Apples and Fries: The New Look of McDonald’s Happy Meals (Toys Still Included)

Responding to pressure from parents and consumer groups, McDonald’s announced on Tuesday its “Commitments to Offer Improved Nutrition Choices” and serve up more nutritionally-balanced meal options, particularly for children.  Starting in September, Happy Meals will have apple slices and a smaller serving of French Fries (1.1 ounces instead of 2.4 ounces).  The company stated that “[b]y adding fruit in every Happy Meal, McDonald’s hopes to address a challenge children face in meeting the recommended daily consumption of produce” and noted that “[f]or those customers who prefer a side choice of apples only, two bags of apple slices will be available, upon request.”   McDonald’s vice president Ben Stringfellow has said that the company is considering other fruit choices such as “pineapple spears, raisins and carrot sticks.”  Other planned  changes in the next year include a 10% sodium reduction in chicken products, new beverage options of fat-free chocolate milk and 1% low fat white milk (in addition to the traditional sodas),  and increased access to nutrition information through mobile apps for iPhone, iPad, Blackberry, and Android devices.

Once the nutritional changes take effect, a Happy Meal with chicken nuggets will shrink from 530 calories and 23 grams of fat to 435 calories and 17 grams of fat.  Samantha Graff, director of legal research at Public Health Law and Policy, told Prescriptions, The New York Times health blog, that “McDonald’s has taken an extremely important step to help parents who want to please their kids while providing them with at least minimally nutritious food. We think it’s a terrific move.”  In an opinion piece, Chris Woolston, a writer for Booster Shots, the Los Angeles Times health blog, wonders whether healthier McDonald’s meals are the answer as

[t]o reshape their kids’ diets, parents need to make more meals at home, where they can write the menus and control the ingredients and portion sizes. If more healthful Happy Meals translate into more trips to the golden arches — as McDonald’s obviously hopes — the end result may be something other than happiness.

Sure, for companies like McDonald’s, it’s about the bottom line.  For parents, it’s about the health of their children.  Good, responsible eating does start in the home… but why let it end there?

(Click on these links for two posts from Booster Shots on calorie labeling and the push among health experts for a public calorie database.)

Take Them Away: Has Severe Childhood Obesity Really Come to This?

As a follow up to my previous post on junk food marketing to children and my earlier post on MyPlate — and any other post that I’ve written about children and fast food or junk food — I would like to direct your attention to a commentary recently published in the Journal of the American Medical Association which has caused quite a stir.  In “State Intervention in Life-Threatening Childhood Obesity,” Dr. David Ludwig (Director of the Optimal Weight for Life Program at Children’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts) and lawyer Lindsey Murtagh (Research Associate for the Department of Health Policy and Management at Harvard School of Public Health) confront severe childhood obesity — which is “characterized by a body mass index (BMI) at or beyond the 99th percentile” — with what appears to be a wild and rash line of thought: remove severely obese children from their homes and place them into foster care.

In their commentary, Dr. Ludwig and Ms. Murtagh write that

[s]tate intervention may serve the best interests of many children with life-threatening obesity, comprising the only realistic way to control harmful behaviors. Child protective services typically provide intermediate options such as in-home social supports, parenting training, counseling, and financial assistance, that may address underlying problems without resorting to removal. These less burdensome forms of legal intervention may be sufficient and therefore preferable in many cases. In some instances, support services may be insufficient to prevent severe harm, leaving foster care or bariatric surgery as the only alternatives. Although removal of the child from the home can cause families great emotional pain, this option lacks the physical risks of bariatric surgery.

However, the authors also acknowledge that

removal from the home does not guarantee improved physical health, and substantial psychosocial morbidity may ensue. Thus, the decision to pursue this option must be guided by carefully defined criteria… with less intrusive methods used whenever possible.

Reading through the commentary, one senses an exasperated tone more than anything else.  After all, the authors cite a mind-numbing statistic: there are approximately 2 million severely obese children in the United States.  And how should we treat this epidemic?  With bariatric surgery you say?  And so the authors wonder aloud whether “removal from the home may be justifiable from a legal standpoint because of imminent health risks and the parents’ chronic failure to address medical problems.”

