blog.bioethics.net

NY Governor--Public Health Crusader

On Tuesday, Democratic Governor of New York, David Paterson, spoke out against an epidemic in this country. The epidemic of fat. Now he is putting his weight (pun intended) behind a $404 million dollar tax, or put another way an 18% tax, on sugary drinks like that dangerous soda pop that makes kids and adults more round around the middle.

In a commentary which appeared on CNN.com, Paterson said, "I understand that New Yorkers may not like paying a surcharge for their favorite drinks. But surely it's a small price to pay for our children's health." Indeed. In fact, this legislation is not a new idea, but one that has been proposed diligently year after year by a lone New York Assemblyman Ortiz. For years, he has proposed over and over, the unpopular "fax tax" on sugary drinks, video games, and other products that promote unhealthy behaviors or eating habits. Each year, the bill lacked sufficient support, never made it out of committee, or was defeated.

But now, the Governor is paying attention. Childhood obesity is one of his issues. So, now a "fat tax" seems like a good idea. But wait--aren't there still ethical issues to be concerned about? Of course, there is the liberty argument. There is the argument that it is a regressive tax. But I'm with Governor Paterson, those arguments aren't strong enough to outweigh the significant morbidity and mortality that results from childhood obesity in this country.

Plus, I don't buy the argument made in the New York Times that argues there are plenty of other dangers to public health that the state actually promotes because they make revenue for the state's budget--such as cigarettes or gambling. However, there are two important differences between cigarettes and gambling for these purposes: 1) the money in Governor Paterson's plan will go toward public health programs to PREVENT obesity and 2) sugar, unlike cigarettes or gambling, isn't inherently bad for you.

Sugar in moderation is, of course, essential for growth and metabolism. That's, obviously, the tricky part in all of this: how do you de-incentivize something that is also essential for children, just in moderation, but is currently so plentiful and so cheap?

Others have asked, if the governor really cares about public health, where's the fast food tax? Right after soda is taxed, I'm all for slapping a 20% surcharge on my Whopper, thank you very much. The question is, of course, whether the restaurant lobby is as strong as the sugar lobby, and whether such a bill could ever be passed.

Will attacking soda, or sugary things in general, fix the problem entirely? Of course not, but it is a place to start. Demonizing any one activity or food group will never work to curb obesity nor will it help children develop healthy habits for a lifetime. However, if we make those drinks just a little bit more expensive for those of us who can afford a 18% tax hike on our Cokes, then put the money toward public health programs to educate children about physical activity and good nutrition, it just may work. Or at least be a start.

As for this bioethicist, as soon as they pass that law, I'll be off to by dozens of cases of Diet Coke myself right here in New York.

Summer Johnson, PhD