Health groups and members of the Illinois Senate opened discussion on a possible increase in soda tax last week to help combat state obesity.
The discussion focused on a proposed amendment to Senate Bill 396, itself an amendment to Illinois revenue legislation, which would institute a one-cent tax increase per ounce sold of all sugar-sweetened beverages. Items facing the possible increase include soda, sweet iced tea, coffee drinks and some juices, although the bill excludes artificially-sweetened and most diet beverages. Illinois lawmakers last increased soda taxes two years ago, from 1 percent to 6.25 percent, and hope that the additional tax hike will encourage consumers to opt for healthier drinks instead of reaching for their usual sugar fix.
The proposal comes shortly after state income taxes were increased amid a large state budget deficit, but legislators say the soda tax amendment has non-economic motives as well. State Sen. William Delgado (D-Chicago), who proposed the amendment, said the bill seeks to target Illinois’s high obesity rates.
According to the Ilinois Alliance to Prevent Obesity, about three in every five Illinois adults are overweight or obese. Furthermore, sugar-sweetened beverages accounted for 20 percent of weight gained by Americans from 1977 to 2007, according to the American Institute for Cancer Research. A study from Yale University’s Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity found that legislation taxing a penny per ounce, such as the proposed addition to Bill 396, would lead to a 24 percent reduction on sugary drink consumption and obesity, as long as consumers did not replace the beverages with other high caloric foods or drinks.
Decreasing obesity also relieves the heavy burden of related conditions, such as heart disease and diabetes, on the cost of health care. According to IAPO calculations, adult obesity costs Illinois $4 billion in health care costs per year.
Elissa Bassler, chief executive officer of the Illinois Public Heath Institute, said the soda tax alone would not be enough to curb obesity, but that if the government invested the revenue in creating healthier communities, the tax could have the intended effect.
“The costs of obesity are unsustainable. We can’t afford to pay (that much) for a preventable condition,” she said.
Bassler said the IAPO intends to use a significant portion of the revenue generated by the soda tax for preventative measures, such as investing in the availability of fresh and healthy produce, physical education and healthful lunches at schools and safe community parks and bike paths.
However, a study conducted by Northwestern human development and social policy Prof. Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach found soda taxes would predominantly affect low-income households. Schanzenbach said the tax would disproportionately tax the poor, and evidence linking decreased obesity to soda taxes was not concrete enough for the benefits to outweigh a regressive tax.
“The benefits, I think, are not going to be there in terms of obesity, and the costs are going to be that poor people are not going to have as much money in their pockets during this terrible recession,” Schanzenbach said.
A study published by Contemporary Economic Policy, which tracked the impact of soda taxes across the country on the body mass index of the overweight and obese, found that while sugary beverages do affect weight gained, the effect is relatively insignificant.
Schanzenbach also said just because consumers have an incentive to buy less soda does not mean they will have a more healthful diet, as they may choose unhealthy subsitutes for soda.
Betsy Stewart, a self-professed soda addict, said the per ounce price increase would be unlikely to affect her consumption habits. A 12-ounce can of her favorite drink Diet Coke would cost 12 cents more after the tax.
“I don’t think twelve cents would be enough of an increase to make cut back,” the Communication freshman said.
State Sen. Jeff Schoenberg (D-Evanston) could not be reached for comment.