Soda Taxes

Harvard Study Promising Huge Health Benefits From Soda Tax Clashes With Reality

Models versus reality.

|

If 15 major cities adopt a sugary drink tax of just 1 cent per ounce, diabetes could be slashed, more than 100,000 cases of obesity prevented and 3,683 deaths averted according to a new report from Harvard's T.H. Chan School of Public Health.

The report claims extraordinary health benefits for close to zero cost except that of administering the tax. So just how do the eminent researchers at Harvard find so many health-related benefits from just a 1 cent per ounce tax?

The answer is what Healthy Food America, who asked the researchers to conduct the study, call an "evidence-based, peer-reviewed computer model." Unfortunately for soda tax advocates, the model collides head-on with the cold hard reality that there is not yet a single real world example of a soda or sugar tax reducing obesity.

Mexico, which was hailed by public health activists and the editorial pages of The New York Times as an example to follow, has so far proved a huge disappointment to anti-obesity campaigners.

Mexico slapped a 1 peso per liter tax on sugar-sweetened beverages in 2013, with health benefits promised to follow. The tax took effect in 2014 and after an initial decline in the average purchases of taxed sugary beverages of six percent, sales are on now on the up again.

Coca-Cola Femsa SAB, Mexico's biggest coke bottler, reported in April that soda volumes in the country rose 5.5 percent, from the previous year. Arca Continental SAB, the second largest Coke bottler, reported a jump in soda volumes of 11 percent. Coca-Cola and Pepsi Cola even managed to edge up their market share rising to 48 percent and 11 percent respectively, according to The Wall Street Journal.

A similar pattern was observed in Finland, with its tax on confectionery items introduced in 2011. Within a year, shops were reporting sales returning to pre-tax levels following a modest decline.

The data on calorie consumption raises further doubts about the alleged health benefits trumpeted in the Harvard model. A study conducted in 2015 at the Mexico Institute of Technology's Center for Economic Research (ITAM) found that calorie consumption per person declined by just 1 percent per week. When researchers examined Body Mass Index before and after Mexico implemented the tax, they found "no discernible difference."

Not only did the tax have close to zero impact on calorie consumption, but those homes with an obese head of the household were actually the least likely to cut back on soda.

The one area the tax has achieved its goal is in the area of revenue. The Mexican government raked in more than $2 billion in soda taxes from January 2014. But since soda taxes hit those with the lowest incomes hardest, one would think this is hardly something to celebrate.

"There is no real world evidence that they have the slightest effect on calorie consumption, let alone obesity. They are stealth taxes which allow governments to pick the pockets of the poor," says Christopher Snowdon, head of lifestyle economics at the Institute of Economic Affairs.

The Harvard report may prove an enticing prospect for legislators looking to make a quick tax grab but as of yet, all the health benefits promised by the apostles of soda taxes have failed to appear beyond the computer screens of university researchers.

NEXT: EPA's New Fracking Report and Regulatory Science

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “Guy Bentley”? Sounds like a name a Russian would make up.

    1. Former intern, so even worse than a Russian

      1. There must be some mistake. I thought all the interns were named Chris or Beverly.

        1. They just call them that ’cause it’s easier than remembering new names.

          1. “Hey, you”

            1. Apropos because you triggered a neuron there, I was thinking that we need to call Mr Scripty Bleeding Sword Guy something. How about You Widda Face?

    2. Didn’t he used to live next door to George and Weezy Jefferson?

      1. + 1 Movin’ on up

    3. Oh yeah? Well I want to be Head of Lifestyle Economics.

  2. Well, at least the poor would finally start paying some taxes đŸ˜‰

  3. “evidence-based, peer-reviewed computer model.”

    In other words, bullshit.

    Seriously. Without exception, whenever I have seen or heard anyone use the phrase “evidence based,” that means they are cherry picking evidence that suits them while loudly deriding anything (or rather anyone, since the refutation of evidence they don’t like always takes the form of an ad hominem) that doesn’t. Same idea with “peer-reviewed.” All that means is that their peers, as in people who agree with them, agree with them. Anyone who disagrees has bad intentions. I mean, can there be any other explanation? The people who did the study have good intentions. To disagree with them is to disagree with their good intentions.

    1. ‘Based on computer models’ means study was engineered to arrive at pre-determined conclusion.

