Monday, December 17, 2007

SF Considers Tax on Sugared Drinks

I hope this doesn't get the "crazy" label applied to San Francisco again. What am I thinking, of course it will.

For environmental reasons, SF has already banned city bottled water purchases --- which I agree with: usually the water is no better than tap water, and the main thing it offers is convenience, which is offset by the huge amount of petroleum used to make the plastic bottles, as well as the wasted bottle which (let's be honest) generally end up in landfills rather than being recycled.

For similar environmental reasons, SF has banned plastic shopping bags.

Now SF is considering taxing sellers of sugary drinks, such as soda. This would be part of mayor Gavin Newsom's new "Shape up San Francisco" program, which started this past summer with a walking program.

Newsom cited a Health Dept. study showing nearly 25% of 5th, 7th and 9th graders in SF are overweight, with soda accounting for 10% of their caloric intake (don't ask me why grades 6 and 8 don't have a problem).

Although the AMA originally backed such a plan in 2006, it backed off it later.

This comes as the State of California is considering adding warning labels to caffeinated drinks.

I personally see no issue with this if retailers are saddled with the tax, but we know it'll be passed along to consumers. Frankly, one need only looking around to see how immense the obesity problem is in America, and the world, for that matter. Personally, although I drink a decent amount of soda, it's always diet, and preferably caffeine-free.

12 comments:

memory card reader said...

Personally, I see no problem with that if retailers are dealing with tax, but know it will be passed on to consumers. Frankly, just look around to see how big the problem of obesity in the United States and the outside world. Personally, though I have an decent amount of soda, diet is provided, preferably without caffeine.

Appraiser Now said...

I see no problem with that if retailers are dealing with tax, but know it will be passed on to consumers.

crowdSPRING said...

Well I agree with SF who has already banned city bottled water purchases..It is harmful to environment..So,SF has banned plastic shopping bags...

iPhone Spare Parts said...

Really generally end up in landfills rather than being recycled.

eBridge advertising said...

Well nice one..Really interesting..I like this type of post..It create charm after reading..Thanks

WFG Online said...

I now see why our founding fathers wrote all those cool rules in an effort to keep those at the top from taking advantage of everyone else.

HMS Home Warranty said...

Well just look around to see how big the problem of obesity in the United States and the outside world...
This blog sounds really good. Very well explained. One can get inspiration with this read. Thanks for sharing.

Gaston Cantens said...

Oh, so unexpected, so surprise! Very touching, so well written and I have some perception, learning very much.

BRS Labs said...

This is not about encouraging health, it’s about raising taxes. Bottled water was taxed by these idiots and now soft drinks. Alcohol is already taxed. Tap water? That’s subject to the utilities tax.

eBridge advertising said...

Personally, I see no problem with that if retailers are dealing with tax, but know it will be passed on to consumers but is should stop now...

Kripaluji Maharaj said...

Well tax with the sugar products does not seems to be a hectic situation. I am pretty fine with it.

Radha Madhav Dham said...

I see no problem with the decision, but ultimately the tax is going to be passed on consumers itself.