In last Tuesday’s elections, voters in four states made their voices heard on two high-profile food and agricultural issues: “soda taxes” on sugar-sweetened beverages and restrictions on genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Regrettably, in some instances misinformation won out at the expense of people’s freedom to manage one of the most basic aspects of life: eating.
Soda Tax
The so-called soda tax is a punitive tax or sin tax intended to reduce consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages, such as soda, energy drinks, and fruit drinks. Not surprisingly, Berkeley became the first U.S. city to approve a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages. Measure D passed with 75 percent to 25 percent of the vote; it would levy a 1-cent-per-ounce tax on the sale of sugar-sweetened beverages, including sodas, sports drinks, sweet teas, and syrups that are used to flavor coffee. It does not tax diet sodas or alcohol. This means there will be a 12-cent tax on a normal 12-ounce can of soda, and about a 68-cent tax on a two liter bottle of soda. However, San Franciscans rejected a similar tax. Proposition E, which would have taxed sugar-sweetened beverages at 2-cents-per-ounce, won a majority of the vote at 55 percent to 46 percent, but failed to pass because it required a two-thirds vote to be enacted.
These outcomes seem to go against the national trend. In 2013, the Pew Research Center conducted a national survey among 2,003 adults concerning the government’s role in fighting obesity. According to the poll, 65 percent of respondents oppose “raising taxes on sugary soft drinks and unhealthy foods.”
Regardless of popular opinion, such policies make no sense. It is simply wrong to assume that discouraging the consumption of one allegedly unhealthy product will significantly improve the health of citizens or reduce obesity. Sugar-sweetened beverages are not, in and of themselves, a problem. In fact, people who drink sodas may have a healthier diet than other individuals and consume fewer calories and less sugar.
There will also be unintended consequences. For example, soda taxes disproportionately hurt low-income families and individuals because they spend a greater share of their income on food as compared to those with higher incomes.
Most importantly, the government should not interfere with individual freedom and choice, even if taxed beverages were inherently unhealthy. Eating is one of the most personal aspects of life and people should be able to live as they see fit. If government has control over eating, than government can have control over anything.
Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs)
Genetic modification actually refers to the process in which the food was developed. According to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), a more precise term for the process used is genetic engineering.
Genetic engineering is the name for certain methods that scientists use to introduce new traits or characteristics to an organism. For example, plants may be genetically engineered to produce characteristics to enhance the growth or nutritional profile of food crops. While these techniques are sometimes referred to as “genetic modification,” FDA considers “genetic engineering” to be the more precise term. Food and food ingredients from genetically engineered plants were introduced into our food supply in the 1990s.
In Oregon and Colorado, citizens voted on measures that would require mandatory labeling of genetically engineered food. In Hawaii, the island of Maui voted on a moratorium on cultivating genetically modified crops.
Oregon. Measure 92, a GMO mandatory labeling initiative, was defeated 50 percent to 49 percent. Measure 92 would have required that genetically engineered raw food be labeled with the words “Genetically Engineered” prominently displayed on the front or back of the food’s package. The measure would have also required packaged food products to carry labels reading “Produced with Genetic Engineering” or “Partially Produced with Genetic Engineering.”
Colorado. Proposition 105 failed 66 percent to 34 percent. The proposition would have required genetically modified food products to carry the label “Produced with Genetic Engineering.”
Mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods would improperly signal to consumers that these foods are somehow unhealthy, which is contrary to the overwhelming evidence. It would impose costs on companies and consumers and would likely undermine the critical development and adoption of genetically engineered foods.
There are some people who do want to know whether products they buy contain genetically engineered foods. As a result, many companies have responded by voluntarily providing information to the public. If there’s continued demand for this information, the market will respond accordingly.
The island of Maui voted in favor of a moratorium on genetically engineered crops 52 percent to 49 percent. Maui’s initiative against genetically engineered crops is ironic considering Hawaii has especially benefited from genetic engineering. In 1998, the genetically modified “Rainbow papaya” was made available to farmers after the papaya industry had been devastated by the papaya ringspot virus. The Rainbow papaya was resistant to the ringspot virus and revitalized the Hawaiian papaya industry.
Individual dietary choices should be respected. Policies trying to dictate consumer behavior improperly assume that the government knows what people should consume. Further, markets should be respected; they will provide information to consumers when there is a demand for it.
Thomas Lee is currently a member of the Young Leaders Program at The Heritage Foundation. For more information on interning at Heritage, please click here.