      1. It’s funny how that happens. I mean, it’s almost as if computer programs do what the people who write them tell them to do. Crazy!

        1. People have been struggling with the idea of garbage in, garbage out for quite some time in that regard.

          “On two occasions I have been asked,? ‘Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?’ I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.”

        2. Spoken like someone who has never written a computer program.

          1. Spoken like I crappy programmer.

              1. As so often with H & R typos, I think it worked fine the first time.

          2. They always do what you tell them to do.

            Programmers frequently tell them the wrong thing to do.

            This is the programmer’s fault, not the computer’s.

            1. Exactly. Computers do not make mistakes. Programmers do.

              1. So, if I program a computer to make a mistake, it will refuse?

                Shovel enough shit into any machine, it will break.

                1. A computer is not sentient, so it cannot refuse.

                  Programmers break computers all the time.

              2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_FDIV_bug

                The Pentium FDIV bug was a computer bug that affected the floating point unit (FPU) of the early Intel Pentium processors. Because of the bug, the processor could return incorrect decimal results when dividing a number.

                1. Hardware bug — software bug — same difference.

                  The humans involved fucked up.

                  1. “Hardware bug — software bug — same difference.”

                    For the purposes of this conversation, I’d disagree He said “programmers”

                  2. There’s also hardware failure, which is not really a human “fuck up” except in that they failed to create an impossibly perfect thing.

                    1. I’ve just picked up a fault in at AE-35 unit.

                  3. The humans involved fucked up.

                    I’m well aware of the fact that computers aren’t, exactly, sentient. This was my larger point. Computers and programmers can execute flawlessly and it doesn’t mean squat if garbage is fed into them. Even less if the assumption is that solid gold will come out no matter what’s shoveled in. The idea that the computer can never err supernaturally divorces it from it’s programmers and operators the way saying a gun can never kill. Guns don’t kill people, that doesn’t mean you hand them to children and suggest they poke their siblings with them.

                2. The Pentium FDIV bug was a computer bug

                  I.e. programmer error

            2. More often than that the customer (whether internal or external) tells the programmer the wrong thing to make it do.

              The most common class of defect is the missing, incomplete, or incorrect requirements

      2. Even if the model was done honestly, its accuracy is dependent on how well the person who developed the model understands the variables in the system being modeled and how they relate to each other.

      3. 99.9% of Top Men approve, so who the hell do you think you are, huh Mr Smarty Pants?
        Also: show me your degree from Columbia.

  4. “evidence-based, peer-reviewed computer model.” Unfortunately for soda tax advocates, the model collides head-on with the cold hard reality that there is not yet a single real world example of a soda or sugar tax reducing obesity.”

    Sounds familiar.

    1. You’re just an obesity denier, shilling for big sugar!

    2. After Castro finally died, I came across somebody blubbering rejections of Cubans saying stuff like “my uncle/brother spent 18 years in jail for being a political dissident/was tortured because he was gay/etc.” by saying that he wouldn’t accept any imperialist Batista-sympathizer propaganda–and apparently everyone was a Batista sympathizer well into CURRENT YEAR–about the paradise of Cuba unless he could see “peer-reviewed studies”. The fact that he had arrived at his current viewpoints without peer-reviewed studies did not seem to have occurred to him and he stopped replying after I asked.

      1. You cant have a productive conversation with someone like that.

  5. Really??! A peer reviewed computer model?? What exactly is that?
    All that means is that two or more programmers agree that the computer will generate the results defined in the requirements document.
    And the only evidence a computer knows is a one and a zero.
    Like the accountant applying for a job who was asked “what is two and two?”. His answer? What do you want it to be?
    (he got the job)

    1. There are 10 kinds of people in this world. Those who understand binary, and those who do not.

      1. *01101110 01100001 01110010 01110010 01101111 01110111 01110011 00100000 01100111 01100001 01111010 01100101*

          1. *continues to narrow gaze*

        1. Dude, that is really offensive.

        2. 01000001 01110010 01100101 00100000 01111001 01101111 01110101 00100000 01110000 01110010 01101111 01110101 01100100 00100000 01101111 01100110 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100001 01110100 00111111

          1. Don’t talk to Citizen X like that! He might want to marry you.

          2. Sigh.

            [unzip]

