Editor’s note: This op-ed is by Steve Farnham.
One of my pet peeves is the completely insane pricing of various “foods” when compared to real food. A half-gallon of milk at the grocery costs $2.59. Juice is similar, unless you go for the more expensive fresh-squeezed stuff. Depending on the brand, a bottle of soda of roughly the same volume costs somewhat less—but not nearly enough less. Consider the ingredients of soda. High fructose corn syrup and carbonated water lead the pack with some unpronounceable chemicals and food colorings at the other end of the list. From the manufacturer’s standpoint, the bottle and its entire contents can’t cost more to acquire, manufacture, mix, package and distribute than the bottle deposit —yet look at the retail price.
Compare that to milk. Consider the overhead the average farmer has to maintain, and the treacherous market fluctuations he has to maneuver. Consider also the massive infrastructure to move the bulk and finished product together with the daunting overhead and staffing requirements of the average dairy processing facility. This is to say nothing of the sanitation standards to which all segments of the dairy industry must adhere.
I say enact and implement the soda tax immediately; if the result doesn’t drive that low-grade toxin off our supermarket shelves, and pit the big corporate cola manufacturers against the State of Vermont in a landmark Supreme Court battle, then we haven’t done our job.
Every year, this state hemorrhages farmers by the dozen, but you never hear of a Coke or Pepsi plant going belly up. If these products were priced according to their respective nutritive value to the consumer, and according to the real cost of production, either the soda would be thirty-five cents a liter, or the milk would be closer to five dollars a quart—or both. The avalanche of profit in their business enables the soda mafia to maintain a near constant stream of advertising in front of us at all times. There are no such excesses in the diary or fruit juice businesses.
Despite that relentless advertising campaign, you’d think that if consumers possessed at least the intelligence, common sense, and critical thinking capacity attributable to the average box of gravel, said consumers would be willing to spend more for a jug of good quality, wholesome juice or milk, and they’d refuse to buy soda unless it was priced according to its worth.
But evidence suggests that when compared to the average consumer, a box of gravel possesses a mighty promising academic future. A bumper sticker I saw on a car in Montpelier says it all: “I see stupid people.” If I was not such a staunch believer in affordable, single-payer health care, I’d be inclined to let people make as many stupid dietary decisions as they please, but if we’re to have publicly funded health care, then we must provide the incentive for people to take care of themselves.
Therefore, I recommend at least a 100% tax on soda. This would do three things: it would depress the price the soft drink mafia can charge for the stuff; it would drive many people to reduce their consumption of this slow-acting poison; and it would give those selling more nutritious alternatives a fighting chance in the marketplace. Further, I believe we ought to institute a progressive or graduated tax, depending on the quality of soda. A soft drink such as Sarsaparilla, produced by a company called Maine Root, which is made of all natural and organic ingredients, and a much lower concentration of sugar, should not be taxed as heavily as something like Coke and Pepsi. A lower tax on such products would enable the local, small producer a leg up in the market, and encourage the consumer to spend his money on a healthier variety of junk food.
But we have people like Judith Levine, who want to preserve poor people’s right to buy (and drink) as much of a low-grade poison as their rotted-teeth-filled mouths can swallow. I certainly would not try to pass myself off as poor, but my tax return unquestionably certifies my low-income status, yet I drink expensive soft drinks. How? Moderation and self-restraint, my dear. I enjoy one of the aforementioned Sarsaparillas once every couple weeks in summer, almost never in fall, winter, or spring, and almost always share about half of the bottle’s contents with my girlfriend. Much of the time, I drink just plain water. Why is it such a bloody hardship if tax policy induces other low-income individuals to do likewise?
In Vermont, the sixty-some-dollar price to register a car is the same for all, regardless of income. The sales and use tax on automobiles and other products is the same percentage, regardless of income. Excise taxes on tires are the same regardless of the buyer’s income. Existing taxes on many products are completely insensitive to the buyer’s cash flow. God knows the tax on cigarettes is a staggering amount regardless of income. So what is the reason that we need to craft (or not craft) tax code to preserve a poor person’s access to unlimited quantities of crappy soda? And don’t start with your border town BS. If twenty years after the implementation of a soda tax, we find poorer health among border town residents, we’ll know why, won’t we?
I say enact and implement the soda tax immediately; if the result doesn’t drive that low-grade toxin off our supermarket shelves, and pit the big corporate cola manufacturers against the State of Vermont in a landmark Supreme Court battle, then we haven’t done our job.
