New evidence suggests that Seattle’s soda tax is working well(thecounter.org)
thecounter.org
New evidence suggests that Seattle’s soda tax is working well
https://thecounter.org/seattle-washington-soda-tax-working-grocery-shopping-data-portland/
126 comments
It's possible the decrease is driven largely by spending habits of low-income families:
> Last year, researchers at the University of Washington found that low-income families in particular saw a significant decrease in soda consumption following the implementation of the tax. The findings were based on a survey of residents, meaning that it relied on self-reporting, which is less accurate than sales data.
This leads to interesting policy questions. For example, some people might complain that the tax is regressive and hits poorer families harder. A rebuttal to this is that obesity is also regressive, and if you wish to fight obesity you need to change behaviors of the people whom it afflicts. One way around this knotty issue is to take the money from this tax and use it for public services that disproportionally benefit the populations from whom it is generated. (I have no idea what the tax revenues in Seattle are used for.)
> Last year, researchers at the University of Washington found that low-income families in particular saw a significant decrease in soda consumption following the implementation of the tax. The findings were based on a survey of residents, meaning that it relied on self-reporting, which is less accurate than sales data.
This leads to interesting policy questions. For example, some people might complain that the tax is regressive and hits poorer families harder. A rebuttal to this is that obesity is also regressive, and if you wish to fight obesity you need to change behaviors of the people whom it afflicts. One way around this knotty issue is to take the money from this tax and use it for public services that disproportionally benefit the populations from whom it is generated. (I have no idea what the tax revenues in Seattle are used for.)
> It's possible the decrease is driven largely by spending habits of low-income families:
Which I think, isn't really caused by their low-income, but by their greater preference for soda.
Demand changes at the margin, so a $.20 increase is a $.20 increase to everyone. It depends how much you value the soda in the first place.
Which I think, isn't really caused by their low-income, but by their greater preference for soda.
Demand changes at the margin, so a $.20 increase is a $.20 increase to everyone. It depends how much you value the soda in the first place.
The price elasticity of demand (i.e., the amount someone changes purchasing decisions based on price changes) depend in part on how much of your budget the item takes up. For wealthy people, soda is a rounding error on a rounding error. For lower income folks, soda could be a small but noticeable percentage of their budget. So 20¢ is not 20¢ to everyone.
For my part, I know that teenager-me would have absolutely noticed this price increase, but adult me would not.
For my part, I know that teenager-me would have absolutely noticed this price increase, but adult me would not.
> One way around this knotty issue is to take the money from this tax and use it for public services that disproportionally benefit the populations from whom it is generated. (I have no idea what the tax revenues in Seattle are used for.)
And now you've created a bureaucracy that can only maintain its existence if sugary drinks continue to sell well.
And now you've created a bureaucracy that can only maintain its existence if sugary drinks continue to sell well.
Or if the sin tax is gradually expanded to cover almost everything in the grocery store.
> Why not include the top x cities, instead of just one 200 miles away? Because it rains a lot in both?
You can find the source here: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ehb.2020.100856
To quote from it:
> Portland, OR, was selected as the comparison site for Seattle, WA, based on Mahalanobis distance matching to evaluate the four largest municipalities in each of Washington and Oregon as potential comparison sites [etc]
They had more of a reason and included the model they used to pick the city.
It's also quite beneficial to keep the areas somewhat near in that there will be less variance in the number of item codes between close locations (i.e. different drinks are sold on the east coast vs west coast since some brands are local)
From a different section:
> Custom-ordered data were provided from store outlets geocoded within the boundaries of the taxing jurisdiction of Seattle, WA, the comparison site, Portland, OR
I suspect they didn't have enough funding to afford more geocoded scanner data given that it sounds like they had to pay for custom data at a rate per-geocoded location... or didn't have the funding to process that much more data.
It wasn't clear how much of the dataset labeling was manual, but it sounded like the study's authors may have had to sift through several thousand barcodes by hand.
You can find the source here: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ehb.2020.100856
To quote from it:
> Portland, OR, was selected as the comparison site for Seattle, WA, based on Mahalanobis distance matching to evaluate the four largest municipalities in each of Washington and Oregon as potential comparison sites [etc]
They had more of a reason and included the model they used to pick the city.
It's also quite beneficial to keep the areas somewhat near in that there will be less variance in the number of item codes between close locations (i.e. different drinks are sold on the east coast vs west coast since some brands are local)
From a different section:
> Custom-ordered data were provided from store outlets geocoded within the boundaries of the taxing jurisdiction of Seattle, WA, the comparison site, Portland, OR
I suspect they didn't have enough funding to afford more geocoded scanner data given that it sounds like they had to pay for custom data at a rate per-geocoded location... or didn't have the funding to process that much more data.
It wasn't clear how much of the dataset labeling was manual, but it sounded like the study's authors may have had to sift through several thousand barcodes by hand.
The comparison site seems suspicious to me. Why not use multiple comparisons? Why wasn't the study pre-registered (was it)?
I’m skeptical too, but.. The data set is too small? It sounded enormous:
> The data set itself—gathered by marketing insight firm Nielsen—was huge, representing 45 percent of all food store sales in the city for 2017, 2018, and 2019.
One thing I’m curious about is whether they looked at adjacent cities. Seattle isn’t exactly an island, did the soda purchases just shift outside the city?
Did they look at restaurants and coffee shops or only grocery sales?