            1. 01000001 01101100 01101100 00100000 01111001 01101111 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100010 01100001 01110011 01100101 00100000 01100001 01110010 01100101 00100000 01100010 01100101 01101100 01101111 01101110 01100111 00100000 01110100 01101111 00100000 01110101 01110011 00101110

              1. 01011001 01101111 01110101 00100000 01101011 01101001 01110011 01110011 00100000 01010111 01101001 01101110 01110011 01110100 01101111 01101110 00100111 01110011 00100000 01101101 01101111 01101101 00100000 01110111 01101001 01110100 01101000 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100001 01110100 00100000 01101101 01101111 01110101 01110100 01101000 00111111

      2. Please, binary is for novices. Now hexadecimal, that’s a number system.

        1. well, alphanumeric to be pedantic …

        2. 54 68 61 74 27 73 20 6a 75 73 74 2c 20 6c 69 6b 65 2c 20 79 6f 75 72 20 6f 70 69 6e 69 6f 6e 2c 20 6d 61 6e 2e

          1. 53 61 79 20 77 68 61 74 20 79 6f 75 20 77 61 6e 74 20 61 62 6f 75 74 20 68 65 78 61 64 65 63 69 6d 61 6c 2c 20 61 20 6c 65 61 73 74 20 69 74 73 20 61 6e 20 65 74 68 6f 73

              1. 2d 31 20 44 6f 6e 6e 69 65

        3. Yeah, the first couple seasons of Reboot were great.

  6. Mexico slapped a 1 *peso* per liter tax on sugar-sweetened beverages

    The Mexican government raked in more than $2 billion in soda taxes from January 2014.

    Holy Hell do Mexicans drink a lot of Coke!

    Build a wall! Make them pay for it!

    1. And their Coke is the good stuff with actual sugar in it. Unlike that fructose shit that is foisted upon people in The Land Of The Free.

      1. Yeah, why didn’t Trump run on that?

      2. It’s also known as (((Coke))).

        1. I don’t care what others say about you LAO; you’re a good egg in my book.

      3. I only drink Real Sugar Pepsi and Dew, when I drink soda. I know the sugar isn’t good, but I have to believe it is still better than HFCS and all those artificial sweeteners. And furthermore, I’m 5’10” 180lbs. What is this about causing obesity?

        1. I have to believe it is still better than HFCS and all those artificial sweeteners

          not according to the people who would otherwise want you to believe that. see link below =

          According to health columnist Jane Brody of the New York Times, “When it comes to calories and weight gain, it makes no difference if the sweetener was derived from corn, sugar cane, beets or fruit juice concentrate. All contain a combination of fructose and glucose and, gram for gram, supply the same number of calories.” She goes on to cite Michael Jacobson of the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Science in the Public Interest, who says, “If the food industry got rid of all the high-fructose corn syrup and replaced it with sugar, we’d have the same problems we have now with obesity, diabetes and heart disease. It’s an urban myth that high-fructose corn syrup has a special toxicity.”

          The CSPI is usually completely full of shit. but on the point that all caloric-sweeteners being the same, health wise, they’re correct.

        2. It’s almost like people have individual reactions to this stuff or something.

      4. their Coke is the good stuff

        “Grade A chit” as Tony Montana would say.

        The reason they use sugar tho, is because of a law and tarrifs against importation of HFCS from the US.

        it was the subject of trade disputes and WTO rulings in 1997, 2001, 2006. I think most of the Mexican beverage makers still mostly use domestic sugar even if not forced to since that’s just how the market has come to prefer it.

        interesting article here

    2. Because it’s sugar Coke.

  7. Fact: After I quit drinking soda my penis grew three inches longer.

    1. and so it’s now 3 1/2?

    2. Now it is four inches long?

      *You begged for that

    3. Pay no mind to all those mean folk, Crusty – I am glad for ya!

    4. Do women really want 11″ of D?

        1. So that’s how you rationalize your homosexuality.

        2. Right here, folks. This is why you don’t believe everything on the internet. Isn’t that right, Frenchie?

        1. Just because it’s a fluorescent purple and semi-transparent doesn’t mean it’s a dildo.

          1. Just because your mom keeps it in her purse doesn’t mean it’s a dildo.

  8. Because soda is the primary source of sugar in people’s diets? That alone is responsible for the diabetes plague? Ever bother to read the ingredients in 90% of the stock on grocery store shelves?

