- Public Health Agencies Care More About Controlling You Than Prepping for Pandemics - May 13, 2020
- Nicotine Policy Should Not Be Exempt From Science - May 5, 2020
- Nothing’s ‘Impossible’ When It Comes To Innovation - March 2, 2020
In the first success of its nature for “nanny state” advocates after many years of trying, Philadelphia Thursday became the first major city to attempt to control the non-alcoholic drink choices of its residents by enacting a 1.5-cent-per-ounce tax on soda, tea, sports and energy drinks. This is expected to embolden nanny state tax advocates across the United States.
The tax, like others on food and food-related items, will fall disproportionately on lower income individuals.
The National Center for Public Policy Research’s director of Risk Analysis, Jeff Stier, is available to speak with reporters and has a statement:
The only good thing about Philadelphia’s newly-imposed soda tax is that proponents were somewhat honest about it, admitting it wasn’t about improving public health. Instead, they admitted it was a money grab, albeit a highly regressive one.
Perhaps it was a wise tactical move, because soda-tax campaigners have failed to persuade scientists or the public that the tax reduces caloric consumption, obesity, or diabetes.
Adding to the absurdity of this tax, Philly’s treats diet soda and full sugar alike, failing to even distinguish between sugary drinks, which, like all caloric food and beverages, can contribute to obesity, and zero or low calorie beverages. Similarly, advocates across the country are pushing to equalize cigarette and e-cigarette sin taxes, the latter of which is primarily used by adult smokers trying to lower their risk. If soda was the new tobacco, now diet soda is the new e-cigarette.
In March, Stier told the Daily Caller that “Soda tax proponents are asking us to suspend normal assumptions about human behavior and simply assume that people who reduce soda consumption to avoid the tax, won’t just make their own sugary drinks and won’t replace the calories with other high-calorie foods or drinks.”
In an op-ed in the Houston Chronicle in 2014, Stier explained the real rationale for soda taxes: “Rather simply, it is Sutton’s Law. The ‘law’ is named after the infamous American bank robber Willie Sutton, who was incorrectly credited with answering a reporter who asked him why he robs banks by saying, ‘That’s where the money is.'”
Mr. Stier has testified before city and state governments and has frequently been quoted in or published in the press or appeared on cable television to discuss “nanny state” issues, including New York City’s ill-fated attempt under then-Mayor Michael Bloomberg to govern the size of cups New York City residents were to be permitted to use for their beverages.
Here he is discussing the New York soda ban on CNBC; in one of his many New York Postop-eds, this time discussing a proposed New York City ban on styrofoam; and being quoted in Forbes about nanny state attempts to limit transfats, among perhaps a hundred other prominent examples of his work.
To speak with Jeff Stier, contact Judy Kent at (703) 759-7476 or cell (703) 477-7476 firstname.lastname@example.org.
The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, less than four percent from foundations, and less than two percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors. Sign up for free issue alerts here or follow us on Twitter at @NationalCenter.