Drink more water, fellow citizens. It is much better for you. Not plastic bottled water mind you. Get a filter and drink tap water. It is better for the environment.
I remember when cigarette vending machines started going away, which was around the time that countless people swore that when cigarettes reached $1 a pack they were gonna quit. Cigs are now nearly $10 a pack and no one ever quit because they couldn't afford it. If people want soda pop badly enough, they will find a way to pay for it. unfortunately, they will not be able to afford treatment for all the conditions that soda causes and/or promotes, both regular soda and "diet," for aspartame is its own evil.
This new law is yet another "ag gag" law, another infringement on free speech, another corporate gangster strong-arming local and state governments the same way the beef and dairy industries have for years. Gorsuch was put on SCOTUS to make sure that the only "people" with free speech rights are corporations, and the next pick will be chosen to cement the domination of the corporation over the individual citizen.
There is another article in today's paper about how the American baby formula industry tried to strong-arm an international agency for promoting breast-feeding. They even threatened to halt military support for Ecuador in fighting narcoterrorists if they voted for a measure to increase breastfeeding. Talk about rogue! This is pure evil. Directed at children and babies. There must be a way to beat these Malefactors of Great Wealth back, to regain individual rights from corporate dictatorship.
2
Here's a notion. Anyone, who wants to sell soft drinks must offer water at 1/2 the price of the same size soft drink or in the case of a place with food consumption, free or minimally priced water. In many food places in MX, I was astonished to see there was no bottled water nor access to say tea or coffee... only sugared soft drinks... And later I was not surprised to learn that MX has a high rate of diabetes 2. (and as a corollary heat disease would be expected.)
If only Bloomberg had done for CocaCola what he did for cigarettes.
2
Totally agree. Water - not diet soda -must be free or substantially less expensive where sugar drinks are sold.
1
The toothless poor.
1
Well, those who favor soda taxes now have a roadmap. Get an initiative on the ballot to require a supermajority to raise local taxes, then agree to pull it if the legislature passes a statewide soda tax.
3
“People across the country are taxed enough, and they can’t afford new taxes on what they eat and drink,” said William Dermody, the vice president for media and public affairs at the American Beverage Association, an industry trade group.
Until, that is, the medical bill comes in to pay for the ill-health of our over-sized population due in great part to the industry Mr Dermody represents.
6
If most consumers were choosing their beverages primarily on cost, the likes of Starbucks would be a niche product. Defining tobacco, alcohol and gasoline is fairly easy. Defining "sugary food item" is not.
States should act to head off solving regional or national problems at the local government level. The latter is an enormous waste of resources, and local governments are far less capable of resisting special interests and corruption than states.
The same people who want a soda tax probably, like myself, never drink soda. Soda is awful, and it does not belong in schools or other public places where it appears far too often. Excluding it from food aid programs seems perfectly reasonable. Taxing it, however, seems like a silly, self-serving idea.
2
I have never in my 66 years so many fat young Americans.
4
This strategy contrived by these soda companies is absolutely despicable. Everyone knows that sugary-drinks are not good for you but these industries have taken a grasp on so many consumers. These are the reasons as to why America is known as an unhealthy country. There are many people that say that this is hurting the poor, but this is the exact issue. Almost no company is completely out to get poor people but yet so many people use this excuse to fuel their sugary-drink agenda.
There are plenty of drinks available like water. This is something that everyone should drink.
Most people go and get a soda every time they get a meal and this is so unhealthy. It does not mean that companies like The American Heart Association are out to get anyone. They just want some people to think about their choices and how it is negatively affecting their lives. As someone that has strayed away from soft drinks, these things are extremely addictive. They get a hold on you and you feel bad once you stop drinking them, but after a week or so you begin to feel a boost of energy and normality. This is because you are getting over a strong addiction that is trying to be fixed in America.
3
Drinking 1 20oz vending machine bottle of Coke per day is like consuming the equivalent of over 50 lbs of sugar per year and some people drink more than 1 20oz bottle.
Poor diets and overeating resulting in obesity is by far the greatest single reason for high healthcare costs today.
The US obesity rate is 38% (with massive obesity of a body-mass index above 40 at 8%) compared to an obesity rate in Italy of 10% and 15% in France.
http://www.oecd.org/health/obesity-update.htm
Public health experts recommend taxing sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) to shift consumption away from these caloric beverages.
People complain about the high costs of healthcare and insurance, yet they are against policies that will reduce those costs.
2
This approach was the same used to pass the California data privacy act. just saying....
Better to stop subsidizing the production of HFCS, but this is a national policy where states and cities have little effect.
2
The American system of taxation blows me away. For the most part...occasional exceptions...local referendum on local increase in provincial sales tax regarding transit improvements held by province...decisions on taxation for public health measures are made by the Canadian provincial and/or federal.govt. They are not voted on. i.e. liquor taxes and cigarette taxes. School boards ban the sale of sugary drinks in schools.
