According to the US government, I am overweight. I’m 5’8” tall and this morning I weighed in at 187 pounds, which gives me a body mass index (BMI) of 28.4. That’s pushing the upper limits of the “overweight” category, trending toward the dreaded “obese” label. I have resolved to lose weight, not only for personal health reasons but also because I don’t want to be defined as obese by the government. I’ve seen what the nanny state’s health bureaucrats have done to smokers, and it’s clear that overweight people are next on their hit list. I’d prefer to avoid their wrath if at all possible.
I don’t overeat, and I don’t really eat much junk food. I get moderate amounts of exercise, though I could certainly stand to spend some more time in the gym. In fact, my only real health-related vice is that I drink way too much Coca-Cola. I’ve tried to cut back, but it hasn’t been easy and I’ve fallen off the wagon several times. So I know without a doubt that the single most important step I could take to improve my overall health would be to give up soft drinks. After all, those empty calories do add up – not only in terms of extra pounds around the midsection, but also in terms of extra dollars in the federal budget. It seems overweight soda drinkers like me (as well as those who are significantly larger than I) are going to be a real drain on the government’s resources now that the Feds have decided to nationalize the health care industry. Recent estimates indicate that spending on obesity-related medical care represents 9% of all the health care dollars spent, and obese people spend $1400 more per year on average than their svelter compatriots (of course, that’s private spending and not public spending, but let’s move on quickly before anyone notices).
The CDC has suggested that taxing soda drinkers could help lower health care costs. Drinking soda causes obesity, obese people spend more each year on health care than thin people, and the government plans to take on that spending whether we like it or not. Ipso facto, the government must dissuade people from drinking soda.
Of course I would suggest that if the government really wanted to save money it would simply stop looking for new ways to spend it. It seems to me that those people who want or need to consume relatively more health care services should either pay for it themselves or negotiate a mutually beneficial arrangement with private insurance providers or charities, but clearly I am out of step with the hope-and-change zeitgeist that’s all the rage these days. And I suppose that my attitude misses a larger point – Caesar has decreed that soda is bad, and therefore if we wish to indulge in such a politically incorrect vice we must pay Caesar for the privilege.
And far be it from me to try to defend the health benefits of soft drinks. To my knowledge, there aren’t any. Carbonated soft drinks are bad for you. Perhaps even really bad. But it seems to me that an important question is going unasked in the current debate (if one may call it that). The question is, “Why does soda cause obesity?” Or to put it more precisely, “Why does soda cause obesity now relative to the previous hundred-plus years it’s been around?” Coca-Cola and Dr. Pepper were invented in 1885, and Pepsi was introduced in 1898, but I don’t recall hearing any stories about the soft-drink fueled “obesity epidemic” at any time during the early- to mid-20th century. So what changed?
No doubt there are a number of factors involved here. It could be that we’re more affluent than earlier generations, and maybe we spend a greater portion of our disposable income on soft drinks. Perhaps that affluence also means we’re not getting as much exercise as previous generations, or that our overall caloric intake is higher. All of these factors and many others besides could be contributing to the problem. But there has been at least one change to the product itself that is closely correlated to the upswing in obesity rates. Whereas the original Coke, Dr. Pepper, and Pepsi used sugar as the principal sweetener, today’s soft drinks use high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) instead.
I’ve seen a number of articles (here and here, for example) that state that HFCS is less expensive than sugar, and that soft drink manufacturers made the switch to improve their bottom lines. Of course, the authors of these articles never manage to ask the question “Why is HFCS less expensive?”
You and I know the answer, of course. HFCS is a derivative of corn, which is heavily subsidized by the US government. Similarly, the US government levies high protectionist tariffs on imported sugar, which means Americans (and American manufacturers) pay about five times the world market price for sugar. So government policy makes sugar artificially expensive, and HFCS artificially cheap. Under these circumstances, the switch to HFCS was inevitable. But here’s where all of this ties into the obesity problem – researchers have shown that HFCS turns off the body’s chemical switch that tells the brain when it’s full. This means that now we can drink more soda at one sitting, taking in more calories from soft drinks than we did in the past (and let’s not lose sight of the fact that HFCS is found in a lot more than just soft drinks).
The proposed soda tax brings to mind once again Robert LeFevre’s adage that “government is a disease masquerading as its own cure.” Politicians first introduce distortions into the agricultural market, and now they propose to tax us for the ill effects caused by those distortions. This is typical, I suppose, but it also shows that the real purpose here is not to fight obesity or to defray the costs associated with it. If that were the case, the government could be a lot more effective by simply eliminating the problems it created through these tariffs and subsidies, and by halting its drive toward socialized medicine. But then again, that would require bureaucrats to take responsibility for their own actions, and we all know that will never happen.
So soda may soon take the place of cigarettes as public health enemy number one. In addition to the new tax imposed on soft drinks, I suppose we’ll also be subjected to endless public service announcements highlighting the evils of “Demon Soda.” Perhaps we’ll see a 21st century Carrie Nation taking an axe to Coke machines across the land. I wonder if Rachel Leigh Cook is still available…
***Many thanks once again to Gardner Goldsmith of Liberty Conspiracy for bringing this subject to my attention.
