The latest from our COLUMNIST SECTION:
Tuesday, Feb 01, 10:35 AMMike S. Adams
Left State University
Sunday, Jan 30, 12:41 PMDoug Giles
Hey, Chris Matthews: I Like Big Guns and I Cannot Lie
Saturday, Jan 29, 09:16 AMMichael Coren
Defender to defendant
Saturday, Jan 29, 08:46 AMSalim Mansur
U.S. can’t afford to ignore world in crisis
Sunday, Jan 23, 07:37 AMDoug Giles
Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God
Saturday, Jan 22, 08:32 AMMike S. Adams
Kermit the Dog
Saturday, Jan 22, 08:24 AMMichael Coren
Grief or glamour?
Saturday, Jan 22, 08:11 AMSalim Mansur
Tunisia just one Arab regime going stale
Friday, Jan 21, 12:00 PMTheo Caldwell
The TSA Tea Party
Saturday, Jan 15, 07:48 AMMichael Coren
Forget blame game
Saturday, Jan 15, 07:38 AMSalim Mansur
Beware of China’s meteoric rise
Tuesday, Jan 11, 09:12 AMMike S. Adams
Welcome to Personal Responsibility 101
Monday, Jan 10, 08:12 AMDoug Giles
Snookie’s Smut or Cowboy Values?
Saturday, Jan 08, 09:44 AMMichael Coren
Tube for lefty boobs
Saturday, Jan 08, 09:42 AMSalim Mansur
Bloody start to New Year
Wednesday, Jan 05, 04:42 PMAnn Coulter
Tuesday, Jan 04, 07:20 AMMike S. Adams
Does Fort Worth Ever Cross Your Mind?
Monday, Jan 03, 11:54 AMSteven Milloy
EPA’s Mercurial Hypocrisy
Sunday, Jan 02, 09:45 AMDoug Giles
2011 Resolution: Annoy the Left 365
Sunday, Jan 02, 09:35 AMDavid Warren
Robin Hoodism is on the rise
Free-Market Capitalist Consumer Information:
These companies choose to advertise on the
(Links lead to mailing addresses)
• AIG (insur)
• Air Canada
• AOL Travel
• Bank of Montreal ("BMO")
• Best Western
• Canada Protection Plan
• Canada Revenue Agency (!)
• Canadian Tire Fin Serv
• Chip Home Income Plan
• Cold FX
• Desjardins (insurance)
• Directbuy, Inc
• Edward Jones
• General Motors
• Grand and Toy
• Grey Power (insurance)
• H&R Block
• Hilton Hotels
• iContact email marketing
• Infinity (cars)
• Koodoo mobile
• Lens Crafters
• National Post
• RBC (Royal bank)
• Rogers Cable
• Shaw Cable
• Texas Travel
• The Co-operators (ins)
• Tim Hortons
Please read more here.
PTBC Columnist Team
Columnists -- with bite! We feature conservative-friendly writers from Canada and the U.S. who help clarify the difference between liberals and conservatives. All have personally agreed to be a part of our team here at PTBC.
Friday, December 26, 2008
New York Governor David Paterson has proposed to levy an 18 percent tax on non-diet soft drinks under the guise of combating obesity. Government doesn’t get much more cynical than this.
After alleging that “almost one in four New Yorkers under age 18 are obese,” Paterson’s budget proposal for 2009-2010 asserts that, “Significant price increases should discourage individuals, especially children and teenagers, from consumption and help fight obesity which results in higher risk for diabetes and heart disease.” So the purpose of the tax, according to proposal, is to discourage people from drinking non-diet soft drinks.
The proposal then estimates that the tax will raise $404 million during 2009-2010 and — get this — $539 million during 2010-2011. Since tax revenues from non-diet soft drink sales are budgeted to increase rather than decrease — as one might expect from the alleged purpose of the tax — Paterson actually seems to be counting on the tax not working. Combating obesity is not grounds for the tax; it is, instead, camouflage for it — and not very good camouflage at that.
In his Dec. 18 New York Times paean to the tax, columnist Nicholas Kristof ominously intoned that, “The average American consumes about 35 gallons of non-diet soda each year and gets more added sugar from soda than from desserts.”
