NY Soft Drink Tax: Second VerseAs Bad As The First
Empire State Governor David Paterson wasn’t bluffing when he said last fall that he wanted to bring his widely panned soft-drink tax proposal back from the grave. You might remember that in December 2008he proposed an 18 percent tax on sugar-sweetened beverages like sports drinksenergy drinksand soda to try to close a budget shortfall. By Februaryhoweverhis proposal had lost its fizz. His new planannounced yesterdayis a penny-per-ounce tax—so if a 20-ounce sports drink costs a dollarit would amount to a 20 percent tax on soft drinks.
While food cop Kelly Brownell giddily called the first proposal “bold reform” and has since been throwing his weight around trying to get a penny-per-ounce fee on sugary drinkstaxpayers haven’t been so gung-ho. A Quinnipiac University poll found that only 37 percent of New Yorkers supported taxes on their sugary drinks. And those numbers likely haven’t gone anywhere but south. A (national) poll released in September by the Opinion Research Corporation found that two-thirds of Americans oppose such a tax. There’s good reason: People rightfully realize that paternalistic politicians have no business creating special fees to engineer what we put in our mouths.
As we’re telling the media todayPaterson’s soft drink tax sequel earns a review as flat as the original
The tax code should not be a tool of social engineering against New Yorkers who choose to make food and drink choices that paternalistic officials like Governor Paterson don’t approve of. New York state is home to the Big Applenot Big Brother.
There is no single cause of obesitytherefore singling out sugary drinks makes no sense. Paterson’s latest proposal only serves to fatten the wallets of Albany politiciansnot trim New Yorkers’ waistlines.
Self-styled food guru Michael Pollan’s latest rant against modern farmingFood Rules: An Eater’s Manuallists 64 rules for healthy eating. Pollan says they are meant to be taken as “Food Don’ts” -- for the sake of our health and the environment. And as usualAmerica’s “foodies” are going ga-ga over someone whose claim to fame is repeatedly lecturing others to “Eat Food.” So let’s take a close look at what this journalism professor has to offer in his latest diatribe on what you eat.
Pollan admits he ignores nutrition sciencewhich he derides as inexact. But perhaps the real reason he avoids citing actual research is because he knows it doesn’t support his pseudo-scientific beliefs.
Take Rule #22“Eat mostly plants.” Pollan claims vegetarians are “notably healthier” and live longer than meat-eaters. Yeta 2006 study by researchers at the University of Oxford found that vegetarians died of strokes and cancers of the colonbreast and prostate at the same rate as omnivores. The mortality ratethe Oxford team wrote“appears to be similar in vegetarians and comparable non-vegetarians.” In other wordsvegetarians don’t live longer than meat-eaters – though life may seem interminably long if you spend most of your time choking down Tofurky and soy-cheese lettuce wraps.
Pollan blows it again with Rule #27which holds that meat from “wild” free-range animals eating grass is more nutritious than from grain-fed animals raised in feedlots. Before you drop half your paycheck on “artisanal” porkchopsknow this: Free-range meat carries health risks that slow-food advocates like Pollan won’t tell you about.
A study published in the journal Foodborne Pathogens and Disease found significantly higher rates of salmonella in free-range pigs when compared with pigs raised on larger farms. Pigs raised in the roof-coveredenvironmentally-controlled surroundings of the much-maligned Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) are actually less conducive to disease. And pigs that spend time outdoors are more likely to come into contact with disease-carrying animals.
And if you don’t eat for your healthhow about the health of Planet Earth? Pollan’s advice may actually lead to greater environmental damage. The CAFOs that he demonizes use less land to raise more animals than the free-range method. Grass-fed cowsfor instancecan require up to 10 acres of pasture per head. If today’s cattlemen exclusively used 1950s technologythey would need an additional 165 million acres of land – roughly the size of Texas -- to produce the same amount of beef. And since niche-market cows don’t grow as big as their more conventional counterpartsa wholesale backpedal to old-school farming would increase levels of animal-waste pollution by nearly 30 percent.
Is this the environmental outcome Pollan seeks?
Maybe it’s not fair to criticize Pollan for his scientific illiteracy. After allhe gives himself an out in his final Rule #64“Break the Rules Once in a While.” If there’s a sequelwe think it should begin with Rule #65: Break most of Pollan’s rules most of the time.