Hurrah to trim, health-minded San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom for
taking a stand against soda by proposing a
controversial idea to charge major
retailers a fee when they sell high fructose corn syrup-laden soft drinks.
Mayor Newsom is singling out sugary soda to help combat obesity among the
residents of San Francisco, given the growing body of evidence, which blames
HCFS-laden soft drinks for helping to pack pounds on Americans.
This proposal is being hailed as the first in the nation.
But, as reporters Phillip Matier and Andrew
Ross point out in their popular San Francisco Chronicle column, this tax-on-soda idea “has been roiling around in health
circles for some time,” even with backing from the American Medical Association.
In making his announcement, Mayor Newsom reportedly said: “The bottom line is that there
is a direct nexus between high-fructose corn syrup drinks like colas and Big
Gulps and obesity among schoolkids.”
“Beverages sweetened by high-fructose corn syrup are standing in the way of
our efforts to combat obesity,” Newsom said in a press release. “With all of the mounting evidence showing that children are increasingly at
risk for poor health because of these drinks, it’s time for us to explore every
avenue and examine every innovative idea, in the hopes of making obesity a thing
of the past.”
This move to tax soda was bound to happen at some point, given the increasing
amount of talk and research linking Americans’ consumption of sugar-filled soda
with our obesity crisis.
And what better place for this to happen than in forward-thinking San
Francisco? In fact, savvy
San Francisco Chronicle journalist Kim Severson outlined the
HFCS problem back in 2004.
What’s more, Mayor Newsom wants this fee — not a “tax,” according to
columnists Matier and Ross — to help fund the comprehensive
anti-obesity initiative “Shape Up San
Francisco.”
In addition, as the Chronicle’s Matier and Ross point out, Mayor Newsom wants
additional funds allocated to media campaigns to discourage soda use. (Now
that’s a cool idea! This sure sounds like what the cigarette companies are now
doing. You can learn more about how some see Big Sugar as the next Big Tobacco in my book SUGAR SHOCK!)
In making his announcement, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom
cited statistics from a not-yet-released report from the city’s health department showing that:
- Calorically sweetened beverage consumption has risen 500%, and it’s the leading source of added sugars in children’s diets.
- Sugar-saturated drinks account for 10% of the caloric intake for the average child (double what it was in 1980).
- 24% of San
Francisco’s fifth-, seventh- and ninth-graders are overweight, aaccording to Matier and Rosst. - Researchers cite the increase in sugary drinks as “a stronger link to pediatric obesity than other correlated factors such as higher fat content or decreased physical activity.”
Naturally, it comes as no surprise that the soda industry is up in arms over
the San Francisco mayor’s soda-surcharge idea. As usual, the group representing
soda companies insists that citing soft drinks in this manner is unfair. “It makes no sense to single out any one single cause of obesity, which is a
complex problem,” Kevin Keane, a senior vice president of the American Beverage Association,
told the The
New York Times. (I’m really tired of hearing that absurd argument.)
Unfortunately, what’s glaringly missing nowadays from most media accounts is that obesity is only a small part of the sugar story.
In fact, high fructose corn syrup and other sweeteners aren’t just tied to
obesity.
Countless, peer-reviewed studies have discovered time and time again that too many sweeteners (of any kind) —
which most Americans imbibe — can lead to all kinds of ailments, including
cancer, heart disease and type 2 diabetes, as well as mood swings, anxiety and
difficulty concentrating. (I delve into many of these problems in SUGAR SHOCK!)
Anyhow, Mayor Newsom is onto a fascinating idea. Now, it would be nice if
other cities followed suit. In particular, I applaud this concept, because money raised would support a worthwhile program focusing on exercise.
But I’m fearful, too. Is the San Francisco mayor hoping that the surcharge —
which, I imagine, will ultimately be passed on to consumers in the form of
higher soda prices — will motivate kids to buy less soft drinks?
Because the reality is: If you’re addicted to sugar, you’ll go to extreme
lengths to get your “fix.” (I can attest to that.) So I’m not just convinced that charging a fee means less soda will be sold. (That’s why people like me are needed to help people cast off their unhealthy ways.
Learn here about my upcoming
program to help people Break Free.)
Also, it does seem odd to let mom-and-pop stores off the hook here and require only big retailers and chain drugstores to pay this soda fee. (Why not charge
all companies who sell these sugary drinks? And won’t kids just flock to
these smaller outlets to get their soda fix?)
Ultimately, as noted before, I do commend Mayor Newsom for speaking out about the
dangers of high
fructose corn syrup and for helping to draw attention to the fact that far
too many young people are hooked on soft drinks.
But I just wish he and mainstream journalists would just pay attention to the fact that soda — and other sugary foods — can harm you in so many more ways.
- Why aren’t we hearing more about the connection between eating too many sugary foods and drinks and getting cancer, heart disease or Alzheimer’s?
- Why aren’t people being warned more about how sweets can sour your moods, mess up your concentration and so much more?
By the way, I read somewhere that Mayor Newsom is a diet-soda drinker.
I’d like him to be aware of compelling research, which suggests that
artificially sweetened diet beverages can make you gain weight rather than lose
weight. So why not put a fee on diet soda, too?! (Or am I suggesting something that’s politically incorrect?)
One final thought: You have to read this conclusion from the entertaining San Francisco columnists Matier and Ross. They cleverly wrote that “one way or the other, Newsom wants the merchants of sweet to sweat a bit.” And then, they added, “”By the way, Newsom said he has no plans for a Twinkies or Ho Hos tax.”
Granted that’s a ludicrous, unfeasible idea. Wait a minute, why not? After all, San Francisco was home to the fabled, but usually-misunderstood “Twinkie Defense.”
Besides, if you learn about how these beloved “treats” are made, you may want them taxed, too! Just listen to these fascinating remarks on my Stop SUGAR SHOCK! Radio Show from Steve Etlinger, author of Twinkie Deconstructed.
Special thanks to Jennifer Moore and Karen James for their help on this
post.