Reducing Sugar Consumption

Introduction:

From large sugar cane fields to acres of beets, sugar is processed into a million dollar industry that satisfies the world’s sweet tooth. However, market failure exists among our society and health. As a public health regulator, I am tracking policies that attempt to reduce America’s sugar consumption in response to the dramatic rise in obesity over the last thirty years. The first target is adults and the sugar beverage industry, particularly, the consumption of regular sodas. I will detail four specific policy proposals that the government should consider on the sale of regular soda: taxes, subsidies, provisions and restrictions. In various outcomes, each policy could provide incentive for individuals toward a healthier lifestyle. Sugar is on the road to becoming America’s next controlled substance.
Background:
The United States is currently in a dangerous cycle of sugar consumption and disease with nearly two out of every three adults categorized as overweight or obese.(Figure 1,2) Among those characterized, their bodies were given a surplus in calories without an equal response of physical activity. Obesity restricts productivity, lower one’s quality of life, and reduces life expectancy. The excess body fat results in significant health problems such as an increased risk of developing high cholesterol, type 2 diabetes, depression and even orthopedic problems. Additionally, the society bears the bulk of the costs associated with America’s extra pounds. Cawley and Meyerhoefer estimated health care costs accumulated up to $209.7 billion a year treating obesity-related health conditions, and this is a large jump compared to the averaged $38 billion obesity costs in the mid ‘80s. These outcomes should be of no surprise to Americans with our substantial reliance on processed foods and larger portion sizes. Besides higher health insurance rates, generational problems descend as children inherit their parent’s diabetes and similar unhealthy diets. As obesity costs continue the rise, we are in danger from this domino effect and need federal assistance to relive life threatening sugar consumption.
With recent pressure, Dr. Robert Lustig associates sugar as the poison of our food supply rather than fixating on an individual’s gluttonous habits. As the main culprit, fructose consumption has lead America down the current obesity road over the last 30 years shown in figure 1. Fructose consists of the two most common sugars: sucrose (beet and cane sugar) and high-fructose corn syrup. Sugar acts as a source of pleasure that can share the same harmful and addictive qualities such as cigarettes and alcohol for a number of individuals. In large capacity, fructose consumption forces accumulated fat storage and deceives the brain to thinking it is hungrier than before. Fructose is metabolized in the liver as toxically as alcohol. Lustig supports applying taxes to sugar consumption in a similar pattern as these products which has had proven success. 3
The Sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) industry uses 41% of available HFCS and is able to sell it cheaply because of the government’s corn subsidies. High fructose corn syrup is first created through the wet milling of corn and is then prepared through a series of complex and unnatural processes. 4 Reflecting a major source of our diets, SSBs are the beverages that contain any added caloric sweetener. Absent of any nutritional value, SSBs have been red flagged by various studies during today’s growing concern about obesity. In response, the government has proposed policies in order to regulate America’s consumption of SSBs.
Taxation:
For instance, the researchers at the Rudd center estimated significant revenue from a penny per ounce tax proposed on beverages with added sweeteners as well as diet, artificial beverages. The government could potentially utilize towards obesity prevention in 2009. Table 1 reflects only the types of SSBs that were included in this approach. Diet sodas could potently be seen in a negative light and there is an unknown correlation between obesity and diet beverages. As a successful strategy in improving the nation’s health, the proposal estimated a 24% reduction in SSB consumption as well as predicted revenue. In the following six years after the penny-per-ounce SSB tax (2010-2015) is set, social benefits from this experiment could potentially generate nearly $79 billion with an estimated reduction in individuals daily sugar consumption by 45- 50 calories. 5
The tax on SSBs was not accepted with open arms by all of Americans. The 2011 National Public Opinion Survey expressed limited public support for the SSB tax. Majority of those against the tax on SSBs corresponded in how the tax revenue was spent, the government invasion in people’s lives and its exclusion of unhealthy foods. However, as for the pro-tax supporters, they mutually agreed SSBs were considered the major contributor to obesity (49%) and that revenue would fund obesity prevention (41%). The lack of public support limits the policy proposal and creates challenges in legislating it.
