Folks – The ABA statement is from me and I would appreciate you taking the time to understand the context of our statement and the point we were making about the mayor’s ridiculous plan (which is getting lambasted in the national media, by the way).Bottom line is that weren’t bashing video games, but saying it is just as silly to tax retailers who sell soda as it would be to tax high tech companies who make video games, computers and search engines — all important industries in SF area. If you read our full statement, it attacks the mayor’s flawed strategy and logic of singling out one food or beverage as the cause for a complex problem of childhood obesity – thus deserving of unique taxation. Our point is that it would be equally flawed to single out video games as a driving source for obesity. (And if you aren’t aware – there are advocacy groups that do blame video games and computers as much as soda for childhood obesity and think they should be regulated in ways similar to foods and beverages to discourage “screen time” by kids and teens.)

Here’s what our statement said: “We certainly hope the mayor doesn’t pursue the flawed strategy of taxing retailers who sell soft drinks. Not only would it have no impact on childhood obesity, it would highlight a significant lack of understanding about the complexity of this problem by government leaders. It makes no sense to single out one food or beverage product to address an issue created by a lack of balance between calories consumed and calories burned. If one were to follow this FLAWED LOGIC (emphasis added here for purpose of this blog entry), the mayor also should tax all the high-tech companies in San Francisco for their culpability in contributing to childhood obesity through their video games, computer games, and Internet search engines that keep kids glued to their chairs instead of outside playing and burning calories.” It goes onto to talk about balanced lifestyles as the most effective way to address childhood obesity.

Read More

Link