4 ms·

Funny how soda is targeted by politicians but sugary coffees are not. I suspect it's a class issue: politicians see soda as something that poor, obese people d

Funny how soda is targeted by politicians but sugary coffees are not. I suspect it's a class issue: politicians see soda as something that poor, obese people drink, but a white chocolate mocha is not.

nathancahill 11y ago
It's terrible! Those drinks seem to be a socially acceptable way to eat a pint of ice cream and whipped cream at 8am. Because it has "coffee" in the name.
maxerickson 11y ago
I don't think politicians routinely target soda either. Bloomberg targeted sugary drinks, there was no exception for Starbucks. What soda banning events to you believe constitute this pattern?
- DanBC 11y ago
  In England a lot of the talk of sugery drink tax has focused on sodas, with a bit of Public Health[1] awareness raising about fruit juices, and some very recent media attention on the ridiculous amounts of sugar in coffee drinks. [1] The organisation Public Health.
- wahnfrieden 11y ago
  A lot of the media coverage of this spoke about it in terms of "big gulp" sodas and the like, or stores that allow any size soda for the same price (incl. very large ones), which it seems led to this perception of the issue.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
alextgordon 11y ago
Or fruit juices. Orange juice has almost as much sugar as coca cola.
- DanBC 11y ago
  "Evidence base" or "consistent" is not something we see much of in politics at the moment.
stegosaurus 11y ago
Consumption taxes are inherently fraught with 'class issues' - they act in a similar way to parking fines. If you earn 50K a year then 10 quid for a bottle of wine that cost 2 quid to produce isn't really a problem. If you earn 10K a year and have nothing left after rent, it is. Another point to consider is that 'encouraging people to eat healthily' is an attempt to impose a culture - that's half of what a 'class' is (the other half being income/wealth). It's essentially saying - live like us, we're better, society will be better if you're like us. The elite don't need to care about their impact on the NHS - the middle classes are probably paying enough in taxes - the poor aren't. Common rhetoric at the moment in the UK is to decry any notion of taxes as redistribution - the poor are openly considered 'scroungers' by the government - it's pretty much business as usual these days for the state to minimize the impact of the poor on the rest of society.
- tomp 11y ago
  > 'encouraging people to eat healthily' is an attempt to impose a culture I see it as an attempt to save money, or rather an attempt to account for all the externalities - that is, at least if there is scientific consensus that the measure you're introducing statistically helps people live longer/healthier and reduces healthcare costs (I've no idea if that's the case here).
- Brakenshire 11y ago
  > 'encouraging people to eat healthily' is an attempt to impose a culture This is a crazy way of looking at it. You might as well have said 100 years ago that education beyond 14 was an imposition on the poor. In a lot of cities in the UK there is an 18 year gap in life expectancy between rich and poor areas. Almost 20% of children and 30% of adults in the UK are clinically obese. At some point you have to stop with ideological back and forth and start actually doing something practical.
  - stegosaurus 11y ago
    I think you're misinterpreting my comment. Too often terms get overloaded - taxation is definitionally an imposition; consumption taxes impose on the poor more than on the rich. Compulsory education is also an imposition. Whether it's worth doing it anyway is of seperate concern. I don't know a better way. My personal view is that socialized healthcare is excellent - but the limits it eventually imposes on personal freedom (taxes on tobacco, alcohol, sugar, etc etc) are something we should be very careful with. The main issue as I see it is that I feel that the role of the private sector is to act in a 'one dollar = one vote' manner, whilst the public sector should act in a 'one person = one vote' manner. Consumption taxes break this because they work on the former basis. I think that if we want to discourage bad habits, we should apply the same 'discouragement' to both the wealthy and the poor. (Interestingly enough, if we take the standpoint that sugary drinks are a net negative to health, then it makes sense from an economic point of view to expend more effort on wealthy consumers of sugary drinks, because they presumably are able to convert health into taxes at a higher rate...)
fweespee_ch 11y ago
They should just tax sugar/corn syrup/etc directly rather than how they are handling it.
- ajmurmann 11y ago
  Never thought about this. It's crazy how the US subsidizes corn syrup, but done jurisdictions put a tax on sugary drinks. Thanks for the insight!
Brakenshire 11y ago
> I suspect it's a class issue: politicians see soda as something that poor, obese people drink, but a white chocolate mocha is not. To drink one of those coffees you have to actually go to Costa Coffee or Starbucks. It's too expensive to drink daily for the vast majority of the population. And most people who go to coffee shops don't drink those anyway. All of those would suggest that the public health effects of the two are vastly different. The tax should apply to both, but from a public health perspective I doubt it matters.
- ceedan 11y ago
  I see your argument as support for why it should be taxed just as aggressively. The people who can afford those kinds of drinks could also afford the extra bit of taxes. The companies could also afford those taxes, because the markup on those kinds of drinks is absolutely insane. The tax on soda seems to be about correcting behavior and raising money, while the tax on sugary coffee drink seems to be mostly about raising money. And extra 0.10 on a mocha whatever isn't going to stop people from buying them. > And most people who go to coffee shops don't drink that anyway. This isn't true. I worked at a Starbucks while in college and frappuccinos are very very popular. The majority of people who go to Starbucks order drinks with sugar, especially after the morning rush where a many people will just get black coffee... some of those people also add sugar, too. Caramel Frappuccino's and Caramel Macchiato are 2 of the most popular items on the menu, and Frappuccino's are much more popular in the summer.
  - Brakenshire 11y ago
    > I worked at a Starbucks while in college and frappuccinos are very very popular Are you in the UK? There is more of a social stigma on that than in the US.

nathancahill 11y ago

It's terrible! Those drinks seem to be a socially acceptable way to eat a pint of ice cream and whipped cream at 8am. Because it has "coffee" in the name.

maxerickson 11y ago

I don't think politicians routinely target soda either. Bloomberg targeted sugary drinks, there was no exception for Starbucks. What soda banning events to you believe constitute this pattern?

