Is a "soda tax" regressive (and do we care)?

Day 2 at the food journalism workshop in Boston. Yesterday, I learned this unthinkable statistic: 50 years ago, 100 million people in the world were obese; today 1.6 billion are. The fast-food, pre-packaged, empty calories food industry is penetrating the globe.

At home in New York, Governor Paterson wanted to tackle obesity (and pad the budget) with a penny-per-ounce tax on sugary beverages. Yesterday, I met the researcher who’s science this proposal is based on. Kelly Brownell directs the Rudd Center for Food Policy at Yale University. (He was quoted in this morning’s Times.) He’s pushing the very same penny-per-ounce proposal in more than a dozen state legislatures and the city of Philadelphia.

The argument is that education has failed to curb obesity. The percentage of people who are obese and who exercise has remained stagnant for decades, despite huge public education campaigns. Meanwhile, the price of soda has risen slower than almost any other category of food.

The answer, instead, is an “optimal default”. Create a disincentive for people to buy soda in the first place by making it more expensive.

An interesting question came up. Since obesity and poor eating (and drinking habits) are linked to poverty, is the “soda tax” regressive? The answer, Brownell says, is yes, but the revenue from the tax should be poured into anti-obesity campaigns.

Imagine $9 billion dollars in debt New York State putting any extra revenue in public health campaigns right now.

What do you think of the “soda tax”? Does the government have a responsibility to address America’s obesity epidemic?