Sugary drink tax

src: cdn.abclocal.go.com

A sugary drink tax or soda tax is a tax or surcharge designed to reduce consumption of drinks with added sugar. Drinks covered under a soda tax often include carbonated soft drinks, sports drinks and energy drinks.

The tax is a matter of public debate in many countries and beverage producers like Coca-Cola often oppose it. Advocates such as national medical associations and the World Health Organization (WHO) promote the tax as an example of Pigovian taxation, aimed to discourage unhealthy diets and offset the growing economic costs of obesity.

Video Sugary drink tax

Background

Type II Diabetes is a growing health concern in many developed and developing countries around the world, with 1.6 million deaths directly due to type II diabetes in 2015 alone. Unlike sugar from food, the sugar from drinks enters the body quickly, which can overload the pancreas and the liver, leading to diabetes and heart disease over time. A 2010 study said that consuming one to two sugary drinks a day increases your risk of developing diabetes by 26%.

Heart disease is responsible for 31% of all global deaths and although one sugary drink has minimal effects on the heart, consuming sugary drinks daily are associated with long term consequences. A study found that men, for every added serving per day of sugar-sweetened beverages, each serving was associated with a 19% increased risk of developing heart disease. Another study also found increased risks for heart disease in women who drank sugary drinks daily.

Obesity is also a global public and health policy concern, with the percentage of overweight and obese people in many developed and middle income countries rising rapidly. Consumption of added sugar in sugar-sweetened beverages has been positively correlated with high calorie intake, and through it, with excess weight and obesity. The addition of one sugar-sweetened beverage per day to the normal US diet can amount to 15 pounds of weight gain over the course of 1 year. Added sugar is a common feature of many processed and convenience foods such as breakfast cereals, chocolate, ice cream, cookies, yogurts and drinks produced by retailers. The ubiquity of sugar-sweetened beverages and their appeal to younger consumers has made their consumption a subject of particular concern by public health professionals. In both the United States and the United Kingdom, sugar sweetened drinks are the top calorie source in teenager's diets.

Trends indicate that traditional soda consumption is declining in many developed economies, but growing rapidly in middle income economies such as Vietnam and India. In the United States, the single biggest market for carbonated soft drinks, consumers annual average per capita purchase of soda was 154 liters.

Denmark began taxing soft drinks and juices in the 1930s. More recently, Finland reintroduced an earlier soft drink tax in 2011, while Hungary taxes sugary drinks as part of its 2011 public health product tax, which covers all food products with unhealthy levels of sugar. France introduced a targeted sugar tax on soft drinks in 2012. At a national level similar measures have also been announced in Mexico in 2013 and in the United Kingdom in 2016. In November 2014, Berkeley, California was the first city in the U.S. to pass a targeted tax on surgary drinks.

Tobacco taxes

Proponents of soda taxes cite the success of tobacco taxes worldwide when explaining why they think a soda tax will work to lower soda consumption. Where the main concern with tobacco is cancer, the main concerns with soda are diabetes and obesity. The tactics used to oppose soda taxes by soda companies mimic those of tobacco companies, including funding research that downplays the health risks of its products.

Economics and Economic Theory of the tax

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services reports that a targeted tax on sugar in soda could generate $14.9 billion in the first year alone. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that three-cent-per-ounce tax would generate over $24 billion over four years. Some tax measures call for using the revenue collected to pay for relevant health needs: improving diet, increasing physical activity, obesity prevention, nutrition education, advancing healthcare reform, etc. Another area to which the revenue raised by a soda tax might go, as suggested by Mike Rayner of the United Kingdom, is to subsidize healthier foods like fruits and vegetables.

The imposition of a sugar tax means that sellers of sugary drinks would have to increase the price of their goods by an amount P2 from the original price X, and then take on the rest of the tax themselves (P1) in the form of lower profit per unit sold. The tax burden on consumers (P2) makes it more expensive for consumers to buy sugary drinks and hence a higher proportion of their incomes would have to be spent to buy the same amount of sugary drinks. This decreases the equilibrium quantity of sugary drinks that will be sold. Whether the sugary drinks tax is imposed on the seller or consumer, in both cases the tax burden is shared between both.

