Is a salt tax in our future?

A recent FDA proposal admonishes the amount of sodium in American diets and proposes targets for reduced levels of sodium. As governments in the US and around the world discuss the possibility of a corrective tax on sugar, will salt be added to the discussion?

Jessica A. Stewart/The St. Joseph News-Press/AP/File
A worker prepares an order of fries with salt at a McDonalds in St. Joseph, Mo.

This week, the Food and Drug Administration proposed voluntary targets for reducing sodium in American diets. Can a salt tax be far behind?

The FDA’s proposal comes as a number of jurisdictions in the US and around the world mull various forms of sugar taxes, aimed at both reducing consumption of sugary drinks and raising revenue. Of course, states have steadily increased tobacco taxes in recent years. My Tax Policy Center colleague Donald Marron has written extensively about corrective taxes in general and sugar taxes specifically. You can read more here and here.

The FDA is proposing both short-term and long-term voluntary goals for salt in a wide range of foods, including restaurant meals and prepared foods.  The plan would require producers to voluntarily "target mean sodium concentrations for each food category.”

The FDA says 35 countries have established similar programs for reducing salt in food. Donald tells me that Hungary already has a salt tax and New Zealand is debating one.

The FDA leaves little doubt that it believes excess dietary salt is a bad thing. According to the documents supporting its proposed regs: 

“Research shows that excess sodium consumption is a contributory factor in the development of hypertension, which is a leading cause of heart disease and stroke, the first and fifth leading causes of death in the United States, respectively…. Many expert advisory panels have concluded that scientific evidence supports the value to public health of reducing sodium intake in the general population.”

For the sake of argument, let’s stipulate that eating too much salt is a bad thing—bad for the health of individuals, bad for their families, and costly to society. Will voluntary targets succeed in reducing salt consumption? And if they don’t, should policymakers consider taking the next steps—regulatory limits or tax increases?

It is hard to imagine the US passing laws limiting the amount of salt in, say, prepared foods. And even if it did, all of us have a handy salt shaker at home to respond to those curbs.

What about a tax? By raising the price, government might encourage producers to find other herbs or spices to flavor prepared foods and substitute for high levels of salt. Yet, in contrast to, say, tobacco, humans need some salt in their diets, a requirement that can’t be met with higher levels of oregano.

Any discussion of salt taxes should include a very dark chapter in the history of such levies—the salt tax imposed by the British in India. The raj first attempted to grant a monopoly to the British East India Company on the production and sale of salt.  By the early 19th century, the British had added a tax which, by some accounts, represented 10 percent of all revenues in India.   

Of course, salt was not taxed in India because it was bad, but rather because it was highly prized, both as a seasoning and a preservative. It was not a corrective tax—the British were hardly worried about the health of Indians—but a revenue source and an attempt to maintain the British monopoly. By the 20th century, highly-taxed salt become unaffordable to most Indians. While India was one of the biggest producers of salt in the world, Indians could not buy it.

In 1930, Mahatma Gandhi led a march to Dandi on the Arabian Sea to protest the salt tax. It was, in some respects, the real beginning of the Indian independence movement—essentially that nation’s equivalent to the Boston tea party a century-and-a-half  earlier.  

Notwithstanding that history, the FDA’s proposed voluntary curbs on salt in the US raise some interesting issues and can’t help make me wonder whether a salt tax is in our future.

This article first appeared at TaxVox.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.