this post was submitted on 07 Jan 2024
350 points (97.8% liked)

News

23376 readers
2073 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Sales of sugary drinks fell dramatically across five U.S. cities, after they implemented taxes targeting those drinks – and those changes were sustained over time. That's according to a study published Friday in the journal JAMA Health Forum.

Researchers say the findings provide more evidence that these controversial taxes really do work. A claim the beverage industry disputes.

The cities studied were: Philadelphia, Seattle, San Francisco and Oakland, Calif., and Boulder, Colo. Taxes ranged from 1 to 2 cents per ounce. For a 2-liter bottle of soda, that comes out to between 67 cents to $1.30 extra in taxes.

Kaplan and his colleagues found that, on average, prices for sugar-sweetened drinks went up by 33.1% and purchases went down by basically the same amount – 33%.

all 47 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] TurnItOff_OnAgain@lemmy.world 44 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Soda is a real money maker too in fast food. That 32oz drink you are paying $2+ for only costs the restaurant 8-10c? And most of that is the cup.

[–] EdibleFriend@lemmy.world 14 points 10 months ago

I know gas stations are a 300% mark up on fountain pop. At least thats what it was back when i worked in one like 15 years ago.

[–] SeaJ@lemm.ee 38 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Which is what the beverage companies were afraid of so here in Washington they spent millions lobbying and lying to get it banned from happening outside Seattle.

[–] squidman@lemmy.world 18 points 10 months ago

That ad campaign pissed me off so much. I was even more disappointed when the people here fell for it. I thought we were smarter than those damn companies, but no.

[–] TenderfootGungi@lemmy.world 28 points 10 months ago (4 children)

It was eye opening the first time we flew to Europe. The first convenience store sold few sodas, mostly different types of water. And the soda they did sell was more expensive.

We tried an orange soda. It was less sweet and tasted far better.

[–] Xenny@lemmy.world 9 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

Orange soda is odd in Europe. In Europe depending on region has a varying percentage of real orange juice. In the US its 0% juice naturally

[–] postmateDumbass@lemmy.world 9 points 10 months ago

And then there is the Fanta origin story.

[–] SheeEttin@programming.dev 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

In the US, if you want that, you have to get Orangina. Not a fan, personally. It's fizzy, watered-down orange juice.

[–] andrew@radiation.party 1 points 10 months ago

And it has an unfortunate name, to boot.

[–] omgarm@feddit.nl 3 points 10 months ago

In the Netherlands bottles of water and soda cost pretty much the same. Unless you specifically ask for tap water in a restaurant, then it's generally free.

[–] ExLisper@linux.community 3 points 10 months ago

Grape juice is my favourite, especially the fermented one. A bottle of decent one is about $5-10 in a supermarket in Spain.

[–] Objects@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 10 months ago

Orange Fanta is made with real sugar over there and less food coloring it seemed

[–] youCanCallMeDragon@lemmy.world 27 points 10 months ago (1 children)

“Basic economics still works, more at 11”

Except when it conflicts with one of my beliefs, in which case economics is wrong and should feel bad, actually

[–] diykeyboards@lemmy.world 19 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

So the 33% poorest people can no longer enjoy it. That tracks.

[–] Zoboomafoo@slrpnk.net 17 points 10 months ago (3 children)

Did we really need a study to prove supply and demand still works?

[–] EatATaco@lemm.ee 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The supply and demand curve is about how those two determine the price. With the tax, we are talking about the price "controls" affecting the demand, not the other way around.

And, additionally, even if we think the outcome should be obvious, it's always important to do a structured objective analysis to see if that was actually the case because, if it wasn't, it's time to revisit the theory or figure out what went wrong.

[–] lemmington_steele@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

you can model the tax on the supply or the demand. in most simple models the outcome is the same

[–] EatATaco@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago

Maybe you can, that would make sense. But it's really neither supply nor demand, so it's just forcing it into the model, which you've now made more complicated and no longer the simple curve that the op was suggesting it is.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 2 points 10 months ago

The argument would presumably be that demand is highly price-inelastic. Which seems ludicrous to me for soft drinks, but you could try making the argument if it was in your interest to do so.

[–] girlfreddy@lemmy.ca 12 points 10 months ago

I have type 2 diabetes so make my own with club soda, lemon and lime juice, sweetened with stevia. Tastes pretty good and keeps my blood sugar in check.

[–] mateomaui@reddthat.com 7 points 10 months ago

Over here a 16 oz bottle of soda can be close to $4. I’d rather buy 64 oz bottles of juice on sale for $5 or less and water it down.

[–] EfficientEffigy@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago (3 children)

What about sales in cities near these? I doubt people will stop buying it just for the tax, I bet they are willing to go elsewhere to get it for cheap and just by in bulk.

[–] Jiggle_Physics@lemmy.world 16 points 10 months ago (1 children)

In the first part, findings, it says this:

" In this cross-sectional study, SSB taxes in Boulder, Colorado; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Oakland, California; San Francisco, California; and Seattle, Washington, were associated with a 33.1% composite increase in SSB prices (92% pass-through of taxes to consumers) and a 33% reduction in purchase volume, without increasing cross-border purchases"

So there wasn't an increase in sales volume in other areas (cross borders).

[–] EfficientEffigy@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Nice, then good to know!