Let’s set aside the legal arguments for a minute and discuss the heart of the matter: America’s eating habits.  Specifically, America’s childrens’ eating habits.   In a response post on MSNBC, Arthur Caplan, Director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania, criticized Dr. Ludwig and Ms. Murtagh by focusing on other obesity-causing factors, such as the unhealthy “food culture,” that pervades the United States.  Professor Caplan wrote

I am not letting parents off the hook. But, putting the blame for childhood obesity on the home and then arguing that moving kids out of homes where obesity reigns is the answer is short-sighted and doomed to fail. We need the nation to go on a diet together and the most important places to start are at the grocery store, schools and media.

On Booster Shots, the Los Angeles Times health blog, Chris Woolston wrote that removing children from their homes and placing them into foster care will not fix poor eating habits because

[c]hildhood obesity is complicated. Fast food, sodas, TV, video games — many staples of modern life are pushing kids in the wrong direction. While researching a book on this topic a few years ago, I spoke with several moms who were tackling their child’s weight troubles with varying levels of success. One considered putting locks on her cabinets to keep her son from sneaking food in the middle of the night.

Her son was definitely on the large side — beyond that, really — but it’s not because his mom didn’t care. And even if someone had placed him in a foster home it wouldn’t have solved his problems. As a rule, those places have food in their cupboards, too.

Hear, hear.  Wake up, folks.  We need a food culture revolution with healthier and affordable alternatives.  One which teaches our children to choose healthy foods and to eat in moderation.  Because what else must we do before everyone finally, in the words of Professor Caplan, “[d]emonize[s] the companies that sell and market food that is not nutritious” and “[p]ut[s] exercise back on the menu for all school kids”?  Institute state programs that remove severely obese children from their homes and place them into foster care?  Oh, wait….

The Junk Food Marketing Debate: A First Amendment Right or Just Making Sure Kids Aren’t What They Eat?

Remember the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 (H.R. 1105) that President Obama signed on March 11, 2009?   No?  Good, me neither, but my excuse is that I was busy applying to law schools.  If you and I had been paying closer/any (take your pick) attention, we would have seen that the Act included, among other things, a provision calling for the Federal Trade Commission, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Department of Agriculture to create an Interagency Working Group on Marketed Food to Children (”Working Group”) composed of representatives from each agency.  The Working Group would research and recommend standards for the marketing and advertising of food to children age 17 years and younger.   These recommendations would be presented to Congress down the road.

Well, a couple of years passed, but in April 2011 the Working Group released its 26-page “Preliminary Proposed Nutrition Principles to Guide Industry Self-Regulatory Efforts” for public comment (which you can submit by clicking here before July 14). The Working Group notes that

… in the FTC’s 2008 study on Marketing Food to Children and Adolescents, three food categories — breakfast cereal, restaurant foods, and snack foods — represented approximately 70% of food marketing expenditures directed to children under 12. Similarly, three categories of foods — carbonated beverages, restaurant foods, and non-carbonated beverages — represented 69% of the food marketing expenditures for adolescents ages 12-17 year….  [Overall] [t]he categories most heavily marketed to children and adolescents, ages 2 -17 years are: breakfast cereals; snack foods; candy; dairy products; baked goods; carbonated beverages; fruit juice and non-carbonated beverages; prepared foods and meals; frozen and chilled deserts; and restaurant foods. The Working Group is therefore recommending that the food industry focus its efforts on ensuring that any advertising or marketing of food products within these ten categories meet the nutrition principles set out below. (Emphasis added.)

The Working Group focuses on two nutritional principles “that both improve the nutritional quality of foods marketed to children and can be feasibly implemented by industry with sufficient time to accomplish reformulation,” namely, “Meaningful Contribution to a Healthful Diet” (Principle A)  and “Nutrients with Negative Impact on Health or Weight”  (Principle B).  Principle A ensures that foods marketed to children contain two or more of the following food groups: “fruit, vegetable, whole grain, fat-free or low-fat milk products, fish, extra lean meat or poultry, eggs, nuts and seeds, or beans.”  Principle B ensures that foods marketed to children have limited amounts of saturated fat, trans fat, sodium, and added sugars.  The Working Group makes sure to point out (several times in fact) that its recommendation are based on the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans.

