7c. Focus on: Too Costly, Too Restrictive, and, BTW, I Have A Better Idea: Overcoming the Counter-Arguments to Healthy Public Policy  

Some of you may someday be in a position where you are making the case for a policy to prevent disease. If so, you’ll want to commit the following list to memory. There are three key counter-arguments to healthy public policy that you will be likely to encounter time and time again.¹ Using a proposed tax on sugar sweetened beverages (SSBs) as an example, I’ll discuss each of these counter-arguments in more detail.

1.  The Proposed Policy Costs Too Much Money

Bay Area News Group (n.d.). More than a 'soda tax'. Retrieved from https://www.mercurynews.com/2012/07/04/soda-tax-debate-pushes-richmond-into-national-spotlight/

This argument takes a variety of forms. Some may argue that the costs of implementing a policy and monitoring compliance with the policy will outweigh potential health benefits. In other instances, opponents will argue that policy proposals, such as increased taxation on SSBs, will decrease consumption, thereby impeding economic growth, a key determinant of population health.² This is not a counter-argument to be taken lightly, as business interests have been known to impose economic penalties against jurisdictions adopting healthy public policies. For example, the Philadelphia City Council acted against the expressed warnings of the local soda bottling industry by imposing a 1.5 cents per ounce tax on SSBs in June 2016. In March 2017, two months after the tax went into effect, Pepsi announced 80–100 layoffs at three local bottling plants in the Philadelphia area, which it blamed directly on the tax.³

Yet another variant of the “too costly” argument emphasizes the negative impacts of policy options on those least able to afford them. As is the case with alcohol and tobacco taxes, SSB taxes have been labelled as “regressive” since lower-income consumers will be more negatively impacted by higher prices then consumers on higher incomes.⁴

Other cost-related counter-arguments to policy change focus on practicalities. For example, opponents to SSB taxes contend that consumers will simply resort to “cross-border” shopping, purchasing SSBs in jurisdictions where taxes are lower or non-existent.⁴ This may have been a reason for the abolition of an 80-year soft drink tax by the Danish government in 2014: critics contended that Danes were circumventing the tax by shopping in Germany and Sweden where soft drink prices were lower.⁵

2.  Increased Regulations Restrict Individual Freedom

We live in a society that places a lot of emphasis on individual freedom. That certainly comes with its advantages. I happen to enjoy freedom of speech as much as anyone. There are certain places in the world where some of my public writings could result in a jail sentence or worse. Fortunately, that’s not a concern here at the University of Waterloo.

On the flipside, the perceived threat to individual freedoms poses a powerful argument against a wide range of healthy public policies. Some of you may be familiar with the term the “nanny state,” the notion that government functions like an over-protective helicopter mom (or dad) that monitors your every move and restricts you from doing anything that has the potential to harm your health. The SSB industry has effectively employed the “nanny state” argument to block SSB taxation and other policy measures aimed at restricting SSB consumption.⁶ In other words, the state has no business interfering with my inherent right (as a consenting adult) to drink as many SSBs as I want, when I want!

Bastiat Institute (2013, May 7). [The Nanny State. Bliss is just one more regulation away]. Retrieved from https://www.facebook.com/bastiatinstitute/photos/a.109925389051155.5688.107087879334906/543577519019271/?type=3&theater

3.   There Is a More Effective Non-Policy Solution

The SSB industry is not stupid. It employs researchers, economists, lawyers, and policy analysts who read the same studies we read linking SSB consumption to diabetes and obesity. It can see the writing on the wall. It knows that something will eventually be done to limit SSB consumption.

But why resort to costly policies that limit individual freedom? Surely, the SSB industry would contend, there are other, more effective measures like education, informing consumers, voluntary labelling, etc., etc.  Before I go any further, I’ll let the industry speak for itself. The following quotations are direct excerpts from the 2016 Canadian Beverage Association Statement In Response to Calls For Taxation on Sugar-Sweetened and Artificially-Sweetened Beverages:

Consumers want factual information to help them make informed choices. A tax which isolates and targets some beverages as unique contributor to poor health — independent of all other sources of dietary sugar or calories — does not support overall better public health, and in fact can be misleading.

Canada’s beverage companies already voluntarily provide a clear calorie label on the front of all of our products… With our Balance Calories initiative, we are working toward a goal of reducing beverage calories in the Canadian diet. This is a meaningful initiative that will have significant real-world impact in helping people reduce their consumption of calories and sugar from beverages.

I think you get the idea. The industry is saying it will accept anything short of actual policy measures.

So how to rebut these arguments effectively? Well, I have a few ideas; perhaps you do, too. But rather than elaborate on them here, I’m going to address the issue in greater detail in this week’s discussion. As always, your participation is welcome. Stay tuned!