On June 16, 2016, Philadelphia’s city council passed a bill that taxes soda, other sugary drinks, and even diet drinks at a rate of 1.5 cents per ounce. The city will levy the tax on distributors, not directly on consumers. However, if distributors pass the tax on to consumers, a twelve-pack of 12-ounce cans of Coke, for example, would go up by a significant $2.16.
New York Mayor Supports the Tax on Sugary Drinks
New York governor, Michael Bloomberg, was quick to applaud the measure, congratulating Philadelphia’s city council and mayor, Jim Kenney, as courageous “for standing up to the beverage industry and doing what’s right for the people of their city. Obesity and poverty,” he continued, “are both intractable national problems.”
The bill was promoted as a way to raise funding for government programs that would help lower income communities. However many opponents of the tax say it will unfairly target and discriminate against the poorest citizens.
Presidential Candidates Differ in Opinion
Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders has stated that the tax is discriminatory against low-income and working people. He also called out Hillary Clinton for supporting it despite having pledged to the American people that she will not raise taxes on anyone earning less than $250,000.
NBC News quoted Sanders as saying, “This proposal clearly violates her pledge. The mechanism here is fairly regressive. And that is, it will be increasing taxes on low-income and working people.”
“Big Food” Spending Millions to Turn Public Opinion Against the Tax
The soda industry has vowed to continue to fight the tax and has been spending millions on scare tactics trying to turn public opinion against it. National Public Radio (NPR) reports that “Since March, records show that the industry has financed more than $4.2 million in media buys in Philadelphia to air ads aimed at turning public opinion against the proposal.”
In one of the ads warning against the tax, the voice over says, “This tax could mean higher prices on hundreds of grocery items with some sugar, like soft drinks, sports drinks, juice drinks, energy drinks and teas… Many products could double in price.”
A statement from the American Beverage Association calls the measure “a regressive tax that unfairly singles out beverages — including low- and no-calorie choices,” and claims that the tax is against the law. “So we will side with the majority of the people of Philadelphia who oppose this tax and take legal action to stop it.” Their statement also notes that “similar tax proposals have been rejected 43 times across the country in the past eight years, including twice in Philadelphia.”
Sugar Tax Revenue to be Spent on Education
Key to the soda tax successfully being passed in Philadelphia this time may have been Mayor Jim Kenney’s choice not to pitch it based on health benefits, choosing instead to focus on his plan to spend most of the estimated $90 million in new tax revenue in 2017 to pay for prekindergarten, community schools, public libraries and recreation centers. “Thanks to the tireless advocacy of educators, parents, rec center volunteers and so many others,” the mayor said, “Philadelphia made a historic investment in our neighborhoods and in our education system.”
Bloomberg, for his part vowed to continue to work “to ensure that cities and nations pursuing these anti-obesity strategies get the support they need to level the playing field with the soda industry.” He cited upcoming votes in Oakland and San Francisco, California and a possible vote in Boulder, Colorado, and suggested Philadelphia’s new tax could be the beginning of a revolution.
What Do You Think?
Would a revolution in taxing sodas and other sugary drinks translate to a revolution in health, and a subsequent decrease in cancer rates? As we’ve stated many times before here at The Truth About Cancer, processed foods − particularly sugary and diet sodas − are extremely detrimental to our health and have long been cited as a contributing cause of cancer. But is it the government’s job to tax those items that they deem to be “bad for us”?
And the question remains… will a tax result in people drinking less soda and becoming healthier?
In Mexico, a recent tax on sugar-sweetened beverages contributed to a dip in sales. Some public health experts are predicting a similar result in Philadelphia…
“The evidence is clear that when prices go up, people buy less of things,” claims Michael Long of George Washington University. “We’d expect over 12,000 cases of obesity prevented by the end of the 10-year period, as well as $65 million in health care cost savings over the 10-year period,” Long told NPR in an interview, citing a study he conducted with colleagues at the Harvard School of Public Health which estimates the health impacts of a 1-cent-per-ounce tax on sugary drinks in Philadelphia.
What do you think about this tax? Do you think it will encourage better beverage choices or will consumers still get their “sugar fix” another way? I have my own personal opinion about this tax, but I’m not going to tell you. 😉 I want this article to remain unbiased so that you can make up your own mind. Please share your thoughts in the Comments section below.
The tax will only help; if all nutritionist really educate children in schools first; so they will make healhier choices as they are growing into adults. Let the children teach the parents and maybe just maybe diabetes and cancer in children and adults will be reduced. Parents can learn from their children. allan foth
The sodas and processed foods are costing us a lot in increased health care costs, work problems, and shorter span of contributing to society. We SUBSIDIZE high fructose corn syrup and all these processed foods that are killing us. They own Congress and the control whether we can even find out if foods have these harmful substances in them. The taxes helped make New York City the healthiest place in America. Make them pay their part of the costs they are making our society pay.
Education, education, education. Parents have an obligation to make sure they educate and feed their children healthy food. Schools and parents must teach healthy eating and cooking and the people should press for fully accountable labeling laws. Do NOT buy crap. Gve your children good, clean water. Those companies that make crap will then change their ways and produce better food. People power can work.
Why just tax sodas? The tax should be on sugar and corn syrup just as there are taxes on cigarettes and alcohol. Tax the manufacturers at the source and they will add the cost to the sugar and corn syrup. Very simple. The tax should be based on the health cost to society per quantity consumed. Trying to limit the size of sodas is a ridiculous idea.
