Legislators trying again on soda tax, ban on ‘Big Gulps’
SACRAMENTO — Months after the California Legislature reluctantly voted to ban cities from passing new soda taxes, Democratic lawmakers are taking another stab at a statewide fee and other measures to reduce consumption of sugary drinks.
The bills include a ban on “Big Gulp”-style sodas, warning labels and a prohibition on displaying sugary drinks in the grocery checkout aisle. They reflect a long-standing legislative push to address concerns over the health effects of sugar on young people, as well as Democratic lawmakers’ lingering anger over the soda industry’s political maneuvering.
“We have an incredible public health crisis. Obesity and diabetes are at alarming rates, driven by the deception of Big Soda,” said Assemblyman David Chiu, D-San Francisco. “And certainly what happened last year didn’t help.”
That’s when the American Beverage Associ-
ation, which is funded by companies including CocaCola and PepsiCo, spent more than $8 million on a ballot measure that would have raised the legal bar for cities and counties to pass any kind of tax.
Facing the prospect of an expensive electoral battle over an initiative that opponents argued would devastate local budgets, lawmakers agreed to a more limited proposal, preempting new local fees on sugary drinks through 2030. But they held their noses as they did so, decrying the deal as a “shakedown” by the soda industry and an abuse of the initiative process.
“These kinds of regressive taxes are not supported by the people of California because they place an unfair burden on working families and neighborhood businesses already struggling with the state’s high cost of living,” the American Beverage Association said in a statement. “We are committed to working with the Legislature on effective ways to address its budgetary and public health concerns and to ensure that food and beverages remain affordable for all Californians.”
Backed by the California Medical Association and the California Dental Association, lawmakers will introduce five bills on Wednesday meant to encourage people to buy less soda and other sugary beverages such as energy drinks, sweet teas and sports drinks.
These are the leading source of added sugar in the American diet, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and their consumption is associated with obesity, Type 2 diabetes, heart disease and tooth decay, among other health problems.
“It’s easier for youth and adults to consume more calories in this way, because you don’t feel full in the same way you do if you eat an entire pie or a bunch of cookies,” said Dr. Shannon Udovic-Constant, a San Francisco pediatrician and vice chair of the California Medical Association board of trustees.
Lawmakers are introducing bills to:
Cap the size of sugary drinks sold in unsealed containers at restaurants and grocery stores at 16 fluid ounces. Chiu said the change would counteract the “supersize” phenomenon that has tripled the average soda serving over the past two decades.
“We’re not saying that people can’t guzzle all the liquid sugar they want through 16-ounce containers. They can do that,” Chiu said. “We’re trying to encourage people to think about portion control.”
The proposal is similar to a ban backed by then-New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg in the early 2010s. The law, which became known as the Big Gulp ban, was tossed out by the state’s courts as unconstitutional.
Label sugary drinks with a warning about their health risk. Sen. Bill Monning, a Democrat from Carmel who has unsuccessfully pursued the idea in three previous legislative sessions, said labeling allows consumers to make an informed choice. “It’s no different than what we do with tobacco products,” he said. A similar San Francisco ordinance to label soda ads is tied up in court.
Prohibit supermarkets, convenience stores and retail stores from displaying sugary drinks near the checkout counter. Soda companies are “paying prime money to the marketing folks to have them placed there. And they do that because it works,” Udovic-Constant said. Assemblywoman Buffy Wicks, D-Oakland, is carrying the measure.
Bar soda companies from offering promotional deals to stores to lower the price of sugary drinks for customers. The bill is by Assemblyman Rob Bonta, D-Alameda.
Tax sugary drinks to pay for programs that offset their health effects. Assemblyman Richard Bloom, D-Santa Monica, has not yet settled on an amount, but previous iterations proposed 2 cents per fluid ounce. Any tax would need a two-thirds vote of both houses to pass.
The soda industry is a powerful presence at the Capitol — the American Beverage Association reported nearly $700,000 in lobbying activity last year alone — and there is already a sizable graveyard of failed attempts to cut down on sugary drinks. Lawmakers introduced at least 11 tax or labeling bills in the past decade, most of which never made it past their first committee.
That intransigence pushed advocacy to the local level in recent years. Berkeley became the first city in the country to tax soda in 2014, and researchers found that sales dropped by nearly 10 percent in the first year after the fee took effect. San Francisco, Oakland and Albany all followed two years later.
Their success — and the prospect of more cities weighing sugary drink taxes — prompted the industry’s initiative gambit last year, moving the fight back to Sacramento.
Although braced for another tough fight with soda companies, supporters believe that resentment over how the Legislature’s hand was forced on the local tax ban could lead some lawmakers to reconsider limitations on sugary drinks they previously dismissed.
“Sometimes persistence pays off,” Monning said.
If the statewide soda-tax bill fails this session, the California Medical Association and its allies plan to begin circulating a petition this fall to put the issue on the ballot.
“We hope that the Legislature will move this forward,” Udovic-Constant said. “And if they don’t, we have an initiative waiting in 2020.”