1
Soda is not a nutritious drink. It will not satisfy one's thirst. It doesn't add anything but empty calories to the day's intake of food or liquid. When it's hot, soda or a highly sweetened beverage, is one of the worst things to drink. Water is much healthier and will leave one feeling satisfied. Add a squeeze from a twist of lime or some crushed mint leaves to the water and you've got a perfect summer cooler. Put ice cubes in and as they melt you get more cold water. Fruit juice isn't half as satisfying as water on a hot summer day. Most of us don't need sports drinks or special nutrition to survive when it's hot. The food industry is lying to us when they push various highly sweetened and carbonated drinks at us, very salty snacks, highly processed food, etc., as nutritious.
The best thing we can do is to start demanding that all our drinking water is safe, that sodas be removed as cheap options in fast food restaurants and public spaces, and to stop drinking any sort of soda unless we make it ourselves. And we can do that. We can make better soda for ourselves if we use juice and add seltzer to it in proportion to how bubbly we like it. It tastes better and is healthier. You'll wonder why you ever liked soda.
3
All Californians need to know how their state representative voted on this measure and punish those that did in the next general. No excuses; a clear message needs to be delivered.
The corollary action is to blacklist major soda company products – not just soda, but ALL of the beverages and foodstuffs they sell – and CEASE PURCHASING THEM.
The era where California's state government is bought, sold, owned, and or held for ransom by the highest bidder has got to end. We need to FIGHT BACK and impose costs upon those entities that seek to engage in these practices, as well as those elected representatives who kowtow to them.
1
For once, a business-supported measure that helps poor people. We need to push back against the burgeoning emergence of groups with a nutritional agenda to impose their various obsessions on the community with the cooperation of authorities that smell an opportunity to combine virtue with revenue.
Soda taxes are regressive, they hit the poor hardest.
Walking through a box store yesterday, I was struck by all the beverages with high sugar content than aren’t sodas.
Perhaps a tax on any beverage with high fructose corn syrup would be better.
5
PS the sugar industry benefits from federal price controls! (set up so the price cannot fall. sugar is very very cheap.)
For starters, California voters should pass a Proposition that specifies: "Any bill that requires a supermajority must be passed by an equivalent supermajority."
And of course add one that demands revealing the identity of the funders for all propositions on state descriptions of ballot initiatives - the individuals and corporations who fund the super pacs.
2
At some point...civilization will cease to exist if corporations maintain control of government legislation - So we die or push-back as the government of Chile has done by drawing a line in the sand around the causes of the obesity pandemic, and diabetes; they have banned cartoon ads targeting children, and added labels to all foods that have left nutrition and are actually harmful or deadly.
Health issues are the rallying cry if ever there was one for epople finally to take back their lives from corporations and their lawyers. The costs and suffering and lowered national GDP associated with bad health is the best front-line for governments globally to take on corporations with real leadership for the people.
The revolution and hope for a better future begins with push-back. What better issue could everyone globally support other than safe food. We just need leadership that actually represents someone, and not the bottom line for the accountants of soulless corps.
3
Sugar=poison=big $$$$. Follow the sugar lobby money trail to D.C.
7
Soda pop is not tobacco yet these draconian taxes are taxed at the same rate as cancer sticks and at much higher rates than beer or other alcohol. The soft drink companies are not borrowing tactics from the tobacco companies as much as the biased reporters of this article are using the same kind of demonization of an industry -- "Big Soda" -- to advocate for regressive taxes on other people, many of whom lack their economic privilege.
It's exactly these kinds of big government knows best, social-engineering regressive taxes that make common people really despise the rich liberals and billionaires who support them as alien and effete.
Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death in the United States. An overconsumption of high fructose corn syrup is linked to much greater risk of developing cardiovascular disease. Maybe you should rethink your facts and the dangers of cheap soda.
12
When it comes to soda taxes in the US, so far its been "local government knows best", and big soda has just denied Californians the ability to decide for themselves. The beverage industry spends billions to make sure we keep drinking products that they know are harmful to our health... if that's not social engineering then I don't know what is.
6
These "soda" taxes are nothing more than a cover for municipalities wanting to raise revenues from new sources because of prior mismanagement of monies, squandering of monies and political and sweetheart deals and promises made to various organizations to keep the same municipal leaders in perpetual power to feed at the public trough. If these taxes actually had a health benefit intended then every sugary item, including cakes, pies, ice cream, donuts, etc. would also be taxed and the municipalities would be open and transparent about showing how these new revenues raised would be used to fund new clinics, new places of education about the effects of sugary items and outreach into the municipalities to help people in this regard, just to name a few examples. I saw the fiasco that happened in Cook County, Illinois and how the municipal leaders could enact this type of tax with straight faces was beyond incredible. These municipal leaders care only about putting money into their pockets and remaining in power.
3
I am opposed to sin taxes and social engineering via the tax code. Soda is already taxed under the sales tax and sugar in a Soda is no different than sugar in a cup of coffee, glass of tea, can of a so-called sports drink, etc.
Most of these "soda taxes" are supposed to reduce sugar consumption but often include diet drinks that have no sugar in them. This is do gooderism gone wild by people willing to tax people with different behavior.
If we are fighting empty calories why not tax beer & wine? A 16 oz Coca Cola has 187 Calories and a 16 oz Budweiser has 195. 250ml of Red Wine has about 214 calories. A Diet Coke has none, but is not exempted in many of these taxes sold as a "war on empty calories".
