The case for S.F.’S soda tax
The scientific evidence about the significant health effects of sugarsweetened beverages is overwhelming. Equally persuasive is the research that suggests a rise in the price of sodas— such as through a tax— would cut consumption.
The beverage industry has successfully kept voters and elected officials from connecting the dots. It has poured tens of millions of dollars into campaigns and lobbying efforts against proposed soda taxes in 30 states, from former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s effort to ban super-size drinks to the penny-an-ounce tax that Richmond voters rejected in 2012.
Proposition E, whichwould impose a 2-cents-an-ounce surtax on soda and other sugar-laden drinks, would raise an estimated $30 million a year for physical education and nutrition programs. Those programs may prove every bit as important as price in leading young people to think aboutwhat they are doing to themselves when they consume a Super Big Gulp, which contains the equivalent of 35 teaspoons of sugar.
Soda has been identified in myriad studies as a big contributor to the epidemic of Type 2 diabetes among young people.
“It’s no longer ‘Grandma’s disease,’ ” said Dr. Dean Schillinger, a primary-care physician who works with low-income families at UCSF. He noted that sweetened beverages — the largest source of added sugar in the American diet— have a particularly aggressive effect on the system.
Ten years ago, 9 percent of children of color had either Type 2 diabetes or its precursor, Schillinger said. Today, it is 23 percent.
The beverage industry is fighting back hard, with a campaign suggesting that the tax is regressive because low-income people are more likely to drink the relatively cheap sodas.
That argument triggered a sharp response from Supervisor Malia Cohen, whose district covers some of San Francisco’s lowest-income neighborhoods in the southeast corner of the city.
“This (Type 2 diabetes) is a regressive disease,” she snapped.
If nothing else, the soda tax might disrupt what Supervisor Scott Wiener rightly described as “a business model built on over-consumption.” It certainly would be a strong disincentive for restaurants to give free refills or grocery stores to give away an extra 12-pack when a customer buys a pair.
Even one 12-ounce soda a day can increase the risk of Type 2 diabetes by 22 percent, a 2013 study from Europe found.
One more key point for thosewho might question government meddling in the market: Government has not been a neutral force. Heavy federal subsidies are one major reason why high fructose corn syrup (the sweetener in most sodas) is so cheap.
We opposed the Richmond soda tax because itwas poorly crafted: The definition was so loose that it could have included baby formula, and the money would have gone into the general fund, where it could have been spent at the politicians’ whims.
But Prop. E makes plain which beverages are covered and where the money would go. Yes, a statewide approach would be preferable, but there is noway the politicians in Sacramento— let alone Washington — are going to stand up to the beverage industry.
It’s time once again for San Francisco to lead theway on a critical matter of public health. Vote yes on Proposition E.