wejo, let me just say, you do raise some good points, and seem engaged in this topic, have done some research, and don't seem to have any crazy, fad nutrition ideas (as many on here do). So kudos to you for all that. I want to just point out a few things:On HFCS: I agree, reducing subsidies on corn would still allow sodas be to quite cheap, and therefore might not cut into the cost that much. Mexico doesn't use much HFCS, and uses sucrose instead as their top sweetener (in fact, "Mexican Coke" is made with cane sugar). People are poor there, but...they have at least as large, if not a larger, obesity problem as we do. HFCS ain't the problem. Too many calories in, and too few out (too sedentary) is (but yes, the too many calories DEFINITELY includes too much added sugars in soda, desserts, etc This is why reducing sodas can help many people reduce calories, and reduce obesity. More on that later). There are some studies that show a slight metabolic difference between consumption of HFCS and sucrose, but very little to probably matter much.
I disagree with that statement of theirs. They offer ZERO evidence to back it up, despite referencing many studies in their article to show the harms of excess ADDED sugar beverages (100% fruit juice does not add sugar. Interestingly they only reference "fruit juice" and not "100% fruit juice". Many "fruit juices" are like 5-15% fruit juice. Those are useless). I've looked at several studies that find no link between 100% fruit juice consumption and obesity. Here's one.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18524747100% fruit juice, with its literally dozens of nutrients and natural phytochemicals that sodas don't have, is metabolized quite differently than soda, fructose, or pure glucose. Now yes, for someone with a weight problem it is still not the best choice (does not fill them up). But just to clarify, there absolutely is a difference between drinking a coke and drinking a glass of 100% OJ or other 100% juice. (again, for an overweight person, the effect on weight is similar {if consumed for the same calories as a soda), but the effect on blood glucose/insulin and other factors will be different, which does matter). And while mega-gulp sodas are the norm, I've rarely seen anyone consume a mega OJ. That's just the reality.
I agree that calories in/out is the main reason for obesity/T2D crisis in our country. (not a specific food or macronutrient)
I also agree that "that sugar-sweetened beverages are not the *primary* cause of obesity". But...BUT....they are a *big part* of the "obesity cause". This is where a lot of people get their excess, nutrient-barren calories, and these calories do little to nothing to reduce people's hunger. Yes, they "wash" their sodas down (what's the opposite of wash? ;-) ) with a double-bacon cheeseburger, mega -fries, and ice cream sundae, while SITTING ON THEIR BUTTS afterwards for 6 hours in front of the TV. So YES, soda is only *one part* of the problem/equation. However, it's a fairly big part. SO....
Why not try to take on a big part of the problem? It seems your concept is: if you can't solve the whole problem at once, or with one action, or with one action that is "100% FAIR!", why bother? Getting our population to reduce smoking (through taxes, information/education, reducing places where they can be "consumed", etc) didn't solve everyone's health problems all at once, did it? But it certainly HELPED our population reduce many of its health problems. It was one part of the equation towards a healthier population. Drinking soda might not equal smoking, but getting people to reduce their soda intake would certainly be a step in the right direction, and a tax might help ( I will reference some studies in that regard in a bit). Yes, it seems unfair to single it out compared to other high sugar, or high sugar/high fat/high calories foods, like desserts. Fine, so maybe, instead of being against the tax as you are, you should be for expanding it? Put it on ALL "High added (not natural) sugar, or high Added fats (usually sat fat or trans fat) foods" ?? (That would hit a lot of desserts along with sodas). And use that $ to reduce the cost of fruits, veggies, and other whole, natural, healthy foods? What's wrong with that if it does indeed help our population be healthier? And guess what: you will certainly STILL be able to afford your Dr Peppper under such circumstances. No offense, but it's a bit offensive for someone of your means to be so upset that you might have to spend a few extra dollars to drink you sodas, when you visit an area with such a tax. I really don't think it's going to hurt your bottom line much. If a poor person can't afford it? All the better.
Ok, done.