No adverse health effects of noncaloric sweeteners have been consistently demonstrated, but there are concerns that diet beverages may increase calorie consumption by justifying consumption of other caloric foods or by promoting a preference for sweet tastes. At present, we do not propose taxing beverages with noncaloric sweeteners, but we recommend close tracking of studies to determine whether taxing might be justified in the future. (Emphasis added.)I found the conversation on Slashdot to be pretty intriguing, given that's (generally) a pretty sophisticated audience - there's a whole range of issues discussed from the burden that poor eating puts on the entire healthcare system to the concept that taxing sweetened drinks is essentially helping people see/pay the costs of their diet choices.
I find that latter argument to be pretty hard to believe, however. Are people really going to link a tax on Coke to the long-term health implications of drinking pop? One could argue that this has happened as a result of the tax on cigarettes, that more people understand the long-term health implications of smoking. Of course, taxing cigarettes is just one part of that - there's also social marketing, bans on cigarette advertising, public smoking bans, etc.
It seems like there would have to be a lot more going on here to argue that a public tax on sweetened drinks would be a way to teach people about the long-term impact of drinking too much Coke, Pepsi, etc. And it would appear (to me) to be even more unlikely that you could persuade the general public that noncaloric sweeteners also might contribute to overweight/obesity - good luck with that public education campaign.
Anyway, it's an interesting conversation, and I'll be curious to see where it goes and how this might hurt/help the argument for some kind of universal coverage or public option.