The way that the tax burden is divided upon the consumer and seller depends on the price elasticity for sugary drinks. The tax burden will fall more on sellers when the price elasticity of demand is greater than the price elasticity of supply while on buyers when the price elasticity of supply is greater than the price elasticity of demand. The price elasticity for sugary drinks is different from country to country. For instance, the price elasticity of demand for sugary drinks was found to be -1.37 in Chile while -1.16 in Mexico. Hence if both of those results were realistic and the price elasticity of supply would be the same for both, the tax burden on consumers would be higher in Mexico than in Chile.

The reason for implementing a sugar tax in microeconomic terms

The reasons for a sugar tax are the negative externalities of consuming sugar. As the consumption of sugar causes health problems (external costs) such as obesity, type 2 diabetes and other diseases, the third party impacted by this is the 'public health system' that will need to deal with those issues. More demand for health services leads to higher costs for health care and hence this increased stress on the public health system is a negative consumption externality of sugar consumption.

In economics terms, the marginal social benefit (MSB) of sugar consumption is less than the marginal private benefit (MB). This can also be illustrated in the following equation. MSB = MB - Marginal External Cost (MXC). This is the case due to the fact that consumers think only of the benefit of sugar consumption to them (MB) and not the negative externalities to third parties (MXC) and so want to consume at the unregulated market equilibrium to maximize their utility. This means that there is overconsumption of sugar and a welfare loss is created.

The sugary drinks tax is a way to correct the negative externality by regulating the consumption of sugary drinks. Without a sugary drink tax, taxpayer money is used to pay for higher health care costs incurred from high consumption of sugar. Although this solution corrects the negative consumption externality, taxpayers that consume sugary drinks moderately and hence do not contribute to higher health care costs, still need to pay for this negative externality. Hence a sugary drinks tax may be a more appropriate solution as tax revenue that is collected from the sugar tax can be used to create childhood nutrition programs or obesity-prevention programs. This is a solution that could also correct the negative externality of sugar consumption as well as is a way to make the parties that cause the negative externality pay their fair share.

Maps Sugary drink tax

Countries

Colombia

A 2016 proposal for a 20% sugary drink tax, campaigned by Educar Consumidores, was turned down by the Colombian legislature despite popular support for it. Soda is often less expensive than bottled water in Colombia.

Denmark

Denmark instituted a soft drink tax in the 1930s (it amounted to 1.64 Danish krone per liter), but announced in 2013 that they were going to abolish it along with an equally unpopular fat tax, with the goal of creating jobs and helping the local economy. Critics claimed that the taxes were notably ineffective; to avoid the fat and sugar taxes, local retailers had complained that Danes simply went to Sweden and Germany, where prices were lower to buy butter, ice cream and soda. Denmark repealed the fat tax in January 2013 and repealed the tax on soft drinks in 2014.

France

France first introduced a targeted tax on sugary drinks at a national level in 2012; following introduction, soft drinks are estimated to be up to 3.5% more expensive. Analysis by the market research firm Canadean found that sales of soft drinks declined in the year following the introduction of the tax, following several years of annual growth. However, the tax applies to both drinks with added sugars and drinks with artificial sweeteners, possibly limiting its effects on the healthfulness of soda products.

A 2016 study by Mazzochi has shown that the sugary drinks tax saw a 19 euro-cent per liter increase in price of non-pure fruit juices, a 16 euro-cent per liter increase for diet sodas and little impact on regular soft drinks prices. The study also estimated that the quantity consumed of the taxed drinks has decreased by 9 centiliters per week per person after the tax has been implemented.

Hungary

Hungary's tax, which came into effect in September 2011, has seen 22% of people reduce energy drink consumption and 19% of people reduce their intake of sugary-sweetened soft-drinks.

Ireland

In 2016, Ireland approved a soda tax set to start in April 2018, which is around the same time a similar soda tax takes effect in the United Kingdom.

