Soda Surcharge In San Francisco?
Gavin Newsom, the hottie mayor of San Francisco and California gubernatorial candidate, is proposing legislation to tax stores that sell soda, including grocery stores like Safeway, but excluding restaurants. (Voters need to approve a tax on individual soda sales, which is why this is sort of secondhand legislation.) Newsom is calling soda the “new tobacco.”
I’ve heard the idea of a “soda tax” floated many times before, but this is the first time any actual legislation has been on the horizon–let alone right in my backyard:
Newsom said he was particularly motivated… by Thursday’s release of a UCLA study showing a link between soda and obesity in California. Researchers found that adults who drink at least one soft drink a day are 27 percent more likely to be obese than those who don’t – and that soda consumption is fueling the state’s $41 billion annual obesity problem. The study also found that 41 percent of children and 62 percent of teens drink at least one soda daily.
“Soda is cheap, sweet and irresistibly marketed to teens,” said Susan Babey, the study’s lead author. “Not enough teens know about the health and dietary risks of drinking huge quantities of what is essentially liquid sugar.”
I’m not particularly a soda drinker or an advocate for soda, but I also don’t see how this tax will really do anything–maybe if you make soda itself a lot more expensive, it could change people’s habits, but taxing Safeway isn’t going to make them stop selling soda, and I doubt they’d raise their prices on soda in response, so what’s the point? (Also, this tax wouldn’t affect fast-food places, so wouldn’t people just go there for a quick soda fix?) The Chamber of Commerce apparently agrees:
Jim Lazarus, vice president of the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, said the group opposes the soda tax. “Does this mean there’s a fee on candy bars, on ice cream, on potato chips?” he asked. “Where do you draw the line?”
He added that a small fee – likely to be passed on from the retailer to the consumer – wouldn’t be enough to dramatically change people’s habits, leading him to believe it’s meant to be just another revenue source for the city.
So what do you guys think–does this all feel a little “nanny state” to you, do you think it’s a good idea, do you think it’s insulting? And where are they getting this “obesity costs California $41 billion a year” from, anyway? And Californians, given the budget crisis–what about the idea of taxing “extra” purchases like soda as a way to help dig ourselves out of the hole?
Posted by mo pie
Filed under: Celebrities, Cold Hard Cash, Food, Health, Politics
I’ll be for the soda tax when they also tax fatty red meats, cholesterol-filled shrimp, and fried food. It’s just a new version of the “sin tax”.
I’m against regressive taxation, it punishes the poor.
I heard about this on the radio last week. I don’t have much of an opinion about the tax, but it doesn’t seem like it’ll stop people from drinking soda.
I was surprised to hear that a 20 oz. soda contains 17 teaspoons of sugar. I think I remembered that because it seems like an odd way to phrase the amount. I think telling people that there’s 1/3 cup of sugar in a soda is scarier.
Seems to me that teh fatz is the least of the problem if you’re consuming that much sugar a few times a day. I think there are other health risks that are a bigger concern.
Any of you Californians who have read this screed & were giving serious consideration to Newsom’s possible run for governer…THINK AGAIN! Anyone who can propose such Big Brother legislation is dangerous.
…and an item of idle curiosity…if we (fat people) eat so damn much, doesn’t that mean we spend more money & help boost the economy? How can we possibly cost the state of California ANYTHING if all we do is chow down and pay up????
I was severely disappointed to see Newsom pull this into the arena. I no longer live in California but anticipate moving back and wanted to throw my full support behind him. But now I’m just pissed.
Carol, what are some specific examples of his Big Brother legislation? I’m not entirely in the loop.
Anyway, onto the fat tax. I oppose it because just like Katie said, it punishes the poor. How about some legislation that makes organic, local, or even just regular quality produce affordable and accessible for all? How about addressing the link between poverty and obesity?
I can tell you right now that a tax on soda wouldn’t stop me from buying, especially if I could go get it tax free from a restaurant.
I think people need to be responsible for what they eat and drink. I do not think that they should have extra taxes put on it. Look at how cigarettes keep going up. That really has not changed peoples smoking habits.
