Sometimes The Curmudgeon gets what he thinks is a good idea for a blog piece but some publication beats him to the punch on the subject. Usually that means beating himself up a little for being slow to bring his idea of life and then putting the idea aside and moving on to the many others he has warming up in the bullpen.
And sometimes it means plunging ahead and writing that piece anyway.
This is one of those times when he’s plunging.
Recently elected Philadelphia Mayor Nitwit, about whom The Curmudgeon has written on a number of occasions (here, here, here, and here), arguably has some decent ideas, among them universal pre-kindergarten for all Philadelphia children and transforming public schools into broader community centers, or “community schools,” as they seem to call them. The problem is that he has no money to do these things, so to raise it, and with all the good vices taken (the city already taxes cigarettes and booze out the wazoo, and until Pennsylvania catches up with other states and legalizes marijuana, he can’t impose a joint tax), he turned his avaricious eye to what they call “sugary drinks.”
Of course, Mayor Nitwit doesn’t have a creative bone in his body, so the idea is not his. His predecessor tried it and failed, and soda taxes have been introduced elsewhere. Berkeley, California has the only soda tax in the U.S.; Michael Bloomberg tried, unsuccessfully, to get one in New York City; France, Mexico, and Norway have such taxes, one will begin in Britain 2018, and other countries are currently considering them; and Denmark, strangely, instituted such a tax in the 1930s (along with a “fat tax”) but abolished it in 2013.
The rationale for taxing soda is that it’s a high-calorie, high-sugar product with no nutritional value. Also, it’s theoretically contributing to fattening up our children and giving us diabetes. In fact, it’s the number two cause of fattening up our children and putting them at risk of getting diabetes.
The number one cause, of course, is bad parenting. When those of us of a certain age were growing up no one knew all this stuff was as bad for us as it’s turned out to be, so our parents get a mulligan for getting us addicted to sweets. Today’s parents do know better, so there’s no excuse.
So The Curmudgeon was planning a short piece on the many other sugar-laden things you’ll find in convenience stores and grocery stores that are as bad for you as a bottle of Coke, and he even began making a list of such things and researching their sugar, calorie, and nutrition content, when disaster struck.
Disaster in the form of former Philadelphia Mayor/Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, a guy who’s never said no to a sweet treat and never failed to have something to say whenever a reporter sticks a microphone or tape recorder in front of his face. When asked about the proposed tax, Rendell, as reported by the Philadelphia Inquirer, said
How about doughnuts? Things like that? I’m a big consumer of Dunkin’ Donuts, but why are they exempt?
The Curmudgeon has always liked Eddie and this only makes him like Eddie more.
But The Curmudgeon was undaunted, so let’s look at some of the targeted beverages as well as some of your beverage alternatives. (And with this disclaimer: The Curmudgeon doesn’t drink carbonated beverages and gave up sugar in his iced tea a few years ago because of fear of diabetes because he had a lot of sugar in his diet and also because his eye doctor kept looking at his damaged eyes and asking him if he had diabetes, so he has no dog in this fight.)
Let’s start with a baseline:
- Coca-Cola (16 ounces) – 185 calories, 52 grams of sugar
- Mountain Dew (16 ounces) – 210 calories, 62 grams of sugar
- Snapple Lemon Iced Tea (16 ounces) – 200 calories, 46 grams of sugar
- Coke Slurpee (16 ounces; does anyone get them that small?) – 130 calories, 36 grams of sugar
The first three would be taxed under the Philadelphia proposal. The Slurpee? That’s not clear, but since they say they’re charging the tax to the distributors and not at the retail level and Slurpees are made in the store, there doesn’t appear to be a clear-cut answer at this time.
And yes, that’s a lot of sugar.
So what, exactly, is a “lot of sugar”? One teaspoon of sugar has four grams of sugar, so one tablespoon has 3×4 grams of sugar or 12 grams of sugar (The Curmudgeon has wicked math skills). So that 16-ounce Coke? Four tablespoons plus a teaspoon of sugar.
Holy toothache, Batman!
For the record, the American Heart Association says women shouldn’t have more than about six teaspoons of added sugar a day (24 grams) (“added sugar” meaning sugar added to food, as opposed to sugar that occurs naturally in food, such as in fruit) and men no more than about nine (36 grams).