Mexico

In September 2013, Mexico's president Enrique Peña Nieto, on his fiscal bill package, proposed a 10% tax on all soft drinks, especially carbonated drinks, with the intention of reducing the number of patients with diabetes and other cardiovascular diseases in Mexico, which has one of the world's highest rates of obesity. According to Mexican government data, in 2011, the treatment for each patient with diabetes cost the Mexican public health care system (the largest of Latin America) around 708 USD per year, with a total cost of 778,427,475 USD in 2010, and with each patient paying only 30 MXN (around 2.31 USD).

In September 2013, soda companies launched a media campaign to discourage the Mexican Chamber of Deputies and Senate from approving the 10% soda tax. They argued that such measure would not help reduce the obesity in Mexico and would leave hundreds of Mexicans working in the sugar cane industry jobless. They also publicly accused New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg of orchestrating the controversial bill from overseas. In late October 2013, the Mexican Senate approved a 1 MXN per litre tax (around 0.08 USD) on sodas, along with a 5% tax on junk food.

Research has shown that Mexico's sugary drinks tax reduced soft drink consumption. According to a 2016 study published in BMJ, annual sales of sodas in Mexico declined 6% in 2014 after the introduction of the soda tax. Monthly sales figures for December 2014 were down 12% on the previous two years. Households with the fewest resources had an average reduction in purchases of 9% in 2014, increasing to 17% by December. Furthermore, purchases of water and non-taxed beverages increased by about 4% on average. Whether the imposition of the tax and the resulting 6% decline in sales of soft drinks, will have any measurable impact on long-term obesity or diabetes trends in Mexico has yet to be determined. The authors of the study urged the Mexican authorities to double the tax to further reduce consumption.

A 2016 study published in PLoS Medicine suggested that a 10% excise tax on soda "could prevent 189,300 new cases of Type 2 diabetes, 20,400 strokes and heart attacks, and 18,900 deaths among adults 35 to 94 years old" over a ten-year period. The study also included that "the reductions in diabetes alone could yield savings in projected healthcare costs of $983 million."

A 2017 study in the Journal of Nutrition found a 6.3% reduction in soft drink consumption, with the greatest reductions "among lower-income households, residents living in urban areas, and households with children. We also found a 16.2% increase in water purchases that was higher in low- and middle-income households, in urban areas, and among households with adults only."

Norway

Norway has had a generalized sugar tax measure on refined sugar products since 1922, introduced to boost state income rather than reducing sugar consumption. Non-alcoholic beverages have since been separated from the general tax, and in 2017, the tax for sugary drinks was set to 3.34 kroner per litre.

Philippines

In the taxation reform law dubbed as the Tax Reform for Acceleration and Inclusion Law (TRAIN) signed by Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte on December 2017, it includes taxation on sugar-sweetened drinks which will be implemented the following year, as an effort to increase revenue and to fight obesity. Drinks with caloric and non-caloric sweeteners will be taxed ?6.00 per liter, while those using high-fructose corn syrup, a cheap sugar substitute, will be taxed at ?12 per liter.

Exempted from the sugar tax are all kinds of milk, whether powdered or in liquid form, ground and 3-in-1 coffee packs, and 100-percent natural fruit and vegetable juices, meal replacements and medically indicated drinks, as well as beverages sweetened with stevia or coco sugar. These drinks, especially 3-in-1 coffee drinks which are popular especially among lower-income families, are originally to be taxed as proposed by the House of Representatives version of the bill, but were excempted in the Senate version.

South Africa

South Africa proposed a sugar-sweetened beverages tax in the 2016 South African national government budget.

United Arab Emirates

On October 2017, the United Arab Emirates introduced a 50% tax on soft drinks and a 100% tax on energy drinks, to curb unhealthy consumption of sugary drinks that can lead to diabetes; it also added a 100% tax on cigarettes.

United Kingdom

In the 2016 United Kingdom budget, the British government announced the introduction of a sugar tax, the Soft Drinks Industry Levy. Planned to come into effect in 2018, beverage manufacturers will be taxed according to the volume of sugar-sweetened beverages they produce or import. The tax will be imposed at the point of production or importation, in two bands. Drinks with total sugar content above 5g per 100 millilitres will be taxed at 18p per litre and drinks above 8g per 100 millilitres at 24p per litre. The measure is estimated to generate an additional £1 billion a year in tax revenue which will be spent on funding for sport in UK schools.

