| More
Home / Fat Taxes / Headlines


May 14, 2009
printable version email to a friend join our e-mail list


Quote of the Week

Quote of the Week

We’d like to offer a “hear, hear!” to Denver Post columnist David Harsanyi for seeing through the anti-soda agenda of the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI). Harsanyi recognizes CSPI’s “sin tax” proposal for what it is: social engineering to punish people who have the gall to order a soda with their meal.

In his weekly column, he writes:

Soda can be harmful, it can be harmless and it is always tasty with a cheese-infused burrito — which we should affix with a massive "discouragement" tax if we're going to be consistent about our gut-busting peccadilloes.

The selective tax would also pursue energy and fruit drinks, but not politically correct, high-everything beverages like Frappuccinos. No one wants a violent insurrection in the malls and trendy urban cores of America.

Harsanyi also points out that CSPI is “the group that once laughably claimed 150,000 people perish yearly from salt intake (the ‘Forgotten Killer’), despite [the] lack of any evidence and the ongoing debate regarding the real effect of sodium.” CSPI was still clinging to this 150,000 number as recently as Tuesday, when executive director Michael Jacobson spoke to the U.S. Senate Finance Committee about installing these sin taxes.

Frustrated that people refuse to see soda through their obesity-tinted glasses, activist groups like CSPI instead try to levy taxes against sweet beverages to forcibly make their point through your wallet. But the Senate Finance Committee might be interested in knowing that taxes on soda are hugely politically unpopular.

Governor David Paterson of New York felt the wrath of his constituents when he proposed an 18 percent tax on sugary drinks. New York City health czar Thomas Frieden picked up where Gov. Paterson left off and lobbied for a penny-an-ounce tax on soda – also unpopular. Numerous polls have indicated that consumers overwhelmingly resent such punitive taxes, yet food cops continue to pursue them.

Demonizing soda has proven time and again to do nothing in the fight against obesity. So why is CSPI continuing to beat a dead horse? 

email us comments

Share




printable version email to a friend join our e-mail list

Daily Headlines

  • Big Government Doesn’t Mean Smaller Waistlines
    Posted On: Wednesday 7/14/2010
  • Fat Taxes Are Bad Policy and Bad Business
    Posted On: Wednesday 6/23/2010
  • Taking the Fizz Out of Soft Drink Taxes
    Posted On: Wednesday 5/12/2010
  • White House and Obesity: Carrot or Stick?
    Posted On: Tuesday 5/11/2010
  • Soda Taxes Take a Hit
    Posted On: Tuesday 4/27/2010
  • Taking Twinkie Taxes to the Logical Conclusion
    Posted On: Thursday 4/8/2010
  • Momentum Builds Against Soda Taxes
    Posted On: Thursday 3/18/2010
  • Taxing “Junk Food” Is Trashy Policy
    Posted On: Tuesday 3/16/2010


  • Activist Cash

    Marion Nestle
    Background
    Nestle’s vision of a brave new food world includes the notorious “Twinkie tax,” federal price controls on high-calorie foods, and restricted food advertising. She believes that “food is too cheap in this country.” read more here »

    Kelly Brownell
    Background
    Kelly Brownell is a Yale psychologist on a decade-long crusade against what he calls America’s “toxic food environment.” He is best known for having first proposed the infamous “Twinkie tax.” read more here »


    Copyright © 1997-2010 Center for Consumer Freedom. Tel: 202-463-7112.