Which means that Coke you had with lunch today blew your sugar budget for the day – and for tomorrow, too.
Now let’s look at some of your presumably more nutritious beverage alternatives:
- Minute Maid Orange Juice (16 ounces) – 225 calories, 48 grams of sugar
- Sweetened apple juice (16 ounces) – 234 calories, 36 grams of sugar
- Nesquik low-fat chocolate milk (16 ounces) – 260 calories, 29 grams of sugar
Not a whole lot healthier, are they? In fact, except for the Vitamin C, how is orange juice better for you than a Coke? So why isn’t orange juice being fitted to wear the scarlet letter S (for “sugary”)? And what about that chocolate milk?
Maybe it’s coffee you crave, so let’s visit Starbucks:
Caffe latte – 16 ounces – 190 calories, 17 grams of sugar
- Caramel Macchiato – 16 ounces – 240 calories, 32 grams of sugar
- Cinnamon Dolce Frappuccino Blended Coffee – 16 ounces – 380 calories, 58 grams of sugar
The Curmudgeon doesn’t drink coffee, either, but that cinnamon dolce frappuccino sounds pretty amazing – and like heart disease in a mug. Why isn’t Mayor Nitwit going after the sugary coffee drinks?
So if you’re in your neighborhood convenience store, maybe you decide to go healthy with a nice, six-ounce carton of Yoplait strawberry yogurt. The totals: 150 calories, 18 grams of sugar.
Okay, so that’s a little better. An apple, by comparison, is 95 calories with 19 grams of sugar.
But if you’re buying soft drinks you also may be in the market for a sweet snack. Here are a few of your choices:
Twinkies (2) – 270 calories, 33 grams of sugar
- Tastykake chocolate cupcakes (for our Philadelphia-area readers) (3 cupcakes) – 315 calories, 35 grams of sugar
- Reece’s Cups (2) – 210 calories, 21 grams of sugar
- Snickers bar – 215 calories, 20 grams of sugar
- Almond Joy (package) – 234 calories, 24 grams of sugar
- Hershey bar (1.55 ounces) – 220 calories, 24 grams of sugar
Or maybe you go a little upscale:
Cheesecake Factory – 1 slice of strawberry cheesecake – 730 calories, 66 grams of sugar.
Why aren’t those Cheesecake Factory folks being targeted for indictment for attempted murder?
Finally, let’s not forget Ed Rendell’s Dunkin Donuts:
Chocolate frosted (one) – 280 calories, 13 grams of sugar
- Glazed (one) – 260 calories, 12 grams of sugar
- Sugar (one) – 310 calories, 13 grams of sugar
Actually, donuts look almost like the responsible choice here, don’t they? The Curmudgeon was so suspicious of these numbers that he checked comparable products made by Krispy Kreme but their calorie counts and sugar content were similar.
So here’s the question: what’s the rationale for limiting the tax to the sugary beverages at which it’s being targeted? Why not those Starbucks treats, too? Why not the candies and the cakes and the caffeinated extravaganza beverages that have no nutritional value but tons of fat-creating calories and diabetes-inducing sugar?
There is, of course, one defensible rationale for a sugary drinks tax: if the city planned to invest every penny of the tax’s proceeds into brand-new anti-obesity programs. It’s not, of course, and unlike when Mayor Nitwit’s predecessor tried to pass the same tax in 2009, this guy’s not even pretending he’s seeking the tax to address the harm caused by the products.
So when you come right down to it, this is a greedy city government led by a nitwit mayor looking to tax anything it can get its hands on to feed its insatiable appetite for things it can’t afford. The “we’re doing it for your own good” argument is patronizing and dishonest: they’re doing it because they can, and because when they run for re-election they can say they didn’t raise taxes because in their twisted minds, creating a whole new tax doesn’t count.
Those of you who have no sweet tooth – The Curmudgeon knows there are such people out there but doesn’t understand the concept at all – may find this all rather amusing, but be forewarned: the public sector’s thirst for tax revenue is unquenchable and after they come for our sweet drinks they’re going to be coming next after your sodium-filled, hypertension-inducing salty snacks, so enjoy those chips, nuts, Fritos, Cheetos, and Doritos while you can!