> The data set itself—gathered by marketing insight firm Nielsen—was huge, representing 45 percent of all food store sales in the city for 2017, 2018, and 2019.
One thing I’m curious about is whether they looked at adjacent cities. Seattle isn’t exactly an island, did the soda purchases just shift outside the city?
Did they look at restaurants and coffee shops or only grocery sales?
When I arrived to the UK, a can of Coke was about £0.45. They kept increasing the prices each year and now it's probably about £1. It's not that I couldn't afford a can, but for me, paying a £1 for it became much less attractive and I only bough it a couple of times over the last two years.
The early seasons of The Sopranos almost always featured a lot of soda especially during family meals!! I don't see much of that in TV anymore.
> I'm...skeptical. Mostly that in a city where houses stretch into the millions now, people forego a can of Coke over a 20 cent price increase.
How can this possibly be your argument? Are you suggesting that prices have no effect on consumption when there are high prices in a completely different market? Your default hypothesis has to be that higher prices lead to lower consumption.
How can this possibly be your argument? Are you suggesting that prices have no effect on consumption when there are high prices in a completely different market? Your default hypothesis has to be that higher prices lead to lower consumption.
People in Seattle with more money are already avoiding sugar for health reasons. The tax seems to be aimed at poorer consumers who would be influenced by it. Or it’s just a money grab by the SCC.
This tax does not apply to diet sodas, [1] which have been shown to prompt food cravings, especially in women and obese people. [2]
So it's possible that people just substituted from regular to diet soda, and still eat just as much.
1: https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/washington/articles/...
2: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/10/07/1044010...
So it's possible that people just substituted from regular to diet soda, and still eat just as much.
1: https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/washington/articles/...
2: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/10/07/1044010...
That's kind of a click baity interpretation of the study. What really happened in that study was that the subjects were given a diet vs regular soda, then allowed to eat as much as they wanted. In the case where they drank diet soda, they did eat more calories, but the total calories consumed including the drink itself was still lower for the diet soda case.
For further discussion on this study (and others like it) I highly recommend the stronger by science podcast [1]. And [2] is a link to the study details (to avoid whatever misleading spin npr might be giving it).
[1] https://www.sbspod.com/episodes/reverse-dieting-bodybuilding... (starts around 1:49:39, it's the second last topic)
[2] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle...
For further discussion on this study (and others like it) I highly recommend the stronger by science podcast [1]. And [2] is a link to the study details (to avoid whatever misleading spin npr might be giving it).
[1] https://www.sbspod.com/episodes/reverse-dieting-bodybuilding... (starts around 1:49:39, it's the second last topic)
[2] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle...
Artificial sweeteners also prompt insulin rise and promote insulin resistance: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7014832/
So, yes, if it is not water, with or without CO2, it should be ingested with caution.
So, yes, if it is not water, with or without CO2, it should be ingested with caution.
Sparkling water is also a concern for dental health. Carbonation becomes carbonic acid.
I have a sodastream and use it daily, and I've read articles going both ways on this. It seems that carbonated pure water is not nearly as bad as soda for teeth, but that perhaps it's not that great (especially for kids). Have you seen definitive guidance on this? Does carbonating less make a difference? Using a straw? I've heard that drinking plain water after is a good idea, but don't know if that's grounded in science.
A quick google shows that plain carbonated water has a pH of 4, which is right around where it becomes corrosive to enamel. So, if you just drink a bit of water afterwards, you should be bringing your mouth's pH well above 4. Maybe swish it around as well.
That study was in patients that were already type-2 diabetic. Here's one that compares stevia, aspartame, and sucrose by satiety and (what I assume is) measures of glucose and insulin in blood: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2900484/
Only immediately obvious caveat is that the sample size may be a bit small:
> 19 healthy lean (BMI = 20.0 – 24.9) and 12 obese (BMI = 30.0 – 39.9) individuals 18 to 50 years old
Only immediately obvious caveat is that the sample size may be a bit small:
> 19 healthy lean (BMI = 20.0 – 24.9) and 12 obese (BMI = 30.0 – 39.9) individuals 18 to 50 years old
I heard sweeteners are actively used in piglet farms as fattener.
Got any source on that? Would be curious to read about it if true.
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/11597823.pdf
it is a german diploma thesis.
8.2 ff.
Basically they say that piglets prefer sweet taste and regular sugar is too expensive. So they can feed bitter tasting junk sweetened artificially.
it is a german diploma thesis.
8.2 ff.
Basically they say that piglets prefer sweet taste and regular sugar is too expensive. So they can feed bitter tasting junk sweetened artificially.
If they still eat as much, at least they don't get the additional sugary calories from the soda. So a big win, wouldn't you say?
Did they also study whether total sugar sales rose in the cities next to Seattle? I can imagine that some price sensitive soda drinkers just drove to the nearest store outside of Seattle to buy their sodas.
This makes zero sense. A gallon of gas is about $4.00, the idea that someone would spend all that gas money to avoid a tax of 1.75 cents/oz just doesn't pass the sniff test.
The tax is 1.75¢ per ounce? That nearly doubles the price of a 12-pack depending on whatever brand is on sale that week. When I buy soda during my shopping trips, I usually get three 12-packs for $9.99. With this tax, the total would be $17.55.
If I still drank sugary soda, I'd go out of my way to avoid this tax.