Really, this all sounds quite sensible, if not a little over-protective… but considering, as The Washington Post has reported, that Type 2 diabetes has significantly increased among people age 20 years and younger, what else can this country do to curb obesity and poor eating habits?  Even if we could reduce the cost of nutrient-rich and quality foods so that everyone could afford them, how do we neutralize the marketing of junk food to children?  In a report last month, NPR noted how

[the Working Group] broke from the past by seeking to include 12- to 17-year-olds in its guidelines. Traditionally, limits on marketing focused on the very young. But the government sought to expand them to older children, in part because they are heavy consumers of social media, cell phone messages and online games — the new frontier for ads.

That new frontier of advertising to children through online games — also known as “advergaming” (forgive my use of Wikipedia but Merriam-Webster doesn’t list the word) — includes Asylum 626 and Hotel 626, two advergames sponsored by Doritos.  As NPR reported,

“[w]hat we’re talking about are very complicated and very subtle forms of marketing that aren’t always clear as such,” says Kathryn Montgomery, a professor of communications at American University and an advocate for limiting food ads to teens.

[...]

Montgomery says such ads work subliminally and use friends to influence other friends.

But efforts to restrict ads to teens draw lots of opposition from the food and advertising industries. The industries say the overlap between teen and adult audiences makes the proposed restrictions impractical.

Critics, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, have questioned the constitutionality and logic of the Working Group’s nutritional proposals.  The Hill’s Healthwatch has reported that some critics see a First Amendment issue because

“[w]hat they’re doing is trying to simultaneously … suppress speech, while insulating it from judicial review,” said Northwestern law Professor Martin Redish, one of the panelists at a Chamber of Commerce discussion Thursday. “Because if these regulations were truly just advisory, there would be no case or controversy.”

[...]

“Industry’s rights are being violated here,” Redish said, “but there’s something deeper and darker that’s going on: The government is treating us like sheep.”

While constrained to commercial speech, Redish said that attitude has broader implications. People, he said, “can’t be sheep in the commercial realm and then all of a sudden, in the political realm, they’re free-thinking adults who can make basic choices.”

NPR has reported that other critics question the logic behind the proposal and the implicated age range.

Elaine Kolish directs an industry-funded program called the Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative. For the past five years this initiative sponsored its own voluntary standards that focus only on the 12-and-under set.

“You know, we let kids drive and we let them hold jobs when they’re 16. They can get married in some states, and they can join the military with permission, and they can be held criminally responsible for their actions in a number of situations,” she says. “So I think that the notion that you’d have to have nutrition standards that say you can’t let a kid see an ad for a french fry but you can let them join the military doesn’t really make a lot of sense.”

So where do we go from here?  Is industry self-regulation the answer to making products that better fit on MyPlate?  As I’ve noted in a previous post about McDonald’s Happy Meal toys, sometimes the answer can be stricter parenting (just say “no”).  Yet how can parents instill and maintain healthy eating habits in their kids when advertisements for unhealthy food bombard them through television, social media, and online games?

A Pyramid No More: You Are A Plate of Quadrants and A Dairy Circle

Step aside, food pyramid, there’s a new dietary guide in town: MyPlate.  During a press conference on Thursday, First Lady Michelle Obama and Department of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack released MyPlate –whose color-coded quadrants of fruits, vegetables, grains, and protein — plus dairy circle — are intended to serve as “a quick, simple reminder for all of us to be more mindful of the foods that we’re eating.”  MyPlate replaces the 2005 MyPyramid and the 1992 “old school” USDA Food Pyramid, both of which have been criticized as misleading or difficult to understand (I dare say that the MyPyramid color scheme was a little reminiscent of a similarly confusing color-coded federal government alert system).  MyPlate complements the federal government’s 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, released earlier this year, which reminds consumers about:

Balancing Calories

• Enjoy your food, but eat less.
• Avoid oversized portions.

Foods to Increase

• Make half your plate fruits and vegetables.
• Make at least half your grains whole grains.
• Switch to fat-free or low-fat (1%) milk.

Foods to Reduce

• Compare sodium in foods like soup, bread, and frozen meals — and choose the foods with lower numbers.
• Drink water instead of sugary drinks.