    1. Dextrose = sugar

  9. Does this “study” take into account social security?

    We should actually encourage people to drink and smoke.

    1. “Actuarial Society urges euthanasia at 73”

  10. Must have skipped the intern training on alt-text….

    1. Even Newer Coke: Now with fewer pubic hairs on top!

  11. Fat poor people are not budget conscious when it comes to soda shopping. They will spend big money on a convenience store fountain soda even if the Kroger or Safeway down the street has 2-Liter bottles on sale for 88 cents. Even for a 50% savings, the fat poor will not walk a few hundred extra yards. The fat poor want their soda and any tax on it is just fleecing the fat poor. This will not save the lives of the fat poor.

    1. Fat poor White people drink Mountain Dew.

      Fat poor Black people drink grape Crush or Fanta.

      Fat poor Hispanic people drink Jarritos.

      What soda do fat poor Asian/P.I. people (aka Samoans) drink?

      Asking for a friend.

      1. I used to know one but he was Hawaiian, not Samoan. I swear the guy slept with a Dr. Pepper in his hand.

    2. Nor will anything else.

      Last night I stood in line at the grocery store behind on one of the most morbidly obese people I have ever seen. She had 12 six packs of coke in her cart. I counted. She also had several pies, bags of chips, doughnuts, chocolate candy etc. and nothing else. It made me sad.

      1. Did she pay with an EBT card?

        1. No, but I knew her. She is a retired state employee. She probably falls into the category of ‘poor’ but not poor poor. She has 30 years in and gets 3/4 of her salary so she can pay her bills and eat but I doubt she has a lot of discretion in how she spends what is left over. The EBT payer with a cart full of junk food was in the next line over.

      2. We all choose what is important to us.

  12. My older son and I drink diet soda. My younger son drinks regular. Guess who the thin was is?

    1. was is…hey were are all is.

          1. I don’t know what the fuck it is. Too much work shit is being a royal pain in my ass.

          2. The point is that the thin one drinks regular soda.

        1. The Walrus?

    2. thats a good trend.
      I’m very skinny. Butter, whole milk, and regular soda all in my diet.

      1. Quit flaunting your metabolic privilege, cis-digestivist shitlord!

        1. Wait until he hits the back end of thirty. We’ll be having the last laugh yet, my friend.

          1. idk, my dad is still 180. over 6 feet tall.

          2. Nah, he’ll be good for quite a while after that.

          3. I’m 35, not in terrible shape, and the other night i somehow injured my knee just sleeping. The struggle is real.

            1. My mathematical models tell me we’re going to need a tax on sleeping.

              1. Speaking of, i’m sleeping for eight hours a day, so why am i not getting paid a fair wage for that? And time and a half on weekends?

        2. its pretty scary, actually.
          when i was in school in boston i was rather broke.
          if i “missed” a meal, i would lose 5 pounds. my belt wouldn’t fit. If i eat a pint of ice cream, nothing happens.

          1. I was like that in college. Until my early thirties, actually. Then I got a real job and wasn’t hungry all the time and well, that was the end of that.

            1. i assume it’ll get better as time goes. more consistent healthy meals will help.
              my family photos might look like a banister if you have bad eyes.

          2. Maybe you have a tapeworm.

            1. “Raccoon, Charlie! I fed you raccoon meat!”

              1. +1 The Hunger

  13. “There is no real world evidence that they have the slightest effect on calorie consumption, let alone obesity. They are stealth taxes which allow governments to pick the pockets of the poor,”

    It’s very easy for the elites to bully the poor and steal their money.

    1. The tax is too small to change consumption patterns. If we increased taxes to $1/oz, that would change things quick (not that I’m proposing that).

      1. By ‘change things’ you mean create a black market or a market for home soda machines?

        1. *Sodastream lobbyist perks up*

        2. Well of course it would. Soda would fall off the back of the truck. I’m just saying that a few pennies an oz won’t change anything. If I remember correctly, there is an inverse correlation between calories consumed and the cost of food. If you significantly increase the price of food (via taxes or any other method), you’ll get less consumption of food.

          Interestingly I think the flat per oz tax would shift consumption from cans to larger bottles. I buy soda in 12 packs of cans for $0.20/can, a $0.01 tax/oz makes it $0.32/can. A 20 oz bottle bought at a convenience store changes it from $2 to $2.20.
          Again, I don’t support these things.