As the number one choice of sugary beverages, the abundance of regular soda needs to be the government’s first target in sugar reduction. Due to the government corn subsidies, Coca-Cola corporation switched from sugar to HFCS in their regular soda three decades ago allowing for a very inexpensive product. The most recent statistics show that a US citizen consumes an average of 216 liters of soda per year with 58% containing sugar. 3 The USDA advises that the average adult consume no more than 32 grams of sugar per day. Challenging this recommendation, a 20-ounce regular Coke typically contains 65 grams and are in need of some serious regulation.
Consumers’ response to incentives and prices will affect the change in their sugar consumption. Taxation on soda serves as an ideal strategy to moderating weight gain and could be projected in one of two ways: additional sales tax on consumers(figure 3)or an excise tax placed on production(figure 4). The soda tax on consumers could potentially lower consumption among the high-risk populations with diminishing purchasing power, thereby reducing sugar consumption related to obesity. However, a diehard consumer could minimize effects by purchasing larger portion sizes. This sales tax is added at the check out after purchase is made. As of January of 2009, a sales tax on soft drinks in both grocery stores and vending machines was imposed in 33 states. A study conducted determined the price elasticity of 1.08 for carbonated soft drinks. On the other hand, an excise tax levied on producers affects production costs that are likely to influence the consumer’s price. The tax needs to be linked to inflation in order to be successful. Are producers to blame for the obesity? The industries are already facing a corporate tax of 35% by the government. Both proposals need to be compared in order to see their effects on soda consumption so that the right tax price can be determined in order to work towards correcting the market failure. The tax revenue from these beverages should then be utilized to improve the nation’s health as well as to provide subsidies for healthy options such as fruit and vegetables.
Restrictions:
Evidence reveals different impacts on consumers based on their social, political and economical standing. Lower income families tend to consume an unhealthier diet with cheaper foods and beverages. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) serves as the largest federal support program with food assistance for lower income families. After growing concern about the increase of obesity, a 2011 study was conducted from a supermarket chain in order to account for the number of SSBs funded by this type of government support. Through the grocery store’s scanner data of 39,172 households, SSBs accounted for 58% of the beverages purchased with food stamps (SNAP). Additionally, it is estimated that SNAP funded nearly $1.7 to $2.1 billion annually for the nationwide consumption of SSBs purchased in grocery stores. Redesigning the program, SNAP should set restrictions on the number of SSB’s that can be purchased or disallow their purchase all together in order to see a potential reduction in the weight of its beneficiaries. Consumers are still able to consume the unhealthy products, but on their own dime. In SNAP’s program, the sales tax is exempt from purchases and an excise tax would be the most effective in the reducing obesity.
Provisions:
Taxation alone is not enough. Provisions need to be made to limit the youth’s access to SSBs and junk foods in school vending machines, as do controls on the marketing of these products. Over the past thirty years, portion sizes increased immensely, especially with the amount of SSBs we consume in restaurants. In order to fight the war on obesity in New York, Bloomberg has proposed a policy to restrict city-regulated industries to distributing no more than 16- ounce size drinks. The ban would affect the sales of large SSBs in restaurants and movie theaters, but would exclude sales in convenience and grocery stores. Weakening the proposal, individuals could continue to go to gas stations such as the Seven- Eleven where they may help themselves to Double Gulps with 50 ounces of SSBs This policy would only force consumers to understand that they are consuming too much sugar with these SSBs, but would not prevent anyone from buying two 16 ounce drinks in order to drink as much as they did before the policy. The restaurant industry suffers the most in this case, as they would need to purchase an entire set of new glasses. Two liters would no longer serve as the best deal in restaurants such as Chucky Cheesies or Pizza Hut. The fast food industries would need to supply all new plastic or Styrofoam products which could bring forth a great deal of environmental hazards.
Conclusion:
America needs to recover from today’s national health crisis of obesity and get back on track to healthier patterns as those seen 30 years ago. The beverage and food environment is what has changed and cutting back on sugar consumption will make a significance difference to our health. The high consumption of sugar in regular sodas abuses one’s body and creates social consequences. Taxation and the provision of SSBs will help shrink the numbers of obesity in both people and costs. Nutritional interventions aimed at encouraging individuals to consume healthier foods. In order to be effective, taxes should be high and applied to all sugary foods and drinks.

Bibliography