Bittman

This is the fourth time I have begun writing a counter argument to Mark Bittman's latest opinion piece, just to toss it aside thinking it wasn't worth the time or energy. Today I seem to have an excess of both.
For those unfamiliar with Mark Bittman, he is a New York Times food critic turned opinion writer. He focuses on national health issues, such as giving the poor better access to healthy food options, reducing obesity, and improving the overall health of the country.
Those are things everyone wants and, not surprisingly, most people love his articles. I, however, do not.
M wife, Denny, always thinks it is funny that we have such animosity towards each other yet in other ways are very similar. Mark is a bit of a health nut, he goes on short stints where he will be a Vegan. Most of his recipes focus on being simple combinations of vegetables, fruits, and whole grains. So although our recipe books may look very similar we are bitter enemies.
Without boring you too much with our former disagreements (the list is long) I will just focus on his most recent article. This week, Mark, attempts to enlighten us with an idea that has been floating around for the past few years, a soda tax. I'll spare you the three page diatribe and summarize here. Mark believes a soda tax (he suggest 1 or 2 cents per ounce) would result in a 20% increase in soda prices, a 20% decrease in soda consumption, $13 Billion of federal revenue, 1.5 million fewer people with obesity, 400,000 cases of diabetes, and health care savings of over $30 Billion.
Sounds great, you can almost see Mark dancing in a field of sunflowers at the end of a rainbow while he explains his master plan. Sadly, it is time for me to dispel it.
First, let's look at what he wants to do with all that cash he wants to save the government. Initially, he mentions the cash "could be used to subsidize the purchase of staple foods like seasonal greens, vegetables, whole grains, dried legumes and fruit."

We could sell those staples cheap — let’s say for 50 cents a pound — and almost everywhere: drugstores, street corners, convenience stores, bodegas, supermarkets, liquor stores, even schools, libraries and other community centers.

Now, I stand to gain a lot from this plan. Let's just look at my grocery receipt from earlier today.

1. Banana's ($.44/pound)
2. 3 Mangoes ($0.88 each)
3. 2 Onions ($0.79/pound)
4. Strawberries ($1.99/pound)
5. blueberries ($2.59/ 16 ounces)
6. crushed peanuts ($2.19/pound)
7. Soy milk ($1.50 - I had a coupon:-)
8. Canned Beans ($0.66)
9. Spinach ($1.59/pound)
10. Dark Chocolate Chips ($2.79)
11. Greek yogurt ($2.50)
    

With the exception of the Greek yogurt, the Chocolate Chips, and the Soy milk everything on my list would be subsidized, and heavily. Which brings me to my first point. How are we going to subsidize all of these things to be 50 cents a pound from charging 2 cents an ounce on soda? We would have to subsidize spinach (probably the healthiest thing I buy) with $1.09/pound! Difficult. Especially if we are going to implement all of the other things Mark has in mind.

Money could be returned to communities for local spending on gyms, pools, jogging and bike trails; and for other activities at food distribution centers; for Meals on Wheels in those towns with a large elderly population, or for Head Start for those with more children; for supermarkets and farmers’ markets where needed. And more.

Mark was doing the dancing when he got to this part of the article. I was shaking my head. Honestly, no one would appreciate putting in pools and bike trails more than myself. However, I don't think we should do it by robbing the poor, which is what this tax would do. Go to any grocery store, stand in the soda isle and take a look at the first 20 people who buy soda. Then stand in the produce isle look who is buying there. You will quickly see this is a nice way to take money from the poor and give it straight to the wealthy.
For the moment though, lets ignore that this is regressive tax and try to determine if it would really cut soda consumption. The claim is raising the price 20% will reduce consumption 20%. The proof against that argument is displayed daily at any restaurant in the US. It has boggled my mind for decades that people are willing to pay as much as a 300% premium for soda when they eat out. People like to have soda and they are more than willing to pay for it, a price increase will lead to falling consumption, but not nearly as much as he thinks.
Next, Mark's plan only taxes sugary drinks, it does not tax diet drinks (which are just as bad). If Coke suddenly cost $1.20 and Diet Coke is $1.00 people will not be moving to healthier alternatives, they will be reaching for the diet drinks. Also, as Mark mentions, soda companies will quickly find ways of altering their drinks slightly to avoid the tax (if it does have a substantial impact on sales). Ensuring poor people still have a plentiful supply of calorie rich nutrient deprived sugary drinks.
Penultimately, can depriving Americans their 44.7 gallons of soda they drink each year really actually reduce obesity and diabetes at such high rates? As with all things, I am not an expert on this, but first the obese people I know already drink diet soda so this tax would have very little effect on them. Second, there is plenty of blame to go around when it comes to obesity in America, just as there are plenty of ways for people to become obese. My weight has fluctuated substantially the past few years as my activity level has decreased and my motabolism has slowed to a crawl. Although I haven't had soda in 5 years and gave up french fries over 2 years ago, I still occasionally slip up to the "over weight" side of the BMI scale. And I exercise far more than "the average American". My point, it will take a lot more than cutting back on soda to have a meaningful change in the obesity problem.
Finally, Mark shares impressive numbers for the amount of money we could save in health related expenses with this tax. A few years ago Greg Mankiw pointed out one reason why these numbers are flawed. A co-worker of mine made the same point after getting a health exam. "Good news and bad news. The good news is my health is still in great shape. The bad news is I need to keep contributing to my 401k." To avoid being too morbid, I will just say, dead people have very few expenses.
Mark does have very good goals, however his plan of attack is completely misguided. I am sure if he had his way he would skip the soda tax and just go straight to creating a modern version of the 18th amendment and become another victim of the "Fatal Conceit".