I find the idea people alter their shopping habits to avoid it totally believable. probably not enough to offset the reduced consumption (or else it'd show up in lower gross receipts at stores within city limits), but it wouldn't be surprising to see increased sales in neighboring towns.
If I still drank sugary soda, I'd go out of my way to avoid this tax.
I find the idea people alter their shopping habits to avoid it totally believable. probably not enough to offset the reduced consumption (or else it'd show up in lower gross receipts at stores within city limits), but it wouldn't be surprising to see increased sales in neighboring towns.
It's far more likely that a consume who is price sensitive to this tax would perform a substitution rather than physically go seek it outside of the city. I'm not saying if they are already out of the city for some reason they wouldn't maybe pick up soda, but I highly doubt any significant number of people are actually leaving the city to go purchase soda. Not only are you not saving money unless you purchase a significant amount, you're also wasting time.
For something like iced tea or absolutely doubles the price or worse.
People grocery shop closer to their work (if it's outside of Seattle) if they can avoid these taxes.
My parents would drive 30 extra minutes to save pennies on gas. I have no doubt they'd do the same to dodge a soda tax.
People don't think logically so long as they feel like they're saving money.
People don't think logically so long as they feel like they're saving money.
You know people go to Oregon to avoid sales takes on various purchases, right? That’s 2-4 hours from Seattle depending on traffic.
But they don't do it to avoid sales tax on $100 purchase. They go down there to make $1k+ purchases and avoid $100+ in taxes. The cost to get in and out of Seattle to purchase soda just isn't worth it unless you are purchasing a large amount of soda.
“Haha! People wouldn’t bear any meaningful cost to avoid a piddling 1.75 cents/oz tax, that can be dismissed as laughable.”
“I am uncritically accepting a study that says a 1.75 cents/oz tax was successful in changing consumer behavior because the additional burden it added to the cost of soda.”
You can’t have it both ways, claim the tax influenced behavior in terms of reducing consumption but not in terms of circumventing the tax.
“I am uncritically accepting a study that says a 1.75 cents/oz tax was successful in changing consumer behavior because the additional burden it added to the cost of soda.”
You can’t have it both ways, claim the tax influenced behavior in terms of reducing consumption but not in terms of circumventing the tax.
? Yes you can. The argument he's making is that the cost of circumventing the tax is larger than the tax. So if the tax is working because people are sensitive to the extra cost, it would make perfect sense that they would not spend 2 cents/oz to avoid the tax and thus loose money.
Now one can certainly make a good argument that people are not fully rational and often do not consider fuel and time costs when looking for the cheapest deal, but that's not what you did.
Now one can certainly make a good argument that people are not fully rational and often do not consider fuel and time costs when looking for the cheapest deal, but that's not what you did.
First, the point was very vague; if you want to convert it into a specific one, that’s a different argument. I was responding to the differential standard of evidence being imposed for the different possible responses. The tax only works if it changes people’s behavior and so it’s inconsistent to claim that it’s a big enough burden for behavior responses you like but any others are ridiculous and not worth considering at all.
Second, if the point was that driving further can’t save money, it’s flat out wrong because the cost of the driving is largely independent of the tax savings. Eg a single trip to stockpile.
Second, if the point was that driving further can’t save money, it’s flat out wrong because the cost of the driving is largely independent of the tax savings. Eg a single trip to stockpile.
Depends how closely you watch your spending on food. I'm so disconnected that I only learned just now that we have a soda tax. I will still buy my favorite sludge water without concern for the price.
Based on a 1.75 cents per ounce tax and CVS's prices, here is the increase:
20-ounce bottle of Coke: $2.50 --> $2.85.
2 liter (72-ounce) bottle of Coke: $2.70 --> $3.96.
If you drink a lot of soda, it can definitely add up.
20-ounce bottle of Coke: $2.50 --> $2.85.
2 liter (72-ounce) bottle of Coke: $2.70 --> $3.96.
If you drink a lot of soda, it can definitely add up.
It adds up. But not as much, percentage wise, as compared to something with less sugar in it, like iced tea.
I can’t help but find this situation incredibly ironic. How much tax money do we spend propping up corn and the corn syrup used to make these sodas only to tax and try to discourage their sale? I wholeheartedly support this tax, but it’s an incredibly bizarre contradiction.
How's coffee sales doing? With coffee you can add as much sugar as you want without increasing the price!
I might be an outlier, but I usually only add some milk. If not I take it black, no sugar.
You wouldn’t want to put sugar in coffee.
I believe you mean "One shouldn't want" because I do want.
A lot of people will point out that the difference of a relative handful of cents doesn't matter much to the individual buyer, and they're probably right. I think the change has happened largely on the supply side. Businesses didn't want to change the price of a soda and so swapped in zero-sugar versions that don't carry the tax. Anecdotally, I've noticed a distinct rise in the number of places offering several more zero-sugar options (though, for some blasted reason, it's still easier to find Coke Zero at restaurants in the suburbs than it is in the city and no, Diet Coke is not OK come on now).
(Alternatively, they did raise the price of all sodas, sugared or not, but I haven't seen much of that.)
(Alternatively, they did raise the price of all sodas, sugared or not, but I haven't seen much of that.)
[deleted]
I live in a place without the soda tax. I'm noticing that kids aren't into sodas as much as they used to. My kid and his friends all dislike sodas. There could be other cultural trends alongside the tax.
