pro- position proposal paper

NEW DELHI: Is taxation a solution to the problem of lifestyle diseases? Days after the health ministry recommended a steep hike in taxon cigarettes, many public health activists have sought a similar move on sugar-sweetened beverages. They claim taxing the beverages--as has been done in countries like Mexico--can reduce obesity.

India is the third most obese country in the world behind US and China and research conducted by Public Health Foundation of India claims imposing a 20% tax on these products can help prevent 11.2 million cases of obesity (a 3% decline), and 400,000 cases of Type 2 diabetes (a 1.6% decline) over the decade 2014-23.

"Taxation for sweetened beverages is absolutely necessary. Its effects on the body are similar to those of alcohol," said Dr Anoop Misra, chairman, Fortis-CDOC Centre of Excellence for Diabetes, Obesity, Metabolic Diseases and Endocrinology.

Mexico, where 32.8% of the population is obese, recently passed a 10% tax per litre of sugar-sweetened beverages.

Public health experts say these beverages are linked to obesity, diabetes and heart disease. The proposed tax regime will help decrease its consumption, decreasing obesity-related healthcare costs. "Revenue generated by the soda tax would fund health initiatives such as childhood nutrition and obesity prevention programmes," said an expert.

According to a study conducted by Diabetes Foundation of India, 25% of schoolchildren in Delhi--the highest in the country--are overweight or obese. Many experts consider obesity the most serious epidemic among India's children. Rahul Verma, head of Uday Foundation who has filed a PIL seeking ban on junk food in school canteens, said a survey has shown awareness of sugar-sweetened beverages being harmful has increased but consumption hasn't come down.

"Imposing tax will act as a deterrent. Healthier alternatives such as lassi and milk should be promoted and subsidized, using the money collected through the tax on SSB," said Dr Sujeet Jha, head of the endocrinology department at Max Hospital, Saket.

The government should also run advertisements about good food choices on TV. "We need to develop human resources and infrastructure to tackle the problem rather than assessing it forever," he added.

Word count: 350

Copyright Bennett, Coleman & Company Limited Jun 27, 2014

APA citation

Durgesh, N. J. (2014, Jun 27). Health activists call to widen 'health tax' net, ask govt to tax sugar-sweetened beverages healthcare]. The Economic TimesRetrieved from https://chamberlainuniversity.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.chamberlainuniversity.idm.oclc.org/docview/1540540224?accountid=147674

Jun. 20--Sugar in the U.S. cost just under 22 cents a pound last week. Outside the U.S., the world market price for sugar was just under 9 cents a pound. There's nothing complicated about that math. Americans pay 13 cents more for a pound of sugar than anyone else does. That's because the federal government protects America's 6,000 sugar producers from foreign competition and guarantees a minimum price for the sugar they produce, regardless of what the market price might be.

The fiercest opposition to CAFTA, though, comes from the sugar lobby. The treaty would allow a very small increase in sugar imports. Over 15 years, imports would be allowed to rise by an amount equal to just 1 percent of all U.S. sugar production. But the sugar lobby knows that putting sugar in this treaty means sugar protectionism will be fair game for other trade treaties down the road. This amounts to the beginning of the end of their sweet, protected world. No wonder they're fighting so hard.

Full Text

· Translate Full text

· Turn on search term navigation

0:00 /0:00

To see more of the Chicago Tribune, or to subscribe to the newspaper, go to http://www.chicagotribune.com. Copyright

Jun. 20--Sugar in the U.S. cost just under 22 cents a pound last week. Outside the U.S., the world market price for sugar was just under 9 cents a pound. There's nothing complicated about that math. Americans pay 13 cents more for a pound of sugar than anyone else does. That's because the federal government protects America's 6,000 sugar producers from foreign competition and guarantees a minimum price for the sugar they produce, regardless of what the market price might be.

It is, in effect, a tax. You pay a 13-cent-per-pound sugar tax every time you buy a candy bar or a cake or anything else that uses sugar. You pay that tax so those 6,000 sugar producers can continue to operate in a protected environment.

Sugar is certainly not the only agricultural commodity the government protects. But it's hard to come up with another product in which so many pay so high a price to protect so few.

Given these facts, you might think Congress would express outrage that American consumers are getting ripped off. You would be wrong. Congress is complicit in this outrage. Lawmakers have benefited handsomely from this sweet deal. In the last election cycle, the sugar lobby donated an estimated $3 million to federal candidates. All to make sure you keep paying the sugar tax.

Sugar is in the spotlight now because it plays a starring role in the battle on Capitol Hill over the Central America Free Trade Agreement. That treaty would eventually get rid of all tariffs on U.S. exports to Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua. It would also commit those Central American and Caribbean countries to open their state monopolies in telecommunications and other service industries to U.S. competition and to step up protection of intellectual property.

Many Democrats and some Republicans are against CAFTA because they insist the environmental and labor protections for workers in the member nations aren't stiff enough. Fears about the loss of U.S manufacturing jobs are also driving the opposition.

The fiercest opposition to CAFTA, though, comes from the sugar lobby. The treaty would allow a very small increase in sugar imports. Over 15 years, imports would be allowed to rise by an amount equal to just 1 percent of all U.S. sugar production. But the sugar lobby knows that putting sugar in this treaty means sugar protectionism will be fair game for other trade treaties down the road. This amounts to the beginning of the end of their sweet, protected world. No wonder they're fighting so hard.

So if you hear a member of Congress promise to vote against CAFTA, ask him why he wants you to keep paying that 13-cents-a- pound sugar tax.

If his answer is that he wants to protect jobs, ask him why the 6,000 sugar producers are more important than the nearly 7,000 candymaking jobs in Chicago alone that have disappeared during the last decade as employers moved to other countries in search of cheaper sugar. That's a pretty sour trade-off.

APA citation

OPINION: Paying the sugar tax. (2005, Jun 20). Knight Ridder Tribune Business News Retrieved from https://chamberlainuniversity.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.chamberlainuniversity.idm.oclc.org/docview/460307541?accountid=147674

Other source can be the cdc and the obesity