Soda Tax Saga: Will California Pave the Way to Legislation?

If you have not been following the soda tax controversy lately, here’s a quick update. In the past year,  Capitol Hill and even the President have said that taxing sugary soft drinks may be a good way to reduce consumption and create a $50B revenue stream for the federal government over the next decade.

The American Beverage Association spun into action in order to kill any such legislative ideas, using TV commercials, direct lobbying efforts, and through persuading additional organizations representing Hispanics to join the fight. Why Hispanics? Because the numbers show that they are more apt to consume soft drinks on one hand, but have less to spend on the other. The soft drink industry repeatedly stated it is “protecting working families”.

All told, the ABA spent $18 million. The efforts succeeded, and just a few weeks ago it seemed as if all the congressmen who supported the tax suddenly had a change of heart. In launching her new campaign against childhood obesity, the First Lady also steered clear of the soda tax issue. In return, Coca Cola and Pepsi pledged to prominently display beverage calorie counts on their products.

Now for the news. Not content with the federal response, California is considering a state tax on soda, according to the Los Angeles Times:

Legislators last week pledged to pass such a tax in light of new studies linking soft drink consumption to obesity in children and adults. One study suggests that obesity and related problems cost California alone $41 billion a year in medical expenses and reduced productivity.

…When California Senate Majority Leader Dean Florez (D-Shafter) introduced his soda tax bill, he said one penny of tax per teaspoon of added sugar in any sweetened beverage would generate as much as $1.5 billion each year. That money would pay for parks, recreation and school health programs, Florez said. “The Legislature is primed for this bill,” Florez said, adding that he expects bipartisan support. read more…

And in an interesting turn of events, one of the Hispanic organizations that initially aligned itself with Coke decided to break away, and 2 Californian chapters of other organizations split from the still-in-bed-with-Coke national organizations. Bravo!

Our take on this issue is a bit different. While we certainly applaud any and all actions meant to decrease sugar consumption on a massive scale, the tax should be levied directly on manufacturers. Read more about “calorie offsets” that will squeeze the cash from rich corporation instead of “working families”.

What to do at the supermarket:

Whether you’re a working family or not, the easiest way to save $500 a year is to quit soft drinks and switch to tap water (for a family of four). You’ll save not just 5 Benjamins, but also several pounds of body weight, along with a decrease in tooth decay, and a general contribution to a greener earth.

New! Choose a better breakfast with CerealScan™ by Fooducate

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Get Fooducated

  • Nicole

    Thank you very much for discussing this topic with your readers. My company represents the California Center for Public Health Advocacy, which worked with Sen. Florez on his soda tax bill.

    You wrote in your post “While we certainly applaud any and all actions meant to decrease sugar consumption on a massive scale, the tax should be levied directly on manufacturers.” To clarify, Florez’ bill would levy an excise tax on beverage distributors, not on consumers. Like your idea of calorie offsets, Florez’ bill is designed to have “rich corporations” pay for the health problems their products have caused.

    Thank you for continuing to keep your readers abreast of this important health issue.

  • http://www.livingitupcornfree.com kc

    It really irks me that these sodas are called “sugary soft drinks” when they contain no sugar. Corn syrup is really the enemy of human health because it causes so many more problems than sugar. HFCS is made from GMO corn and causes everything from endocryne damage to diabetes, allergies, obesity and liver failure. I agree that sodas are toxic and should be consumed by NO ONE, but it isn’t because of sugar content. There isn’t a drop of sugar in any soda, only GMO corn and water (every ingredient in the average soda is derived from GMO corn except the water).

    I also think that any plan to put the financial burden on the corporations will be diverted back to the consumer in the end. If only this measure would lead to the end of GMO corn food additives in general, I would be wholeheartedly supporting it. I don’t really have much hope in this regard when the governor of NYC is at this moment trying to ban home-made treats in school bake sales in favor of Doritos and Poptarts. Our economy revolves around corn and it is overused to the point of ridiculousness. The politicians are very aware of our foolish dependency even if the average citizen is not and they have been paid big money to keep it that way. I think the implication that soft drinks should be taxed because they contain too much “sugar” is a subtle way to avoid revealing that GMO corn is the culprit. Meanwhile, the shelves are full of other HFCS laden pseudo foods that are marketed directly to children and even served to them at school and everything that doesn’t contain HFCS still has at least four other sources of GMO corn.

    If you don’t believe me when I tell you how bad GMO corn-derived food additives are, try taking them completely out of your family’s diet for just one week. Seeing is believing.

  • david m

    there is nothing wrong with sugar.it is not causing obesity. THERE IS NO FAT IN SUGAR! and as for what kc is saying, THEY DO NOT KNOW WHAT CAUSES DIABETES! also, what is “hfcs” and “gmo”? most people do not know.

  • Henry128

    Why are “hispanic organizations” a controlling factor? Are they running this country now?
    Seems we should be more interested in why they are a major factor than anything.