In 2001 the pop industry made 15 billion gallons of pop. Or 1.6 cans of pop a day for every person on the planet. But what’s the cost of a can of pop? Obesity costs Canada approximately seven billion dollars a year. So maybe it’s time we start taxing pop like the senate report released last month suggests. It should be a 55 cent tax per can, if it’s the only unhealthy food we tax.
But who should we tax? A tax of this nature if applied at the point of sale would be regressive, disproportionately affecting the poor. We should take a serious look at taxing the makers of pop.
Right now the pop makers have no skin in the game. They are not responsible for any of the costs caused by their products. It used to be this way with recycling. Pop companies used to make their bottles out of the cheapest plastics they could. This produced bottles that were too toxic to recycle. These bottles cost municipalities a lot of money to clean up. In response, governments legislated a recycling tax on these companies. This forced them to take responsibility, and action, for the damage their products were causing to the environment.
So why shouldn’t we tax these companies for the damage they are doing to our bodies? With the profit margins the Cokes and Pepsis of this world are running they should be able to afford an extra 55 cents a can. The companies could then decide if they wanted to pass those savings on to us.
“I think it’s unfortunate that this report has been boiled down to a sugar tax. I think it’s great that we’re looking at something to help people be healthier,” says dietitian Diana Chard. “But what the report really boils down to is individual change. I think that it’s a system and societal problem. Focusing on people having to make individual changes isn’t going to fix things.”
There’s a lot we can do to eat better. Work less and value time more, so we make home cooked meals again. Making farming more accessible as a career option. Value farmers. Bring back nutrition information and home economics to public education. Avoid demonizing a single nutrient (doing that to fat led us to this sugar thing).
Sharing the financial burden of the health impacts with producers is a good first step. We did this with companies that damage other aspects of our health and our environment. It’s lead to the social change around drinking and driving, recycling and smoking. Why aren’t we doing this with our food?
Recent Comments