As to the purpose of these taxes, governments already tax everything that moves, stands still and is on the lookout for ever more. We do not need higher taxes, we need more efficient government.
No more nanny state.
7
It’s not about calories it’s about carbohydrates... specifically sugar. Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death in the United States. Often times (partly because we subsidize corn) high fructose corn syrup-based sugar drinks are cheaper than healthier options. Therefore it’s more economic for low income families to buy soda adversely impacting their health and the children’s health. This has implications in how much we spend on health care (eg diabetes treatments) etc. These taxes are what Ian known as preventative health care policies an federal in my mind they’re a good idea. Especially because the revenue could go towards good causes.
11
'Why not tax wine and beer?" Mr. Gregory asks above.
Wine and beer ARE already taxed and so are liquor. Both federal and state taxes in most instances.
2
My issue with the sugary drink tax is what it specifies. Alcohol mixers and juice are exempt in Boulder, whereas sparkling juice (aka juice mixed with sparkling water and therefore lower in sugar) and probiotic drinks (that need sugar to feed the live probiotics) are taxed. I understand the idea behind the tax but it is essentially a mirage of a solution.
On top of that, the tax weighs heavily on local startups trying to make a healthier alternative to Snapple or Pepsi. It isn't like the tax will greatly impact either of those giants, while it could essentially smother the profits from the startups. The number of people surprised that kombucha and other probiotic drinks are now being taxed has been interesting, considering that every person I have spoken with about it said they voted for the tax.
While I do not mind the idea and motivation behind the tax (hey, help kids be healthier and use the tax money for education purposes sounds great), these drink taxes still seem like a rough idea, not something that should already be placed into law.
Oh yeah, and I went to buy a sugar free chai tea (Bhakti Chai, anyone?) and I got taxed for it at King Soopers (the Kroger of Colorado).
5
Remember the Coors boycott!
1
Gov. Brown has the nerve to call himslef a Buddhist. Then again, so do many people in Burma, especially those monks and generals. Gov. Brown: Burma is calling you, I'll pay for the airfare, one way of course. Gotta love those Centrist Democrats, when companies come calling with cash in hand, even they'll have their pockets wide open.
1
Talking about Big Soda going "rogue", that better describes the whole State of California on taxes.
2
Which is why it's great you don’t live there, right?
2
I don't understand how pre-emptive bills are constitutional. You literally are passing a measure saying no matter how many people would possibly want to do this thing in future years, we aren't going to let you. How is that ok?
4
Cities are administrative units created under state laws, therefore states can regulate them. As the preemption laws aren't binding on future legislatures, which can always vote to overturn them or impose their own taxes in response to public pressure, there's no constitutional issue.
Corruption is every where. Corporations rule the country along with churches and billionaires. Newspapers are attacked and local governments are shackled and forbidden to protect their citizens. That’s the new world. It’s not pretty.
I realize this article is about a sugar tax but it’s really about a lot more.
6
"Critics of the bill pointed to a photo that shows [Governor Brown] posing with executives from Coca-Cola, PepsiCo and the American Beverage Association at a recent private dinner at the governor’s mansion. The governor’s spokesman said the meeting was unrelated to the soda tax measure."
The myth of California Democratic politicians' liberalism persists, despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary. True, there is much laudable social issue liberalism in the state, which the wealthy interests are willing to ignore (so long as their bottom lines remain unaffected).
On the economic side of the ledger, it's been pretty conservative in the Golden State. Brown balanced the budget via savage cuts to social programs for the the young, the disabled and the elderly, along with drastic cuts to higher education.
And during the recession/high deficit years, Jerry Brown and other Democratic leaders refused to look at the revenue side, specifically, an extraction tax on the vast resource wealth of the state. The Democrats did augment one source of revenue - a regressive sales tax increase.
And with California commercial and residential landlords riding high on soaring housing costs, only a few Democratic politicians on the left have found the nerve to mention repealing Prop 13 which has starved school districts and municipalities since its passage in the 70s (back when Brown, who advocated against Prop 13 was actually somewhat progressive).
8
The rich is only getting richer and the gap between upper class and every other class is widening. Soda companies may say that they have our best interests in mind by limiting taxes (because really, who wants to pay more taxes?) but it benefits them far more. They don't care if their product increases heart disease, obesity, and tooth decay. They may argue that it is a personal choice whether you drink their product or not, but for many that actually isn't a choice. Junk food is cheap food. So for those living on a tight budget, our food industries aren't exactly making a healthy lifestyle very easy. Plus, when you're feeling sad about economic woes, academical woes, or any woes in general, you tend to treat yourself to something sweet. Thanks for taking advantage of our emotions. Also, these companies are designing their products to be addictive. My grandmother is addicted to soda and I've seen the ways it's effected her. She's tired, she's unhealthy, and soda is really the only thing that'll perk her up a little bit. They are exploiting human nature and the sad part is it's not even that hard. Without taxes we're just making it that much easier for them to make money.
