Pop taxes

In Featured Posts by Prof7 Comments

The voters have voted, and they have made their choice. No, I‘m not referring to the Trump upset, but rather to the 4 ballot initiatives on soda pop taxes.  Starting next year, it will cost a bit more to buy soda in three California cities, San Francisco, Oakland, and Albany, as well as in Boulder, Colorado.  Is this the start of even more such initiatives? We’ll see.


ProfPop taxes


  1. Courtney

    I think this will be the start of many initiatives. With states starting to realize that they need to begin taking action on the United States obesity problem, I think that they will consider taxes as a way to start doing that. If people are willing to put their health at risk, why not have them help pay for it?

  2. Amber

    To be honest, the intension of this action is to prevent people purchase too many pops in order to play an role in preventing obesity. However, as Dr. Hutkins said in the lecture, people chose what they wanted to eat. Does this initiative really work? I really doubt it.

  3. Rebecca

    I am very interested to see how the obesity and diabetes rates change/or stay the same now that they will have a tax on pop. I personally think it should be a national law because the way I see it, the more expensive pop is, the less likely people will buy it. One of the counterarguments says that it is targeting the poor and I don’t personally find this to be true. I think it is a target on everyone and people with little money should not be spending money on pop for health reasons just like people who are financially stable.

  4. Janelle

    Pop/soda, (beverages with sugar which exceeds the daily limit in one serving or which has been found to be toxic to the body in high consumption), should be taxed. In my opinion, in order to lower the obesity rate, we must make raw vegetables & fruit more appealing. That means, making highly processed foods such as soda/pop more expensive. I believe all people should be consuming more raw produce, apples and carrots, because they naturally good for human beings.

  5. Mae

    I do believe that this marks the beginning of many more initiatives to come. However, singling out soda in fighting diabetes and obesity is not enough. Consumers can always turn to fruit juices; a regular juice habit could be associated with an increased risk of type 2 diabetes, according to a study published in Diabetes Care – which is not a good alternative as apposed to pop. Thus, the government should impose taxes on all high-calorie treats and subsidize on fresh produce instead.

  6. Irwin

    I definitely think that this is the start of future initiatives on food. While the difference in costs for consumers to by soda probably won’t affect their diet choices that much, the revenue will mean more money to spend on other sectors that are required. I don’t think it is necessarily a good way to combat obesity and diabetes, but I think that it is a good way to gain more revenue.

  7. Kaylee

    I am very intrigued on how this will play out. However, it is the consumer who makes the decision on whether or not they chose soda as a beverage. I think the tax on soda will definitely be effective to some, but not to all like the post said. The wealthier will probably continue to buy because they are not as effected as those will low-incomes. If this is proven to be successful, I think soda companies should start making other beverage products to replace the potential loss. Although it is only a couple cities right now, I am sure a vast majorities of others will decide to incorporate this tax as well.

Leave a Comment