Last September, San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom stated that he would introduce legislation to impose a tax on businesses that sell sugary drinks in San Francisco to help combat obesity and associated health problems like diabetes. The tax would consist of a per-ounce extra charge on soda and sugary juices, raising the price of a purchase and theoretically reducing people’s desire to consume soda. Already instituted in some states, a soda tax should move beyond local and state governments and be implemented nationally as a part of the federal government’s attempts to help reduce obesity rates.

Obesity rates, which have grown over the past three decades from 14 percent to 30 percent, are still climbing in spite of readily available nutritional facts and health awareness. This is due to multiple factors, including subsidization of various agricultural industries, which makes processed foods often a less expensive alternative to fresh foods. The corn industry is the major reason for Americans’ overconsumption of soda. Corn can be used to make high fructose corn syrup, a sweetener that is preferred by soda manufacturers over sugar due to its lower cost. Since it became widely used in the 1970s, the lowered price of soda coincided with a steady rise in obesity that has taken place over the past three decades. On average, Americans consume about 278 more calories than they did 30 years ago; almost half of which come from soda. Had high fructose corn syrup not been introduced as an inexpensive alternative to sugar, Americans would not have been able to buy soda on a regular basis and therefore would probably not have picked up their soda habit in the first place. The root of soda-related obesity is money; therefore, the best solution must be money as well.

Anti soda-tax groups, which are backed by the $125 billion soft drink industry and the Corn Refiners Association, have stated that taxing a particular food is counterproductive to efforts to curb obesity. But soda is different from other foods in that it is full of sugar and empty calories. Its composition is supportive of an unhealthy lifestyle—a 20-ounce serving contains about 22 teaspoons of sugar, a huge overdose in comparison to the maximum recommended daily serving of nine teaspoons.

Some have argued that middle class families’ daily lives would be adversely impacted by the tax. The tax will impact middle class families’ daily lives, but certainly not adversely. Since obese people have higher health insurance rates, their overall health care costs would be reduced along with their weight. Soda’s increased price would also result in people turning to a healthy alternatives such as water. Water, which is a part of people’s daily lives, flows inexpensively from a tap and is perfectly portable. When it’s not, the use of filters and kettles for boiling allows it to become so. The desire to be a healthier individual and society must come from within; a soda tax just gives people a little monetary incentive to take a step in the right direction.