 5:18 pm

20 On October 15th, 2009, Melissa said:

These people are nuts!
Honestly how would they know how much annual weight loss taxing sweets will amount to?
Taxing food is the most ineffective idea I’ve seen, so it must be about money.

I have to agree with Sydera and the Industrial Food companies however, but this tax attempt doesn’t even address those problems! Food corps are like the mafia these days!

posted on October 15th, 2009 at 11:56 pm

21 On October 16th, 2009, PlusSizedFeminist said:

First it’s a tax on food, then it’ll be a tax on people who are x amount overweight, and then that x number will get smaller and smaller. We are judging far too much based on weight these days, and I am predicting very soon that the whole “obesity epidemic” will come crashing down on us all like no other. We are scaring people into “being healthy” which is NEVER the way to do it. We have lawmakers contemplating DISCRIMINATION in order to “preserve health.” This downward spiral is going deeper and deeper, and when we hit rock bottom, it’s gonna hurt us all.

posted on October 16th, 2009 at 3:59 am

22 On October 16th, 2009, Rachel said:

However, I agree with taxing soda, and not just soda, but junk food in general. I don’t drink it often and it really does your body more harm than good.

I would be for taxing junk food once the government changes the Farm Bill so that healthier foods like fruits and vegetables and whole grains are just as cheap as junk food is. As it is now, junk food is much cheaper calorie-for-calorie than healthier foods, which is among the reasons why it is prevalent among lower-income families. And unlike soda, junk food does have some redeeming nutritional value, even if most of it is empty calories.

posted on October 16th, 2009 at 8:58 am

23 On October 17th, 2009, jcrn said:

Most people I polled, via a recent article, did not support a fat tax.

posted on October 17th, 2009 at 12:28 pm

24 On October 20th, 2009, Liza said:

Instead of taxing something, we should be working to reduce the costs of healthier options. I get that we need tax revenue to fund things like health care, but this isn’t the way to get it. It puts an undue burden on people who are already struggling to feed themselves.

Also, has anyone else seen the horrible NYC subway ad with the soda bottle pouring globs of fat into the glass? I want to deface it every time I see it, but I’d be the one that got caught…

posted on October 20th, 2009 at 7:50 am

25 On October 21st, 2009, merri said:

I saw an article the other week how San Francisco wanted to tax soda, and possibly more snacks down the road, and I just had to write a blog about it. Basically I was saying what you said, that it’s really just to generate revenue, which is probably a good idea, since CA is so poor we’re closing down essential things, but they should just say that, and not try to control people’s health/eating habits and say how much people can weigh. I don’t even drink soda but I disagree with this tax, so long as it is supposively there to keep people from getting fat.

posted on October 21st, 2009 at 8:29 pm