It is proposed that pure fruit juices, milk-based drinks and the smallest producers will not be taxed. It is expected that some manufacturers will reduce sugar content in order to avoid the taxation.

Notable research on effect of excess sugar in modern diets in the United Kingdom includes the work of Professor John Yudkin with his book called, "Pure, White and Deadly: The Problem of Sugar" first published in 1972. With regard to a proposed tax on sugar-sweetened beverages, a study published in the British Medical Journal on 31 October 2013, postulated that a 20% tax on sugar-sweetened beverages would reduce obesity in the United Kingdom rates by about 1.3%, and concluded that taxing sugar-sweetened beverages was "a promising population measure to target population obesity, particularly among younger adults."

Campaigners want the sugar tax extended to include confectionary and sweets to help tackle childhood obesity.

Criticism

The decision to impose the tax has been criticized by UK-based drinks producers and was described by Member of Parliament Will Quince as, "patronizing, regressive and the nanny state at its worst."

Professor Robert Lustig of the University of California, San Francisco School of Medicine, stated that the UK tax measure may not go far enough and that, "juice should be taxed the same way as soda because from a metabolic standpoint juice is the same as soda." The UK sugar tax proposal announced by the government in early 2016 is narrow in scope and does not target pure fruit juices and milk-based drinks.

A study by Glasgow University, which sampled 132,000 adults, found that focusing on sugar in isolation misleads consumers as reducing fat intake is also crucial to reducing obesity.

United States

The United States does not have a nationwide soda tax, but a few of its cities have passed their own tax and the U.S. has seen a growing debate around taxing soda in various cities, states and even in Congress in recent years. A few states impose excise taxes on bottled soft drinks or on wholesalers, manufacturers, or distributors of soft drinks.

Medical costs related to obesity in the United States alone were estimated to be $147 billion a year in 2009. In the same year, the American Heart Association reported that the soft drinks and sugar sweetened beverages are the largest contributors of added sugars in Americans' diets. Added sugars are sugars and syrups added to foods during processing or preparation and sugars and syrups added after preparation. Excessive intake of added sugars, as opposed to naturally occurring sugars, is implicated in the rise in obesity.

American localities with a soda tax

Philadelphia and Berkeley are the first two cities to pass a tax on sugary drinks in the U.S. Berkeley's tax of 1 cent/oz of sugary drink has seen a decline in soda consumption by more than 20 percent. Philadelphia's tax of 1.5 cents/oz took effect on January 1, 2017.

Berkeley, California

The Measure D soda tax was approved by 76% of Berkeley voters on 4 November 2014, and took effect on 1 January 2015 as the first such tax in the United States. The measure imposes a tax of one cent per ounce on the distributors of specified sugar-sweetened beverages such as soda, sports drinks, energy drinks, and sweetened ice teas but excluding milk-based beverages, meal replacement drink, diet sodas, fruit juice, and alcohol. The revenue generated will enter the general fund of the City of Berkeley. A similar measure in neighboring San Francisco received 54% of the vote, but fell short of the supermajority required to pass. In August 2015, researchers found that average prices for beverages covered under the law rose by less than half of the tax amount. For Coke and Pepsi, 22 percent of the tax was passed on to consumers, with the balance paid by vendors. UC Berkeley researchers found a higher pass-through rate for the tax: 47% of the tax was passed-through to higher prices of sugar-sweetened beverages overall with 69% being passed-through to higher soda prices. In August 2016, a UC Berkeley study showed a 21% drop in the drinking of soda and sugary beverages in low-income neighborhoods in its city.

A study from 2016 compared the changing intake of sugar sweetened beverages and water in Berkeley versus San Francisco and Oakland (which did not have a sugary drink tax passed) before and after Berkeley passed its sugary drink tax. This analysis showed a 26% decrease of soda consumption in Berkeley and 10% increase in San Francisco and Oakland while water intake increased by 63% in Berkeley and 19% in the two neighboring cities. A 2017 before and after study has concluded that one year after the tax was introduced in Berkeley, sugary drink sales decreased by 9.6% when compared to a scenario where the tax was not in place. This same study was also able to show that overall consumer spending did not increase, contradicting the argument of opponents of the Sugary Drink Tax. Another 2017 study results were that purchases of healthier drinks went gone up and sales of sugary drinks went down, without overall grocery bills increasing or the local food sector losing money.