          1. If you significantly increase the price of food (via taxes or any other method), you’ll get less consumption of food.

            The trick is finding the right balance that will maximize revenue, which is the real reason behind these schemes.

    2. The only people that steal money are rich people. All of the rich people I know sit around twirling thin mustaches and laughing hysterically as their pollution reigns down upon fleeing crowds.

      Usually when they finish laughing, they go down to the warehouse floor and to kick their workers who are chained to their work benches.

      That last time I went to a rich friends house, he was actually eating some of his deceased employees. No shit!

      1. Ah, I’m sure around here you won’t find it hard at all to find someone who can tell you the proper way to slow cook an orphan who has dropped from overwork and exhaustion to achieve maximum tenderness…

    3. my body, my choice!
      /slams mountain dew

  14. “There is no real world evidence that they have the slightest effect on calorie consumption, let alone obesity.”

    Well, there is no real world evidence that drinking soda causes obesity either, so there is very good reason to expect that a tax on soda won’t change obesity whether or not it changes consumption habits.

  15. The evidence that Pepsi and Coke gained market share doesn’t indicate that the tax isn’t working (it is a percentage of the whole). If their shipments are going up that could indicate the market is growing or just staying the same.

    Furthermore, large vendors like Pepsi and Coke (especially the large bottlers) can probably better absorb the tax. They can cut price or abstain from increasing price longer than smaller players.

    1. Just think how bad it would be if they hadn’t instituted this tax.

      1. Americans will all be skinny and good looking now because of this.

        1. We’re counting Mexicans as Americans again?

          1. As long as they keep working harder than the rest of them, they can be americans.

    2. According to both Pepsi and Coke CEO’s, their companies are planning on phasing out sugary drinks, anyways. They basically said that both companies are doing great on the sales of bottled tap water (Dasani and Aquafina) and sports drinks (Gatorade and Powerade). They both have also stated that sales of sugary drinks are declining, which shows (IMO) how much more valuable education is over taxation/prohibition. If I remember correctly, I believe both companies say that in 10 years, sugary soda sales will be 5-10% of their revenues.

      1. their companies are planning on phasing out sugary drinks, anyways

        LOL sure they are.

      2. Umm, unless they are planning on phasing out Gatorade and Powerade, they aren’t planning on phasing out sugary drinks.

    3. Coca-Cola Femsa SAB, Mexico’s biggest coke bottler, reported in April that soda volumes in the country rose 5.5 percent, from the previous year. Arca Continental SAB, the second largest Coke bottler, reported a jump in soda volumes of 11 percent. Coca-Cola and Pepsi Cola even managed to edge up their market share rising to 48 percent and 11 percent respectively,

      Looks like they’ve got a gross increase in volume as well as a relative increase in market share. Not quite enough info to determine whether they have a bigger piece of a shrinking market, but it seems unlikely that this is a shrinking market to me. When the big player’s gross sales and market share go up, that generally means the market is growing, too.

  16. It’s none of government’s business what I put in my mouth. I wish that ended the discussion.

    1. ^Correct
      *unzips

    2. Looks like the discussion IS ended. For about two and a half minutes, anyway.

  17. There was a time when Ivy League schools were considered beacons of higher education and enlightenment.

    That is no longer the case. They are now considered to be brainwashing institutions of leftist thought. oh, so goes almost every other post secondary institution in the united states.

    What is it going to take for the greater majority of amercians who are not brainwashed zombies to not even give these people your attention even to ridicule them?

    When I hear “university study”, I immediately assume it is bullshit.

  18. http://www.wsbtv.com/news/geor…../475707667

    The Georgia Secretary of State’s Office now confirms 10 separate cyberattacks on its network were all traced back to U.S. Department of Homeland Security addresses.

    In an exclusive interview, a visibly frustrated Secretary of State Brian Kemp confirmed the attacks of different levels on his agency’s network over the last 10 months. He says they all traced back to DHS internet provider addresses.

    RC Dean said a couple of days ago that the whole “Russians hacked the election” bullshit was likely a misdirection to keep the public from noticing this. I think he might be onto something. This is a big fucking deal. It is of course being ignored by the court media.

