More News

Even though advocates are pushing for a snack tax to fight obesity, Maryland lawmakers say the idea is so unpopular they do not expect it to be introduced in 2010 — an election year.

The state had a tax on snack foods from 1992 to 1997, and since its repeal several lawmakers have tried to reinstate it — one as recently as this past session.

If lawmakers approve a snack tax, Maryland would be the only state to impose such a levy, said Jim McCarthy, president of the Snack Food Association, based in Arlington, Va.

But a health ranking — released jointly in November by the American Public Health Association, Partnership for Prevention and United Health Foundation — showed obesity in Maryland increasing 122 percent in just two decades.

The Committee on Childhood Obesity, an advisory group that included experts from the health field, released a report this month with 12 recommendations on how to prevent childhood obesity.

Some of the report's recommendations include making healthy food more available, increasing enrollment in government-funded nutrition assistance and education programs, improving nutrition and health education in the schools and increasing public awareness about nutrition and physical activity.

The report also recommends a statewide surveillance system to monitor nutrition, physical activity and related health behaviors of children.

And to pay for it all, the report recommends a "tax levy such as a tax on snack foods."

Audrey Regan, with the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene's Office of Chronic Disease Prevention, said one way that states can qualify for more federal stimulus money for health programs is by taxing snacks and sodas.

That was one of about 60 possible ways for states to be eligible for the funds, she said.

Taxing sodas and snacks can raise revenue for obesity prevention and encourage people to refrain from purchasing unhealthy food and drinks.

However, critics say that it is not good policy to enact a sin tax to change behavior, because if the tax proves successful the revenue source will dry up.

A recent report from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health showed that a similar tax on alcoholic beverages — at 10 cents per drink — would raise $214.4 million in revenue. The tax increase also would reduce consumption, according to the report.

Sen. David C. Harrington (D-Dist. 47) of Cheverly is the most recent lawmaker to propose a snack tax. His bill, introduced in 2009 session, could have raised $23.5 million.

The tax was expected to cause a 6 percent decline in snack food purchases.

Harrington's bill did not make it out of committee.

"The climate for this was not a welcoming one," he said.

Harrington said the snack food industry lobbied intensely against the bill, which he said was an effort to address the health problems caused by obesity.

McCarthy said his organization has "consistently opposed very arbitrary snack taxes."

The taxes often bring in little revenue and create public confusion and anger, he said.

Harrington has no plans to introduce the bill again in the 2010 session.

"Taxes are not the ‘in' thing right now," he said. "The climate is just not one that would be conducive to putting forth something like this. Down the road, as the economy does improve, perhaps it's something we should think about."

However, he is sponsoring legislation to limit licenses of fast-food restaurants in areas where health disparities are the highest.

In case lawmakers do not implement a tax on sodas or snack foods to pay for the committee's recommendations, Regan said the department has applied for $13 million in stimulus money for obesity prevention.

She said officials should hear about the status of that request by the end of February. The funds could help implement at least some of the committee's plan to tackle the state's growing obesity problem, she said.