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Democratic Philadelphia mayor Jim Kenney proposed a citywide soda tax that would raise the price of soda at three cents per ounce. At the time, it was the biggest soda tax proposal in the United States. Kenney promoted using tax revenue to fund universal pre-K, jobs, and development projects, which he predicted would raise $400 million over five years, all the while reducing sugar intake by decreasing the demand for sugary beverages. Kenney's soda tax proposal was brought to the national spotlight and divided key members of the Democratic Party. Presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders argued in an op-ed that the tax would hurt the poor. His opponent, Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, said that she was "very supportive" of the idea. The American Beverage Association (ABA), funded by soda companies and distributors, ran local television, radio, and newspaper advertisements against the idea, claiming that the tax would disproportionately hurt the poor. The ABA spent $10.6 million in 2016 in its effort against the tax. The American Medical Association, American Heart Association, and other medical and public health groups support the tax.

The Philadelphia City Council approved a 1.5-cents-per-ounce tax on 16 June 2016. As part of the compromise legislation that passed, the tax is also imposed on artificially sweetened beverages, such as diet soda. The law became effective on 1 January 2017. It was reported after two months of the tax that Philadelphia supermarkets and beverage distributors are planning layoffs because sugary beverage sales are down between 30 and 50 percent.

After the tax took effect, Kenney said it was "wrong" and "misleading" for businesses to pass the tax on to their customers in the form of higher soda prices. In February 2017, soda manufacturers and retailers announced sales declines of 30-50% in Philadelphia and announced job cuts and layoffs. Kenny characterized the layoffs as evidence of greed among manufacturers. In the first four months of the soda tax $25.6 million was collected, which is lower than predicted. The revenue is intended to pay for a pre-K program (49% of tax revenue), government employee benefits and city programs (20%), and rebuilding city parks and recreation centers. A recent study from 2017 found that Philadelphia's tax has decreased sugary beverage consumption in impoverished youth by 1.3 drinks/week. Langellier et al. also found that when paired with the pre-K program, attendance increases significantly, a finding that is likely to have longer term positive effects than a sugary drink tax alone.

In March 2017, Pepsi laid off between 80 and 100 employees at two distribution plants in Philadelphia and one plant in nearby Wilmington, Delaware. The company blamed the layoffs on the tax, an assertion rejected by the city government.

In September 2016, the American Beverage Association, Philadelphia business owners, and other plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the soda tax, alleging that the tax violated the "Tax Uniformity Clause" of the state constitution. The legal challenge was dismissed by the Court of Common Pleas in December 2016, and in June 2017 the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania (in a 5-2 decision) affirmed that ruling. The ABA is appealing the decision to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

San Francisco, California

A one-cent-per-ounce soda tax (Prop V) passed with over 61% of the vote on 8 November 2016 and will apply to distributors of sugary beverages on 1 January 2018. Exemptions for the tax include infant formulas, milk products, supplements, drinks used for medical reasons, and 100% fruit and vegetable juices. The soda industry spent almost $20 million in its unsuccessful push to defeat the soda tax initiative, a record-breaking amount for a San Francisco ballot initiative.

In 2014, the first referendum on a soda tax, Proposition E, was voted down by San Francisco; the 2014 referendum received the support of 55 percent of voters, short of the two-thirds required for a referendum directing money to a specific item (the referendum proposed directing the revenue raised to children's physical education and nutrition programs, and in San Francisco such earmarking requires a two-thirds vote to pass). In that referendum campaign, the soda industry spent about $10 million in opposition to the proposed tax.

Oakland, California

A one-cent-per-ounce soda tax (Measure HH) passed with over 60% of the vote on 8 November 2016. The tax went into effect on 1 July 2017.

Albany, California

A one-cent-per-ounce soda tax (Prop O1) passed with over 70% of the vote on 8 November 2016.

