By Amber Hsiao
Originally published in the2x2project.org
This Election Day, Berkeley and San Francisco, Calif. become the latest battleground cities in line to put a sugary beverage tax on the ballot—Measure D in Berkeley and Measure E in San Francisco. To date, more than 30 similar proposals have been tried by states and localities but none have passed.
Berkeley’s City Council unanimously approved the measure in July, which proposes to tax beverage distributors at a rate of a penny per fluid ounce on any sugar-sweetened beverage manufactured with added caloric sweeteners and drink syrups. San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors was more divided than Berkeley but still passed the measure by a 6 to 4 vote, adding it to the November ballot. San Francisco’s measure is proposing an even more aggressive version of the tax at two cents per ounce.
In a nation, where one-third of U.S. adults and children are obese, sugary beverages are often considered one of the main contributors to the problem.
Not surprisingly, the beverage industry has already pushed back hard. The American Beverage Association donated $500,000 on Sept. 16 to fight the proposed tax in Berkeley. Nevertheless, health advocates watch closely as passage of these measures could have implications nationwide—both cities are being viewed as lighthouses in the battle against big soda.
The focus is on Berkeley, in particular, as the last bastion of hope for passing this kind of tax.
“[I]f a soda tax can’t pass in the most progressive city in America [Berkeley], it can’t pass anywhere. Big Soda knows that, which is why it’s determined to kill it here,” wrote Robert Reich, a professor of public policy at University of California, Berkeley.
Nationwide, soda sales have been dropping, though these sales are quickly being replaced by energy drinks and sports drinks. However, such figures mask what is going on in localities like Berkeley. The California Center for Public Health Advocacy’s “Still Bubbling Over” report found that while there has been an overall decline in soda consumption, adolescents ages 12 to 17 are drinking more soda than in the past. In Alameda County— where Berkeley is located—there has been a 10 percent increase from 2005-07 to 2011-12 of adolescents who drink at least one soda or other sugar sweetened beverage per day.
“We are focusing on drinks that we think are the biggest source of the problem,” said Holly Scheider, outreach manager at the Berkeley Healthy Child Coalition, a grassroots coalition that is leading the campaign effort.
Proponents assure voters that the tax falls on soda interests, including distribution companies and manufacturers, not on consumers, in effect functioning as an excise tax. In Berkeley, the tax would be connected to the business license fee. Companies like Coca-Cola and Pepsi don’t need a business license to sell their products in the city, but distributors do. There are between 15 and 20 distributors in Berkeley, according to the Berkeley vs. Big Soda campaign.
The "Yes on D" coalition website says that “[i]t will be the companies’ choice whether or not to pass this tax to the people of Berkeley.” But it seems doubtful that a tax on distributors would not lead to an increase in what consumers pay. As has been the case with Mexico’s 10 percent tax on sugary drinks, as well as the U.S. experience with tobacco excise taxes, such a tax has led to price hikes for consumers.
“In both these cases, the price on the products did go up,” Scheider said, “though not across the board since there are sometimes promotions, but prices generally go up and consumption goes down.”
The Berkeley measure will require a simple majority to pass (the San Francisco measure requires a two-thirds majority because of Proposition 13 anti-tax measures passed in the 70s), and a number of polls conducted of Berkeley residents seem to suggest that it will.
“We are really optimistic,” Scheider said. “All [our] polls showed that Berkeley voters support either a general tax or a designated tax. Voters aren’t particularly swayed by the ‘no’ [tax] arguments. The ‘yes’ votes are holding steady in the low 60 percent [of voters].”
Soda tax supporters hope to do more with the tax than keep soda consumption down. If the measure passes, the Berkeley Healthy Child Coalition—an alliance of organizations, advocates, and elected officials who worked to put the soda tax on the ballot—will push for the revenue to go to help programs such as the nationally-recognized Gardening and Cooking Program that is offered in Berkeley public schools.
Due to recent cuts in the federal farm bill, the Berkeley school board had to commit $500,000 of its own operating budget to the program according to Scheider. Now, 11 elementary schools and two middle schools are in danger of losing funding for the program if the city is unable to raise additional revenues. With the new tax, they hope to keep these programs alive.
“Programs are being cut, and the school board is not in the condition at this point to commit to additional funding—this is just bridge funding,” Scheider said.
If passed, the tax revenue would go toward Berkeley’s general fund. A panel of experts—one expert appointed by each council member—would advise and make recommendations on child nutrition, healthcare, and education to the city council, with the goal of sustaining programs that improve children’s health access. According to the Berkeley vs. Big Soda campaign website, this has been a proven model for the city.
And if it doesn’t pass? Then what?
“We’re not doing this because we have a theoretical idea of where we want the money to go. We want to grow and keep programs that we have. [The sugar-sweetened beverage tax] is designed to address the disproportionate impact of chronic disease on communities of color in Berkeley,” Scheider said. “I think the coalition will regroup and say okay, chronic disease and disparities are still huge; what are we going to do about this? And how are we going to go about it? How will we maintain these programs?”
This Election Day, proponents and opponents alike will be looking to Berkeley to see what the future holds for sugar-sweetened beverages.
Edited by Joshua Brooks