It actually makes a certain amount of sense to say “there are [so many] teaspoons of sugar in [this size] cup of soda.” Consider the student having trouble waking up, not sure whether to have coffee or soda. For somebody who stirs 3 spoonfuls of sugar into every cup of coffee, it might not be obvious that the soda has a lot more sugar.
I have mixed feelings about taxing soda. Government subsidies of corn syrup production are SO problematic… I want there to be some way for the government to counter this, and discourage food manufacturers from adding tons of sugar and syrup to everything. But framing it as the fault of individual consumers who deserve to be punished makes me uncomfortable. And the idea that sugar-sweetened soda is unhealthy/sinful, while artificially-sweetened soda is healthy/virtuous just makes me sick.
I have mixed feelings about taxing soda. Government subsidies of corn syrup production are SO problematic… I want there to be some way for the government to counter this, and discourage food manufacturers from adding tons of sugar and syrup to everything.
Wouldn’t stopping the corn syrup subsidies address this better than a separate tax?
Personally I consider this sort of thing a “full employment for accountants and bookkeepers” tax, because the additional forms and tracking can cost more than the flippin’ taxes collected.
(I forget if CA has a sales tax on food. WA’s sales tax exempts “groceries”, which does include juice, milk, and baby formula but not any kind of soda – diet, corn-syrup-sweetened, or sugar-sweetened.)
Oh, re: “amount of sugar” in soda, don’t most sodas have corn syrup not sugar? ;)
I wonder if part of the reason he’s taking the roundabout route is to avoid giving voters a chance to shoot it down. This seems an unwise tactic if he ever wishes to be reelected to anything at all.
As for the legislation itself, since the Obesity Epidemic is based on pseudoscience, efforts to combat it aren’t going to get us anywhere we could want to be. Unfortunately, since the media love to parrot the nonsense they’re fed by everyone who benefits from the Obesity Epidemic, I do fear this sort of thing taking hold.
Gavin Newsom is a man who has never had to drink soda because it’s cheaper than eating food that day. How about Gavin Newsom look into expanding food stamp coverage to more people, that might curb soda consumption and do something to improve overall public health. How about Newsom look into expanding the education budget so that school’s don’t have to make a devil’s bargain with junk food companies just to afford text books and supplies.
Oh I forgot, it’s easier to blame fatties for destroying the world than to actually find solutions to real problems. Good job Newsom, way to be intellectually and politically lazy.
400, I wondered about that too. Seems to me they should’ve said the equvalent of 17 teaspoons of sugar. Most sodas, especially the ones sold in 20 oz. bottles, have corn syrup.
Adrian, you’re right, I hadn’t thought of it that way. Most people use teaspoons on coffee, tea, and cereal.
Seems to me the old fashioned 8 oz. soda isn’t so bad once in a while, but 20 oz. seems like a lot. I had 2 20 oz. beverages last week, one diet and one iced tea with sugar, and I didn’t finish either of them. They were too sweet!
Tiffany: “Every 10 percent increase in the price of cigarettes reduces youth smoking by about seven percent and overall cigarette consumption by about four percent.” — http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/reports/prices/
Mind you, I think fatty taxes are fees for fees’ sake and political grandstanding, but to say cigarette taxes don’t modify smoking behavior is incorrect.
I haven’t checked to see if it’s true but I remember from when I was a kid hearing about Hillary Clinton put a huge tax on cigarettes and the extra money went to fund some quit smoking programs, a lot of people stopped buying cigarettes because they were more expensive so she had to cancel the tax (cancelling the quit smoking programs).
I also think it’s better to end the corn subsidies than to tax soda. Yes, taxing junk food is short-sighted.
HOWEVER, last fall there were propositions on the ballot here (in CA) that would have protected schools, firefighters,police, and other public programs from budget cuts, and they were defeated by a huge margin.
So, while I disagree with Mayor Newsom, the situation here is incredibly dire and complicated, and I honestly don’t think he’s being willfully ignorant and/or lazy. I think that maybe he’s looking to raise taxes in an area that is (unfortunately) politically acceptable.
Yeah, it still sucks.
If we’re gonna tax someone, how about the huge corporations that make billions by selling crap to people? LIKE fast food joints? Let them chip in a little bit! And then maybe we can tax places like Nutra-System and Jenny Craig, for forcing people to believe they can’t LIVE without them?