MyPlate is meant to be an “easy-to-understand visual cue.”  Among the noticeable changes to the food guide are the absence of the “fats, oils, & sweets” section which once sat atop the 1992 food pyramid and the relabeling of the 2005 MyPyramid sections of “milk” to “dairy” and “meat and beans” to “protein.”  The AP reports that

[t]he guidelines and the icon were subject of lobbying by food industries who want to see their products promoted and not discouraged. Fruit and vegetable growers were celebrating their victory over half of the plate Thursday, while dairy producers said they were also pleased with the cup beside it. The president of the beef industry group National Cattleman’s Beef Associaton, Bill Donald, said he is not concerned about the elimination of the word “meat” because beef is so associated with the word “protein.”

According to the New York Times, MyPlate is the brainchild of the Department of Agriculture, the First Lady’s Child Obesity Task Force, and other federal health officials.  During the press conference, First Lady Obama noted that

[w]hen mom or dad comes home from a long day of work, we’re already asked to be a chef, a referee, a cleaning crew. So it’s tough to be a nutritionist, too. But we do have time to take a look at our kids’ plates. As long as they’re half full of fruits and vegetables, and paired with lean proteins, whole grains and low-fat dairy, we’re golden. That’s how easy it is.

Nutritionists cautiously welcomed MyPlate.  For instance, Marion Nestle, a New York University professor, told the New York Times that

“[i]t’s better than the pyramid, but that’s not saying a lot”….

Dr. Nestle praised the plate for being generally easy to understand, but she said that labeling a large section of the plate “protein” was confusing and unnecessary, because grains and dairy products also are important sources of protein and most Americans get far more protein than they need.

But she said the emphasis on fruits and vegetables was a significant step.

Dawn Jackson Blatner, a registered dietician in Chicago, told The Wall Street Journal Health Blog that “we went from something that was complex and hard for people to remember to something that is very visual, clear and based in science. People don’t eat off a pyramid, they eat off a plate.”  Except maybe for the people who designed the original food pyramid.

It’s early days yet, folks, but I agree with Ms. Blatner.  At least the food guide finally looks more like my dinner plate and less like a jumble of colors and pyramidal fragments.  Be sure to click here for an article from the Los Angeles Times to learn how other countries have visualized their food guides.

Childhood Obesity: A Problem Worth Solving

[Ed note: We are pleased to welcome Regina Ram to Health Reform Watch. Regina is finishing her first year as a law student at Seton Hall. She graduated from Drexel University with a B.S. in Biological Sciences and minors in Psychology and Anthropology. She completed a Masters in Public Health from Boston University in 2010 with a focus on Health Law, Bioethics and Human Rights. As a graduate student, Regina worked as a legislative advocate for Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and also supported a SAMHSA funded research program to integrate substance abuse treatment into primary care settings. As an undergraduate, she worked as a healthcare writer and authored emerging technology evidence reports on health devices and procedures.]

Just recently, the New York Times published an article describing the attempt of parents in Philadelphia to change the poor eating habits of the city’s children. A concerned group of parents in a North Philadelphia neighborhood takes turns standing outside of corner stores near a K-8 school in the mornings. They don safety vests and walkie-talkies, and their goal is to discourage kids from stopping at corner stores to buy snacks like soda and candy before school. The article likens the parents to foot soldiers fighting in a national battle over the diets of children.

As dramatic as that may sound, statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) support the metaphor. Nationwide, obesity rates have more than tripled over the past 30 years in both children and adolescents. Long-term consequences include higher risk for heart disease, type 2 diabetes, stroke, several types of cancer, and osteoarthritis in adulthood. More immediate effects include social and psychological problems like stigmatization and poor self-esteem. Further, caring for these health conditions has significant economic effects on the U.S. health care system. All of these statistics portray a battle well worth waging.

But is a group of parents patrolling a convenience store at 8:00 A.M. going to stop childhood obesity? Probably not. Even if the program dissuades kids from buying morning snacks, that behavior is unlikely to continue once parents are gone. Is it a step in the right direction? Certainly. The Surgeon General’s report on overweight and obesity notes that “families and communities lie at the foundation of the solution to the problem.”

However, any successful solution to decrease childhood obesity rates has to involve parents and communities as components of more comprehensive interventions. The causes of obesity in children are multi-factorial, ranging from diet and exercise to genetic and social factors including socioeconomic status and the built environment. The wide array of contributing factors points to the need for an interplay between public and private action to address childhood obesity.