My mother, born in 1908, was dead-set against sodas and raised me to leave them alone. I was able to pass on that message to two of my four children who are still normal weight; sadly, her teaching was not accepted by my son and daughter-in-law, who consumed both sugared and artificially sweetened sodas liberally with unintended consequences–along with a low-fat or no-fat diet of course. I am happy to see at least a beginning, in Philadelphia, of our “getting even” with the makers of such junk. It’s too bad such taxes are regressive, but they beat the alternative, in my opinion! Maybe we can move on to measures that will make it even clearer that these drinks are in some ways as bad as alcoholic ones–and in some ways perhaps worse. I love Bernie and wish he could support this tax move…
Better to make a ‘healthy drink–quit wasting tax dollars and you would have enough to use on education and every where else where needed. Also not only make a ‘healthy drink’ but make ALL of our foods healthy. People are being killed from the way foods are grown and the food people eat. Monsanto and other companies are seeing to this! Not interested in health–only making money. Just wondering how they feel when their loved on die from Cancer and other diseases knowing they contributed to it. Hope they enjoy every dollar they earn by ‘making junk’.
Also–lets have more ‘real’ education in schools in regards to ‘real health’ and how to eat to avoid the ‘junk’ offered. Perhaps some of it will sink in. Kids seem to take to heart things that school leaders tell them then what the parents try to share with them so ‘educate the teachers in ‘real health’–get some experts in the schools to share ‘real health’ with the kids and you would be surprised how many of them will be influenced by the teachings of ‘real’ experts. Not someone who ‘thinks they know about health’ but people who are knowledgeable as Dr. Mercola and some of the Doctors Ty Bollinger has interviewed. Definitely NOT anyone Michelle Obama would recommend or Michelle herself as in my opinion she simply ‘thinks’ she knows about health.
In my opinion, I think that sugary drinks and soda drinks should be taxed, because too many sugary drinks are not good for you. It is fine to drink them occasionally, but not all the time. It is true that sugary drinks can cause cancer, but too much sugar can also cause diabetes too. I would say that we should all by juicers and juice all our fruits, vegetables, herbs, and spices and we might be much healthier, live longer, and feel and look much younger than our age.
I don’t think you are going to get people to eat more healthy by taxing sodas. You got to educate the parents. In a fast food restaurant, I saw the parent giving soda, I assume, to their child. The kids grow up wanting McDonald’s. Who taught them this? The parents and advertising.
I don’t see a simple solution to this, but I believe it starts with education and listening to the folks most affected.
Give people the facts about this poison, and how their purveyors place profit over the pain it causes. Then solicit their views on how best to confront this crime.
The attitude of “This is for your own good”, without engaging those affected in the determination of how that good is achieved, is disrespectful and ultimately self defeating to the goal of healthier lives.
For many, sugar is an addiction, and it will be very difficult to kick that habit. It’s vital that any policy prioritize early education to prevent this scourge from consuming yet another generation, as well as sensitive strategies for breaking its hold on those already in its grasp.
Any plan must be developed by all those with a stake in the outcome, or the problem will not be solved.
Support shows there is no end to peoples’ willingness to be oppressed. Remove a little more freedom; make more drones.
Michael Bloomberg is not the mayor nor the governor of New York (identified as both in the article). He was, however, the past mayor of New York (city).
Soda consumption is decreasing whether or not there’s a tax. I also think it’s silly that people are claiming that this tax would discriminate against the very poor. I don’t think the very poor are buying soda! Water’s free after all, and when your family’s struggling to put food on the table, why would you spend on fun drinks? And the tax revenue will be going to education, libraries, and community centers, which the poor will have access to to improve their lives.
I also believe that the tax would be unnecessary if sodas weren’t so artificially cheap to begin with. Sugar and corn syrup subsidies need to end. So ultimately, I think there must be better long term solutions, but I’m not opposed to a soda tax in the short term.
Not only should they be taxed but they should be outlawed!!! anyone who drinks any sugary sodas ESPECIALLY PEPSI PRODUCTS…. PLEASE READ the LABEL on the BACK of Your PEPSI DRINK and You Will SEE…. Pepsi Inc. Partially Produced With Genetic Engineering!! Please GOOGLE the Ingredient and it’s Meaning it’s Not Only Disturbing it’s Utterly D and Unthinkable for anyone that has a Conscience!!! Pepsi products alone should be Banned!!!
So you want to outlaw ALL sodas (even the ones made with non-GMO cane sugar), and chug down some adulterated liquid dairy product (don’t even try to call it “milk”), or some glyphosate-infused apple juice? You’re making the same over-generalizations the Government’s been using to justify banning almost everything. You’re scarier than the soda!
Stevia and Lakanto should definitely be more accessible to consumers, with sugary beverage tax impacting first and foremost on distributors.
Well, taxing the distributors is, I suppose a lesser evil that taxing the consumers directly. (I think there should be a tax on non-durable electronic goods levied at the manufacturers; it would encourage them to design them to be more repairable) Still, the Libertarian in me doesn’t like the idea of Government telling consumers what to buy, and as some others have pointed out, America is an environment that encourages manufacturers to use what is often the least healthy ingredients, and this law does nothing to actually CREATE healthy alternatives; it merely makes the unhealthy options more expensive for those who can least afford healthier alternatives.