A Tax That Could Benefit California

cornA week ago my friend Steve Lamb, a former councilmember from the town of Altadena, came up with an idea that in addition to generating additional revenue for the state could very well create ancillary benefits that will over the course of time improve the health of Californians and improve revenues for California agriculture. Steve’s idea: tax the ubiquitous sweetener high fructose corn syrup (HFCS).

According to author Michael Pollan, the passage of the Nixon Farm Bill of 1973 began a chain events that had the effect of significantly increasing production and dropping the price of corn to a point where HFCS could be substituted for more expensive sugar in almost everything we find in our pantries today to include snack foods, ketchup, mustard, crackers, hot dogs, hams, and soft drinks. With sweetener so cheap, the Big Gulp and supersized sodas became possible.

Steve Mills of the Chicago Tribune recently wrote “according to the American Medical Association and numerous scientists and nutritionists, HFCS and sugar both contribute to increased risks of obesity, diabetes, heart disease and other illnesses. Although some studies have suggested the body metabolizes HFCS more slowly than it does sugar, experts say the bottom line for consumers is they should avoid both except in small amounts.” So why advocate a “sin tax” on HFCS and not sugar?

First, California contributes very little to the production of the 17.5 billion pounds of HFCS manufactured on an annual basis. However, each Californian consumes roughly 60 pounds of HFCS each year. A “sin tax” on HFCS would add to the state’s coffers without adversely affecting California industry.

Second, California may not produce HFCSs but California farmers do grow sugar beets. Sugar beet production in California has been in steady decline since 2005 and the culprit is the falling price of sugar. The tax on HFCS could increase demand for natural sugar and production of sugar beets.

Lastly, a tax on HFCS could lead to less sweetener consumption in California and a healthier citizenry. The supersized drink to go along with the supersized meal may no longer be economically viable.

As all the ingredients in food including HFCS are required by law to be listed on the product packaging, products containing HFCSs can be tracked by Stock Keeping Unit (SKU) number and a tax added at the point of sale. Granted, there might be some upfront work required to get the data from the consumer packaged goods industry on just how much HFCS is in each product. But all these values are known and the data can be mapped. So the big question left is just how much or at what rate of measure to tax at?

kevin_lynn.jpg

It is possible a forward-looking economist has already arrived at a tax rate that would be considered optimal from the perspective of supply and demand. But for the sake of argument let’s draft what a sin tax on HFCS would look like:

The price of HFCS tends to vary based on the grade but let’s say for our purpose it costs a beverage maker $0.21 (cents) a pound. Given that Californians consume almost 60 pounds a year of HFCS, a tax of $0.10 a pound of HFCS could generate close to $216,000,000 in new revenue. This additional revenue combined with the positive impact to California’s farmers and on our eating habits could make an HFCS sin tax the perfect tax for these fiscally challenging times. . . .

Kevin Lynn

Comments

  1. Kevin Lynn says:

    Hi Cynthia,

    I thought a lot about what to tax and what not to tax with regard to food. The problem is it’s a bit murky when it comes to determining what is and what is not “nutritive.” Taxing only HFCS is without regard for it being used in an item that is considered a necessity or luxury is the cleanest way to go.

    Cheers,

    Kevin

  2. Cynthia1770 says:

    Hi,
    My google alert for HFCS picked up your post. Interesting proposal. I preach the treachery of HFCS so my mission is clear.
    I think taxing the HFCS used to sweeten beverages (all national brands of soda, Gatorade, Propel, juice drinks etc.) is a great idea. According to current stats, 1/3 of our intake of HFCS comes via sweetened beverages. However, I am not so sure about taxing HFCS in all food products. Sweetened beverages are a luxury; cereals, bread, soups are not. A general tax on soda would have the same effect since the majority of soda is still sweetened with HFCS. As much as I enjoy my Goose Island ginger ale (made with real sugar), I realize it still is a luxury, and would be willing to pay a little more. To your health.

  3. Linda Sutton says:

    I’m totally FOR THIS. What a great way to solve several problems at the same time…we even get everyone HEALTHIER. Now to see if the corporations will ALLOW this to happen. They’re so busy making money off all of the sicknesses they create, and the politicians seem to not realize that all the bad policies AFFECT THEM and their FAMILIES!!!

    Reading over the Waxman Report book in horror…seems that EVERY BILL, however well intentioned, has to pass the muster of our corporate bloodsuckers before ANYTHING happens. No wonder they can’t seem to get healthcare moved forward. TOO MUCH MONEY is made from KILLING PEOPLE.

  4. Tax the fat. Seriously, surcharge on the unhealthy stuff ok. But it’s not a sin. That’s a dumb way to put it. Makes us sound all Christiany.

    Tax the oil companies and the corporate fat cats.

    Eat the rich.

Speak Your Mind

*

Visit us on Google+