Staff Editorial: Soda tax a good start for Philly

After federal proposals for a sugary-drinks tax failed at the national level, the city of Philadelphia has now turned to them as a way to solve its persistent budget shortfall. Beginning in January of 2011, sugary drinks—including, most notably, soda—will be taxed at a rate of 2 cents per ounce. For a normal 12-ounce soda, that represents an increase in price of 24 cents. Ostensibly, it is only a temporary tax, meant to get the city through the recession without more massive cuts to services.

But it is also a gambit at making our city a healthier one.

After decades of watching and doing nothing as both children and adults got ever fatter, it is about time action was taken. Raising the price of one of the biggest contributors to Americans’ obesity is a good start at that. Increased prices have been demonstrably proved to lower consumption—it’s the reason we have such high taxes on other socially damaging goods and services like alcohol, cigarettes, and gambling.

The sugary-drink tax is an important first step to make Philadelphians healthier; however, it shouldn’t be considered a panacea for the city’s health problems. If city officials want to make a concerted effort to help its citizens fight obesity, they also need to look at larger issues like poverty, lack of access to healthy fresh produce and groceries, and inadequate education.

But the extra tax could at least combat the influence of all the advertising directed at children. Researchers at Harvard have found that children can often go 10 hours or more without seeing even one ad for a healthy food or drink. Sugary and fatty foods and drinks, by contrast, constitute much of the advertising children see between their favorite shows.

That constant exposure surely leads to much of the demand for Coke and Hawaiian Punch, and research shows that preferences developed during childhood lasts into adulthood. That’s why it’s critically important we do something about childhood obesity now.

A common complaint about the tax is that it disproportionately targets low-income people.  It certainly does, as soda consumption and obesity tends to increase as you move down the income ladder. But those residents can also purchase diet soda, which is exempt from the tax. A tax that subsidizes the unhealthy lifestyle of many low-income residents’ unhealthy lifestyles would destroy the whole point of the exercise. For these reasons, the change might be a difficult one, but it promises to be worthwhile in the long run.

To get a grip on the problem of obesity, we have to change the incentives that encourage people to eat unhealthily. Taxing sugary drinks is an important part of that. The fact that the city was able to discourage unhealthy drinks while refraining from cutting services makes it even better.