Will A "Soda Tax" Help Curb The Obesity Epidemic?

PEPSICO - Will A "Soda Tax" Help Curb The Obesity Epidemic?

Good afternoon. Now, I learned about PEPSICO - Will A "Soda Tax" Help Curb The Obesity Epidemic?. Which could be very helpful in my experience and also you. Will A "Soda Tax" Help Curb The Obesity Epidemic?

Calls in the Us for a federal tax on sodas and other sugary drinks are gathering momentum. But will a "soda tax" do anything to curb the obesity epidemic?

What I said. It is not the conclusion that the real about PEPSICO . You see this article for home elevators a person wish to know is PEPSICO .

PEPSICO

I believe it will. But before I argue the point, here's some background for those new to the debate.

Washington leaders are busy discussing ways to pay for President Barack Obama's .2-trillion extreme makeover of the health care system... And a soda tax could be one of them.

It's estimated that the controversial tax could raise as much as bn over the next four years.

Supporters of the tax, like the center for Science in the collective Interest, say sugary drinks are one of the main culprits in the global obesity epidemic. They argue that a national tax - similar to those levied in at least 12 states already - would cut consumption and make for a healthier nation.

Michael Jacobson, the center's menagerial director said: "Soda is clearly one of the most harmful products in the food supply, and it's something government should discourage the consumption of".

Not surprisingly, the American Beverage Association, the lobby representing Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Kraft Foods and other big drinks companies, disagrees. It says such a tax would be unfair on lower-income population and would do nothing to cut the number of sodas and other sugary drinks Americans consume.

"Taxes are not going to teach our children how to have a healthy lifestyle," said relationship president, Susan Neely. The relationship backs self regulation, in the form of nationally agreed guidelines, as a way to limit sugary beverage consumption in schools.

I believe there's room for both approaches.

A soda tax would de facto be effective. There's phenomenal evidence that sugary sodas are de facto one of the chief contributors to obesity, the biggest collective health menace in the Us, any many other countries, today.

And there's abundance of precedent for "sin taxes" on harmful industries, both to encourage them to moderate their behavior and to help pay for measures to mitigate the harm they have caused.

The smoking business is a excellent example and the anti-soda tax arguments currently being used by the beverage business mirror those trotted out by the tobacco lobby years ago. They're just as flawed now as they were then.

Ms Nealy says a tax will hurt poor consumers and won't teach our kids to have a healthy lifestyle. Wrong on both counts.

It's poor consumers who are the biggest victims of the obesity epidemic and they're the least able to afford the kind of health care needed to treat its ills - diabetes, heart disease and other ailments. Wouldn't a share of the bn soda taxes go some way towards helping the victims?

And teaching our kids about healthy lifestyles? Last time I looked, a few billion dollars bought you a lot of education.

As for self regulation, it's other of those tired tobacco lobby tactics. By all means lets have national guidelines. But let's give them teeth and make them federally enforceable.

This, coupled with a national soda tax, would be the quickest way to encourage beverage makers to produce and shop healthier drinks.

I'd drink to that.

I hope you receive new knowledge about PEPSICO . Where you'll be able to put to utilization in your day-to-day life. And just remember, your reaction is passed about PEPSICO .