Sugary drinks tax proposed in San Francisco

Sugary drinks tax in San Francisco may be put to a vote in November 2014. The sugary drinks tax would impose a 2-cents-per-ounce tax on soda and other drinks with added sugar. 

Eric Risberg/AP/File
The 60-foot long Coca-Cola bottle stands near left field at AT&T Park in San Francisco.. San Francisco Supervisor Scott Weiner is set to introduce a ballot measure that would levy a 2-cent-per-ounce sugary drink tax on all sugar-sweetened beverages sold in the city.

 San Francisco may become the latest U.S. city to try to curb the consumption of sugary drinks with a proposed ballot measure to impose a tax on beverages seen as a culprit in rising rates of childhood obesity and diabetes.

Supervisor Scott Wiener on Tuesday formally proposed asking voters in November 2014 to impose a 2-cents-per-ounce sugary drinks tax on soda and other drinks with added sugar sold in the famously liberal northern California city.

No other U.S. city has enacted such a tax, though a similar proposal is in the works in the southwestern Colorado town of Telluride, according to the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity.

Two other California cities, Richmond and El Monte, failed last year in their attempts to become the first in the nation to impose taxes of a penny per ounce on businesses that sell sugary drinks.

In New York, Mayor Michael Bloomberg last year spearheaded a ban on the sale of large, sugary drinks last year, but the move was later declared illegal by a state judge after a challenge by soft drink makers and a restaurant group. New York's highest court has agreed to hear an appeal.

"We know that this will be a long road," Wiener said in introducing the measure to his colleagues. "This type of proposal has occurred in other cities and the beverage industry always comes out full guns blaring, so we're going to need to pull together to make sure that this wins."

A ballot measure would need two-thirds support from voters in order to pass.

Wiener said his proposed measure would reduce the consumption of sugary beverages while specifically setting aside proceeds of the tax for physical education and health programs.

"Voters really want to know where their tax money is going to go," he said.

In both Richmond, located in the San Francisco Bay Area, and El Monte, located east of Los Angeles, revenues from the proposed taxes would have gone to each city's general fund.

'WASTEFUL DISTRACTIONS'

The tax would amount to an extra 24 cents per average 12-ounce (35 cl) can of soda. Wiener said it would bring in an estimated $30 million in tax proceeds annually. It would apply to drinks with added sugar and at least 25 calories per ounce.

A third of the expected tax windfall would go to San Francisco schools for physical education and healthy lunch programs, and the remainder would go to city parks and recreation programs and community health organizations.

Roughly two out of three California voters surveyed in a Field Poll last fall and released in February said they would support taxing sugary beverages if proceeds were tied to improving school nutrition and physical activity programs. The poll of 1,184 voters had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Wiener's proposal will go to a city Budget and Finance subcommittee for a hearing in the spring.

The board would vote between May and July on whether to add the tax measure to the city's elections ballot, Wiener said.

A spokesman for the American Beverage Society said raising taxes and restricting drink consumption would not necessarily lead to a healthier population.

"Californians have rejected beverage taxes like the one San Francisco Supervisor Scott Wiener proposes because such measures are unnecessary, wasteful distractions from serious policymaking," spokesman Chuck Finnie said in a statement.

The society, which represents industry leaders including PepsiCo Inc and Snapple Group Inc, has spent millions of dollars fighting proposed soda taxes around the country.

"Providing people with education, opportunities for physical activity and diverse beverage choices to fit their lifestyles are proven strategies for maintaining health," Finnie said.

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.