Then there is the idea of taxing the company and not the consumer. No doubt lobbyists would do everything to fight it, but from our view it could solve a lot of problems. Simply less taxes for us, but still the benefits of taxes, and giants of the soda industry finally contribute what's long been overdue.
9
Sugar and sugar derivatives are in almost any kind of processed food. You can tax sugary drinks, but sugar is ubiquitous in our food supply. Taxing soft drinks isn't going to solve the problems with obesity and diabetes. Unfortunately until people start actually cooking and shunning products full of sugar, nothing is going to change. Take a look at the contents of some supposedly "healthy" foods like yogurt - many are filled with sugar. Breakfast cereals, granola, fruit juice - thinks we think of as being healthy are full of sugar. Another issue not being address is the fact many lower income people do not have access to sources of affordable fresh vegetables and produce - they have convenience type stores full of processed foods. Even pantry shelves often give out unhealthy foods. This is really just a revenue sources for cities - it's not solving the problem with obesity and diabetes.
8
There's a well thought out, strategic reason for targeting sugary drinks. Its true the majority of added sugar we consume (about 70%) comes from foods like jams, breads, yogurts, salad dressing, other condiments, tomato sauce, etc., but try implementing a tax across all of those food categories. The other 30% of added sugars are packed into one single category of food... soft drinks. Think about it, drop one single item from your diet and reduce your sugar consumption by 30%. Aggressive policies on sugary drinks would earn us tremendous gains in public health. It's a fantastic idea that we should support.
2
To those who believed neoclassical economists when they trashed antitrust, and celebrated big business, now see how it corrupts. Soft drink companies are an oligopoly. Their immense resources let them control legislatures. This is pure gilded-age junk.
The great quality control guru, Ed Demmings, told companies they had to base excellence on the fact that 1/2 of their employees, by unavoidable statistics, were below the average employee. Democracy has to figure this out, too. We've let big business and big money seize control by letting them corral the lower half. It's unavoidable fact, as Demming said.
The sugar industry is a lot like tobacco, it's products both addictive and a health scourge. Forget conscience; they might as well be robots. But they're just the visible point of a spear, as corporate influence throttles good government.
Money is power, power corrupts, and excessive power corrupts constantly. As corporate profits soar on Wall St., corporate corruption soars in state houses. They don't bother trying to convince the committed or concerned. They go after the ignorant.
Our body politic needs antibodies to protect those who are vulnerable to corporate virus. Otherwise we'll all succumb.
3
Sodas are combinations of unhealthy sugar, cancer-causing artificial sweeteners, and poisonous chemicals. Soda manufacturers are no different than tobacco companies, and utilize insidious tactics to ensure that nothing hinders the consumption of their poison. I agree with others that the best solution may be to end subsidies for domestic sugar.
3
Sugar is the next tobacco and soda are the next cigarettes
2
In Chicago it failed and got repealed because of the Lying of the government claims is it for the health of the Children
24 hours after sugar tax 1st passed, Cook County passed a huge wage increase for county workers
1
Oh no, workers got a raise? What is the world coming to?
1
This seems to indicate that CA official believe that the measure to require 2/3 majority to raise local taxes is likely to pass. Am I understanding that correctly? What taxes does this cover (e.g. sales, property, income)?
If so, then what if a 12 year ban on soda taxes is enacted, and then a different group put another 2/3 majority measure on the ballot in the future?
It seems that the underlying issue is that there is opposition to new taxes at the local level.
1
Polling indicates that the ballot initiative would indeed likely pass, according to reports I've seen. And my understanding is that the ballot initiative would apply to any local taxes that contribute to general funding (not special taxes earmarked for, say, road repair).
It's a strategy to push legislators to pass a backroom preemption bill they would otherwise never pass, by creating a devastating alternative scenario.
3
If all you need is 1/3, or 30%, of the public to oppose a tax to scuttle it, you'll never get it passed. Because 1/3 of the population is inevitably angry, dangerous, and reactive. In 1960, in 1980, in 2030.
Would this proposition have passed? Maybe, maybe not. People hate taxes, and the sugar industry would have blanketed ads that demonized gov't. Legislators were asked to play Russian Roulette, or swallow a poison pill. They took the pill.
But the real issue is the strategic risk we now face, as corporations hold state houses hostage.
2
But, you don't understand: The soda industry wants to save Social Security. That is their real goal! You see, too many of us have the audacity to live for too long, i.e. collect benefits for many years after reaching retirement age. The soda industry already does it's best to bring back the good old days when people died at younger ages. Thanks to adding copious amounts of sugar (high fructose corn syrup, really) to many drinks and meals, this trend to living longer has already been halted, and, by preventing local governments and entire states from taxing unhealthy sugary beverages, America's soda industry will continue to do its part to Make America Die Younger Again.
3
First, the soda industry should not be singled out. There should be a tax on all foods with a high glycemic load. No discriminating against big beverage. Everything is in Gms on food labels, even on soda.. We can also stop subsidizing farmers who grow sugar from cane and sugar beets and corn(HFCS)
High glycemic foods are worse or as bad for one's health as tobacco. So, why are so many supporting the B.I.Gs. Bullies Invested in Government? and delaying this implement. Who's getting the money to do this?