Outside of the home, schools are a key setting for public health efforts to reduce childhood obesity rates. In particular, the National School Lunch Program can be an effective tool in improving the diets of school-age children. Just this year, the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced recommendations to overhaul the nutrition criteria of food programs for the first time in 15 years. The recommendations include limiting salt intake and the use of starchy vegetables, offering only reduced fat milk and using whole grains. Introducing children to healthier foods can help them understand what to eat and why, and that goes much further towards changing future patterns of behavior.

External factors like marketing and advertising also weigh on children’s decisions to eat certain foods. Recent litigation cases (one noted by Jennifer Jascoll here on the HRW website) have focused on the effectiveness of this advertising on children, as well as the disproportionate impact of such advertising on children of lower socioeconomic status. A New York City Councilman recently proposed a bill to ban fast food toys for meals over 500 calories. Children are generally more vulnerable to social messages, and restricting marketing is a case where benefits clearly outweigh the costs.

While involved parents and communities like the one in Philadelphia are undoubtedly an asset, it is going to take a more orchestrated effort to decrease rates of childhood obesity. Parents need to be empowered to make healthy choices and encourage healthier lifestyles for their children. At the same time, schools need to be working hand in hand with the community to ensure that the messages given at school correspond with the messages children hear outside. However unwieldy the issue seems, any action is to be applauded as preferable to no action at all.

(Note: for a more in-depth discussion of the economic consequences of obesity, see Michael Ricciardelli’s article here on HRW)

Fast Food, Childhood Obesity & the Hidden Costs of that Free Toy

Late last month, a consumer advocate group called the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) announced its intention to sue McDonald’s for using toys to market Happy Meals to children.  In an open letter to McDonald’s, CSPI litigation director Stephen Gardner alleged the toys were part of an unfair and deceptive marketing tactic which gave children “pester power” and taught them unhealthy eating habits.  Mr. Gardner further alleged the company violated Massachusetts, New Jersey, Texas, and California consumer protection laws.  Apparently McDonald’s recent Shrek 3 toy promotion was the final straw (and, somehow, the risk of cadmium exposure isn’t a concern here).  In a follow-up press release, Mr. Gardner also compared McDonald’s to:

… the stranger in the playground handing out candy to children.  McDonald’s use of toys undercuts parental authority and exploits young children’s developmental immaturity — all this to induce children to prefer foods that may harm their health.  It’s a creepy and predatory practice that warrants an injunction.

McDonald’s must decide later this month whether it will continue its Happy Meal toys or succumb to pressure.  So far the company believes that “[g]etting a toy is just one part of a fun, family experience….”

Before you completely write-off this lawsuit and characterization as over-the-top theatrics, just remember that CSPI already has a proven track record.  In 2006, the group sued KFC for using partially hydrogenated oils to deep-fry its food.  KFC subsequently switched to a trans-fat-free frying oil.  That same year CSPI also negotiated a settlement agreement with the Kellogg Company which set certain nutrition standards for marketing to children.  Better not tell CSPI about Cracker Jack and removable tattoos or Topps baseball cards and chewing gum.

In all fairness, CSPI isn’t the only group focusing on marketing to children.  Earlier this year in California, the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors banned the inclusion of toys with meals numbering 485 calories or more.  Granted, Supervisor Donald Gage voted against the ordinance because “[i]f you can’t control a 3-year-old child for a toy, God save you when they get to be teenagers.”  The Los Angeles Times has reported on the increasing number of fast food television advertisements directed at children, particularly non-white children.  Likewise, CNN has reported on successful junk food marketing campaigns through the use of cartoon characters.  Perhaps CSPI and its supporters should go after DreamWorks and other studios whose agents negotiate these marketing agreements.  Just a thought.

This concern over McDonald’s Happy Meals and developing good eating habits in children coincides with the Trust for America’s Health (TFAH) report “F as in Fat: How Obesity Threatens America’s Future 2010.”  The report found that 38 states have adult obesity rates above 25 percent, a sharp increase from 20 years ago when no state had an obesity rate above 20 percent.  (Click here to see how your state weighs in.)  According to TFAH executive director Jeffrey Levi:

[o]besity is one of the biggest public health challenges the country has ever faced, and troubling disparities exist based on race, ethnicity, region, and income….  Millions of Americans still face barriers — like the high cost of healthy foods and lack of access to safe places to be physically active — that can make healthy choices challenging.