DanBC 11y ago
In England a lot of the talk of sugery drink tax has focused on sodas, with a bit of Public Health[1] awareness raising about fruit juices, and some very recent media attention on the ridiculous amounts of sugar in coffee drinks. [1] The organisation Public Health.
wahnfrieden 11y ago
A lot of the media coverage of this spoke about it in terms of "big gulp" sodas and the like, or stores that allow any size soda for the same price (incl. very large ones), which it seems led to this perception of the issue.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

alextgordon 11y ago

Or fruit juices. Orange juice has almost as much sugar as coca cola.

DanBC 11y ago
"Evidence base" or "consistent" is not something we see much of in politics at the moment.

stegosaurus 11y ago

Consumption taxes are inherently fraught with 'class issues' - they act in a similar way to parking fines. If you earn 50K a year then 10 quid for a bottle of wine that cost 2 quid to produce isn't really a problem. If you earn 10K a year and have nothing left after rent, it is. Another point to consider is that 'encouraging people to eat healthily' is an attempt to impose a culture - that's half of what a 'class' is (the other half being income/wealth). It's essentially saying - live like us, we're better, society will be better if you're like us. The elite don't need to care about their impact on the NHS - the middle classes are probably paying enough in taxes - the poor aren't. Common rhetoric at the moment in the UK is to decry any notion of taxes as redistribution - the poor are openly considered 'scroungers' by the government - it's pretty much business as usual these days for the state to minimize the impact of the poor on the rest of society.

tomp 11y ago
> 'encouraging people to eat healthily' is an attempt to impose a culture I see it as an attempt to save money, or rather an attempt to account for all the externalities - that is, at least if there is scientific consensus that the measure you're introducing statistically helps people live longer/healthier and reduces healthcare costs (I've no idea if that's the case here).
Brakenshire 11y ago
> 'encouraging people to eat healthily' is an attempt to impose a culture This is a crazy way of looking at it. You might as well have said 100 years ago that education beyond 14 was an imposition on the poor. In a lot of cities in the UK there is an 18 year gap in life expectancy between rich and poor areas. Almost 20% of children and 30% of adults in the UK are clinically obese. At some point you have to stop with ideological back and forth and start actually doing something practical.
- stegosaurus 11y ago
  I think you're misinterpreting my comment. Too often terms get overloaded - taxation is definitionally an imposition; consumption taxes impose on the poor more than on the rich. Compulsory education is also an imposition. Whether it's worth doing it anyway is of seperate concern. I don't know a better way. My personal view is that socialized healthcare is excellent - but the limits it eventually imposes on personal freedom (taxes on tobacco, alcohol, sugar, etc etc) are something we should be very careful with. The main issue as I see it is that I feel that the role of the private sector is to act in a 'one dollar = one vote' manner, whilst the public sector should act in a 'one person = one vote' manner. Consumption taxes break this because they work on the former basis. I think that if we want to discourage bad habits, we should apply the same 'discouragement' to both the wealthy and the poor. (Interestingly enough, if we take the standpoint that sugary drinks are a net negative to health, then it makes sense from an economic point of view to expend more effort on wealthy consumers of sugary drinks, because they presumably are able to convert health into taxes at a higher rate...)

fweespee_ch 11y ago

They should just tax sugar/corn syrup/etc directly rather than how they are handling it.

ajmurmann 11y ago
Never thought about this. It's crazy how the US subsidizes corn syrup, but done jurisdictions put a tax on sugary drinks. Thanks for the insight!

Brakenshire 11y ago

> I suspect it's a class issue: politicians see soda as something that poor, obese people drink, but a white chocolate mocha is not. To drink one of those coffees you have to actually go to Costa Coffee or Starbucks. It's too expensive to drink daily for the vast majority of the population. And most people who go to coffee shops don't drink those anyway. All of those would suggest that the public health effects of the two are vastly different. The tax should apply to both, but from a public health perspective I doubt it matters.

ceedan 11y ago
I see your argument as support for why it should be taxed just as aggressively. The people who can afford those kinds of drinks could also afford the extra bit of taxes. The companies could also afford those taxes, because the markup on those kinds of drinks is absolutely insane. The tax on soda seems to be about correcting behavior and raising money, while the tax on sugary coffee drink seems to be mostly about raising money. And extra 0.10 on a mocha whatever isn't going to stop people from buying them. > And most people who go to coffee shops don't drink that anyway. This isn't true. I worked at a Starbucks while in college and frappuccinos are very very popular. The majority of people who go to Starbucks order drinks with sugar, especially after the morning rush where a many people will just get black coffee... some of those people also add sugar, too. Caramel Frappuccino's and Caramel Macchiato are 2 of the most popular items on the menu, and Frappuccino's are much more popular in the summer.
- Brakenshire 11y ago
  > I worked at a Starbucks while in college and frappuccinos are very very popular Are you in the UK? There is more of a social stigma on that than in the US.