Coca-Cola responds to soda tax

[audtatious]

Obesity is a complex issue, and addressing it is important for all Americans. We at the Coca-Cola company are committed to working with government and health organizations to implement effective solutions to address this problem.

But a number of public-health advocates have already come up with what they think is the solution: heavy taxes on some routine foods and beverages that they have decided are high in calories. The taxes, the advocates acknowledge, are intended to limit consumption of targeted foods and help you to accept the diet that they have determined is best.

In cities and states across America—and even at the federal level—this idea is getting increased attention despite its regressive nature and inherent illogic.

While it is true that since the 1970s Americans have increased their average caloric intake by 12%, they also have become more sedentary. According to the National Center for Health Statistics 2008 Chartbook, 39% of adults in the U.S. are not engaging in leisure physical activity. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has found that 60% of Americans are not regularly active and 25% of Americans are not active at all. The average American spends the equivalent of 60 days a year in front of a television, according to a 2008 A.C. Nielsen study. This same research data show that the average time spent playing video games in the U.S. went up by 25% during the last four years.

If we're genuinely interested in curbing obesity, we need to take a hard look in the mirror and acknowledge that it's not just about calories in. It's also about calories out.

Our industry has become an easy target in this debate. Sugar-sweetened beverages have been singled out in spite of the fact that soft drinks, energy drinks, sports drinks and sweetened bottled water combined contribute 5.5% of the calories in the average American diet, according to the National Cancer Institute. It's difficult to understand why the beverages we and others provide are being targeted as the primary cause of weight gain when 94.5% of caloric intake comes from other foods and beverages.

Those pushing for this tax lack some essential facts, not to mention some basic common sense. Over the past 20 years, the average caloric content of soft drinks has dropped by nearly 25%. This is due in large part to a determined focus by our company and others on the diet/light category with brands like Diet Coke, Coca-Cola Zero and Powerade Zero. Even soft drinks with sugar, like Coca-Cola, contain no more calories (140 calories in a can) than some common snacks, breakfast foods and most desserts served up daily in millions of American homes. And while obesity rates have skyrocketed, sales of regular soft drinks decreased by nearly 10% from 2000 to 2008, according to the industry publication Beverage Digest.

So where are all of the extra calories in the American diet coming from? Research from the United States Department of Agriculture shows that added sugars, as a percentage of total daily available calories, have declined 11% since 1970. Yet the percent of calories from added fats and flour/cereal products has increased 35% and 13%, respectively, during that same time period.

Will a soft drink tax change behavior? Two states currently have a tax on sodas—West Virginia and Arkansas—and they are among the states with the highest rates of obesity in the nation.

Obesity is a serious problem. We know that. And we agree that Americans need to be more active and take greater responsibility for their diets. But are soft drinks the cause? I would submit to you that they are no more so than some other products—and a lot less than many, many others.

As a leader in our industry, we have a role to play in solving this issue. Globally, we have led the industry for nearly 30 years with innovations across the diet and light beverage categories. Today, more than 25% of our global beverage portfolio is comprised of low- or no-calorie beverages.

Policy makers should stop spending their valuable time demonizing an industry that directly employs more than 220,000 people in the U.S., and through supporting industries, an additional three million. Instead, business and government should come together to help encourage greater physical activity and sensible eating and drinking, while allowing Americans to enjoy the simple pleasure of a Coca-Cola.

Mr. Kent is CEO of the Coca-Cola Company. http://online.wsj.com/article/...ories

Anyone else feel this is simply a way for the Gov to fill coffers?

[dusred]

Will a soft drink tax change behavior?

No.

The only thing, in my opinion, is to educate the people more fully about the negative effects soft drinks have on your body. Again, I think this problem stems back to our public school system. The youth aren't being fully educated on the subject and thus don't think much about it as they pound down that 32oz Red Bull.

[smockers83]

No.

The only thing, in my opinion, is to educate the people more fully about the negative effects soft drinks have on your body. Again, I think this problem stems back to our public school system. The youth aren't being fully educated on the subject and thus don't think much about it as they pound down that 32oz Red Bull.

Yes. Not yes in agreement, but yes it will change behavior.

[_b.jaye_]

Quote » Anyone else feel this is simply a way for the Gov to fill coffers?[/quote]well, hell. what isnt? look at seatbelt tickets. its pitched as a way to save lives, but as a broke-a** college kid, i was pulled over twice in my olds 88 & given a ticket for a violation. when i had said, and, the 2nd time, even demonstrated, that my seatbelt was broken and that i didnt have the money to fix it, i was still ticketed. no warning. no, "okay kid, get it fixed as soon as possible", just cough up the cash, have a nice day... saves lives my a**, it (just like this) is just a convienient positive spin to help sell a fleecing.

