Proposals to tax sugary sodas are good — but plans to remove salt from restaurants are “moronic.”

Question: rnWhat do you think of New York's proposal to ban salt in restaurants?

Mark Bittman: rnI think it's moronic.  Irnthink that the problem with salt, to the extent that there is a problem withrnsalt, and this is not really, really clear, but to the extent there is arnproblem with salt, it's the salt in processed foods.  People who don’t eat a lot of processed foods don’t havernproblems with salt.  People who addrntheir own salt to food have no problems with salt.  Chefs who make their own – chefs in restaurants who cookrnfrom scratch and add salt to their taste or to the perceive tastes of theirrndiners are not adding criminal amounts of salt.  If you want to limit the amount of salt that McDonalds putsrnin its processed foods, that's great. rnI'd like to limit the amount of food they can sell period.  It's not really a salt problem, it's anrnoverall food problem.

Question: Why are proposals to tax sugary sodas important?

MarkrnBittman:  Well, I think it is happening, which isrnreally amazing.  The mayor ofrnPhiladelphia just proposed a very – the proponents of a soda tax or generallyrnproposing a penny per ounce as an excise tax, which means 12 ounce can of sodarnmight cost a $1.12 instead of $1.00 and a 24-pack case of soda might cost --rnmight double in price from a sale price of $2.99 or $3.99.  That's really incredible.  The guy in Philadelphia, I think hisrnname is Nutter, but hey it's his name. rnThe guy in Philadelphia is proposing two cents per ounce, which isrnreally quite amazing because it means a $1.00 can of soda would cost a $1.25.  A 32 ounce bottle of soda that was arn$1.00 would cost a $1.64 and so on.

So I think it isrnhappening.  Why is itrnimportant?  Soda is the leadingrnsource of calories for Americans. rnAmericans get seven percent of their calories from soda, which is morernthan they get from any other single food. rnAnd let's think about this, it's non-nutritive.  That is to say no benefitrnwhatsoever.  None.  Like it's not harmless, it's negative.  Secondly, it's a leading cause ofrnobesity in the United States.  Irnmean, if obesity is a problem, you have to look at where the calories arerncoming from.  If soda is the numberrnone source of calories in the United States and it's not a beneficial source ofrncalories, it's something people can do without. 

So if you'rernobese and you're looking for ways to help people figure out what they can dornwithout, soda is a very good start. rnSo I think the tax is a very smart thing.  There is some research that shows that taxing junk food,rnwhich soda is a junk food, taxing junk food is more likely to help people eatrnwell than subsidizing healthy food. rnThe irony is that if you subsidize healthy food people will take thernmoney they're saving and buy junk food, which is sad but true.

I think the sodarntax makes sense.  I think it'srnhappening.  I think it's going tornhappen this year and next year.  Irnthink it is going to be a swell of soda taxes and I think once the greedy staternlegislatures realize they can make money on this thing it's going to have evenrnmore momentum.