Also I live in CA about 30 minutes from SF and for the past few months we have had to put up with our city re-paving all of the streets for NO reason. The streets were fine. Actually in December they went around filling in all the cracks in all of the streets in town so the streets were better than fine.
There are all these signs all over the place saying that this project is what we all wanted to do with our city’s money. B.S. Gee I wonder why California is broke.
I wonder… they are going on about sugar and obesity, so would this only affect sugared soda or all soda? I barely squeak my diet soda into my budget so if they make it cost any more I’m gonna be pissed!
Also… I’m curious if you have any thoughts about Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs. I’m surprised no one has said anything about it with the way everyone was on about Wall-e.
I think taxes like these — anywhere they are levied — are cosmetic.
It makes it appear as if officials are doing something instead of making policy that would eliminate food instability, which could be a bigger factor in low-income obesity than diet itself. And among middle class folks and higher, taxing sweets and fats doesn’t address a different form of food instability: dieting.
Barry Glasner defines food instability as routine famine in American families as a result of income fluctuation. When people have to go without food, their dietary behaviors change out of need.
And as a full-time employee with insurance coverage and my own home, I have often skipped meals because I can’t take a break at work or I’ve used the last of my rice, bread and protein at home. That means coca cola for lunch.
I don’t honestly think that a tax on soda will make much difference in the price of soda given that it’s relatively cheap anyway. To me the part that’s troublesome is the precedent it would set towards taxing “bad” foods.
In terms of the “wouldn’t people just get it in a restaurant instead” question, unless the tax caused the price of soda in a grocery store to double, I can’t imagine that restaurants would be cheaper.
The problem with the tax is that assumptions are being made that the majority of non-diet soda drinkers are fat people. Many people, including thin people, can’t drink diet soda because the sugar substitutes make them ill, and it can sometimes be worse than regular soda.
If people can afford soda and want to drink it bad enough, they will pay extra for it.
I’m with Bree – they’re assuming the people who drink soft drink (Hi! I’m Australian!) are fat. Also, if they really cared about improving health (as the government often claims) then wouldn’t they do things like subsidise gym memberships and fruits and vegetables? Seems like a tax grab to me.
Umm, I didn’t get to be 365+ pounds by drinking soda. I maybe drink 10 sodas a year? I’m sure if I cut them out I’d weigh soooo much less.
All sarcasm aside, the point is, soda in excess is only ONE part of an unhealthy diet. Taxing soda is not going to make a difference.
And think of the other ways in which soda is consumed: mixed with alcohol, to settle upset stomachs, as ingredients in some main dishes and desserts, just to name a few. Granted, those are probably just a small percentage of the overall consumption, but in those cases, water (or milk or 100% juice) isn’t an acceptable substitute.
If soda is taxed, sugared cereals, juice cocktails and other juice-added beverages, chips, candy bars, ice cream and frozen novelties, and baked goods should be taxed, too. They aren’t necessary as part of a balanced diet.
There’s a specific reason tobacco taxes suppress consumption in a way no food or beverage tax ever could. The reason is this: Almost everyone who starts smoking is between 12 and 18 years old. If you haven’t bought your first pack by your 19th birthday, chances are you never will. Teens and preteens, for the most part, have limited money, and the more expensive it is to smoke, the less likely they are to start. And those who do start are likely to smoke less — returning half-smoked cigarettes to the pack and so forth — to save money, which further reduces consumption.
No other consumer product is like that. I mean, at all.
Also, the link between soda consumption and disease is far, far more equivocal than the link between cigarettes and disease. With smoking, the point of impact of the smoke — the respiratory tract — is identical to the anatomic location of most smoking-related illness. It’s not like sugared soda is particularly well linked to cancers of the digestive tract. Obvs, drinking gallons of it a day probably isn’t a great idea regardless of weight, but who does that? Skinny teenaged boys, that’s who.
I think the proponents of this type of measure would be surprised at how little full-sugar soda fat people drink (at least adults). Just judging from myself and the people I know, we switched to diet soda long ago on some past diet, learned to like (or at least tolerate) it and stuck with it even when not trying to lose weight – just to avoid unnecessary sugar and calories.