The report suggested a connection between income disparities and adult obesity: “35.3 percent of adults earning less than $15,000 per year were obese compared with 24.5 percent of adults earning $50,000 or more per year.”  The report also showed that “more than 12 million children and adolescents are considered obese” and half of Americans believe this is an important issue to address.  However, rather than suggesting that consumers sue fast food and junk food companies, the report recommended investing in public health initiatives and prevention programs.

I’m not a parent, so I won’t preach about better parenting skills when it comes to “pester power” and how a child’s eating habits are determined as much by their parents as the cartoon characters selling the food.  I’ll just say that there was seldom any debate with my parents over the foods that I ate as a child.  Admittedly, there sometimes are no other alternatives.  Whether you’re a high school athlete on the road, a parent with no time to make dinner, or looking for an inexpensive meal, fast food is the cheap and easy way to go.  Perhaps the key is moderation?

Does this mean CSPI should hold the fast food (and junk food) companies responsible for the development of our eating habits, from childhood to adulthood?  The TFAH report also referred to obesity liability laws in 24 states protecting restaurants, manufacturers, and marketers from weight-related lawsuits.  Take note, CSPI.  (And you, dear reader, take note of Michael Ricciardelli’s post containing some staggering numbers relating to the healthcare costs of managing Type-2 diabetes, in which obesity plays a factor, and Professor Pasquale’s beverage tax utilitarian calculus.)

Soda & Diabetes, How Much Does That Can of Soda Really Cost? Part II

Diabetes. In a brief but interesting interview on NPR’s Marketplace, Kaiser Permanente CEO George Halvorson had this to say:

HALVORSEN: …. Right now, when you look at diabetes, 32 percent of the cost of Medicare is diabetes. It’s the number one cost of blindness, it’s the number one cause of amputations, it’s the number one cause of kidney failures. And when you look at the care delivery patterns in America, we only get care right for diabetics 8 percent of the time. If we got care right for diabetics 80 percent of the time, we’d cut the number of kidney failures in half.

A few days ago we began to ask, “How Much Does that Can of Soda Really Cost?” We considered cost in terms of external or social cost (not price for the actual can of soda, but that which results incidental to the primary transaction and may be borne by other than the buyer or seller), and noted that a recent study shows that obesity plays a prominent role in health care expenditures, and that many believe that soda and other sugary soft drinks play a prominent role in obesity. We noted that the Wall St. Journal reported that

Overall obesity-related health spending reaches $147 billion, double what it was nearly a decade ago, says the study published Monday by the journal Health Affairs.

Obesity-related conditions now account for 9.1% of all medical spending, up from 6.5% in 1998, the study concluded.

Obesity is a key factor in Type 2 diabetes. And  32% of Medicare costs are attributable to diabetes. It is no stretch to say that if we have a Medicare cost problem in this country (we do), what we really have is a diabetes problem (and, considering Halvorsen’s “we only get it right 8% of the time” figure, a diabetes treatment problem as well).

But first things first. 32% is a mere scooch (yes, that’s the technical term) away from ONE THIRD. That’s an enormous number. If one were to relate this portion of Medicare expense to houesehold expenditures, it occupies a place similar to a mortgage– but an expensive mortgage in a house that no one wants to live in.

In addition, according to the American Diabetes Association (ADA)

The total annual economic cost of diabetes in 2007 was estimated to be $174 billion.  Medical expenditures totaled $116 billion and were comprised of $27 billion for diabetes care, $58 billion for chronic diabetes-related complications, and $31 billion for excess general medical costs. Indirect costs resulting from increased absenteeism, reduced productivity, disease-related unemployment disability, and loss of productive capacity due to early mortality totaled $58 billion.  This is an increase of $42 billion since 2002. This 32% increase means the dollar amount has risen over $8 billion more each year.

Importantly, the ADA believes those numbers may be understated:

The actual national burden of diabetes likely exceeds the $174 billion estimate because it omits the social cost of intangibles such as pain and suffering, care provided by non-paid caregivers, excess medical costs associated with undiagnosed diabetes, and diabetes-attributed costs for health care expenditures categories not studied.

Read more

So How Much Does that Can of Soda Really Cost?

Externalities. The concept is, rather simply put, that “an externality or spillover of an economic transaction is an impact on a party that is not directly involved in the transaction. In such a case, prices do not reflect the full costs or benefits in production or consumption of a product or service.”

