Coke's Syrupy Argument

There are all kinds of rational arguments that could be made to oppose a tax on sugary beverages. One could argue, to take just a couple of examples, that the government shouldn't be in the business of encouraging or discouraging the consumption of any particular product, or that the tax would put an unfair burden on producers.

Muhtar Kent, the CEO of Coca-Cola (KO), decided to take a different tack in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal this week. He argued that America's obesity problem isn't due to sugary drinks at all, but to a national lack of exercise.

This is bull, of course. There are lots of reasons America keeps getting fatter, and our sedentary lifestyle is surely among them. But so, observably, is increased sugar intake, inluding that from sweetened beverages.

It might be safely assumed that Kent felt he had to make this disingenuous argument because making a serious, fact-based argument would be fraught with peril. If he said the government shouldn't impose sin taxes, he would be admitting that sugary soft drinks are a sin. And if he said the tax would be too burdensome, that would seem self-serving.

But he could have made both arguments, I think, and not only gotten away with it, but also been more persuasive.  In arguing that high fructose corn syrup is OK "in moderation," the Corn Refiners Association pretty much admits that it's a sin (though the lobbying arm of the HFCS industry is disingenuous in other ways). Why can't Coke do the same?

And since we all know that the main reason Coke opposes the tax because Coke would have to pay it, why not just say so? Aren't businesses are supposed to be self-serving?