'Sin taxes" seem to be the wave of the future to be used for balancing budgets or paying for new programs — from Congress to local mayors, many politicians are considering a variety of these taxes without thinking about the impact the tax may have on their constituents. For example, as Congress debates health care reform, one idea that keeps coming up is that of taxing sweetened beverages as a means of paying for health care reform. The arguments for it are unsubstantiated and arbitrary — there is no proof that taxing sweetened beverages will reduce obesity, but there is a true economic impact that this tax would have on New Jersey's working class citizens.

A soft drink tax is the wrong public policy for the following reasons:

• A tax won't address the problem. Singling out specific products won't make a dent in a problem as complex as obesity. All calories from food count. The key is energy balance — managing calories in and calories out as was recently affirmed in a New England Journal of Medicine study

• Sweetened beverages are not a unique contributor. There is nothing unique about the calories in a soft drink to cause obesity. In fact, obesity rates are rising while soft drink sales are declining. Eating too much and exercising too little causes weight gain and obesity. Period.

• Taxes distract from meaningful solutions. A tax is not going to teach kids or parents how to live healthy lifestyles

• Taxes are viewed as an overreach by government. Consumers respond negatively to government using taxation to tell them what to eat and drink, even if they agree with the need to address both obesity and health care. Voters in Maine repealed a soft drink tax on the ballot last fall, while New York's governor recently pulled back his proposed tax on soft drinks after overwhelming public opposition

• A tax on beverages is a regressive food tax and hurts families. President Obama said it best during the presidential campaign: "In an economy like this, the last thing we should be doing is raising

taxes on the middle class." There is also an economic impact

on jobs from such a tax. The nonalcoholic beverage industry includes almost 75,000 jobs in the state contributing more than $3 billion in wages and over $300 million in taxes for state coffers. These employees are members of the community and have donated more than $12 million to charitable contributions throughout the state. These discriminatory added costs from a federal tax on beverages put good jobs at risk.

We do not believe taxing soda is the appropriate solution to such a complex issue as health care reform. We do agree that this regressive tax only hurts New Jersey working families.

The New Jersey Food Council represents almost 400 members serving the retail, wholesale and manufacturing segments of the New Jersey food distribution industry.
Linda M. Doherty
President
New Jersey Food Council
Trenton