According to a report in The New England Journal of Medicine, sugar consumption has risen 30 percent over the last decade. For teens and children, soda accounts for 10-15 percent of total calories consumed. By removing just ¼ of the sugar in sweetened beverages, consumers can reduce annual caloric intake by 8,000 calories. This figure equates to roughly two pounds of weight in a year.

“Americans consume about 250 to 300 more calories daily today than they did several decades ago,” according to authors Kelly D. Brownell, Ph.D., and Thomas R. Frieden, M.D., M.P.H. “Though no single intervention will solve the obesity problem, that is hardly a reason to take no action.”

Such a high rate of sugar intake can do more than expand the waistline. It can also increase the risk of type 2 diabetes, heart disease, and other problems as a result of poor nutrition and weight gain. The objectives of those in support of a tax are twofold—to lower consumption, and to encourage soft drink producers to decrease the amount of caloric sweeteners in their products.

There are strong arguments on both sides. People arguing against the tax point out that food is necessary to survive. They believe raising prices will make it more difficult for low-income families to eat. Others argue that the poor would benefit the most. As the price of fresh produce and other healthier options goes up, soda and junk food prices are going down. People with tighter budgets consume more of the cheap but less nutritious foods and beverages.

“As Coca-Cola prices increased by 12 percent, sales dropped by 14.6 percent,” Frieden and Brownell wrote. Analysts believe that a 1 cent-per-ounce price increase could reduce consumption by as much as 10 percent. Justin Wilson, senior research analyst for the Center for Consumer Freedom, argues that such a tax is manipulation against the consumer. “The tax code should not be used as a method for social engineering, and that’s what this is,” he said.  Legislators see the issue a little differently.