> The data set itself—gathered by marketing insight firm Nielsen—was huge, representing 45 percent of all food store sales in the city
This means that in the 5 households Nielsen used as a "representative sample of Seattle's population" one person got so overweight that he can't leave his flat any more and therefore he started buying his daily dose of soda online instead of buying it in his favourite store. Soda consumption drops by 20%. At least this is what Nielsen says. But hey, who am I to judge decades of financially successful quackery...
This means that in the 5 households Nielsen used as a "representative sample of Seattle's population" one person got so overweight that he can't leave his flat any more and therefore he started buying his daily dose of soda online instead of buying it in his favourite store. Soda consumption drops by 20%. At least this is what Nielsen says. But hey, who am I to judge decades of financially successful quackery...
Interesting. Does the partial increase in compensating sugar purchases give an idea of how many actually got some benefit from the sugar, as opposed to the caffeine, flavor and bubbles?
Once more of these policies have been in place for a few years, some will likely be repealed. At that point, a study of similar magnitude to analyze to what degree the habit changes are permanent will be even more interesting.
Once more of these policies have been in place for a few years, some will likely be repealed. At that point, a study of similar magnitude to analyze to what degree the habit changes are permanent will be even more interesting.
I love that they need evidence for "taxation works". It doesn't take a prophet to tell if you charge $10 for a can of soda, sales decline. The question is how much can we tax
Had increasing the tax on cigarettes caused people to buy fewer cigarettes?
The causation here seems very vague and hard to establish as confidently as this article tries. But even if the causation was there, I don’t know if I would count this as “working well”. People can’t access a product they want to access because of an artificial burden imposed on them. That doesn’t feel like the system is “working well”. It feels more like the system is restricting the agency and self determination of those with less money.
> And that’s exactly what happened in Washington shortly after Seattle passed its soda tax: In November of that same year, soda companies campaigned successfully for the passage of a ballot initiative banning all future fees on sugary drinks across the state.
Wow, this is nakedly self interested and a law purely for the industry at the expense of democracy, how on earth can that be allowed to happen?
Wow, this is nakedly self interested and a law purely for the industry at the expense of democracy, how on earth can that be allowed to happen?
Because 55.88% of voters (1,721,487 people) voted for it.
Note that the initiative banned "local government entities from imposing any new tax, fee, or other assessment on grocery items" in general, not just from sugary drinks.
I guess people did not want more expensive groceries. This may in the future be compensated by more expensive healthcare, but such is the human species. Short term gain > long term loss.
Note that the initiative banned "local government entities from imposing any new tax, fee, or other assessment on grocery items" in general, not just from sugary drinks.
I guess people did not want more expensive groceries. This may in the future be compensated by more expensive healthcare, but such is the human species. Short term gain > long term loss.
Just for some perspective, in some states there is zero tax on any food because it is seen as essential.
The problem is there are a lot of assumptions being made about the choice to buy a soda in any given situation. Someone in my family, for example, has type 1 diabetes, and occasionally (not usually; they control it well) needs something sugary for weird situations to regulate their blood sugar.
On average the state might gain from some policy, but is it always in the best position to understand what is in the best interests of the individual?
I guess I've never understood the focus on sugary beverages in particular. Why not candy? Pastries? Sugary cereal? Seems arbitrary and capricious to me.
The problem is there are a lot of assumptions being made about the choice to buy a soda in any given situation. Someone in my family, for example, has type 1 diabetes, and occasionally (not usually; they control it well) needs something sugary for weird situations to regulate their blood sugar.
On average the state might gain from some policy, but is it always in the best position to understand what is in the best interests of the individual?
I guess I've never understood the focus on sugary beverages in particular. Why not candy? Pastries? Sugary cereal? Seems arbitrary and capricious to me.
Washington state has a candy tax.
And like most places has a tax on prepared food but not unprepared for.
Because it's America.
Ok, but are they shopping outside the city?
The Seattle sugar tax is flawed. It is charged per ounce not a flat percentage. Typically more expensive drinks have more sugar but are actually effected less. Throw in the fact that milk based drinks are exempt, like the sugar rich milkshake, and this is a flawed law.
The Seattle sugar tax is flawed. It is charged per ounce not a flat percentage. Typically more expensive drinks have more sugar but are actually effected less. Throw in the fact that milk based drinks are exempt, like the sugar rich milkshake, and this is a flawed law.
How much are sodas taxed in Seattle? Maybe I missed something but I couldn't find it in the article.
Does the soda tax go towards increasing public health services in the region?
Does the soda tax go towards increasing public health services in the region?
It is a sugar tax, not a soda tax. All drinks, that are sweetened with a caloric sugar based sweetener that are not milk based, are taxed. There are a few other exceptions such as alcohol, 100% fruit juice and anything with calories fewer than 40 per 120 ozs.
The majority of the proceeds are supposed to go into expanding access to healthy food a well as education, asking other things
The majority of the proceeds are supposed to go into expanding access to healthy food a well as education, asking other things
1.75 cents/oz.
Armed with three years of grocery shopping data, researchers found that total sugar sales are down by almost 20 percent, driven largely by falling soda purchases.
If they could prove that it would be an incredible breakthrough in public policy, but I wouldn't bet on it. The science on the effect of sugar in the diet, sugar in and of itself, is far more eqquivocal than popular press would make you believe. It is exceedingly likely that people just ate more fat instead of sugar, which is plausibly just as dangerous as sugar when one is eating calories in excess of daily energy requirements.