A lot of people are addicted to high glycemic products and we are all paying for it. Not Fair. That the homeless rely on soda to survive? We can do better than this.
Regressive tax for the poor. Nonsense. We were on our way to rewarding the poor for choosing vegetables and it was working.
1
Look, sugar in reasonable amounts isn't bad. In fact, sodas don't contain sugar, they have high fructose corn syrup. I still remember the switch, in the 80's. Coke or Pepsi sacrificed flavor for price and volume, switching from sugar to syrup. Americans bought into it.
@Brian:
HFCS is just a cheaper, more heavily subsidized sugar. Cane sugar is 50-50 glucose-fructose, HFCS is 45-55 glucose-fructose. Not much metabolic difference, to the liver or the pancreas.
The End of Government As We Know It
1
Corporations are realizing that conservatives at the state level are perfectly willing to block local representation when it's below their level.
Federal government pushing standards? Big government intrusion!
City governments pushing change at their level? Anarchy!
State-level laws forcing compliance on more-local governments? Just right!
Seems ALEC is most comfortable dealing with 50 entities, no more, no less.
3
Sugar product companies: people are fed up with your antics.. Give up. You manufacture corn-sugar-based crap and flog it on the marketplace. You know it's bad - so why encourage your own children to consume it?
1
Nobody makes anyone drink a sugared drink. Water is offered at every eating establishment I have ever set food in- and that would include France.
A 250ml glass of wine and a 16oz Beer have more calories than a 16 oz Coca -Cola.
Maybe we should tax empty calories instead of sugar. Big bellies are called Beer Guts, right?
1
The concept of “Small Government” really means “We don’t want the Federal Government telling us in the States what we can and cannot do, but at the State level we sure as hell will tell the Cities what they can and cannot do.”
This sort of pre-emption is endemic in red states with blue cities.
2
Soda and other so-called health taxes are not about health. They are naked cash grabs by overspending municipalities and arbitrary penalties imposed by power-hungry nannies and scolds. They'll never go as far as banning these products because they depend on the revenues sucked from them. So one side of their face says stop drinking Coke, and the other says send your tax receipts to this address.
3
If people want soda, they will buy it. Even if it costs more. And the poor will just get poorer. So progressives are just being mean and hateful by making the poor even poorer because they want to feel good about themselves. Typical liberalism.
Studies of places where these taxes have been implemented are showing that, including in low-income areas, people buy less soda and other sugary drinks, but more water and milk.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-soda-tax/berkeley-soda-tax-tak...
2
Good. The coastal elites favor nothing more than telling the rest of us how to live, work, vote, eat - and now drink.
1
Well, in this case, it is the "coastal elites" convincing states to override the wishes of local cities.
1
Hey, big surprise, capitalists don't like their products to be taxed, and they don't care at all about customer health. It's a fight, and we have to keep fighting and organizing. Any politician who receives money from these creeps, or even spends time listening to them them, should be run out of office.
2
Executives at Pepsi and Coke have long feigned respectability because they hid behind the American beverage association's nefarious lobbying efforts. But we see them. From the "energy balance" nonsense they shove into school curricula to the "personal choice" and "nanny state" smokescreens they trot out as though they are soldiers of liberty - we see their greed for what it is. And when they aren't underplaying the dangers of sugar, they fill plastic bottles with water from public aquifers and rip us off as they pollute our oceans. Who would have thought sugar water companies would be such bogeymen? What they sell is worse than snake oil.
8
Just get rid of the subsidies for corn and the price of soda will increase. Use those subsidies for real foods, such as carrots, cabbage, radishes, tomatoes and cucumbers.
20
I am currently working in Kentucky. The soda and sugar addiction is unreal. I work with educated people who are complete sugar junkies. I've never seen anything like it.
3
republicans - and make no mistake, these bills are written by republican strategists - used to believe in devolution of powers to the lowest levels of government. Their ideology was to bring government as close to the people as possible. Now they are all in for concentration of power. By any other name, that's Big Government.
2
Preempting local control is anti-democratic. Every legislator that votes to disenfranchize her/his constituents should be voted out of office.
1
The ability of local communities to raise revenue is threatened and now the state legislature will cave to keep this from happening. A smart tactic and I will be surprised if it is not used again. Time to buy stock in Pepsico?
Corporate interests control government -- nothing new there.
But we could "Just say no" as Nancy Reagan urged us: Don't buy the soda. Don't drink it. Water is a much healthier alternative. Make tea, coffee, and carbonated water at home. (Cold brewed herbal teas, in the fridge, can be very refreshing!)
Education is key. There are 9 teaspoons of sugar in a 12 ounce can of cola; that's 3 tablespoons, almost a quarter cup! For those who don't cook, that's almost the volume of a golf ball. Imagine sitting down and eating that much sugar!!
2
Cut out the middleman. Cut federal subsidies to the sugar industry, remove tariffs on the import of sugar. Can the subsidies for ethanol derived from corn. And tax sugar at 10 cents per kilo. I bet this would wipe out the deficit in 10 years.
