San Francisco's mayor wants fee on soft drinks

by Bethany Sanders (Subscribe to Bethany Sanders's posts)
Dec 19th 2007 8:15AM

Categories: Diet & Weight Loss, Fitness, Nutrition & Supplements

Not too long ago, San Francisco's mayor banned bottled water in City Hall. Now he's taking things a giant step further, proposing that the city charge large businesses a fee when they sell sugar-laden soft drinks. Apparently, the mayor blames corn syrup for the growing waistlines in his city, and says he'll use the money raised to support local anti-obesity programs.

Beverage companies are almost laughably quick to point their finger in a different direction. Saying that if the mayor bans soft drinks, he certainly needs to ban video games and TV as well, they voice their disapproval. I partially agree; I don't think obesity is a single-cause issue, but I do believe that corn syrup in processed foods definitely contributes.

What about you? Do you support fees on unhealthy goods, or is the mayor taking things a step too far?

Source

Comments (91)

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 5)

Vishaal 12-19-2007 @ 1:30PM

This is a step too far, definitely. I think there needs to be a more overall change in health attidudes as a NATION.

tomd1rx 12-19-2007 @ 8:08PM

another idiot political leader when are we going to elect quality

Kitty 12-19-2007 @ 9:26PM

This man wants to help his people? Jeez, what a freak! Yes, I agree.

Lets elect someone who doesn't care if we get fat and have a dirty city.

tomd1rx 12-19-2007 @ 8:08PM

another idiot political leader when are we going to elect quality

Chris 12-22-2007 @ 10:30AM

I do not think that this is going too far. It is not as if he is banning soft drinks all together, nor is attempting to use the money for an unjust cause. We need to accept the fact that our nation has a problem, and he, at least, is trying to fix it.

John 12-19-2007 @ 8:17PM

A Sugar Act! I remember this... we fought a war over taxes like these, didn't we? A long one, too, from 1775-1783. People need to take more responsibility for their own health, not to hike up taxes on food and beverages. Absurd. Our leaders try to help by getting too closely involved in the peoples' personal lives--that ends up causing more resentment and harm. That's why I am voting for Ron Paul this election.

Karen 12-19-2007 @ 8:25PM

Gavin Newsome is an idiot who is only out for himself. I am embarrassed to even LIVE close to San Francisco. He is a media ho who comes up with various causes celebre just so he can put himself front and center in the news....

Carol 12-19-2007 @ 8:39PM

Too much big brother.

Neil 12-19-2007 @ 9:08PM

Did you know the soft drink companies underwrite America's (especially Iowa's) public health policies on obesity? They tout exercise as THE SOLE SOLUTION. Exercise does not replace a nutrient rich diet.
Who is going to pay for the cost Type 2 Diabetes for a child or poor adult? Health care mandidate?
Who let the soft drinks into our nation's school and has next to nothing to get them out? The Clintons! The soft drink companies write out public health policies because they are allowed to buy into the childhood obesity problem and you called San Fransisco government big brother? That's a bit hypocritical if you ask me. Who do work for Coke, Pepsi or Cadbury?

Amy 12-19-2007 @ 8:40PM

This is crazy you can't tax people for wanting a soda and what is next your going to tax people for being fat. This is WRONG. Let People eat and drink what they want it is not anyone in politics business

Kumba 12-19-2007 @ 8:51PM

It'll take a while longer, but this will soon be a nationwide thing. That's the nature of liberal socialism. Just wait until we get more of govt involved in paying for health care.

queenmothermh 12-19-2007 @ 8:54PM

government is getting to be to much. Stay out of our private lives.

Ed 12-19-2007 @ 9:00PM

Duh....another government telling us what we can or can not do, or ar least trying to penalize us and our freedom of choice.
Smoking.....trans fats....now a soft drink tax. If that jerk gets this passed...it won't end. Next....no desserts in eating establishments and then no candy. Sugar will be illegal and smuggled across the borders to us !!!

MJ 12-19-2007 @ 9:03PM

Ok, I hate tea, but I remember what brought about the Boston Tea Party. Come on, it's a drink...Taxes are high enough on everything else.

Wcbelton 12-19-2007 @ 9:09PM

What about candy, cupcakes, and everything else that is supposedly "bad" for us? And the "bad" stuff is not just food items, so where would they stop, if they ever did. This is crazy...

dan 12-19-2007 @ 9:09PM

He's taking things too far. I'm obese and I know it's my own fault. We don't need the mayor or any government agency penalizing us with this surcharge because we're over weight. The cost will be extended to the customer, of course, and that reflects as a finacial penalty( fine) for being over weight. What's next. Is the mayor gonna tell us overweight people we have to live on the streets? It's a free choice to drink what you want to drink and I don't feel anyone should be penalized for it.

Gary 12-19-2007 @ 9:13PM

Get the hell out of my life and stay out!!! Another uberlib government geek that doesn't deserve the job he has.

sean 12-19-2007 @ 9:22PM

Is it possible that we will one day have our meals served to us in correct portions with the correct calories and ingredients? We can all line up in food lines. Healthy bowel movements are important to good health as well. I think I want the government to wipe my ass.

Sue 12-19-2007 @ 9:25PM

They might as well tax alcohol too since that is partly to blame for most domestic violence instances, not to mention .... beer guts! Give me a break! We are already taxed to death, especially in NY state