National Soda Tax Would
Save Half a Million Kids From Obesity—and Save Money Too
Public
health researchers say taxing sugary drinks may be one of the most
cost-effective ways to address the public health problems the beverages are
associated with.
Nov 3,
2015

Jason
Best is a regular contributor to TakePart who has worked for Gourmet and
the Natural Resources Defense Council. 
Here’s
something the soda industry doesn’t want: another headline touting the benefits
of a widespread tax on sugar-sweetened beverages.
Hot on
the heels of recent news that the
peso-per-liter tax on sugary drinks that Mexico adopted in 2013 appears to be
driving down soda consumption in that country, a team of U.S. public health
researchers published a study Monday that finds a national soda tax
may be one of the most cost-effective ways to curb the epidemic of childhood
obesity in the States.
Advertisement
The team,
led by researchers at the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, examined
the cost-effectiveness of seven approaches to addressing obesity in American
kids, an estimated 17 percent of whom are obese. These ranged from the
preventive, such as implementing a nationwide one-cent-per-ounce tax on sugary
drinks to reduce kids’ consumption of all that liquid candy, to giving obese
adolescents increased access to bariatric surgery. Each of the interventions
examined by the researchers required complex modeling based on a wide range of
factors to extrapolate their likely impact and cost-effectiveness over the
course of the next decade (wonky types can feel free to dive into the study
itself, which was published in the journal Health Affairs).
The upshot?
The national tax on sugar-sweetened beverages was predicted to prevent some
576,000 cases of childhood obesity, the greatest number by far. Better yet,
such a tax, which would raise the cost of soda and other sugary drinks by about
16 percent, would be eminently cost-effective, as the researchers report: For
every dollar spent implementing the tax, the net savings for society in terms
of medical costs and the like would be $30.78. Over the course of the next
decade, those savings would add up to an estimated $14.2 billion.
 Two other
obesity-prevention strategies examined by the team proved cost-effective as
well. Shocking but true: Food makers are allowed to deduct the cost of their
advertising from their corporate taxes, even when they’re marketing junk food
to kids. What if the feds eliminated that ridiculous tax deduction? The study
estimates nearly 130,000 cases of childhood obesity would be prevented, with a
net savings of $32.53 per dollar spent. Full implementation of federal
standards governing the foods and beverages sold in schools beyond federally
subsidized meals (e.g., snacks sold in vending machines) would prevent 345,000
cases of childhood obesity, at a net savings of $4.56 per dollar spent.
Two other
obesity-prevention strategies examined by the team proved cost-effective as
well. Shocking but true: Food makers are allowed to deduct the cost of their
advertising from their corporate taxes, even when they’re marketing junk food
to kids. What if the feds eliminated that ridiculous tax deduction? The study
estimates nearly 130,000 cases of childhood obesity would be prevented, with a
net savings of $32.53 per dollar spent. Full implementation of federal
standards governing the foods and beverages sold in schools beyond federally
subsidized meals (e.g., snacks sold in vending machines) would prevent 345,000
cases of childhood obesity, at a net savings of $4.56 per dollar spent.
So is an
ounce of prevention really worth a pound of cure, as the old adage goes?
According to the study, yes. As the authors note, “while many of the
preventative interventions in childhood do not provide substantial health care
cost savings (because most obesity-related health care costs occur later, in
adulthood), childhood interventions have the best chance of substantially
reducing obesity prevalence and related mortality and health care costs in the
long run.”     
 
No comments:
Post a Comment