"exceedingly likely"? Are you taking the "right" thing from these "equivocal" studies? Sounds like you too are mainly expressing your personal and unsubstantiated beliefs. Anyway, it would be pretty weird if decreasing consumption of sugary liquids on average increased the consumption of solid fats. I could see if you were a person doing hard daily labor you'd need to get crazy amounts of calories from somewhere, but you seem to have a theory that there is a caloric balance people will naturally maintain one way or the other, even when they are obese because of excessive consumption. If you know of a study that does show that consumption of fats increases when sugary drink consumption decreases, OMG, that would be really interesting, please share a link since I've only heard of studies suggesting exactly the opposite.
I think exceedingly is the right word here. We know from lots of research that mass diet interventions don't work. The body's autonomic processes for weight equilibrium are powerful. Stephan Guyenet is a good follow but doctors on Hacker News are only too happy to tell you the same thing.
>> It is exceedingly likely that people just ate more fat instead of sugar..
Why do you believe this is so likely? To be honest I don't see the connection. People notice in the supermarket that their favorite soft drink became more expensive, and decide to switch to eating an extra hamburger instead?
Why do you believe this is so likely? To be honest I don't see the connection. People notice in the supermarket that their favorite soft drink became more expensive, and decide to switch to eating an extra hamburger instead?
You're hungry, so you eat something. When you run low on food, you go to the supermarket. Soda has increased in price, so you spend your soda money on something else. The next time you're hungry, that's what's in your kitchen.
This is only better if the thing you replace the soda with is better for you than the soda. Without any data on what that is, you don't know if that's true.
This is only better if the thing you replace the soda with is better for you than the soda. Without any data on what that is, you don't know if that's true.
I wouldn't be surprised if the alternatives that the citizens of Seattle are choosing are juices, fruit punches, iced teas, and other non-water beverages that are hardly better for you than soda.
I had to look this up and you're right: the "sugary drink tax" excludes fruit juice.
Also, Starbucks is exempt.
Also, Starbucks is exempt.
Eating sugar makes your body/mind crave more sugar though… regardless of consumed calories.
You don't even know that the replacement thing isn't still sugar. People can't spend their soda money on candy?
What if they spend it on cigarettes?
What if they spend it on cigarettes?
Quote from start if thread said "total sugar sales are down by almost 20 percent, driven largely by falling soda purchases", so at least we know they didn't buy candy with the money.
We know they didn't buy only candy with the money.
Maybe they bought candy and cigarettes.
Maybe they bought candy and cigarettes.
You can't have it both ways, if stopping candy leads to cigarette money then cigarettes are healthy because anyone who smokes has less money for heroin.
That's not having it both ways. It's the problem with having incomplete data.
But if cigarettes are the thing preventing people from buying heroin with the money you deterred them from using to buy soda, that doesn't mean that the soda money is going someplace better than it was before your law, it only implies that "well then we just need a higher tax on cigarettes" wouldn't be a beneficial solution.
But if cigarettes are the thing preventing people from buying heroin with the money you deterred them from using to buy soda, that doesn't mean that the soda money is going someplace better than it was before your law, it only implies that "well then we just need a higher tax on cigarettes" wouldn't be a beneficial solution.
That's a cool theory, do you have any data to back it up or is this just an unfounded assertion?
This is literally the thing the person who started this thread is asking for:
> This isn't the right definition of success. The first minimal requirement for this to be a successful initiative is that the community lost weight overall. Or even gained weight, but more slowly than other communities.
> This isn't the right definition of success. The first minimal requirement for this to be a successful initiative is that the community lost weight overall. Or even gained weight, but more slowly than other communities.
not for the price of even large amounts of soda for the same consumed time period
Evidence?
I use sugar as an energy source. The more energy I use (or plan to use) the more sugar I need.
That's a biological necessity, not a craving.
They're talking about refined sugar, which your body does not "need", other carbohydrates can be turned into sugar by your body just fine.
It's not that simple, sadly, if it was my job would be way easier. Yes, your cells (usually) run on glucose but that glucose can be produced from a variety of dietary sources including sugar (sucrose, fructose, etc), other carbohydrates, and fats.
Reduced dietary sugar (particularly the added sugars) is an amazing public health outcome.
Reduced dietary sugar (particularly the added sugars) is an amazing public health outcome.
That argument relies on the assumption that we only eat/consume if we need energy. Thank you you have just solved obesity, because nobody eats more than the energy they need!
Drinking soda doesn't make you full, though. If you are hungry and drink soda, you will eat something anyway. Probably the same amount, if not more (soda may actually provoke feelings of hunger).
[deleted]
To be honest your post sounds like it's coming straight out of the sugar industry PR book.
1. Increase burden of scientific evidence/cast scientific evidence in doubt by saying it's not conclusive enough
2. Assert that reducing sugar is not working because people will just get their calorie input otherwise.
3. Blame fat/daemonize fat, that's what the sugar industry has done very successfully over the last decades.
1. Increase burden of scientific evidence/cast scientific evidence in doubt by saying it's not conclusive enough
2. Assert that reducing sugar is not working because people will just get their calorie input otherwise.
3. Blame fat/daemonize fat, that's what the sugar industry has done very successfully over the last decades.
I don't drink sugary "soda" drinks at all, so I don't have a horse in the race, but I think it is a valid question to ask whether the tax really decreased sugar consumption or people just bought bunch of cookies instead.