What I was thinking is people need to be aware of the serous health issues from drinking a lot of soda to ease down on it but I guess any steps that help reduce its consumption are great.

[–] wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

A lot of people think "ah Ill nab a soda on the way, its only $2"

So when its "only" $3.50, $4.25, $6, it gets a lot harder to make those passing "ah fuck it" purchases while youre out and about doing other things.

Its not like alcohol, where you make a point to obtain it for a designated drinking time and so will go out of your way to fulfill an errand. Its a passing convenience that you do less often when it becomes less convenient

[–] EfficientEffigy@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

Sadly there is also a lot of people who buy it regularly. Was just with some relatives over the holidays and they have full stack packs of coke for the day to day.

This segment is who I would think go out of their way to avoid the taxes.

You bring an excellent point and probably it is in that segment where the reduced consumption is when the taxes are higher.

[–] mosiacmango@lemm.ee 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

You're really driving the next city over to get soda pop? Or are you more likely to just drink less and maybe pick some up if you remember?

[–] danthehutt@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I know a few people that drive 45+ minutes to get to a Wegmans because it's an "experience", so I wouldn't put it out of reach for someone to go across town lines for soda (and other stuff) if you consume a lot of it.

[–] mosiacmango@lemm.ee 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

People be wacky, but on the average most folk won't do that.

Generally diet or "zero" versions of soda were tax exempt because they dont have sugar, so that's most likely what people moved to. Still likely a net health win.

[–] Duranie 1 points 10 months ago

Not when Cook County did it in Illinois. Zero sugar/artificially sweetened drinks were taxed at the higher rate, yet sugary fruit juices got a pass. I live on the border of Cook and Will county, so I just shopped at grocery stores outside the country. I'm not sure how long it was in effect, but they ended up cancelling it.

[–] WhiskyTangoFoxtrot@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

Most of the time when I buy pop it's for convenience. I can't remember the last time I went out of my way for it.

[–] _danny@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I'm more curious about how it affects the sale of other drinks and foods.

Do fast food sales drop because of the increased cost of their primary drink options? Do people turn to water as an alternative or do they fill the hole with another option like alcohol, tea, or coffee?

[–] yamanii@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

Soda at fast food is already triple the price though.

[–] HiddenLayer5@lemmy.ml 5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

I encourage everyone who likes sugary soda to at least try flavoured sparkling water. Personally I have replaced nearly all my soda intake with it, and the fruit flavored ones are surprisingly sweet without any sugar or artificial sweetener, and I imagine are way healthier than even diet soda. If you find that you like it, getting a sparkling water machine like a Soda Stream is also more environmentally friendly and more cost effective if you drink a lot of it as well.

[–] hydrospanner@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

I like both but they definitely aren't interchangeable for me.

When I want a seltzer that's what I want and a coke is too sweet.

When I want a coke, the seltzer isn't sweet enough.

That being said, one of the few healthy changes I made and stuck with was after making my most recent move 6 years ago, I just didn't buy 2L bottles of soda to keep in stock in the fridge.

Didn't boycott them, didn't avoid them in restaurants or convenience stores, and I still keep a few baby cans as mixers in the bar at my apartment, but in that list of things you just get when you run low to keep a stock...I just kinda took soda off that list.

Found that I only really missed it a few times a year, and if I was really craving it, I could go get a little can from the bar...but just that one small change probably cut my soda consumption by like 85% and I barely miss it.

[–] shortwavesurfer@lemmy.zip 5 points 10 months ago

I have cut my soda down to once or twice per week, but I still do enjoy it.

[–] GiddyGap@lemm.ee 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Sociatal health in the US would improve a lot if restaurants would drop the free refills.

[–] Pika@sh.itjust.works 1 points 10 months ago

yall have free refills? I've never seen that around here

[–] ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 10 months ago

"No sweets for the poor, fuck you."

Thanks for deciding what's good for me government, and not the cool way by making HFCS be replaced with real sugar at the manufacturer level, just the way that sucks for me. 'Preciate it.

[–] gullible@kbin.social 0 points 10 months ago

It is my political opinion that milk, water, tea (practically water), and vodka are the only beverages fit for human consumption. There’s an argument to be made for certain juices, but it can be safely ignored as Dole propaganda. You only get the two sets of teeth, all.

[–] kool_newt@lemm.ee -1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

What if I don't want to be healthy? Why must the government punish me? If behavior is to be corrected by law, correct the companies not the people.

If one's goals are say, maximize freedom and fairness/equality/equity for humans and minimize harm from sugary drinks, it makes more to ban the advertising of these unhealthy foods rather than make them more difficult to procure for those with less money.

[–] ristoril_zip@lemmy.zip 20 points 10 months ago (1 children)

So some other person can come behind you and say, "what if I want to know about different ways I can be unhealthy!?"

Give me a break. Government ends up footing the bill for the outcomes of these decisions. We can either tax the people making these decisions to pay for it, or tax everyone to pay for it. The latter just means people who don't engagie in the behavior subsidize the people who do.

Tax unhealthy foods, make (actually) healthy food tax free. And not food that some marketing shitbag slaps a name like "healthy choice" on. Actually healthy food.

Use that tax money to subsidize the production & distribution of healthy food, especially to eliminate food deserts. This will lower the cost to the government of dealing with the consequences of unhealthy foods.