Basically, soda (or pop, if you are Canadian) accounts for 4 BILLION dollars in subsidized nutrition spending (food stamps, now referred to as SNAP) per year. Being that obesity with all of its associated health risks is now considered an epidemic in North America, is it right for tax payers to contribute to the buying of this particular junk food - or any, for that matter? There are already bans on what the article refers to as "hot prepared foods" or fast foods. Should we stop there?
I really do feel people should have the right to choose which product they buy, but when they're products that just do harm, I have trouble justifying that. I'm not saying no one should ever drink soda pop again, but people in lower income brackets have much higher obesity rates and I feel like poor people are somehow targeted. If you're getting so much more quantity-wise for your money, it is hard to say no to things that are maybe a lot less nutritional, especially if you are supporting a family.
Maybe it wouldn't be such a bad idea to have a tax on junk foods, for everybody. You have to pay high taxes on things like cigarettes and alcohol. I don't see why things loaded with trans fats (which should already be banned IMO), high fructose corn syrup and any number of synthetic chemicals and dyes that cost people their health and take a toll on the health care system should be able to slip by.
Article here: Should Taxpayers Subsidize Soda? ~ Newsroom ~ News from CSPI ~ Center for Science in the Public Interest