Or what are the effects of artificial sweeteners...
Directly taken from the article:
>But the researchers didn’t stop there. They also wanted to know if shoppers might be getting sugar from other foods instead—a possibility that soda tax opponents have argued would become commonplace. Were Seattle residents simply swapping out Mountain Dew for candy bars? To find out, the researchers also analyzed sales data for untaxed drinks like flavored milk, sweets—which the team defined to include candies, desserts, and baked goods—as well as loose sugar. Over the course of months, Powell’s team painstakingly coded each product sold by its sugar content, and then calculated just how much sales of these products changed after the soda tax went in place.
>They found a slight increase in sugar consumed through untaxed drinks in 2018, which then dissipated in 2019. They also noticed a small, sustained increase in sugar consumed through sweets. In both cases however, those upticks were not large enough to overcome the significant reduction in sugar sold through taxed drink
So they did exactly what you asked for and found that while there was a small increase in sugar intake through other means, it was much less than the decrease from reduced sugar intake from soda.
>But the researchers didn’t stop there. They also wanted to know if shoppers might be getting sugar from other foods instead—a possibility that soda tax opponents have argued would become commonplace. Were Seattle residents simply swapping out Mountain Dew for candy bars? To find out, the researchers also analyzed sales data for untaxed drinks like flavored milk, sweets—which the team defined to include candies, desserts, and baked goods—as well as loose sugar. Over the course of months, Powell’s team painstakingly coded each product sold by its sugar content, and then calculated just how much sales of these products changed after the soda tax went in place.
>They found a slight increase in sugar consumed through untaxed drinks in 2018, which then dissipated in 2019. They also noticed a small, sustained increase in sugar consumed through sweets. In both cases however, those upticks were not large enough to overcome the significant reduction in sugar sold through taxed drink
So they did exactly what you asked for and found that while there was a small increase in sugar intake through other means, it was much less than the decrease from reduced sugar intake from soda.
Well, technically that is what OP asked and I just chimed in to defend it as a valid question. So did the community became less overweight overall? (otherwise what is the point)
[deleted]
[deleted]
Neither OP nor a sugar industry shill, but it may well be possible that we need to cut down on zero calorie soda as well.
Even though zero calorie soda does not directly contain any energy, it may mess up our feelings of hunger and make us more hungry. [0] So far, scientific studies indicate that people who switch from sugary soda to zero calorie drinks do not lose weight [1].
Feelings of hunger and satiety are complicated, driven by hormones and only somewhat correlated with total energy intake.
[0] https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/medical-myths-all-...
[1] https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/zero-weight-loss-from-ze...
Edit: downvoted for what? Linking to Harvard health blog? If zero calorie soda had a slimming effect, we would have seen it a long ago, it is not exactly a new invention.
Even though zero calorie soda does not directly contain any energy, it may mess up our feelings of hunger and make us more hungry. [0] So far, scientific studies indicate that people who switch from sugary soda to zero calorie drinks do not lose weight [1].
Feelings of hunger and satiety are complicated, driven by hormones and only somewhat correlated with total energy intake.
[0] https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/medical-myths-all-...
[1] https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/zero-weight-loss-from-ze...
Edit: downvoted for what? Linking to Harvard health blog? If zero calorie soda had a slimming effect, we would have seen it a long ago, it is not exactly a new invention.
I’m tempted to downvote mainly because at best this is besides the point and at worst is a distraction from the point.
I don't feel this is beside the point. Human nutrition is complicated and tax incentives based on simple rules may have unintended consequences downstream.
People get angry and down vote when they don't like what you have to say, rather than making a point why you may be wrong.
Yes, and sometimes fools say the sky is blue. That doesn’t make it red.
Do you have actual arguments? The reasons for me giving these points above is that this way of arguing has become standard PR practice from industries that want to prevent outcomes that would be detrimental to their bottom line (tobacco sugar, oil...). They actually are not interested in a debate that finds the actual truth. In fact they often know that the facts are correct from their own studies, but want to cast doubt on them nevertheless.
I'm perfectly ok with someone giving actual arguments (ideally backed up by some scientific evidence) why that study might get the correct result. I didn't even make any judgement about the validity of the original conclusions.
I'm perfectly ok with someone giving actual arguments (ideally backed up by some scientific evidence) why that study might get the correct result. I didn't even make any judgement about the validity of the original conclusions.
Your “actual argument” is to (in contravention of HN guidelines) impugn motives and accuse others of shilling. Once there’s a substantive discussion to be had, I’ll join it!
I just want to clarify I am not accusing the OP of being an industry shill, they might just simply adopting arguments seen at other places (and they are very common). And it is incredibly easy to be led into this, I certainly have done this as well and only realized later. It is an important thing to be aware of.
I'm rejecting the type of argument, because they do not foster an honest debate. It's really classic FUD.
[Edit]: some further clarification
I'm rejecting the type of argument, because they do not foster an honest debate. It's really classic FUD.
[Edit]: some further clarification
When your entire argument is “you’re wrong because this pattern-matches to what shills say”, then yes, you are accusing the OP of shilling and it would be better to say what specifically is wrong with the arguments.
But why is it not on the OP to give some evidence, instead of making wild assertions? This is the problem that comes up again and again in lots of these discussions (be it climate change, health...), someone posts some assertions without evidence, people respond by dismissing it because it has been debunked again and again and they then get accused in not engaging in an honest debate.