    1. Everything that both sides talk about in unison is a distraction. Basically if any television news outlet discusses something and the right leaning radio programs discuss the other side of said stupid subject, then it is a well orchestrated distraction from the economy, or the deep state antics or FED, or international strife due to failing governments, or warmongering.

    2. What possible motivation could the DHL have for attempting to hack the Georgia secretary of state’s network. Perhaps they were looking for vulnerabilities in order to justify Federalizing the states voting networks. Imagine how fun it would be for the feds if they controlled all the voting machines in the country.

      1. That is probably a pretty good guess. It was some half assed scheme to justify their existence and give them an excuse for more power.

        1. +1 operation fast and furious

      2. IIRC, Georgia was the only state to tell DHS that they didn’t want help with securing their voting systems.

        It could just have been attempted retaliation against them for that.

  19. What the hell do I care if they impose a soda tax? I only drink pop.

    1. We’ve only got Coke. Flavors: Dr. Pepper, Coke, Diet, Sprite, and root beer.

      1. Exactly. Though fortunately the only Coke I drink is Coke, so there was little confusion when I lived in Indiana.

        1. What? no Faygo?

  20. To a democrat taxes are like cowbell.

  21. Guy Bentley

    Chance of sweater tied around neck: 100%

    1. Oh come. That is a great name. You have to admit that.

      1. It couldn’t be more British unless his name was “Nigel Marmite Boddington”

        1. Got a client from England named Nigel Buttersworth. No shit.

      2. It sounds like a name someone on the run makes up.

        Security Guard in Parking Lot: “Hey, what’s your name?”
        Escaped Convict: “Uhhhh…Guy…*sees car*…Bentley.”

      3. I’ll bet it’s pronounced “Ghee”. His parents pronounce it “Guy” because that’s the name they gave him, but somewhere around the 10th grade he started insisting on the “proper” pronunciation. (He got beat up a lot in high school until his parents took him out of the public school system and sent him to the academy.)

      4. Oh come. That is a great name. You have to admit that.

        Where in my comment do I suggest it’s not? Just because I remark on Robby Soave’s hair, doesn’t mean I don’t wish I had it.

    2. He has a terrier named Ascot and it wears an ascot! He owns twelve pair of boat shoes and no sneakers.

      1. And say that like it is a bad thing.

        1. Well, he’s probably doing it ironically, if that makes a difference to you.

          1. I would never do anything like that ironically.

            1. John thinks “irony” is a service he has to pay extra for at the dry cleaner’s.

              1. Pretty much. And who wouldn’t enjoy wearing an Ascot and driving an old MGA or Sunbeam Alpine?

      2. and no sneakers.

        Of course not. They’re “trainers”

        1. horn rim glasses, tight rolled dark jeans, sleeveless sweater with flannel print beneath, hates gas guzzling suvs yet loves old gas guzzling cool cars, remarkably unkempt yet well kept greasy looking hair.

          Secretly hates red necks and openly loves alt rock douche music and fancies himself one hell of a cook.

          Says he is for gun rights but really hates them

          Long beard? You bet.

          1. I don’t hate rednecks or gun rights and i don’t love douchy alt-rock (here i assume you are referring to Vampire Weekend), but you just described me, homie.

  22. 3,683 deaths averted

    Big deal. I could save more death by banning driving or bathing.

  23. The one area the tax has achieved its goal is in the area of revenue.

    So, it’s working exactly as intended.

    1. No, no. I’m sure they really thought this would save lives.

      Really. Sure. *coughs*

    2. The only beneficiaries of pigouvian taxes are the pigs.

  24. ‘and 3,683 deaths averted according to a new report from Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health.’

    No – by my more exact calculations 3,684 deaths would be averted…

  25. Public health departments at universities and in government are a national joke.

    1. Yes, but unfortunately the joke is on us.

  26. “Minority and low-income residents of Berkeley, Calif., drank 21 percent less of the sugary stuff after the city implemented an excise tax, according to a study published on Tuesday in the American Journal of Public Health.
    Researchers compared sugary drink sales in Berkeley from the four-month period of April 2014 through July 2014 to a five-month period the next year, just after the tax went into effect.”
    https://www.bloomberg.com/

    Absolutely no chance they traveled a mile and a half and bought them in a surrounding city.

  27. Its pretty ironic to see soda taxed by a government that, according to legend,was formed in opposition to taxes on tea, dontcha think?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.