[dusred]

look at seatbelt tickets. its pitched as a way to save lives, but as a broke-a** college kid, i was pulled over twice in my olds 88 & given a ticket for a violation. when i had said, and, the 2nd time, even demonstrated, that my seatbelt was broken and that i didnt have the money to fix it, i was still ticketed. no warning. no, "okay kid, get it fixed as soon as possible", just cough up the cash, have a nice day... saves lives my a**, it (just like this) is just a convienient positive spin to help sell a fleecing.

If you don't think seatbelts save lives you're a dumbass. "I don't have the money to fix it" isn't a valid excuse. Go pick up pop cans for 2-3 hours and get your $10 and go fix it. The cops are there to enforce the law and they usually don't care how broke you are, they have a job to do.

[srellim234]

I agree. You also can't claim you have the right to blow through every stop sign because you don't have the money to get the brakes fixed. Part of the responsibilty of even having a car is to keep it in proper working condition. That includes being able to obey the seat belt law.

If you really can't afford to fix the seat belt, sell the car and get yourself a bicycle. It may take longer to get where you're going but you'll be in better physical shape and have money left over.

[marlin29311]

Well this is stupid. Now those 2 times a month when I actually have a soda it's going to be taxed....I must be getting really fat from it.

Why don't we tax cereal next that has sugar in it? I mean, those coco-puffs aren't really helping out with all that sugar...go eat some corn flakes or FDA-unapproved Cherrios.

WTF America.

[_b.jaye_]

If you don't think seatbelts save lives you're a dumbass. "I don't have the money to fix it" isn't a valid excuse. Go pick up pop cans for 2-3 hours and get your $10 and go fix it. The cops are there to enforce the law and they usually don't care how broke you are, they have a job to do.

seatbelt tickets

i was talking about the law in place. didnt think, from the way i worded things, it needed spelled out.

im saying, given the circumstances, a warning would have seemed like a more fair outcome. its no different that what id expect from a headlight or any other, hardware related non compliance.

comments like that seem more geared toward inciting hostility.

[C-Kwik]

seatbelt tickets

i was talking about the law in place. didnt think, from the way i worded things, it needed spelled out.

im saying, given the circumstances, a warning would have seemed like a more fair outcome. its no different that what id expect from a headlight or any other, hardware related non compliance.

comments like that seem more geared toward inciting hostility.

How is it unfair that he didn't give you a warning? Your seatbelt was broken. You knew it was. Frankly, if you knew it was and you didn't fix it, that is more incentive to give you a ticket so perhaps you will (though it seems you didn't pay attention to the first warning (the first ticket) anyways. I would think an officer might make the judgement call to let you off without a citation, if it just occurred or you were on your way to buy a new one. Otherwise, you are just like anyone else driving a vehicle that is unsafe or not roadworthy. You should have simply parked it until you could fix it.

As for soda, I agree soda does contribute to obesity. Is it the cause? Not by itself. My understanding is that such a tax would apply to only sugar based drinks. Personally, I would be for anything that places a shift towards diet drinks. I primarily drink Diet Dr Pepper. Its the only diet drink that I can stomach. Diet Sierra Mist isn't too bad but loses carbonation very quickly. In any case, I've only seen Diet Dr Pepper available at a fountain in one fast food restaurant. And that was at a Burger King 2 states away from me.

That said, I think the author should discuss what percentage of sales come from diet drinks rather than how much of their portfolio of drinks is made up of diet drinks. While I understand that this would be an issue of supply vs demand, such a tax or perhaps something else that would force the beverage makers to create better tasting/low sugar drinks would be helpful in reducing the consumption of sugar based drinks.

As for filling their coffers, it does seem apparent that an underlying reason for the tax is to help offset the costs of healthcare. So in that sense, it would be apparent they are.

[BusyBadger]

If you don't think seatbelts save lives you're a dumbass.

Stop with the name calling.

[_b.jaye_]

your right c-kwik, im not gonna say i wasnt in the wrong according to the seatbelt law. just that if the law was really only there for my personal wellbeing, why not a warning in that particular case.

i dont expect us to see eye to eye on this one though. the town im from, it happened in, has a population somehwere around 20K. i know that doesnt change the laws, but its an undeniably different legal atmosphere than a bigger city. i guess if just got different expectations of what police behavior should be because of it...

in any case, i brought up the whole story just for comparion to the thread topic. (and i may have been drinking )

sorry for the thread jack OP

[C-Kwik]

your right c-kwik, im not gonna say i wasnt in the wrong according to the seatbelt law. just that if the law was really only there for my personal wellbeing, why not a warning in that particular case. sorry for the thread jack OP

Well, as I said, what good would a warning have done if a ticket didn't cause you to resolve the problem? You were aware of the problem and didn't resolve it on your own accord. That would be enough if I was an officer to decide not to give a warning.