But that 35 gallons works out to about a can of non-diet soda (containing about 140 calories) per day. Is a can of non-diet soda per day something to worry about? If common sense is not enough to answer that question, then consider the food recommendations made by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
In its dietary guidelines for Americans — a.k.a. the “Food Pyramid” — the USDA recommends the servings that should be consumed daily from different food groups, including fruits, vegetables, grains, meats, milk and oils. The USDA makes these recommendations for different levels of individual daily calorie consumption, starting at a 1,000-calorie-per-day diet and going up to a 3,200 calorie-per-day diet.
In addition to fruits, vegetables, grains and the other food groups, the USDA also includes a category labeled, “Discretionary calorie allowance,” which constitutes the calories left over for each diet level after consuming the recommended amounts from the other food groups. Someone who should consume 1,000 calories per day and who ate the recommended portions of fruits, grains, meats, milk and oils would only have consumed 835 calories. That person would have 165 calories left over for discretionary eating — more than enough room for a 140-calorie can of non-diet soda. At the high-end of daily calorie consumption, someone who is on a 3,200-calorie-per-day diet would have a discretionary calorie allowance of 648 calories — more than 4.5 cans of non-diet soda.
The bottom line is that, all calories being equal, a can of non-diet soda per day — that is, Kristof’s ominous 35 gallons per year — is well with the guidelines of the USDA’s Food Pyramid for most people and so cannot be viewed as a persuasive factoid in support of Paterson’s proposed tax.
Kristof is also way off base in his effort to liken non-diet soft drinks to tobacco. “These days,” Kristof asserts, “sugary drinks are to American health roughly what tobacco was a generation ago.” Kristof then quotes long-time food nanny Barry Popkin, who says, “Soft drinks are linked to diabetes and obesity in the way that tobacco is to lung cancer.”
As this column has pointed out before, there simply is no scientific basis for concluding that non-diet drinks cause obesity or diabetes. The National Academy of Sciences concluded in 2002 that, “There is no clear and consistent association between increased intake of added sugars and [body weight].” And this remains true today.
An August 2008 review of research on soft drinks and weight gain by Emily Wolff (Boston University School of Medicine) and Michael Dansinger (Tufts University) concluded, “Sugar-sweetened soft drink intake has increased dramatically during the past few decades, yet the magnitude of the weight gain and adverse health effects by soft drinks are poorly understood due to a paucity of clinical trial data… which would be necessary to demonstrate a causal link between sugar-sweetened soft drink consumption and weight gain.” The translation is that despite decades of research — including at least five clinical trials — into the health effects of soft drinks, scientists still can’t identify any specific harm with any certainty.
Public health scolds unfortunately often try to blacken and intimidate anyone who disagrees with them by likening them to the tobacco industry. But to the extent there is any deceit-in-the-name-of-money being practiced in the case of non-diet drinks, that charge is more appropriately laid at the feet of the New York Governor and his supporters in the media and public health industry. If this group was sincere about its concern for obese children, it would do something other than just exploiting them as a means of raising money for the state.
©2005-08 STEVEN J. MILLOY. Posted at ProudToBeCanadian.ca with the express permission of Steven Milloy. Steven Milloy is a biostatistician, lawyer, adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute and publisher of JunkScience.com where the motto is: “All the junk that’s fit to debunk”, as well as CSRWatch.com. Steven Milloy is an advocate of free enterprise and an adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Milloy holds a B.A. in Natural Sciences from the Johns Hopkins University, a Master of Health Sciences in Biostatistics from the Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health, a Juris Doctorate from the University of Baltimore, and a Master of Laws from the Georgetown University Law Center. He’s also an investment adviser at an investment fund called Free Enterprise Action Fund.
Posted on 12/26/08 at 12:02 PM
• Please vote with your dollars to help ensure the continued availability of this site.
• If you think PTBC has no value, then don't pay anything for it. It will fade into the sunset. That's the free market at work.
• Spread the word! Email this to a friend | • Printer-Friendly | • Permalink
• Category: Steven Milloy +
C O M M E N T S
Comments do not necessarily reflect or in any way represent the opinion of the article-writer, or the owner of this site. Claims to the contrary are spurious.
We require you to to be registered, and comment under your real name (full name), email address, and location. **EXISTING REGISTRANTS: NOTE NEW POLICY FOR COMMENTS: you must ensure that your profile includes your real, full name, and a working email address. Only comments using a real, full name, will be allowed. If we don't know you, you may be asked to prove your identity. (See this article for more.)
There are no comments for this entry yet.