7
Why can't a city or county pass legislation preempting a state legislature from interfering with their taxing authority, after all the government that's closest to the people governs best-- at least per republican orthodoxy
One problem with this (like other taxes aimed at curtailing actions some deem objectionable) is that it winds up being a regressive tax on poor and low-income families.
2
I wouldn't at all be surprised to learn that the proposed bills referred to in the article didn't come from ALEC. There are certainly similar bills that have made in into law in more than a few states prohibiting local governments from regulating single use plastics and other materials that have raised the ire of business. Mississippi passed such a law in the last legislative session, and since similar bills have popped up all over the country, I'm incline to suspect ALEC.
1
Wait! What?
Ms Sanger-Katz claims that, "The experience of the places that adopted soda taxes has been mixed. Research in Berkeley, Philadelphia and Mexico, which has a similar tax, shows that the measures appear to increase beverage prices and reduce sugary drink sales."
No, that is not "mixed" results. The entire objective is to increase prices and "reduce sugary drink sales." Unequivocally, that is success.
Further, it is shocking that Ms Sanger-Katz could claim that "definitive evidence about public health effects of the bills is still a long way off." We know for a fact that the biggest factor in the creation of the diabetes epidemic is soft drink consumption. So to claim that the effect of reducing drink consumption on health is unknown is akin to claiming that we still don't know whether reducing cigarette smoking won't have an effect on lung cancer.
20
We won't have definitive evidence of the public health effects until we measure those effects. It may depend on who is reducing consumption, by how much, and whether they're substituting other sugars.
This is a clear illustration--but only one example-- of how the Republicans intend to squelch any local efforts of assertion that do not conform to the their game plan. Once the Trump Court is established, look for federal laws that will prohibit any criticisms of corporations or any other moneyed interests.
2
There are many natural sugar substitutes. More expensive to use in production now, but when (not if) soda producers start using them, the price will come down.
Here in Florida, the government subsidizes the sugar growers for some reason, even while diabetes has become an epidemic.
1
I hope the Dems don't go along with the soda tax ban and give us a chance to vote to make it 2/3 to get a tax increase on everything.The Dems will continue raising fees and taxes to support the unlimited growth of govt.Their fear of anyone stopping them,would be the only reason they go along with the soda tax ban.
If you're so confident that Dems are so dangerous, why do you need a 2/3 threshold?
1
Knowing that the federal government pays out a lot of money for health issues that too much sugar causes, you'll think at least state governments could declare that soda is not nutritional enough to count as food so it could be taxed normally.
However, since it's the federal government paying the lion's share and states paying pennies on the dollar, there is no inducement for states to do so.
1
Another example of our defective ballot initiative process. Any organization, individual or even a foreign entity, if the spend enough, can get a measure on the ballot.
Last election it was the out-of-state plastic bag industry, this election it's the soda industry. And what's worse, they're holding the legislature hostage.
So next time you are asked by someone in front of the supermarket to sign a petition to "save the baby whales," just say no.
2
Mainly live in Oakland. I'm all in favor of the tax. But I cannot understand is that it seems to also apply to the diet versions of the products as well-that contain no sugar.
Every single article I've read on the subject talked of "sugared drinks" and never mentioned the non-sugar alternatives. When I go to the grocery or use a vending the machine the sugared and non-sugared versions are equally available. Focusing on the sugar makes it easier to make the industry the villain. But it makes it sound as if the reporters have not done their research.
The tax is just an excuse to bring in more money to govt,to support the welfare state and overpaid govt workers.They don't really care about sugar or anything else,other than more money for them.
How about just keeping government out of our lives as much as possible?
Granted, if we are going to assign common functions to a government, we need to fund those services. But let's apply a single rate sales tax across ALL goods and services rather than allow them to pick and choose what they deem appropriate or not.
That's our job as consumers.
4
Consumer choice is just one part of the problem. The game is heavily rigged in the crap food producers' favor. For example, sugar and corn agribusiness are heavily subsidized and get all sorts of preferential tax treatments and legislative pork. Wipe out gifts to food corporations and prices for soda and lots of junk food go through the roof.
2
Sounds familiar here in red state flyover country. When Republicans at the state capitol (dominated by rural legislators) didn't like what counties, cities and school districts were passing on the ballot (often with overwhelming majorities), they passed laws saying those local ordinances and ballot results were overridden by state law. With the help of the overwhelmingly conservative courts, those laws are being upheld. So much for Republican politicians claiming they are in favor of local control. Watching those rural legislators campaign for office is laughable. They avoid going to the county seats, any debates, holding "town halls" outside of town with only supporters allowed in the meetings, not campaigning where they overrode local voters, etc. etc. etc.
8
freedumb.
1
The pro-obesity, pro-diabetes soda industry is unusually shameless but lets get used to total corporate rule in which they have a free hand to swindle and debase consumers, exploit their workers, and pollute the environment, with local communities prevented from being able to protect their residents.
But be conforted when they lop off your foot because of diabetes that they kept your taxes low.
9
I am diabetic and I drink soda all the time. The daily diabetes tests never show any bad effects. Why? Because I drink the non-sugared versions, which the critics never seem to know exist.
