Should there be more regulation on soda manufacturers, such as placing warning labels on cans and raising taxes on soda? The Center for Science in the Public Interest thinks so.
Soft drinks provide large amounts of sugars (mostly high-fructose corn syrup) to many individuals' diets. Soda pop provides the average 12- to 19-year-old boy with about 15 teaspoons of refined sugars a day and the average girl with about 10 teaspoons a day. Those amounts roughly equal the government's recommended limits for teens' sugar consumption from all foods.
Soft drinks are a problem not only for what they contain, but for what they push out of the diet. In 1977–78, boys consumed more than twice as much milk as soft drinks, and girls consumed 50 percent more milk than soft drinks. By 1994–96, both boys and girls consumed twice as much soda pop as milk. Heavy soft drink consumption is associated with lower intake of numerous vitamins, minerals, and dietary fiber.
The authors of the article then go on to suggest that warning labels be put on cans and that taxes on sodas be raised.
The economic case for taxes on products generally falls on whether a third party is harmed by its production/consumption. For example, an economic case can be made for taxes on cigarettes because third parties are harmed by their proper use. But this is not the case with soft drinks. If someone is drinking a soda in my presence, that person is benefitting and I am not being harmed at all. The harm comes to those who drink a lot of soda over time. But according to the folks at the CSPI , they not only need to be informed, they need to saved from themselves. I'm all for calling attention to problems, but levying taxes and regulating packaging simply amounts to busy-bodying.