Boulder, Colorado

A two-cents-per-ounce soda tax (Measure 2H) passed with 54% of the vote on 8 November 2016. The tax takes effect on July 1, 2017, and revenue will be spent on health promotion, general wellness programs and chronic disease prevention that improve health equity, and other health programs especially for residents with low income and those most affected by chronic disease linked to sugary drink consumption. The tax is exempted at the University of Colorado, Boulder, campus as school officials survey what types of drinks students wish to have. The University was not aware it would be involved in the soda tax, and would have to pay as much as $1 million a year to purchase it.

Cook County, Illinois

A one-cent-per-ounce soda tax passed on November 10, 2016, by a 9-8 vote, board President Toni Preckwinkle breaking the 8-8 tie, of the Cook County Board of Commissioners; Cook County includes Chicago and the county's population is nearly 5.2 million. This was the most populous jurisdiction with a soda tax in the U.S. The campaign to introduce the tax was heavily funded by Mike Bloomberg.

On June 30, 2017, a Cook County judge granted a temporary restraining order filed by the Illinois Retail Merchants Association and several Cook County-based grocers that prohibits the tax from being put into effect until at least July 12. It went into effect on August 2. Due to a conflict with the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, this soda tax does not apply to any soda purchases made with food stamps, used by over 870,000 people. Controversially, the tax affected diet drinks but not sugar-packed fruit juices.

On October 10, 2017, the Board of Commissioners voted to repeal the tax in a 15-1 vote. The tax stayed in effect up until December 1st. The tax was highly unpopular and seen mainly as an attempt to plug the county's $1.8 billion budget deficit, rather than a public health measure.

Portland, Oregon

The Coalition for Healthy Kids and Education is currently campaigning to get a soda tax on the May 2018 ballot. Their aim is to implement a 1.15 cents per ounce tax on sugary drinks. There are 18,000 signatures required by December 15, 2017 in order for the tax to be voted on in May.

Seattle, Washington

On June 5, 2017, Seattle's City Council voted 7-1 to pass a 1.75 cents per ounce tax on sugary drinks that will be paid by distributors; the tax does not include diet drinks.

Scientific studies

Coca-Cola has been under fire since 2015 when emails revealed that funding for scientific studies sought to influence research to be more favorable to soda. Research funded by soda companies are 34 times more likely to find soda has no significant health impacts on obesity or diabetes.

Taxing soda can lead to a reduction in overall consumption, according to a scientific study published in the Archives of Internal Medicine in March 2010. The study found that a 10 percent tax on soda led to a 7 percent reduction in calories from soft drinks. These researchers believe that an 18 percent tax on these foods could cut daily intake by 56 calories per person, resulting in a weight loss of 5 pounds (2 kg) per person per year. The study followed 5,115 young adults ages 18 to 30 from 1985 to 2006.

A 2010 study published in the medical journal Health Affairs found that if taxes were about 18 cents on the dollar, they would make a significant difference in consumption.

Research from Duke University and the National University of Singapore released in December 2010 tested larger taxes and determined that a 20 percent and 40 percent taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages would largely not affect calorie intake because people switch to untaxed, but equally caloric, beverages. Kelly Brownell, a proponent of soda taxes, reacted by stating that "[t]he fact is that nobody has been able to see how people will really respond under these conditions." Similarly, a 2010 study concluded that while people would drink less soda as a result of a soda tax, they would also compensate for this reduction by switching to other high-calorie beverages. In response to these arguments, the American Public Health Association released a statement in 2012 in which they argued that "Even if individuals switch to 100% juice or chocolate milk, this would be an improvement, as those beverages contribute some nutrients to the diet."

A 2011 study in the journal Preventive Medicine concluded that "a modest tax on sugar-sweetened beverages could both raise significant revenues and improve public health by reducing obesity". It has been used by the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale to estimate revenue from a soda tax, depending on the state, year and tax rate.

A 2012 study by Y. Claire Wang, also in the journal Health Affairs, estimates that a penny per ounce tax on sugared beverages could prevent 2.4 million cases of diabetes per year, 8,000 strokes, and 26,000 premature deaths over 10 years.

