Fizzy Lizzy

Monday, February 16, 2009

New York State Senator Liz Krueger talks about the latest in the proposed "soda tax." Recent hearings have shifted the thinking in terms of what will get taxed and what won't under Governor Paterson's budget plans.


Liz Krueger

Comments [21]

Isaiah R. from usa

A new proposed tax is in process, and will have a far more negative than positive impact on the economy—a sugar tax. Sugar tax would be placed on food and beverages, which contains high sugar, soda, Gatorade and things of the same nature might include. Several stated have tried passing the said tax but it hasn’t been very popular, as the as the national habit for sugary drinks is well documented and attributed as playing a part in the national obesity rates. The idea of payday loans to feed the Pepsi habit isn't something people are thrilled about, and earlier attempts to pass similar measures haven't met with success. Nobody wants to need debt relief for a can of Coke thanks to a sugar tax. Learn more here:

May. 19 2009 05:07 AM
Fizzy Lizzy from New York, NY

J from Brooklyn and Rosalie - great points! Soda is so bad for your body, and plastic bottles are difficult to recycle. We at Fizzy Lizzy feel strongly that all natural products should be championed and are very proud of our glass bottles

Apr. 13 2009 05:09 PM
Amy from Manhattan

Ya beat me to it, rosalie friend [15], & said it better, too!

Feb. 16 2009 07:51 PM
jgarbuz from Queens

I think foods with natural sugars, such as fruits, potatoes and the like, should not be taxed for natural sugar content. Only the addition of sugars and artificial sweeteners that either promote obesity or other health problems as determined by scientific study, should be taxed due to the societal health costs they create.

Feb. 16 2009 12:20 PM

If orange juice is to be taxed for its "sugar" content, how about oranges? Or apples? Or carrots and beets--which are high on the glycemic index. What about milk, which contains lactose?

Feb. 16 2009 12:01 PM
Amy from Manhattan

...And another thing! Yeah, I know the segment's over, but I remember hearing that the proposed bill would exempt bottled water from the expansion of deposits to include noncarbonated drinks. I think this would be a bad idea. For 1 thing, there's been an effort (wasn't it from the governor's office? maybe the mayor of NYC) to get people to drink tap water rather than buy bottled water, which is often tap water anyway; for another, just look around & see how many water bottles are thrown out, either in public wastebaskets or just on the ground, rather than recycled. Extending the deposit to water bottles would help get more of them recycled.

Feb. 16 2009 11:59 AM
rosalie friend from Brooklyn, N.Y.

Sodas lack the nutritional benefit of fruit juices. All sodas can be a source of tax revenue without hurting the poor, in contrast to a tax on necessities like fruit juice.
In addition, New York State should impose a very high tax on bottled water. Health standards for bottled water are lower than those for tap wate. Transporting water in bottles causes air pollution. The plastic bottles are hard to recycle and are often thrown away. Pieces of plastic and miscule broken down plastic particles are a big presence in the ocean harming large and small organisms. In addition to these health consequences, the use of plastic bottles increases reliance on foreign oil and contributes to global warming.

Feb. 16 2009 11:55 AM
Mike from UES

All of these point will along with gentle legislative encouragement bring the issues to the front and create a space where ideas can be brought forth and alternative products that reflect a more balanced approach to health and well being can be offered. Is it REALLY necessary for manufacturers to stuff so much sugar into their products? IS OJ more healthy when it is not pure? Sugar and acid content are important to consider and DO affect our health and eating habits that we develop based on the products we have been given to choose from. Small taxes and discussion can be used to encourage the best mix for us as a whole.

Feb. 16 2009 11:51 AM
Amy from Manhattan

The other aspect of "juice drinks," & many other foods sweetened w/fruit juice, is that the juice is usually apple or grape juice, which have the least nutritional value to start with, & the juice is then refined to the point where it's little more than sugar water...but the company can claim the product is "fruit juice sweetened." (Info from the Center for Science in the Public Interest.)

Feb. 16 2009 11:48 AM
jgarbuz from Queens

Sugar and corn syrup, and other hi carbohydrate "sweeteners" are the culprits, and they should be taxed at the source of production and manufacture, as well as all foreign imports of them. I myself have been a Splenda user for over a decade, as well as a proponent of the Atkins low carbohydrage diet and know that radically cutting carbohydrates is the answer to ongoing weight reduction and control. We tax tobacco because it's harmful to health, and sugar and corn syrup are just as bad to overall societal health. I don't think taxing the end product, whether its called "soda" or any other highly sugary foods will be effective because of the diversity of end products. They should be taxed at the source of production and manufacture, which means an multi-state or federal approach to taxing sugar and corn sugar production used in food processing.

