Filed Under: Fat Taxes Food Police

Smoke and Mirrors: Food Police Compare Sugar and Cigarettes

CCF_FacepalmU.S. Representative Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) is again revving up her efforts to tax away consumer choice. The politician-turned-food-cop recently penned an op-ed headlined by the hyperbolic query, “Is sugar the new tobacco?”

This escalation to drug analogy and addiction rhetoric is perhaps to be expected: It’s a favorite tried-and-untrue strategy of food alarmists and fat-tax activists. Consider, for example, the Australian bestselling author of I Quit Sugar, who just recently declared the sweet substance a “seductive toxin” more addictive than cocaine and heroin. And let’s not forget New York’s food snob du jour Mark Bittman, who likened cheeseburgers to addictive narcotics in an op-ed entitled “Hooked on Meat.” (Never mind that Bittman has sold lots of cookbooks with mounds of meat-based recipes.)

These alarmists like to argue that taxes on things like fast foods and sugar are a way for the government to help us help ourselves. But reports show that trying to coerce healthy consumer choices through taxes isn’t an effective public policy: A 2012 Cornell University study found that when faced with a 10% soda tax consumers purchased fewer sugary drinks for just one month. After three to six months, they returned to their pre-tax purchasing habits.

The proposed levies on sugary foods and drinks won’t actually modify behavior or improve personal health. Instead, fear-mongering tactics—like the ludicrous drug narrative perpetually peddled by food nannies—unnecessarily seek to make certain foods or beverages more expensive. And moderate, responsible consumers are forced to foot the bill.

More on “Fat Taxes”

Featured image for post

Is Meat the Next “Sin” We’ll Be Asked to Atone For?

Posted January 23, 2018 at 11:49 am

Candy Bans and UN Control of Your Food

Posted May 19, 2014 at 4:45 pm

Will Federal Labeling Requirements Spur New Taxes?

Posted March 6, 2014 at 9:56 am