Which is to say, there’s a cost beyond the price–and that cost may be borne by someone other than the buyer or seller.

Smoking and drinking alcohol are often given as prime examples, as the affect of such can have social costs outside their price. Beyond the health costs, numerous studies have shown, for instance, a high incidence of arrest and incarceration to be alcohol related. It costs approximately $39,000 per year to imprison someone in New Jersey. The cost of incarceration, if the incarceration is caused by, or sufficiently related to, alcohol consumption, is an externality, or more precisely, an external cost. A cost which is simply not reflected in the price of a bottle of booze. With external costs taxes are often imposed upon products which produce such to both help defray what are commonly known as the social costs, and to inhibit use.

In New Jersey, the total tax on each pack of cigarettes amounts to $3.58 ($2.575 state/ $1.0066 federal). A portion of the federal tax goes to fund SCIP.

And the question is: What about soda and other such sugary soft drinks? A growing number conclude that soft drinks bear such a cost.

The Wall St. Journal reports that:

New research shows medical spending averages $1,400 more a year for an obese person than for someone who’s normal weight.

Overall obesity-related health spending reaches $147 billion, double what it was nearly a decade ago, says the study published Monday by the journal Health Affairs.

The higher expense reflects the costs of treating diabetes, heart disease and other ailments far more common for the overweight, concluded the study by government scientists and the nonprofit research group RTI International.

RTI health economist Eric Finkelstein offers a blunt message for lawmakers trying to revamp the health-care system: “Unless you address obesity, you’re never going to address rising health-care costs.”

Obesity-related conditions now account for 9.1% of all medical spending, up from 6.5% in 1998, the study concluded.

I am not suggesting that soda and sugary soft drinks bear sole responsibility for obesity or the doubling of obesity-related health spending over the last decade.

But as CBS News reports,

“Americans consume roughly 250 more calories every day than they did in the 1970s — and half those calories come from sugary drinks.”

“We’re not saying that calories from sugared beverages are different than any other calories,” said Dr. Kelly Brownell of Yale University. “There’s just too many of them.”

Brownell says a 10 cent tax per can could yield $140 billion in revenue over ten years.
But the beverage industry is pushing back.
“This is no time for Congress to be adding taxes on the simple pleasures we all enjoy like juice drinks and soda,” trumpeted one industry-backed TV ad.

(While researching this article, this ad from “Americans Against Food Taxes” popped up.)

According to the California Center for Public Health Advocacy:

Soft drink consumption has more than doubled since 1971. The average teenage boy drinks two 12 oz sodas per day or more than 700 cans per year. The average teenage girl drinks 1.4 twelve oz sodas per day or more than 500 cans per year. (CSPI, Liquid Candy, 2005 — based on 1999-2002 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey)

Further:

Despite the first-ever per-capita declines in soft drink sales, companies still sold more than 14 billion gallons of calorie-laden soft drinks in 2008. That is equivalent to about 506 12-oz. servings per year, or 1.4 12-oz. servings per day, for every man, woman, and child.  Those drinks include regular (non-diet) carbonated sodas, energy drinks, sports drinks, fruit drinks, ready-to-drink teas, and vitamin waters.

CBS reports that the plan to tax 10 cents per can, amounting to approximately $140 billion over 10 years, to help pay for healthcare costs has failed to gain “traction” in Congress. The plan, understandably, has met staunch opposition from soft drink manufacturers and their lobby.

The argument against such taxes is that they are regressive and fall more sharply upon the poor than they do the affluent. I understand the argument–and at times I have understood it intimately. But I’m not at all sure it holds up here, as some simple math will show.

First off, because of the variety of sizes in which soft drinks come, a per ounce tax makes more sense to work with. 10 cents per 12 oz. can = .8333 cents per ounce. If the average consumption is 1.4 cans per day, or 16.8 oz, we’re talking about an average tax of roughly 14 cents per day. You simply cannot buy anything with 14 cents– but in the aggregate it can get you a little closer to funding universal healthcare. And perhaps, if the spectre of that 14 cents did cause some to consume slightly less soda, perhaps we as a country would not be the worse for it.

UPDATE: Professor Frank Pasquale on the latest in beverage tax utilitarian calculus.