3
Pure extortion. The soda industry has no interest in broad local tax relief except as a trading chip. And they are aware of the health issue. They deserve the same treatment as cigarette manufacturers. They also deserve a place among our most greedy and destructive corporations, along with coal, drugs, telecoms, and big oil.
3
Educate people about the amount of sugar in every can of soda.
2
Why don't we just have an "overweight tax?" I think it would hit most everyone on both sides of the Pepsi aisle fair-and-square.
5
I heard that back in '68, Eugene McCarthy (joking) proposed it.
These are regressive taxes on the poor. And the rest can drink their huge sugary Starbucks drinks with a feeling of ultimate superiority. Think of this when the low income soda truck driver is unemployed. It's already happened in Philadelphia.
3
This is why Crowley lost in New York. More and more people are realizing they are controlled by corporations. Ocasio-Cortez won by rejecting Big Money and promising to represent the interests of her actual constituents.
Corporations spend enormous amounts of money buying legislation. Money they get from consumers to use against consumers. As the article suggests, Big Sugar is buying state legislators in California to ban local autonomy. This is both anti-conservative and anti-liberal. It is part of the libertarian nightmare of corporate "freedom".
Crowley was the democratic face of democratic party House corporatism. A big money crony with no interest in his constituents. The kind who would be duplicitous about mouthing liberal platitudes while making sure corporate interests get the rules they want.
This exact scenario in California is why Big Money crony democrats have got to go. They help this happen. Republicans, obviously they are bought. But one party has to not be bought or we are doomed to a violent revolt against corporate rule.
This is not unlike the oil industry getting states to prevent localities from regulating fracking. The corporations should have NO say whatsoever on any level in the rules and laws people want to live by.
24
The soda tax is pennies on a cup. Why not have a slogan like: Drink Coke and help your library? Or: Drink Pepsi and bring a new swing to your park?
Soda companies should embrace this as good community PR instead of fighting it and looking like greedy monsters.
1
If you think that this corporate overreach is outrageous, ponder the initiative sponsored by two national paint companies that will be on the Nov. 6 ballot in California. This initiative will relieve those companies of the responsibility for cleaning up lead paint and will instead authorize a $2-billion, taxpayer-financed loan to pay for the cleanup. Corporate America's relentless drive to privatize profit and socialize losses continues.
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-lead-paint-initiative-qualifie...
22
"... shepherded by progressive lawmakers who see them as a source of revenue..." isn't the main purpose to deter unhealthy activities, have a healthier population, and save on health care costs? I think the revenue generation is far from the most important part of these bills
11
I consider myself strong-willed and live a relatively clean life.
However, I find my coca cola cravings really hard to resist. My local markets have been running ads on 99 cents for 2 liters coke, but you must buy 4 or 5 for the discount. It has now occurred to me, that I addition to whatever Coke put in there, that, through these promotions, they are trying to get customers hooked-big time. Luckily, I buy groceries on my bike and wasn't able to"take advantage" of the discount. I'll be making my own seltzer water and carbonated lemonade from now on.
2
Now that the 50 states are to get trillions in internet sales taxes, one would think that the phony excuse of taxing sin to "help those who sin" while at the same time providing revenue for "just causes" will cease at least temporarily.
ie.
Lotto taxes to provide needed school funds, only to gut school spending, because it was being paid by the lotto.
Tax Cigarettes to fund xyz, but provide literally NO MONEY for cessation programs for those addicted
11
Get used to this. Business greed rules, brazenly now. Politicians represent them, not the people. Elections have become obscenely expensive and those in power want to stay there. As long as Business gets it's way, they''ll get the cash to do so. Upset about it? Don't buy their products, not just soda but anything they produce. Pepsi and Coca-Cola make plenty of things besides soda, most, if not all, bad for you.
35
Business greed?Come to California and experience govt greed,well beyond anything business does.Businesses provide me all kinds of goods and services at competitive prices.Can't say the same for govt,which squanders my money.
2
Nope. The difference between corporate income and gov't income is enormous. Each one of the 10 largest big pharma companies have a marketing dept. with a budget that is more than the FDA's entire annual spending. California is rich, and it's gov't pays for it - when they hire engineers or contractors, rates will be high. But would you prefer poverty?
@jrj90620:
Yes, having roads, schools, clean drinking water, sewage treatment, police and fire departments, that's all such a huge waste of money. I bet there's a corporation who would take your money to provide better and cheaper versions of all of that, right?
Greed laced with sugar.
10
They learned this tactic from the digital billboard industry in places like North Carolina.
I have not had a soda in 25 years. Not one. Nobody else should either. Then they will be out of business. Let’s stop being victims of industrial food terror.
38
Victims of actual terror would laugh at your hyperbole if they weren't too busy trying to stay alive. Ask a Syrian war refugee how much he thinks about Pepsi terrorism.
Ugh...so that is the reason. Since you don't want a soda no one else should either.
No thanks to your sentiment.