Why are you not accusing the OP of not having an argument?
Why are you not accusing the OP of not having an argument?
It is on the OP to back their arguments! And I would have preferred a better argument there with better backing.
But the thing is, it was an argument, in terms of specifying a logical mechanism by which the conclusion would be unwarranted, even if the evidence doesn't bear it out in the way OP needs. And it's on you to make more substantive contributions than "you pattern-match to bad people" if you're going to respond at all.
I replied to you rather than the OP because your comment more obviously doesn't belong here. A culture of "you're wrong because you sound like bad people" is more toxic to this forum that a dubious counterpoint. (cf. "You know who else went vegetarian?")
But the thing is, it was an argument, in terms of specifying a logical mechanism by which the conclusion would be unwarranted, even if the evidence doesn't bear it out in the way OP needs. And it's on you to make more substantive contributions than "you pattern-match to bad people" if you're going to respond at all.
I replied to you rather than the OP because your comment more obviously doesn't belong here. A culture of "you're wrong because you sound like bad people" is more toxic to this forum that a dubious counterpoint. (cf. "You know who else went vegetarian?")
A tax on sugar's job is to reduce sugar sales. So it's the right metric to see if the tax itself is doing what it's supposed to do. What you seem to be arguing is on a metric of if the tax should have been implemented in the first place.
i.e. If the actual goal was reducing weight, then the obvious thought is all weight increasers should be taxed, not just sugar.
i.e. If the actual goal was reducing weight, then the obvious thought is all weight increasers should be taxed, not just sugar.
The proponents of the law claimed they were doing it to fight obesity, to reduce weight.
But considering that a per ounce metric is probably the wrong thing, and they didn't tax the worst drink, the milkshake, they didn't really do this to attack obesity.
Also, Seattlites aren’t exactly obese on average, it would be difficult to measure a change vs if some small Texan town did this.
A lot of richer people in Seattle avoid sugar as a matter of health, but they pay for it since non-sugar sweetener drinks like super coffee are more expensive. The sugar tax is more aimed down market.
A lot of richer people in Seattle avoid sugar as a matter of health, but they pay for it since non-sugar sweetener drinks like super coffee are more expensive. The sugar tax is more aimed down market.
There are more benefits to lowering sugar than weight loss. Diabetes and its related issues for example.
When one drops sugar consumption, it’s generally not replaced by fat. That’s not how obesity usually works.
When one drops sugar consumption, it’s generally not replaced by fat. That’s not how obesity usually works.
Lol, that might be tough as Seattle is already ranked as one of the countries healthiest cities.
so if people being fat is the problem, why not target it at the root - a fat tax?
i'm jesting of course, but the modern tax system tend to be both a revenue generator, while also being a behaviour modifier, often to the detriment of each of those objectives. I think root cause targeting, rather than try to "incentivize" at the edges, is more effective a social policy.
i'm jesting of course, but the modern tax system tend to be both a revenue generator, while also being a behaviour modifier, often to the detriment of each of those objectives. I think root cause targeting, rather than try to "incentivize" at the edges, is more effective a social policy.
Wait, people still drink soda?
No. No one drinks soda. Coca Cola Corporation’s revenue of 40 billion dollars a year is entirely fabricated. It is the next Enron. When you see a person drinking a soda, try touching them. They are a hologram, an attempt by a fading company to convince people of their relevance.
Having substituted all soda with clear water, humanity has entered a new era of peace and prosperity. War is a thing of the past now that Man is hydrated.
Peace reigns over the Earth as fusion powered reactionless spacecraft take to the skies. Our third space colony is prospering and we are on the brink of conquering Death itself.
Having substituted all soda with clear water, humanity has entered a new era of peace and prosperity. War is a thing of the past now that Man is hydrated.
Peace reigns over the Earth as fusion powered reactionless spacecraft take to the skies. Our third space colony is prospering and we are on the brink of conquering Death itself.
Coke Zero is a thing, it’s what I get my kid when he wants a very occasional pop. I tried some, it mostly tastes like the coke I remember.
To me "Coca Cola Zero Sugar" tastes 100% exactly like regular Coca Cola. I've wondered how many people agree.
Soda is delicious for those of us that like sweet foods. It's certainly not for everyone, but I could honestly drink soda and eat cookies nonstop all day if I didn't limit myself to at most 1 can in a day and purposely don't purchase cookies to have in the house.
Haha. Such correlation, such little data. But hey, at least someone got paid.
This is an article that suggests the pro-tax side of the argument never came to understand the anti-tax side. Possibly the anti-tax side were being misleading about their complaints. Of course a soda tax will reduce the amount of soda consumed and there was a decent chance it would reduce the amount of sugar too. And if there is a goal to achieve, keep raising the tax until it does what you want.
The problem with this sort of strategy is that we make laws by voting, and so it assumes that we can determine what is healthy by popular vote. This isn't true and it is very easily corrupted if the option is open.
A process like the one that throw out Barack Obama -> Donald Trump -> Joe Biden as the best candidates to lead the US should not be the process that decides what is and isn't healthy to eat. That isn't a reliable process. It is going to get corrupted by special interests. You should be using a different process (maybe using evidence?). And as an aside it could be argued that taxes are a bad tool if we think there is overwhelming evidence something is unhealthy. It creates weird incentives.
