Is 'Big Soda' mimicking Big Tobacco? California beverage battle spills over.

The beverage industry has fended off bids to regulate or tax sugary drinks in 30 states, but California is a trend-setter and two initiatives could be a pivot point.

Jeff Chiu/AP
A shelf of soft drinks is shown in a refrigerator at K & D Market in San Francisco. A tax on sodas and other sugar-laden drinks is on the November ballots in San Francisco and Berkeley, Calif., two cities that have been open to such social-engineering initiatives in the past.

The battle for votes on soda-tax initiatives in two California cities is contentious, but both sides agree: The votes could be hugely important in the national campaign to raise taxes on sugary drinks.

So far, efforts to pass similar measures in 30 states have failed. But historically, the Golden State has been a leader in public health initiatives, such as tobacco and recycling, says Marlene Schwartz, director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale University in New Haven, Conn.

If San Francisco and Berkeley pass initiatives to ramp up taxes on sodas and other high-sugar drinks, the rest of the nation could begin to follow.

“California is very important,” says Dr. Schwartz. “California is ahead of the rest of the country on issues like that.”

The American Beverage Association (ABA), which works on behalf of industry giants such as Pepsi and Coca-Cola, has so far contributed a record $9.4 million to defeat the two measures in November.

Critics of the industry point to research that suggests sugary drinks are a prime culprit behind obesity rates and diabetes in the United States. The industry counters that the tax would have negative economic consequences.

These debates have played out across various states and cities before, most notably when New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg failed in his effort to ban soft drinks of more than 16 ounces. But both sides say the battle over these two measures has taken the debate to a higher pitch.

“These are the most sophisticated  campaigns we have seen,” says Roger Salazar, a spokesman for the ABA. 

The interests of small business owners and consumers are being trampled in the rush to judgment, he says.

Supporters of the initiatives, however, liken the ABA's tactics to those of Big Tobacco when it was fighting further regulation. It has blanketed municipalities with TV ads and nearly daily mailings, in addition to filing lawsuits, said Holly Scheider of the Healthy Child Coalition, who was formerly the tobacco policy coordinator for neighboring Contra Costa County, in a statement.

Indeed, in August, campaign opponents successfully sued to have the description of items to be taxed in the Berkeley initiative rewritten – from “high-calorie," "sugary," and "low-nutrition" to "sugar-sweetened beverages."

“This level of spending from the ABA is really unprecedented,” says Josh Daniels, president of the Berkeley School Board and spokesman for the local initiative.

More broadly, beverage industry leaders have begun corporate responsibility campaigns, which seek to highlight healthy lifestyles and cast the companies in a more favorable light by stressing corporate philanthropy. This is directly from the Big Tobacco "playbook," according to a 2012 study by PLOS Medicine.

"When facing crises over health concerns, many industries attempt to thwart regulation and gain popular support," write the authors. "The tobacco industry has a long history of influencing the public and policymakers, and oil companies, among others, have emulated Big Tobacco's 'playbook' in this regard."

Claims that the taxes will be a job-killer are also familiar refrains from the battles over tobacco, says Harold Goldstein, director of the California Center for Public Health Advocacy. He points to a March 2013 study from the University of Chicago, conducted by veterans of research on the tobacco industry. The study, entitled “Employment Impact of Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Taxes,” found that not only would the proposed taxes not decrease jobs, they would actually slightly increase employment opportunities, with taxes generating more revenue.

“There is no question that these initiatives in California will be a game changer for this debate,” Dr. Goldstein adds.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.