We’ve all heard the stereotype of a fat guy ordering a really fattening meal with a side of Diet Coke, as if the Diet Coke would cancel everything else out. I’ve always thought that one was particularly annoying since the Diet Coke actually is cutting a good number of potential calories from the meal compared to non-diet soda.
Armadilla, I agree with you wholeheartedly on both counts. I don’t feel guilty about many foods, but I still feel guilty about the “empty calories” in soda; definitely a leftover diet behavior.
And yeah, fattening meal or no, what’s wrong with having a diet soda? NOTHING. That joke is annoying and judgey.
I personally believe this has nothing to do with soda or health. Government at all levels is broke. They have to find a way to raise money without raising the public’s ire. So they are going to use obesity as an excuse to rip people off even further under the guise it is for our own good. Is the money going to subsidize healthy food? I doubt it. I will go to the same inept crooks/politicians whose first and foremost priority is their corporate campaign funders. It will be truly sad if the American people allow this wool to be pulled over their eyes. But they are so blinded by fatphobia, all anyone has to do is say obesity crisis and it is anything goes.
I don’t think charging more for these things will help but I would LOVE for them to cut the prices on healthy and organic foods.
I love eating healthy but I do see a HUGE difference when I buy better for me foods than getting things that are pretty much crap in a can.
Bag of chips for 99 cents versus 5 bucks I spent on a few apples. I prefer the apples, I love fresh fruits and veggies but they are a lot more expensive than they should be.
Why not make gyms cheaper as well? If the government is that concerned why the heck not make it easier to be healthy for everyone?
@fatnsassy You’re right about the government being really broke. The state of North Carolina is saving some money by penalizing smokers and people with a BMI above 40 (now, 35 in 2012). They will be moving them to the “less generous” tier of coverage.
The minute the government starts taxing whole foods (fatty meats) I’m buying my own island.
On one hand, I wouldn’t mind a tax on soda’s or any packaged foods as long as it went into subsidizing fruits, veggies, and other whole foods, making them more cost effective for everyone.
On the other hand, it does feel like a nanny state, especially when they pick and choose the things they’re going to tax, like soda.
And in this instance, where they are going to tax the grocery stores for soda, the price is absolutely going to be passed on to the consumer. And if the companies making the soda are taxed, they’ll be passing that on to the consumer too.
Once again it is the poorest in our country who would be punished with this tax. I am fat, and my husband is thin and we are both unemployed. We also really like to drink soda (I’m a coke zero lady myself) but can’t afford to do so all the time. I notice the statement about not taxing restaurant drinks, we, like many Americans, cannot afford to eat out. The government might be vilifying us fat people, but the people hit hardest are those who can’t afford it.
Also, kudos GodlessHeathen on your point about soda machines in schools, heck, good food in schools period.
OK, they want to tax soda because of the sugar content. Fine, but tax EVERY OTHER drink that contains sugar. Make sure you remember to include lattes and all the expensive sweetened coffee drinks, make sure to tax sports drinks (I seem to remember reading that a bottle of Gatorade has more sugar than a same-sized coke), hot cocoa, milk and all fruit juices. I’m a type I diabetic and the only things I can drink without jacking my blood sugar through the roof are diet sodas and water. A “healthy” 4 oz. glass of orange juice has been known to send my blood glucose soaring to over 400 and me to the hospital for a few days. The water around here is sulfur water, and if you’ve never tasted sulfur water, try sucking on some matches and see how delicious the flavor is. I live on diet coke because I have no viable alternatives. If they can figure out an affordable, palatable, non-blood-sugar-raising alternative to milk, fruit juice, sports drinks, sulfur-water and any other drink you make with water I’d be thrilled to hear it, but until that alternative is available they need to leave soda alone.
Maybe they should start taxing Starbucks, instead?
OK, first I just have to say that Hair Helmets are not sexy. I do not see why everyone swoons over Gavin, he isn’t that cute. But I digress.
