If Proposition E and Measure D – which would add a tax to sweetened beverages – pass, living in some parts of California will not be as sweet.
Both San Francisco and Berkeley will have measures on their ballots this fall proposing to add a tax of 2 cents and 1 cent per ounce, respectively, on most sweetened beverages, including sodas, iced teas and energy drinks, among others.
Although taxation on sweetened drinks may seem trivial, Proposition E is actually one of the most heavily backed and intensely debated propositions on San Francisco’s ballot. In San Francisco, the “Yes on E” campaign is made up of a coalition that includes nurses, teachers, unions and parent-teacher associations. The opposition to the measure comes from the American Beverage Association California PAC, which includes companies such as Coca-Cola, Pepsi and Dr Pepper. So far, $7.7 million has been donated in opposition to the measure.
The taxation on soda is meant to reduce sugar consumption and improve the public’s health. But taxation is a short-sighted tactic to curbing unhealthy sugar intake. Education is a more sustainable way to ensure that the public makes conscious choices about its nutritional intake and that it continues to do so in the future.
While education is of most importance in the early stages – at elementary schools, for example – it’s also crucial for students of all ages to have access to programs that teach them what to eat. At UCLA, there is no widespread education on nutrition available, which is particularly puzzling because the foods available in dining halls, including an array of carbonated soft drinks in every hall, don’t easily lend themselves to healthy dietary choices.
The Healthy Campus Initiative, a campus-wide movement that educates students about various aspects of health and wellness, does take steps to inform the student body about nutrition. But there are no mandatory programs – at New Student Orientation, for example – that help students make educated decisions about what they eat and drink in the dining halls and elsewhere.
But the lack of educational resources at our university is nothing compared to the lack of resources at primary and secondary schools, especially in underserved communities. Without creating greater resources, a tax ultimately won’t deter people from consuming the beverages they have grown used to.
Providing extra education in California public schools on healthier eating and on ways to lead a healthier lifestyle is key to making change to public health.
Ultimately, people should be trusted to make their own choices when it comes to purchasing and consuming food and beverages. If they are provided the tools to educate themselves about what they’re putting into their bodies, they can make more appropriate choices when it comes to preserving their own health.
Creating these resources will not necessarily require large changes for primary and secondary schools. If schools already provide health classes – and many do – a larger portion of the classes should be devoted to educating students on healthy eating, including adequate consumption of sugars. By targeting and educating younger generations, change will occur faster and be carried out further into the future.
Not only is the tax not going to educate consumers on why indulging in overly sweetened drinks affects personal health, but the small price increase won’t necessarily deter people craving their favorite sweet drinks either. A 40-cent increase in the cost of soda is most likely not significant enough to cause people to opt out of buying a Coke or Pepsi.
The immense amounts of money and time being spent in support of the measures would be better put toward developing educational nutrition programs or even city-wide health awareness programs. These programs could include public ads and posters and even talks about healthy consumption and healthy living.
If the measures in San Francisco and Berkeley pass this fall, it is likely that attempts to pass a soda tax will spread throughout other California cities, including Los Angeles. In that scenario, UCLA students should not waste resources in supporting the bill.
Instead, we should lobby for more comprehensive nutritional education both on our campus and elsewhere in Los Angeles.
Unfortunately, Ms Freedman has not explained that the estimated $30-50 million per year which Prop E will raise in San Francisco is dedicated to funding the exact nutrition education programs for which she advocates, as well as better school food, more PE, more places throughout every part of SF for all citizens to get more exercise, better dental care for low income communities, more access to healthy food in urban “food deserts”, more water bottle filling stations, and other interventions to help every SF resident live healthier lives. Prop E does not just rely on higher prices for sugary drinks as a disincentive – it also funds the very kinds of programs that can help undo the damage caused by the millions that beverage companies spend promoting their unhealthy products to children, minorities, and low income communities. Learn more at http://tinyurl.com/l5lj6jv
I have to bust a myth here. Countless studies, as well as public health’s on-the-ground experience in tobacco control, have demonstrated that education alone DOES NOT impact consumption/usage rates. However, education combined with policy measures like a sugary drink tax are exactly what is needed to lower sugary drink consumption.
Smoking rates didn’t begin to significantly drop until hefty tobacco taxes were levied — even though excellent anti-smoking education programs and marketing were in place all over the U.S. Taxation, along with education, is a long-term, sustainable solution to overconsumption of deadly sugary drinks.
How do we know? Mexico, which implemented its own significant tax on sugary drinks only this year has reported soda consumption down 10%, unsweetened drinks up 7%, water up 13%. The beverage industry knows that a sugary drink tax works. That’s why it has spent more than $117 million nationally to defeat soda taxes since 2009.
Much like with tobacco, reducing soda consumption is not an “either/or” choice between taxes and education. We learned from reducing rates of smoking that the most effective path is a combination of both education and taxes. That’s the beauty of the Berkeley and San Francisco soda tax proposals because they will support both means to this end.
My father lives in Berkeley and has suffered the physical and emotional of having type 2 diabetes. I am doing all I can to improve my daughters’ odds of avoiding a future of diet-related disease I’m grateful that my home state of California has a history of leading when it comes to laws that support good health. We spent thirteen years in Lexington, Kentucky without having to breathe secondhand smoke because California cities had already paved the way with smoking bans.
It’s clear from the big bucks companies like Coca-Cola and PepsiCo are spending to defeat Measure D, that they know the likely ramifications of a soda tax in Berkeley and San Francisco. They are using the profits from making people sick in order to keep making more people sick. That’s right out of the tobacco industry playbook and they’re blanketing those cities with what’s known as saturation advertising. I hope Northern California voters will take to the voting booth on November 4th and show them Berkeley and San Francisco can’t be bought.
I am not undecided on this issue. If you are, please check out the SF Chronicle’s endorsement of Measure E, made after long and thoughtful review. Join me in agreeing with the comments made below by Casey, Nancy, and Dana. If you live in the Bay Area, listen to the science, not the spin. Vote Yes on D, Yes on E.
Soda Taxes work. That’s what we have learned from Mexico. Health education alone unfortunately does not change behavior. We are deluged with ads telling us to “Open happiness” and other slogans aimed at getting us to increase our soda consumption. The soda tax helps level the playing field. Consumption of soda and sugary drinks dropped 10% in Mexico and folks are drinking water instead. Just what we want to happen. If we care about the future of our kids we will tax soda and other sugary drinks just like we tax tobacco.
Dear Daily Bruin,
I must echo the comments of Dana. I must also analogize the high-added sugar beverage industry to other damaging things people put into their bodies, like alcohol and tobacco. Those are heavily regulated and taxed substances because of the proven harmful health effects and proven economic hit a society takes when people engage in them. The taxes are used to help cover some of the health, education and advocacy costs needed to help curtail the ill effects of their use. Government can’t stop people from using alcohol or tobacco (remember Prohibition? That was a major policy failure), but it sure can regulate and tax them. High sugar-added beverages are being found more and more to be of serious, serious concern to nutritionists, healthcare minded people, and others who are in the know of the end-effects of consumption of these products. It is imperative that governments respond – they may not be able to dislodge the products from the consumer market, but they can certainly respond to the ill effects in order to seek solutions to the symptoms that arise. Childhood obesity and diabetes (which is a terrifying chronic lifetime illness to have) are at some of the highest rates known to the history of data collection. Never in the history of mankind has added sugar been so prolific in the consumption of meals in human societies, and there have been significant harmful effects from that in our youth and other populations.
Best,
Matthew P. FitzGerald,
J.D. Candidate UCLA Law Class of 2017