[nissangirl74]

I think the soda tax is BS. Consumers are responsible for what they consume, not the suppliers. Someone with a wicked metabolism can drink a 12 pack of Pepsi a day and their waist line doesn't budge. Those with slower metabolisms can drink 2 a day and gain an extra 5+ pounds a month.

If you are overweight, you HAVE to monitor your caloric intake and you HAVE to exercise. If you don't, your butt won't fit through doorways. It's very simple.If you have an addiction to sugar, do something about it. If you want a piece of chocolate cake, eat it. When you are done, don't sit down and watch Oprah or The Biggest Loser wondering why you can't lost weight like they do. Go put on your tennis shoes and go for a walk. Even better...jog....or run!

It's like someone going to McDonalds and ordering a Big mac, a large fry, and a Diet Coke and expecting the "Diet Coke" to offset the other 1,000 calories you just ate in one sitting.

You have to be responsible for your actions, and your body. If you don't you will either live a miserable life, end up with diabetes, or die young.

[themadscientist]

I remember when all the people were saying "tax the smokers." I was the only non-smoker I knew saying "no." Starting, finally to see what I was talking about when I said it would set a dangerous precedent?

Soon they will tax orgasms. Women won't be impacted much though as guys suck at giving them the "big O."

[srellim234]

How's this for a slippery slope? Next we tax potatoes because they aren't as nutritional as broccoli.

People need to wake up and realize that the only way we're going to rein in gov't spending is a flat tax with no deductions on either all income or all spending. No other taxes allowed. Accompanied by a balanced budget amendment that doesn't allow anything to be counted as "off budget."

Then and only then will we not only see what gov't is costing us but the politicians will have to explain each increase in our money they want to take out of each dollar.

[themadscientist]

I'm sure congress is feeling guilty and at this very moment drafting legislation know as the "let's stop being self-serving rapacious d!ck."

When the chairman of the ways and means committee is a tax cheat, do you honestly think things are going to change much?

[WDRacing]

This is just another law/regulation/rule that the Gov has installed because they think they have the right to decide whats best for everyone.

What the heck happened to holding people accountable for their own actions? I drink alot of beer. I understand that I need to exercise more then normal or I'll be a triple fat goose. This is not anyone else's responsibility but my own.

So I ask you, why the hell am I being fined because lazy POS Americans can't be expected to control themselves? This isn't about Coke or Red Bull, this about every citizen in America being held accountable for someone else's actions.

I gotta tell ya, I'm pretty tired of having my personal life affected by the Gov because they "feel" it's necessary to control every facet of everyone's life.

If you wanna be a fat lazy couch potato...guess what, it's your friggin prerogative.

WD

[srellim234]

WD, it has nothing to do with the gov't trying to control every facet of our lives, although that is a consequence of what they are doing. It has everything to do with taking away every bit of our money and spending it themselves.

With out of control power comes the out of control spending and they need to keep coming up with new taxes they can sell us on so they can keep collecting more and more money.

[smockers83]

WD, it has nothing to do with the gov't trying to control every facet of our lives, although that is a consequence of what they are doing. It has everything to do with taking away every bit of our money and spending it themselves.

With out of control power comes the out of control spending and they need to keep coming up with new taxes they can sell us on so they can keep collecting more and more money.

I slightly beg to differ, not about the controlling government bit, but something else. Most people in this country know that obesity is a problem. Most people know that obesity has major medical implications to one's health and on the system's financials. One also knows that government pays a lot of money for medical procedures and obesity is putting a strain on that money stream.

In summary, a soda tax does two things. It provides income to ease the burden obesity puts on the government's dollars that are put into healthcare because obesity does affect how much money the government spends on it. By increasing the price of soda (I like to call it pop, its a Midwestern thing), it shifts consumers choices away from these drinks by budget constraints. It also makes the public more conscious about what they are going to buy, so it has a potential psychological affect.

(Coach, that was actually 3 things....movie trivia, what movie is that quote derived from? Hint: baseball)

It's very similar to the tobacco tax. State governments, two in particular (NY and MI), charge very high taxes on tobacco products because not only do they want their residents to stop smoking, but it costs those states money that those residents smoke in the first place.