3
This really makes the soda industry look bad. Which is good. Remember that despite the decades-long multi-million dollar effort of the tobacco industry to avoid taxation and confuse the public, in the end, smoking declined dramatically. They may have won a lot of battles with their heavy-handed tactics, but in the end, the lost the war. It will be the same for soda. Soda consumption peaked in the U.S. around 1997 and has been declining steadily since 2005. So let the soda industry waste its millions acting like corporate thugs, the millions of consumers who are turning away from soda and toward improved health will have the last laugh.
9
Look out, all who support the idea of taxing people to healthy living. Soda taxes could well be an answer to decreased cigarette tax revenue. Your vice may be next.
1
The beverage companies have borrowed a tactic from the tobacco industry (and from Republican-controlled state legislatures) to preempt taxes....which are the cost of civilization.
Sugar, tobacco and Republicans: "Drop Dead, America !"
Nice people.
And Governor Jerry Brown needs to explain his sugary self "posing with executives from Coca-Cola, PepsiCo and the American Beverage Association at a recent private dinner at the governor’s mansion."
Sugar is poison.
36
"And Governor Jerry Brown needs to explain his sugary self "posing with executives from Coca-Cola, PepsiCo and the American Beverage Association at a recent private dinner at the governor’s mansion.""
This is not entirely shocking. Brown is the anti-"covfefe" and easily one of the sanest politicians on the planet, and someone I'd happily imagine in 1600 Penn; but when he's not sane, he blows his whole leg off.[1]
For one, he was for single payer before he has since been against it.[2] And when there's no single payer in an undeveloped corporate state, where basic medical services require payment to megacorps, the megacorps would happily sell more meds to the sugar-sick for profit.
[1] To butcher an old programming saying. http://www.stroustrup.com/bs_faq.html#really-say-that
[2] https://theintercept.com/2017/06/23/california-gov-jerry-brown-thinks-si...
Sugar is not poison.
Refined sugar in excess is not healthy, but not poison.
Do you eat a carb free diet? Explain to the nice people what happens when you put carbs in your mouth.
Be nice and deal with this truthfully.
Umm David Gregory, carbs are glucose, sugar is half glucose - half fructose. Ordinary amounts of fructose are poisonous, especially causing atherosclerosis (heart attacks) and fatty liver (often fatal).
I’d rather have a soda tax and the 2/3 requirement for new taxes, especially here in California where taxes are high and we get really poor services for our money.
4
These legislators need to hold their ground.
The path of compromise means giving away its victories to the soda industry and further diabetes and ill health.
Let the soda industry put its measure on the ballot. The people will fight it and win.
1
I'm in favor of a sugar tax.
I was approached at a grocery store, asked to sign a petition get an initiative put on the Oregon ballot. The nice, friendly, 20-something bearded guy who looked very alternative Gen Y said it was to make a law preventing a sales tax being put on food.
I liked the sound of that. So I signed. About an hour later it suddenly dawned on me, "I wonder if by "food" they mean sugary sodas?"
I don't regret signing the ballot petition. I think a public discussion of the issue is welcome. But I will very firmly argue against a law that forbids a sales tax on food, until specific classes of "food", such as sugary sodas are exempted and can be taxed.
That stuff isn't really food anyway. We have "food" and "drugs". Now we need to define a third class of substances we take through our mouths, "junk".
Maybe what we need to do is define "food" as something with some minimum level of nutritional value and some maximum amount of sugar, saturated fats, etc.
17
The soda tax in Seattle is a tax on the way poor people consume sugar. There is no tax on the sugary beverages purchased at Starbucks, not to mention the sugar in trendy farm-to-table macarons. Sugar is sugar, alcohol is alcohol. If you are going to tax sugar, you have to tax ALL of it.
47
We need to look at the root problem here. The farm lobby has successfully subsidized corn production, which artificially drives corn syrup prices down, which artificially drives sugary drink prices down, which drives consumption up. Of course conservatives don’t want government control on sugary drinks, but they will run to the feed trough of government farm money when its to their self serving narrow minded interest. If corn syrup was not subsidized on the backs of tax payers this problem would be reduced.
37
I agree with taxing all of it. Tax the sugar at its source and let food producers at all levels, Starbucks, Coca Cola, absorb the cost into their price structure.
However with regard to "poor people" consuming sugar through sodas rather than Starbucks - it's their choice to spend their precious few dollars on sugar. They would be better off spending it on real food. I have no guilty conscience about a soda tax if it "hurts the poor". Maybe a few of them will drink less of the garbage and have healthier lives in consequence.
23
Actually, Ellen, nearly every tax at every level in the United States does not tax "ALL of it", regardless of what "it" is (real estate, income, small commodities and large capital equipment, etc). If you do want to extend the soda tax to include "sugary beverages purchased at Starbucks" and macarons, please work for that. According to your arguments, that would be logical. On the other hand, if you are just trying to fool us with a straw man and you really want to do the bidding of the sugary beverage industry, I believe that you will not do so.
2
It's irrational to create a tax that is intended to disincentivize consumption, but think that you can generate enough revenue from the tax to provide unrelated services. You may be able to increase taxes on cigarettes and use the revenue to support cigarette cessation programs because demand for the programs will decrease with demand for cigarettes. But, you can't expect taxes on soda to fund pre-K programs! Politician's need to get their heads right.
11