Prevention Matters

Today we’re talking with Dr. Kelly Brownell, a professor and director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale University. Dr. Brownell led a group of prominent researchers who published an article in the Sept. 17 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine that made a strong public health case for a tax on sweetened sodas and other beverages. The study has generated considerable debate and, while Congress has not yet incorporated such a proposal into health reform legislation that is currently being drafted, Dr. Brownell has continued to press for such steps to be taken at the federal and state levels. To listen to this podcast, click on the media player below. If you don't see a media player, click here.

Soda taxes have been in the news a lot lately. On one side are public health experts who say that soda taxes could address our nation’s obesity problem. They cite the success tobacco taxes have had in reducing smoking rates and the relationship between soda consumption and body weight. An article in this month’s issue of the New England Journal of Medicine touts the health and economic benefits of taxing sugary drinks. The Institute of Medicine also recently released recommendations for local governments to combat childhood obesity that include implementing taxes to discourage consumption of foods with minimal nutritional value, which certainly include sugar-sweetened beverages.


Such taxes are also being discussed by policymakers. San Francisco’s mayor announced plans to introduce legislation this fall that will impose a fee on retailers selling sugary drinks, including soda. And President Obama was quoted as saying that soda taxes need to “be explored” as a way to reduce childhood obesity.

Not surprisingly, these proposed taxes are facing fierce opposition. This past Sunday’s Washington Post contains an opinion piece dispelling the 5 “myths” about soda taxes. Coca Cola’s CEO has weighed in on the issue calling a soda tax “socialist.” And anyone who reads a Sunday newspaper has surely seen the full-page ads run by Americans Against Food Taxes (aka, the beverage industry).

Opponents say that recent tax proposals aren’t large enough to impact obesity. That might be true, but they are missing the point. Drinking fewer sugary drinks has no downside (except possibly to the reduced profits of the beverage industry). These drinks push out healthier options like low-fat milk or water, and flood the body with excess calories that are rarely burned off and increase blood sugar levels. Teens consume the most soda and other sugary drinks, and are also historically price sensitive. Limiting their consumption of sugary drinks would cut their risk for obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease, all costly health problems. And with states cutting essential programs and services, they should be looking to increase revenue wherever possible. Soda taxes seem like a win-win situation.


Alyson Hazen Kristensen, MPH

Senior Fellow & Program Officer
Partnership for Prevention

A penny-per-ounce excise tax could reduce consumption of sugared beverages by more than 10%, Dr. Kelly Brownell, Director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale University and Dr. Thomas Frieden, Health Commissioner for the City of New York, suggest in an April 30 "Perspective" piece in the New England Journal of Medicine. Brownell and Frieden say a review of places that have enacted soda taxes shows that every 10% increase in the price results in a drop in consumption by 7.8%.

They say sugar-sweetened beverages may be the "single largest driver of the obesity epidemic," and that proposals to tax sugared beverages gain support from the general public if the revenue is used for programs to prevent childhood obesity, such as media campaigns, physical activity facilities, and healthier food in schools. A poll of New York residents found that 52% supported a "soda tax," but the number increased to 72% when respondents were told that the revenue would be used for obesity prevention.