[WDRacing]

WD, it has nothing to do with the gov't trying to control every facet of our lives, although that is a consequence of what they are doing. It has everything to do with taking away every bit of our money and spending it themselves.

With out of control power comes the out of control spending and they need to keep coming up with new taxes they can sell us on so they can keep collecting more and more money.

Good post. But it enforces my opinion. They are better able to line their pockets and stay in power if they control more of our every day lives.

Liberlism = the end of Individualism.

[smockers83]

^ Or would you want to have people making the same choices they are today and not have any further protection against national bankruptcy due to those choices?

Just curious.

[themadscientist]

National bankruptcy is not caused by fat people. It's caused by irresponsible lawmakers who view taxpayer dollars as their own play money to waste until it's time to shake us down for more. Earmarks, perks, voting on their own pay raises, raping social security to pay for their pet projects, bailing out their buddies in wall street, taking money from special interests to vote in their favor and have us fund the waste. Seriously, you blame fat people for that? It's fat people alright, fat cats.

Want to drive an escalade, go for it. Smoke until you die, be my guest, eat twinkies until you explode, it's your right my brother. That's America, LAND OF THE FREE. It's not land of the healthy choice, nor land of the decision that serves the collective best, it's land of the FREE.

The simple answer to irresponsible, yet protected behavior is exactly what congress and these insane health care plans are not talking about, responsibility. Why is it when you are a bad driver, your rates are higher than a good driver, but, when you lead a healthy life, your rates are pegged to an average for your region? Just curious.

If you want Americans to lead healthy lives while respecting their individual rights and the rights of others, you simple make health insurance rates float with general health of the insured. NOT with sweeping taxes on a product. $6 a pack cigarettes is not a government trying to help lead you to a healthy lifestyle good citizen, no, it's a bunch of greedy motherf***ers trying to get their grubby hands on every penny they can from the American people. A sugar tax is just one more means to and end, the end being to get your money. Wake up, the coin was not in your ear, it was in their hand. They took it from your pocket and the mean to put it in theirs.

[nissangirl74]

When the chairman of the ways and means committee is a tax cheat, do you honestly think things are going to change much?

It's only going to get worse. Charlie Rangel is a POS. He stated himself that he should be held to a higher standard than the general public because he has an example to set and yet no steps have been made to force him to own up to what he is done. He still has his job!!

It's just another example of the lack of accountability from the people in power in this country. He deserves to be stripped of his position and pension, taxed with penalties on his ill-gained earnings, forced to make a public apology to everyone he has laundered money from, AND be obligated to perform community service. He is no damn better than anyone else in this f***ing country. I'm so sick and tired of people in positions of power and authority thinking that they are untouchable.

[WDRacing]

^ Or would you want to have people making the same choices they are today and not have any further protection against national bankruptcy due to those choices?

Just curious.

I don't get the correlation at all? Because I don't want to be taxed on soda I'm against Bankruptcy protection?

[smockers83]

I don't get the correlation at all? Because I don't want to be taxed on soda I'm against Bankruptcy protection?

The correlation is that a nation drinking too much pop costs the government money when they have to pay medical bills.

It's the same kind of correlation present with a tobacco tax. It costs states for all of those who smoke and get lung cancer and what not and Medicaid pays it.

It's not necessarily the government trying to control anybody or take more of your money. If you had employees that made poor choices but you couldn't get rid of them at all but you had the ability to freely control their wages, wouldn't you pay them comparably less because they cost you money?

[audtatious]

What about those in sports who have to have hips or knees replaced as they age? Arthritis causing more expenses? What about skate boarders who cost money due to broken bones? What about liver damage due to alcohol? What about the cost of STD's? What about people who willingly live in houses with stairs?

Where should the line be drawn? Go after fast food next? Force all burger joints to only sell certain products, which would not be burgers? Mandate a set amount of calories and fat for each individual and further tax them based on BFI?

[WDRacing]

The correlation is that a nation drinking too much pop costs the government money when they have to pay medical bills.

It's the same kind of correlation present with a tobacco tax. It costs states for all of those who smoke and get lung cancer and what not and Medicaid pays it.

It's not necessarily the government trying to control anybody or take more of your money. If you had employees that made poor choices but you couldn't get rid of them at all but you had the ability to freely control their wages, wouldn't you pay them comparably less because they cost you money?

You're out of your mind of you think the Gov should be allowed to tax certain every day items like beverages to control the general health of the Nation. This is a way to make more money...period.

I don't even drink the damn things, I hate them. But I certainly do not agree that the Gov should be able to make decisions for me, or profit from the decisions I make.

