New ‘sin tax’ may affect college diet

OPINION

Reuters reported Monday that researchers writing in the journal Archives of Internal Medicine have endorsed the idea to levy “sin taxes” on foods deemed unhealthy, such as soda and pizza.

The researchers analyzed the diets of more than 5,000 adults during the course of the 20-year study. They determined that a 10 percent increase in the cost of soda and pizza led to a 7 percent decrease in the number of calories consumed from soda and a 12 percent decrease in calories consumed from pizza.

One thing these researchers did not seem to consider, especially when it comes to pizza, is a simple economic concept known as substitute goods.

If a tax is levied on pizza and the prices increase, especially in such an apparent way like a tax, consumers will likely opt instead to eat a Taco Bell half-pound burrito or a Big Mac. So it is unclear if there will be any net decrease in total caloric intake or simply fewer calories consumed from taxed products.

Many foods considered both healthy and unhealthy contain high-fructose corn syrup. High-fructose corn syrup is a refined sugar that comes from corn, and the reason that food producers and soda makers choose to sweeten their products with the syrup over the natural alternative that comes from cane or beets is because it is less expensive.

It is less expensive to refine corn into the syrup because the federal government spends tens of billions of dollars every year on corn subsidies. They produce so much corn now for such a low price that it is used to make the syrup and corn-based ethanol, which gets additional subsidies of its own.

While the health concerns about it are currently inconclusive, many studies suggest that it is less healthy than regular sugars. Perhaps this is why we are seeing a shift in the markets toward natural sugar.

For example, Jones Soda, which makes soda that is sweetened with pure cane sugar instead of corn syrup, is becoming increasingly popular, and Pepsi has recently been releasing “throwback” versions of Pepsi and Mountain Dew that are also sweetened with natural sugar.

The researchers also stated that the government should not be subsidizing the production of corn like they are now because they consider it to be subsidizing obesity.

The federal and state governments have already considered enacting legislation to create such taxes. These taxes would be a new wave of so-called “sin taxes,” like what already exist on taboo products like alcohol and cigarettes, to try to reduce the obesity problem our country is facing.

If they continue to subsidize corn, which is turned into syrup and put into soda, and then tax the consumption of soda, this will be nothing more than a tax revenue seesaw between subsidizing soda and taxing it.

There will be no monetary benefit at the end of the day.

No matter how you feel about the use of social engineering through the tax code, it never seems to solve the problem that it is designed to fix.

Lawmakers seem to know this because if they thought that “sin taxes” would substantially reduce the consumption of those products, they would not propose to use the revenue gained toward important policies like health care reform or CHIP, a children’s health insurance program run by the government, because there would be little revenue to spend.

Rather than using potentially flawed studies to guide the government on how to tax us into doing what they consider to be good for us, we should be educating ourselves about our diet.

Americans must demand a stop to government tampering with the food supply through subsidies and continue to hold food makers responsible for providing better products.

Trayton Oakes is a political science and economics junior. He can be reached at TraytonOakes@my.unt.edu.