I still get an earful for my skepticism that banning, or even taxing, sugar-laden soft drinks will do much to improve our health. In the interest of being fair on this issue, I want to shine a little light on two reports I saw out of the RWJF this morning. The first has to do with taxes on tobacco in NYC, on a study that appeared in PLOS ONE recently:
Background: To illustrate the burden of high cigarette excise taxes on low-income smokers.
Methodology/Principal Findings: Using data from the New York and national Adult Tobacco Surveys from 2010–2011, we estimated how smoking prevalence, daily cigarette consumption, and share of annual income spent on cigarettes vary by annual income (less than $30,000; $30,000–$59,999; and more than $60,000). The 2010–2011 sample includes 7,536 adults and 1,294 smokers from New York and 3,777 adults and 748 smokers nationally. Overall, smoking prevalence is lower in New York (16.1%) than nationally (22.2%) and is strongly associated with income in New York and nationally (P<.001). Smoking prevalence ranges from 12.2% to 33.7% nationally and from 10.1% to 24.3% from the highest to lowest income group. In 2010–2011, the lowest income group spent 23.6% of annual household income on cigarettes in New York (up from 11.6% in 2003–2004) and 14.2% nationally. Daily cigarette consumption is not related to income.
Conclusions/Significance: Although high cigarette taxes are an effective method for reducing cigarette smoking, they can impose a significant financial burden on low-income smokers.
A few things to note here. From 2003 to 2010, the percentage of adults in NYC who smoke dropped 28%, compared to a drop in the national rate of only 11%. In high school students the drop was 38% in NYC, compared to a national drop of only 17%. It’s also not just taxes; NYC has some of the most restrictive smoking laws in the country. But, they do appear to be working.
The second is a report from the RWJF themselves, “Does Curbing Tobacco Use Lower Health care Costs?”:
- Tobacco use is the leading cause of preventable death in the United States and costs the nation $96 billion annually in health care costs and an additional $97 billion in lost productivity.
- Tobacco prevention and cessation efforts, especially well-funded and comprehensive programs, are proven to reduce tobacco use and lower associated healthcare costs, providing a strong return on investment (ROI).
- Despite revenue streams from tobacco use and high ROIs, the most successful prevention programs have been cut repeatedly over the past five years.
I still think there are differences between cigarettes and soft drinks. In the case of the former, smoking tobacco is what we are really targeting. In the case of the latter, what we’re after is sugar, and that nutrient can be obtained in many, many other forms which are ignored. Moreover, what we’re really after is obesity, and maybe we should be thinking that fat consumption has something to do with that, too.
UPDATE: Commenters are making great points about the second piece. They are points I’ve made before, actually. I’m trying to give voice here to those who disagree with my skepticism. I’m not saying I agree with both of these entirely!