The problem with this sort of strategy is that we make laws by voting, and so it assumes that we can determine what is healthy by popular vote. This isn't true and it is very easily corrupted if the option is open.
A process like the one that throw out Barack Obama -> Donald Trump -> Joe Biden as the best candidates to lead the US should not be the process that decides what is and isn't healthy to eat. That isn't a reliable process. It is going to get corrupted by special interests. You should be using a different process (maybe using evidence?). And as an aside it could be argued that taxes are a bad tool if we think there is overwhelming evidence something is unhealthy. It creates weird incentives.
> The problem with this sort of strategy is that we make laws by voting, and so it assumes that we can determine what is healthy by popular vote. This isn't true and it is very easily corrupted if the option is open.
Well, we don't really know of any better option for taking collective decisions of high impact. The public and their representatives are informed of the science (and for nutrition information, it's really much more "science" than science at this point) and they decide by voting whether they choose to believe the data presented enough to try to impose tax burdens or other regulations.
What alternative is there? Have nutritionists be able to unilaterally decide what stores are allowed to sell and at what prices? That would get much more easily corrupted, as many nutrition studies have been in the past.
Well, we don't really know of any better option for taking collective decisions of high impact. The public and their representatives are informed of the science (and for nutrition information, it's really much more "science" than science at this point) and they decide by voting whether they choose to believe the data presented enough to try to impose tax burdens or other regulations.
What alternative is there? Have nutritionists be able to unilaterally decide what stores are allowed to sell and at what prices? That would get much more easily corrupted, as many nutrition studies have been in the past.
> What alternative is there?
You could let people who think soda is unhealthy avoid it, and people who don't care buy it from the soda makers. Maybe set up some official nutritional advice [0].
There doesn't have to be a centralised determination on whether soda is to be encouraged or discouraged.
[0] https://www.health.gov.au/resources/publications/the-austral...
You could let people who think soda is unhealthy avoid it, and people who don't care buy it from the soda makers. Maybe set up some official nutritional advice [0].
There doesn't have to be a centralised determination on whether soda is to be encouraged or discouraged.
[0] https://www.health.gov.au/resources/publications/the-austral...
This is what already happens. Richer people who are more informed and mindful about their health have been decreasing sugar consumption for awhile now. However, city and state budgets are still heavily affects because the poorer people who more heavily use public services aren’t in that bucket and have much higher obesity rates as a result. They have less access to education and are more likely to ignore advice from their doctor (if they have seen one recently at all).
Personally I was against this stupid tax. Of course I drink Coca-cola. But the main reason is because it doesn't really do what they want it to do.
It raises a can of coke 20 cents. A glass at the restaurant about 25 cents (of course a glass goes up by that much every year it seems.) As a Coke drinker I would barely see this tax.
On the other hand if I drank sweetened ice tea, it works more than double the cost. In fact the less sugar a drink has, the more this tax works increase it, on a percentage basis. Which is ridiculous. What is worse, the funk that has the most calories per ounce, a milkshake, is exempt. Alcohol, also with a high calorie count is also exempt.
Every time someone vocally claims that a well-targeted tax won't reduce the effect of something harmful, one can be pretty sure it will - those people would not be complaining unless it directly hit their wallets.
> Every time someone vocally claims that a well-targeted tax won't reduce the effect of something harmful, one can be pretty sure it will - those people would not be complaining unless it directly hit their wallets.
The saying goes that the price is right when the customer curses but still signs the contract. So I wouldn't be too sure about that.
Besides the effect is statistical. The reason people buy less sugary sodas might equally be attested to grocers and wholesalers simply filling their stores with more diet sodas, instead of sugary sodas, due to the tax—and not because consumers actually avoid sugary sodas due to the very slight price increase. So there still isn't a clear cause and effect.
This is important, because if it's the former, and the state claims it's the latter, then either they're clearly wrong about the cause and effect, or they're lying; either of which would be bad for public relations. On the other hand, the end result is pretty much the same, but if the effect is due to availability, then perhaps the whole thing could have been solved with regulation instead of taxation.
On the side comes the matter of what the taxed money is used for. Does it go towards better public health care in the region, or is it simply spent on covering various deficits. This is also important, because if the goal is to fight obesity, then how is it morally right to spend the tax profits on other things?
The saying goes that the price is right when the customer curses but still signs the contract. So I wouldn't be too sure about that.
Besides the effect is statistical. The reason people buy less sugary sodas might equally be attested to grocers and wholesalers simply filling their stores with more diet sodas, instead of sugary sodas, due to the tax—and not because consumers actually avoid sugary sodas due to the very slight price increase. So there still isn't a clear cause and effect.
This is important, because if it's the former, and the state claims it's the latter, then either they're clearly wrong about the cause and effect, or they're lying; either of which would be bad for public relations. On the other hand, the end result is pretty much the same, but if the effect is due to availability, then perhaps the whole thing could have been solved with regulation instead of taxation.
On the side comes the matter of what the taxed money is used for. Does it go towards better public health care in the region, or is it simply spent on covering various deficits. This is also important, because if the goal is to fight obesity, then how is it morally right to spend the tax profits on other things?
Soda consumption has been on a long decline since the late aughts. I even noticed as much anecdotally - often when dining out I would be the only one or maybe one of two to order a soda at all.
I'm completely willing to be proven wrong, but the data set is much too small to conclude anything either way. Why not include the top x cities, instead of just one 200 miles away? Because it rains a lot in both?