Feb. 16 2009 11:46 AM
Matthieu from Brooklyn

I am not a nutritionist, but I understand that there is an enormous difference in the way that the body metabolizes the sugar in fruit juice versus the sugar in high fructose corn syrup. In short: not all sugar is created equal. I would think that any standard should include consideration of this.

Feb. 16 2009 11:43 AM

Some juices, made from juice concentrate, are a percentage of juice less than 70 percent, according to the label, and yet, in the form they are sold, rehydrated at blending, sure taste like nearly pure juice to me. Why are these taxed, while those 70 percent juice are not?

e.g. Nantucket Nectars

Feb. 16 2009 11:42 AM
Lane T from New York, NY

If you want to see a drink with extremely high calories and sugar content, take a look at pure orange juice. Under the proposed bill, orange juice would not be taxed, but the new "light orange juice" (50% water, 50% pure o.j.) would be taxed, yet it's a much, much healthier drink. Why not tax drinks containing corn syrup or HFS, or exempt drinks containing any juice and NOT containing corn syrup/HFS?

Feb. 16 2009 11:42 AM
Oi, Taxes from Brooklyn

Logistics aside a tax on non-diet sodas would be acceptable if the tax revenue accrued goes to help the issues related to the negative affects of soda. Like diabetes funding or something like that. If this is a tax just to deter people from drinking soda its absurd. There are so many things that are harmful to people that do not and will not ever get taxed in this way.

Feb. 16 2009 11:38 AM
Mike from UES

If a small tax on these products is levied it will hardly be noticed and will not in itself drive the "fizzy lizzies" out of business. ALL items with large amounts of sugar are unhealthy consumed the way the are in this society, an extra 2 to 4 cents increase will not break any ones bank and earmarked to encourage healthier alternatives and offset the upcoming nationalized health care effort is neither stupid nor flawed. Fashionable Hysteria re HFC and diet drinks notwithstanding.

Feb. 16 2009 11:37 AM
Dan from Brooklyn

While we need to increase revenue, a multitude of little taxes is a very inefficient way to go about it. It will create new accounting burdens on retailers and the State for very little gain.

It would be much more efficient to slightly increase the income tax.

Feb. 16 2009 11:37 AM
Jay from Brooklyn

I never EVER high fructose drink corn syrup soda, and certainly NEVER touch the toxic waste dump of diet soda, but I think taxing this stuff is stupid and fatally flawed.

First, many other, new sodas, Knudsen etc, use juice - not sugar or corn syrup at all, which is very healthy.

2), if a soda is made with cane sugar, it can be enjoyed in moderation without negative consequences - just like chocolate or cookies, and I doubt you can tax desserts.

3), tobacco/cigarettes are different because when other smoke, they just don't get sick and burden the healthcare system -- they make ME sick with their secondhand smoke. I can't even go for a pleasant walk outside without someone on the sidewalk exhaling their repulsive fumes in my face. Very hazardous for my asthma and everything else health-wise. The focus should be on taxing tobacco until it disappears.

Finally, who is the guest host? She's good!

Feb. 16 2009 11:18 AM
Mike from UES

Adaptive taxation is a good way for government to help move resources from and to where they are needed. Foods that are identified as prime causes of obesity and disease should be taxed in proportion to the estimated contribution they make to disease, so that their consumption offsets the societal cost of the diseases that they have a hand in causing. 65% of the funds collected should go towards National health care and 35% should go towards subsidizing and making healthier alternatives more affordable, as well as more readily available.

Feb. 16 2009 11:00 AM
hjs from 11211

why isn't poisonous diet soda taxed

Feb. 16 2009 10:07 AM
Sam from Springfield, Missouri

The report says they will attempt to tax non-diet sodas. That logic may be needed to pass the measure, but exhibits ignorance about the toxicity and effects of Aspartame on people: actually resulting in people gaining weight from drinking diet soda by other means, not to mention causing depression and other serious issues. But how are they going to raise the prices of regular soda and have both kinds in vending machines. This could pose an equipment problem for vendors; but this could more favorably result in diet sodas being omitted from machines in some places entirely, which would be a great unintentional service to New York.

Feb. 16 2009 09:58 AM
Mike from Bellport

They should tax soda through the roof, and diet soda even more. Actually, diet soda should be banned entirely. It's toxic and disgusting.

Feb. 16 2009 09:39 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.

Get the WNYC Morning Brief in your inbox.
We'll send you our top 5 stories every day, plus breaking news and weather.