Here's the next thing we'll see. The Internet leads to hours and hours of inactivity. So does the PC, and all the other gaming consoles. Not being active leads to weight problems far more then sugary beverages do. So why not tax people based on Internet usage. Why not add on a tax to every PC, gaming console and or piece of software that can be used for the PC. See where I'm going?

The Gov should enforce and regulate laws that keep us safe. Other then that, GTFO of my personal life. If I'm not hurting you or anyone else, I should be able to do whatever I want. It's MY body..if I wanna lay down 6" lines of cane sugar and snort them up my nose, the damn Gov shouldn't be allowed to tell me otherwise. Nor should they be able to tax my sugar.

I'm watching an out of control Gov spend money this country won't make for another 20 years. This has nothing to do with health care and the affects of sugar. It has to do with out of control spending and a Gov that has to much power. There are No checks and balances anymore...none. Everyone in a position to check and or balance is just as corrupt as the party pushing for the "insert anything here".

I don't care if this tax saves 2000 people a year. I'll never agree to anything that allows the Gov to simply tax items at will. Never...not what I fought for.

If you think that controlling people by controlling their wages is a good thing, then I am sorry to say that you sir are F'd up. Free will should never be trampled on...this goes far beyond economics bro. I know you enjoy crunching numbers while you sleep, but FFS we're talking about individual freedoms being infringed on by the Gov. A Gov that can't be trusted with my best interest. A Gov that has proven time and again that it can't manage money worth a damn. A Gov that is getting in the way of the free market. You want me to give these SOB's more of my money then they are already taking? I think not.

[smockers83]

Wow. That escalated quickly. (name that movie)

I'm going to go paragraph by paragraph here.

First, bear in mind that I never said whether I agreed with it or not. All I laid out was a reasoning.

Second, the government is not going to be profiting off a tax on pop. In fact, it's not profiting on any tax. If the government were making a profit, we'd have a surplus, would be eliminating the national debt and eventually dwindle it down to nothing, and then be making a real profit. If you think your government is bringing in profits as a whole, you're the one who's out of your mind.

Third, why not? If it is costing the government more money to take care of those people, do you want to see the nation go further into debt because of their laziness due to those factors? The money to take care of those people has to come from somewhere when they enter the hospital. I'm not saying I would agree with it, but again, why not? From the government's perspective, its people are making poor choices that cost it money, and therefore everyone in the nation money.

Forth, the government doesn't even tax sugar. The government actually pays out a subsidy on sugar to protect American sugar growers.

Fifth, how does it not have to do with healthcare? More and more people have moved to pop as a regular drink instead of milk and water. On top of that, it has its own addiction through caffeine. If people are getting fat off of it, how is not a healthcare issue?

Lastly, I was simply offering analogies to try and explain the situation to you. Never in any of my posts did I say I supported this tax. This is politics and economics all rolled into one. Economics has everything to do with choices. Taxes has everything to do with economics. Politics has a lot to do with economics. Economics is not Wall Street and stocks and finance, economics is the study of choices and the consequences/benefits of decisions.

Controlling someone's wages can be a good thing. If someone's d!ck around at work putting other good people's lives in danger, I'm going to fire that mofo's a** on the spot. Not only did I just kick him out, I just controlled his wage. I wouldn't handle it any other way. He has the freedom to do d!ck around and be a jackass, but surely not at my expense. If he kills someone, I get to pay out millions of dollars in claims. Uh, no, I'll fire his a** first. That's my freedom.

Individual freedoms are not being infringed upon. You still have the freedom to make the choice to buy pop. The government is not putting an amendment in the constitution that says we cannot buy pop. Your freedom is to not buy pop. I don't buy it either, that's my choice (except Coke or another like product to go with my Captain's 100).

All that I attempted to do was bring some rationality to the discussion by playing a little devil's advocate. If you can't handle it, I'm sorry. This goes beyond the tax, this goes to the setup of previous systems, such as healthcare and what the government pays for.
Modified by smockers83 at 7:52 PM 10/14/2009

[EvillE423]

Soon they will tax orgasms. Women won't be impacted much though as guys suck at giving them the "big O."

Speak for yourself!

On a more serious note, this is just another way to try to control what the people do. Why doesn't the current administration just ban and/or tax everything and get it over with, then we wouldn't be left with anything to do that would harm us. Bigger government and higher spending is all this is. What has this country come to? The free world is going to be free very much longer.

[audtatious]

We are already taxed on almost everything we buy. We should feel honored to provide more money to the Gov for their special interest projects. Next will be Twinkies and Ding Dongs.