As for the tax, he’s tilting at windmills. He wants to look like he’s fighting a big battle but really not doing anything very effective. He’s done it here before, honestly. He talks a big game and makes speeches about how much he cares for the little people and poses for the photo ops, but ultimately the legislation he lobbies so hard for has no teeth to actually help the people who need it. Even his big gesture of legalizing gay marriage in SF, which I do respect him for, don’t get me wrong. But he ultimately knew any real fighting for the cause would be taken out of his hands when it reached the state level while he would get to make impassioned speeches while still being able to step back and not get his hands dirty. It’s not that I doubt his intentions, it’s more I doubt his follow through.
This soda thing is a perfect example. He gets to look like he’s “looking out for the health of the city” without doing anything that’ll piss too many people off and hurt his chances at Governor. Safeway does not care about paying 2% on soda sales. They probably won’t even bother raising the prices since it’ll cut more into profit by volume than just absorbing the hit. Also, he exempted restaurants. A huge chunk of his local political funding comes from the hotel and restaurant industry. Coincidence?
Anyway, I think it’s dumb and ineffective, not necessarily Big Brother. If the money goes to the school district or something, fine, whatever, they need whatever they can get, but if it’ll just go into Chris Daly’s slush fund or something equally infuriating, no thanks.
Im all for it !! I think it is the first step in ending wasteful spending on food stamps . This bill will make it Impossible for food stampers to pay for soda w/ food stamps !! YAY !! I Hope !! Finally !! I hope sushi ,, ice cream, doritos coffeee and lobster are next !!!!!
Yes on the Soda Tax !!
The problem I find with this sort of thing is that it serves to be a regressive tax – one that hits low-income people harder than the rest of the population.
Also, adding taxes to an item and making it more expensive does not always make people buy less. It usually does, but for the people whose demand for that good is highly inelastic – not responsive to price changes – their demand is not going to noticeably drop.
This is all to say it’s a lot more complicated than supporters would have people believe.
Pingback: BFD: Soda Surcharge in San Francisco? | Dearest Mabel
Not being much of a soda drinker, regular or diet, (the carbonation causes me to make rude noises) it doesn’t bother me that it’s taxed here in Pennsylvania. Food isn’t taxed here but soda isn’t considered a food. It’s an expensive drink for what is basically water and sugar. I’d rather drink water (or wine, yum) and eat the sugar in the form of cookies or chocolate.
They’re talking about this in NYC, too. It’s appalling. I am tired of someone blaming my body for some supposed health crisis. My body isn’t for others to monitor.
If I want a sugary soda, I should get a sugary soda. If I want a chemically diet soda or a sugary juice or a boozey cocktail or a glass of water, I should get that. Priced as it is, no excess taxes.
This is such a ridiculous little thing to focus on to distract us from real problems. It’s like the Iraq war with food. We aren’t going to address the things we actually should, like making healthier options more widely available to different income levels or encouraging enjoyable exercise, so we distract everyone by blaming one tiny component of some people’s diets for their death-fatness.
And I don’t even like regular soda.
I’m with musajen. If they used the money to subsidize produce and other staples, then I’d be fine with it.
They do this in Chicago already. And it hasn’t made anyone stop buying soda. Also, the city added an extra tax on bottled water due to the environmental issues of the plastic bottles. People still buy bottled water. I’m a HUGE diet soda drinker. The added tax hasn’t stopped me, the unemployment has stopped me though.
I really wish my local and state governments would stop raising the cost of things just because THEY think it’s bad for me. Why doesn’t Chicago add a tax to all the greasy, fatty, high calorie, pizza they sell? THAT is way worse for me than soda. But instead they push it as a Chicago Tradition.
Stop being my babysitter telling me what I should and shouldn’t be eating and fix the roads, public schools, public transportation and all the corruption.
Non-CA resident. I would only vote for such a tax if the money were _explicitly earmarked_ for a permanent fund that would subsidize subscription farms, backyard and vacant lot gardening programs, a “Super Cheap Healthy Cooking–No, Seriously, We’re Not Going to Tell You to Buy Fresh Salmon” TV show, and other ways to make healthy food easier for poor people to get. Plus educational programs aimed at providing facts that people really need instead of talking down at them. Like a program I heard about on NPR several years ago that simply provided a Spanish-English list of synonyms for “this food has been sweetened” to California immigrants who were _trying_ to keep the _azucar_ out of their kids’ diets, but had no idea that most of the time it’s spelled C-O-R-N S-Y-R-U-P.