Book: Aging Beyond Belief by Don Ardell

If you plan to age, prepare yourself — it's later than you think. The challenge of aging well should be taken seriously, but not grimly! Whatever your age, it's never too soon, or too late, to learn and apply the fine art of aging well, really well. Discover what aspects of aging can't be changed and improve the rest that can. Mold your own realities with REAL wellness, Ardell-style.

The 69 tips — one for each year of the author's life — are thought-provoking, challenging, eye-opening, manageable and fun to read. And all provide practical guidance for intelligently designing your own life-style evolution.
Learn more

Don's report archive

by Donald B. Ardell, Ph. D.
Read Don's blog!

Wellness in the Headlines
(Don's Report to the World)

A Surcharge On Soda Pop In San Francisco? A Good Idea, Or Not?

Thursday January 10, 2008

"Elsewhere, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee apologized for 'unfortunate' remarks he made about Mormonism, telling a reporter, 'If they want to drink the blood of human babies, that's their business.'"
~Andy Borowitz, The Borowitz Report, December 17, 2007

The following article has no relation to the above quote from a recent Bowowitz Report, and I could not think of a sensible segue to it. But, I'm using it anyway. I don't care. It's priceless, IMHO.

On December 18, 2007, the New York Times reported that the mayor of San Francisco, in an effort to promote the common good, trim waistlines and reduce the strain of obesity-induced health care costs, wants a fee added to the cost of soft drinks. This surcharge is designed to discourage the consumption of sugar-sweet, high-fructose corn syrup cola drinks. It was not mentioned in the story, but perhaps the mayor also hopes the tax might somehow set junk food addicts on a better path to improved diets, if not wellness lifestyles.

The link between obesity and high-fructose corn syrup is clear, though of course many other poor food choices (plus little or no exercise) account for much of the increased medical burden worrying the mayor. Funds collected from the mayor's proposed surcharge would support city-run wellness programs, such as "Shape Up San Francisco."

I'm guessing that you will not be surprised to learn that soda pop interests are less than enthused with Mayor Gavin's proposal. Somehow, being singled out among many obesity-causing agents does not appeal to manufacturers, vendors and others in the sugar water trade.

These reservations will have to be taken into account by the good mayor, inasmuch as the American Beverage Association (ABA) will no doubt vigorously defend its $105-billion-a-year industry. A spokesperson for the ABA has already referred to the mayor's "flawed strategy" and unwillingness to permit the him to stick the soda pop folks with the town's obesity bill.

The San Francisco Chronicle published a blizzard of comments on the mayor's idea. Here is a sampling of local sentiment about the soda pop surcharge idea:

Tax computer and video game companies. These products "lure children inside when they should "be outside burning calories."
Tax pizza dough and fat cheeses followed by Super Burritos, red meat and sour cream.
Tax fried hamburgers, Twinkies and the like.
Tax lattes and organic free trade coffee. They give people jitters and contribute to all kinds of heart ailments.
Tax oversized clothes and butter.
Tax U-Hauls. The city can make a nice profit on these rentals when a sizeable percentage of the population moves to escape nanny government.
Tax restaurant tabs over $100. Those who can afford to spend that much on a meal won't mind.
Tax all St. Patrick's Day goodies from beer and corned beef to Irish whiskey, and English fish and chips.
Tax vitamin water and other bogus stuff pseudo health conscious parents are feeding their kids. A vitamin water bottle has 32 grams of sugar - almost as much as a can of Coke.
Give tax breaks to Asian food cafes and restaurants that serve vegetarian menus.
Tax everyone who lives in San Francisco. Obviously they are rich commie hippies and can afford it.
Tax based on BMI. More weight produces more wear and tear on the roads and bus seats, lowers fuel efficiency, raises emergency room usage, requires more trucks coming in to the city bearing more food and so it goes.

Basically, this idea is not going to make it into policy any time soon. Yet, a worthy question raised by the proposal might still be beneficially pondered: Is this initiative (or one like it) a good idea, from a wellness enhancement point of view?

I think so. Governments already tax "sin" products such as alcohol and tobacco, so how is this different? I am in favor of San Francisco taxing worseness, unless the city wants to tax something I enjoy, like coffee or apple pie a la mode.

Hmmmm. Now that puts things in a new light. On second thought, it's not a good idea. Wellness is a positive approach. Behavior change for the better is best advanced personally and in the larger society with attractions and pleasures, not penalties or, in this case, surcharges. There is too much negativity involved when people are penalized for doing the wrong thing rather than rewarded intrinsically or externally for constructive choices that boost joy, exuberance and quality of life.

What do you think?

Be well. Look on the bright side.

Domain: mental
Subdomain: effective decisions

Search other reports in the Don Ardell report archive.

	Custom Search