BY ELLINA BERDICHEVSKY — In November 2014, 75% of voters in Berkeley, California, succeeded in supporting the nation’s first tax on soda. The tax was in the amount of a penny per ounce, or about twelve cents a can, with all tax proceeds going into the City of Berkeley’s general fund. Local Florida news reporters did not take long to report on the proposal and passage of the Berkeley soda tax, noting that over 30 cities and states in the U.S. attempted a similar tax. One such tax was proposed in San Francisco, in the amount of two-cents-per-ounce, the proceeds of which were to be earmarked toward childhood nutrition and recreation programs. The San Francisco measure received a majority of votes, but did not attain the required two-thirds of voter approval. The bill’s supporters still viewed the defeat as a victory, as the San Francisco bill received a majority of votes despite almost $8 million spent by the American Beverage Association to defeat it.
These proposals are not the first of their kind. In 2012, the New York Board of Health’s soda tax, endorsed by then-mayor Michael Bloomberg, was thrown out by the New York trial court, a decision affirmed by the state’s highest court. The court’s reasoning was one of legislative deference. It stated that the law would likely have survived the court’s scrutiny had it been passed legislatively, rather than through the executive branch. Earlier this year, Mexico successfully enacted a nationwide tax on sugary drinks, causing a decline in sales for companies such as Coca-Cola, which announced a profit drop in part due to its decline in sales in Latin America. Attitudes toward healthcare initiatives such as these have changed over recent years, with legislatures and voters bringing these initiatives to the forefront of both political campaigns and the media.
During the 2014 elections, food and biotechnology companies spent at least $60 million advocating against midterm election proposals linked to the food and beverages Americans consume, including those in Berkeley and San Francisco. Corn and sugar beet trade groups joined the food and beverage industry, including the American Beverage Association, to fight against proposals for soda taxes. In answering why the food and beverage industry was “so scared,” Marlene B. Schwartz, Yale University’s director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity, stated that the industries “know these policies have the potential to change consumer behavior.” Dr. Kelly Brownell, Dean of the Sanford School of Public Policy at Duke University, stated “the support for soda taxes is part of the recognition that disease is related to diet, particularly obesity and diabetes, which is costing the country huge amounts of money.”
In 2012, at a time when Florida was cutting Medicaid reimbursement rates, jobs, and funding for public schools, Republican senator Ronda Storms proposed a bill that sought to restrain shoppers from purchasing “nonstaple, unhealthy foods” with federal aid. Although the motivation for the bill was perhaps reasonable on its face—a concern for the health of needy children—the bill was not enacted. A study issued by the USDA in 2007 stated that there were “serious problems with the rationale, feasibility and potential effectiveness of this proposal.” One paramount concern the study provided was that, at the time, there were no clear standards for defining foods as healthy or unhealthy. It would be interesting to observe a similar analysis after the implementation of the FDA’s proposed update of the requirements for food labeling to “include [our] . . . greater understanding of nutrition science.” Our citizenry has grown exponentially more aware of the effects of its food and beverage intake on health generally, and it is only a matter of time before a similar proposal comes before the Florida legislature or before the voters by referendum. Floridians should be prepared to make their individual choices, and adequate provision of relevant information will be crucial in ensuring informed decision making.
