• New York Times, Wednesday, May 19, 2010 10:43 AM

Economic columnist David Leonhardt takes a look at Coca-Cola and PespiCo's campaign to defeat a soda-tax proposal in Washington, D.C., with the same successful tactics it used recently in New York and Philadelphia: a heavy newspaper and radio campaign that says a tax would most hurt "hard-working, low- and middle-income families, elderly residents and those living on fixed incomes" and would destroy jobs.

Whatever happens in next week's vote in the District of Columbia Council, the issue is not going to go away, Leonhardt feels. Yale researcher Kelly Brownell says the link between obesity and soda is scientifically stronger than the link between obesity and any other type of food or beverage, and obesity -- and associated medical costs -- is a significant cause of our supersized budget deficit.

Leonhardt says that Coke and Pepsi are correct that less soda consumption could cost its industry some jobs but he points out that "people will probably spend more on other food and drinks or, say, go to the movies more often -- and create jobs in those industries." He concludes that a soda tax would prove as beneficial in the long term as have safety belts and cigarette taxes.

Read the whole story at New York Times »