It Costs How Much?

While it seems like everyone is talking about obesity (and childhood obesity), and what it’s costing us, would you believe that it’s nowhere near our top policy priorities for 2011? In fact, it’s just about dead last (right below global warming). The Pew Research Center found only 19 percent of us rate addressing obesity a top priority.

And, until we address this issue on a national level, we will never succeed in containing health care costs (or balancing the budget).

In 2010 the U.S. spent approximately $168 billion on obesity-related costs. To put that figure in perspective, look at what some of the larger departments in the federal government spent: $26.3 billion (Dept. of Energy), $51.7 billion (Dept. of Education), $72 billion (Dept. of Transportation), $26 billion (Dept. of Agriculture), $51.7 billion (Dept. of State) and $23.9 billion (Dept. of Justice).

$168 billion is a big bill to pay—and it’s going to get bigger still. It’s estimated by 2018 (just seven years from now) obesity will cost us $344 billion in medical-related expenses, eating up 21 percent of all health-care spending. (2010 America’s Health Rankings Report)

Even though we see almost daily reports linking obesity to a number of chronic diseases (more than 53), type 2 diabetes, metabolic syndrome and too many more to list, there seems to be a disconnect when it comes to how obesity fits into our out-of-control health care costs.

Do we tend to look at it only as a personal responsibility issue that we can’t really do anything about? Is the problem just too overwhelming? Is it just that we think we lack an effective solution so we continue to return to the drawing board for yet another study? Enough.

There are a number of effective solutions in place already, ours being one of them. We continue to build momentum with workplace initiatives and program participants. And, we continue to prove that people want to be well. Most of us would rather be part of the solution than part of the problem. And, we’re not alone.

Given the choices, most of us would probably choose to live healthier, longer lives rather than face an earlier, and perhaps costly, unpleasant death. Wouldn’t we?

A Chicken Tax?

Time to pick on the poor chicken, and it’s really not the chicken’s fault. If you eat chicken, do you know what you’re eating? Do you know what you’re paying for? And do you know what you get as sort of an added bonus?

Get ready . . .

Unless you’re a really careful shopper and are willing to pay more for free-range, all-natural, organic, absolutely nothing added chicken, here’s what you get: chicken, water and salt—lots of salt. In fact, you may well be getting up to 15 percent added salt water that’s injected into the chicken. Sometimes you get added broth, marinade and oil as well. And, it’s approved by the USDA. And with that injected salt water—you get up to 550mg of sodium per 4 oz serving. To put this in perspective, most adults over age 45 should consume only 1,500 mgs of sodium per day, or less, yet the average adult consumes almost 4,000 mgs of sodium per day. Sodium is a major contributor to high blood pressure, stroke and heart disease. (Reducing sodium to the recommended levels could save an estimated 100,000 lives a year.)

Now, if you’re like most of us, you want the best value for your money at the supermarket. And, when you see the label that says, “100 percent natural ingredients,” you may think that’s exactly what you get. It’s true that sodium and water are natural ingredients, but look at that label a little closer to be sure they aren’t “added” ingredients. If so, you’re chicken is no longer “all natural,” and you’re paying more for it.

Here’s where you get to pay the chicken tax.

You’re buying a 6 pound chicken. But, if 15 percent is added water weight (with added sodium), you’re really only getting about a 5 pound chicken. Add it all up and that extra 15 percent, or pound of chicken, costs American consumers about $2 billion each year. And, can you guess where that $2 billion “profit” goes?

So, how do you feel about paying more, getting less—and at the same time, paying for something (an unhealthy dose of sodium) that has no place in a chicken in the first place?

All That Sugar . . . All Those Soft Drinks . . . All That Money!

In a Blog Post (To Tax or Not to Tax—That’s a Big Question) dated June 1, 2009, we started with the following statement and questions:

Liquids make up about 22 percent of our daily calories. A study published in “Circulation: Journal of the American Heart Association,” found those who drank just one soft drink a day—diet or regular—showed increased risk factors for heart disease. Here’s more: Women who drink two or more cans of diet or regular soda a day are nearly twice as likely to show signs of early kidney disease. And, any soda may increase your risk of metabolic syndrome. People who consumed just one diet soda daily had a 34 percent higher risk.

A 12-ounce can of sweetened soda contains 150 calories and 10 teaspoons of sugar. Is this tax-worthy? It’s a question we may be looking at. Here’s a question to go with it—Do we impose a “sin” tax on regular soda but not diet soda? And, if we’re in essence taxing sugar—what about candy, gum, ice cream, candy bars, pies, cake? (You get the picture.)

Now, here’s what’s new and eye-popping. Let’s look only at sugar-sweetened beverages—the numbers only grow from there. The Yale University Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity has gone further than asking thoughtful questions. The Center has developed a “Revenue Calculator” for soft drink tax revenue. The figures are truly amazing. Just a 1 cent tax per ounce on sugar-sweetened beverages (regular soft drinks, sports drinks, flavored water, fruit beverages, energy drinks, ready-to-drink coffee and ready-to-drink nondiet tea) in 2010 could result in tax revenues of $14,887,530,097 on the 11,630,882,889 gallons of the sweet stuff we drink. In one year.

Here in Texas alone, those figures translate to $1,187,823,885 on the 927,987,410 sugar- sweetened gallons of beverage we Texans consume. It’s pretty obvious that taxes on sugar-laden beverages can result in a great deal of revenue for cities, states and the nation.

Suddenly those Big Gulps really do have value. One more question—what do we do with it?