In 2012, just before the city of Richmond began voting on a soda tax, a study was presented at a conference held by the American Public Health Association regarding the potential effects of such a tax in California. The study concluded that, given that soda's price elasticity is such that taxing it would reduce consumption by 10-20 percent, that this reduction "...is projected to reduce diabetes incidence by 2.9-5.6% and CHD by 0.6-1.2%."

A 2013 study in the American Journal of Agricultural Economics concluded that a 0.5-cent-per-ounce tax on soft drinks would reduce consumption, but "increase sodium and fat intakes as a result of product substitution," in line with the Duke University study mentioned above.

A 2014 study published in the American Journal of Public Health concluded that Sugar-Sweetened Beverages (SSBs) don't have a negative impact on employment. Even though job losses in the taxed industry occurred, they were offset by new employment in other sectors of the economy.

A 2016 modelling study estimated that a 20% tax on SSBs would decrease the consumption of SSBs in Australia by 12.6%. The tax could decline the prevalence of obesity in the Australian population, which could lead to gains in health-adjusted life years. The results showed an increase of 7.6 days in full health for a 20-24-year-old male and a 3.7 day increase in longevity for their female peers.

Proposals

There have been a number of proposed taxes on sugary beverages, including:

• In 1914, U.S. President Woodrow Wilson proposed a special revenue tax on soft drinks, beer and patent medicine after the outbreak of World War I caused a decline in imports and a corresponding decline in credit created by import tariffs. This proposed taxation measure was not however linked to the anticipated health outcomes of reduced sugar sweetened beverage consumption.
• In 1994, one of the first instances where the idea of a targeted tax on sugar sweetened drinks with a link to anticipated beneficial health outcomes, was proposed by Kelly D. Brownell, Director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale.
• In a 2009 "Perspective" piece in the New England Journal of Medicine, Kelly D. Brownell, Director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale, and Thomas R. Frieden, Director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, argue for taxing sugared beverages. The authors propose that sugared beverages may be the single largest cause of the obesity epidemic. They state that an excise tax of one cent per ounce would reduce consumption by more than 10%.
• Maryland and Virginia are two of 33 states that levy sales taxes on soda. Maryland taxes soda at a rate of 6%, while Virginia's rate is 1.5%. Virginia is also one of six states that impose a state excise tax on soda in addition to a sales tax.
• In 2009, the Obama Administration explored levying an excise tax on sweetened beverages as part of health care reform efforts, but the proposal was abandoned after heavy lobbying by the beverage industry.
• In 2010, New York State considered a soda tax, however opposition from the soda industry and economists made a strong antitax campaign, spending at least double of the tax supporters, so the plan failed.
• In 2012, the City Council of Richmond, California placed the soda tax on the November 2012 ballot along with an advisory measure asking voters how they would like to spend the tax revenue. This proposal was rejected by the voters with 67% voting no and 33% voting yes.
• In the California State Legislature, soda tax proposals have been introduced several times, but have not passed. In 2013, California state senator Bill Monning proposed a soda tax, but the bill died in committee. In 2014, a 1-cent-per-ounce statewide soda tax was proposed in the legislature, but was defeated amid opposition by the California Beverage Association, a business lobbying group. In 2016, Assemblymen Richard Bloom and Jim Wood introduced a bill to create a "health impact fee" of 2-cent-per-ounce on sugary drinks, with the revenue collected from the tax to go toward programs for making drinking water safe, promoting oral health, and preventing obesity and diabetes. However, the proposal again faced strong opposition from industry groups, and the bill's proponents withdrew the proposal without a vote after it became clear that it lacked the votes to pass.
• In June 2013, the city of Telluride, Colorado proposed a penny-per-ounce soda tax; however, it was rejected in November, with 68% of voters voting against it.
• In July 2014, U.S. Representative Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut, proposed a national soda tax bill in the House of Representatives.
• In November 2014, voters in San Francisco and Berkeley, California voted on soda tax ballot measures. The measure was approved in Berkeley and received 55% of the vote in San Francisco, which was short of the needed 2/3 supermajority.
• In November 2016, Santa Fe began considering a tax on all sugar-sweetened beverages, including soda, sports drinks, and iced tea, to fund early childhood education. However, voters rejected the proposal in a May 2017 special election.

