Posts
The ongoing issue of how public health officials should be trying to minimize overweight and obesity in the United States brings us once again to the issue of sugar-sweetened sodas.
A piece in the Wall Street Journal shows how things are playing out in San Antonio and several other places around the country.
The soda industry claims it is being singled out. The soda industry counters that it has made large donations to programs in cities that encourage exercise and seek to improve public health.
The key question is whether this is a good business decision and whether it is a good business decision that can overcome regulatory pressures.
Of course, anything that can be done to try to limit public employers taking away soda as an option in vending machines or taxing soda is going to help the soda industry maintain demand for its product at current levels or even higher levels. So, as long as the choice to make a donation and get positive press leads to sufficient positive publicity to maintain or increase demand this is essentially part of the marketing budget.
The key question is whether public officials should then decide to treat soda any differently, particularly regulating or taxing it less than they would otherwise. Whether this happens or not is truly an interesting story of regulatory capture and political lobbying.
If local jurisdictions can keep the money received and good will for the companies generated by private, for-profit companies partnering in public health efforts truly separate from any consideration of whether those same companies can be taxed then perhaps the public officials can have their cake and eat it too. (Perhaps the old cliche should be changed to have their healthy snack and eat it too?) But if not, it may be another case of regulatory capture in which a substance that clearly contains a very large amount of sugar and clearly is associated with a large amount of sugar and calories is allowed to remain on the market and not be questioned in public health promotion efforts.
It is interesting to ponder how I would want to act if I were a member of a company that could be regulated very strictly by the federal government. And it is interesting to consider whether cities should just turn money down to minimize even the potential for seeing this as a conflict of interest for the regulator.
A piece in the Wall Street Journal shows how things are playing out in San Antonio and several other places around the country.
The soda industry claims it is being singled out. The soda industry counters that it has made large donations to programs in cities that encourage exercise and seek to improve public health.
The key question is whether this is a good business decision and whether it is a good business decision that can overcome regulatory pressures.
Of course, anything that can be done to try to limit public employers taking away soda as an option in vending machines or taxing soda is going to help the soda industry maintain demand for its product at current levels or even higher levels. So, as long as the choice to make a donation and get positive press leads to sufficient positive publicity to maintain or increase demand this is essentially part of the marketing budget.
The key question is whether public officials should then decide to treat soda any differently, particularly regulating or taxing it less than they would otherwise. Whether this happens or not is truly an interesting story of regulatory capture and political lobbying.
If local jurisdictions can keep the money received and good will for the companies generated by private, for-profit companies partnering in public health efforts truly separate from any consideration of whether those same companies can be taxed then perhaps the public officials can have their cake and eat it too. (Perhaps the old cliche should be changed to have their healthy snack and eat it too?) But if not, it may be another case of regulatory capture in which a substance that clearly contains a very large amount of sugar and clearly is associated with a large amount of sugar and calories is allowed to remain on the market and not be questioned in public health promotion efforts.
It is interesting to ponder how I would want to act if I were a member of a company that could be regulated very strictly by the federal government. And it is interesting to consider whether cities should just turn money down to minimize even the potential for seeing this as a conflict of interest for the regulator.
No comments:
Post a Comment