Public support

A 2016 poll by Morning Consult-Vox finds Americans split on their support of a soda tax. Attitudes seem to have shifted a lot since 2013 when a poll concluded that "respondents were opposed to government taxes on sugary drinks and candy by a more than 2-to-1 margin." In California, however, support for a tax has been high for a few years. According to a Field Poll conducted in 2012, "Nearly 3 out of 5 California voters would support a special fee on soft drinks to fight childhood obesity." Support for a soda tax in New York was higher when pollsters say the money will go towards health care. A Quinnipiac University poll released in April 2010 found that New Yorkers opposed a state tax on soda of one penny per ounce by a 35-point margin, but opposition dropped to a margin of one point when respondents were told the money would go towards health care. A Thompson Reuters poll released in the same month found that 51 percent of Americans opposed a soda tax, while 33 percent supported one.

Lobbying

Fighting the creation of soft drink taxes, the American Beverage Association, the largest U.S. trade organization for soft drink bottlers, has spent considerable money lobbying Congress. The Association's annual lobbying spending rose from about $391,000 to more than $690,000 from 2003 to 2008. And, in the 2010 election cycle, its lobbying grew to $8.67 million. These funds helped to pay for 25 lobbyists at seven different lobbying firms.

An industry group called "Americans Against Food Taxes," backed by juice maker Welch's, soft drink maker PepsiCo Inc, the American Beverage Association, the Corn Refiners Association, McDonald's Corporation and Burger King Holdings Inc used national advertising and conducted lobbying to oppose these taxes. The group has characterized the soda tax as a regressive tax, which would unfairly burden the poor

Arguments against the sugary drinks tax

• The criteria on what drinks are taxed may not include equally bad substitutes like fruit juice, energy-dense snacks and biscuits.
• The tax is regressive since consumers on lower incomes will be more negatively impacted by higher prices than consumers on higher incomes. This regressive effect of the sugary drinks tax can be counteracted if the collected tax revenue is used to subsidize healthier foods.
• Cross-border shopping can also be an easy way out for consumers to not pay the tax as they will buy sugary drinks from areas where they are not taxed.

Various Island Nations and Territories

Island nations and territories have been successful in passing soda taxes. Just like with tobacco taxes, smaller communities are often the first to pass a new type of tax.

Barbados

Barbados passed a soda tax in 2015.

Fiji

Fiji has an import tax and an excise tax on soda.

French Polynesia

French Polynesia implemented taxes on soft drinks in 2002.

Mauritius

Mauritius passed a soda tax in 2013.

Nauru

Nauru implemented a soda tax in 2007.

Samoa

Samoa passed a soda tax in 1984.

St Helena

In March 2014, the government of the island of St Helena, a British Overseas Territory in the South Atlantic, announced that it would be introducing an additional import duty of 75 pence per litre on sugar-sweetened carbonated drinks with more than 15 grams of sugar per litre. The measure was introduced in May 2014 as part of a number of measures to tackle obesity on the island and the resulting high incidence of type 2 diabetes.

Tonga

Tonga has a soda tax.

src: thelionsroarmhsn.com

See also

• Meat tax
• Fat tax
• Tobacco tax
• Pigovian tax
• Sin Tax
• Liquid Candy
• List of countries by Body Mass Index (BMI)
• Sugary Drinks Portion Cap Rule

src: cdn.abclocal.go.com

References

src: tribwgntv.files.wordpress.com

External links

• Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale University
• UNESDA Industry Opinion on a Soda Tax
• Ounces of Prevention - The Public Policy Case for Taxes on Sugared Beverages: "Perspective" piece in the New England Journal of Medicine, by Kelly Brownell and Tom Frieden
• Want a Healthier State? Save Gov. Paterson's Tax on Sugar Soda: Op-Ed in the New York Daily News, by Kelly Brownell
• Rudd Report on Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Taxes: An Updated Policy Brief: by the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale

Source of the article : Wikipedia