Posts Tagged ‘soda tax’

Soda Tax Fight Drags On

Monday, May 24th, 2010

pop

We’ve blogged about the Soda Tax in the past and today there is a new article in the Wall Street Journal about the ongoing battle between the soda industry and state governments that are pushing to enact the tax. One bottling company has even proposed a $10 million donation to Health and Wellness programs in Philadelphia in hopes of gaining some good will with the local government. The fight continues…


Makers and sellers of soda and other sweet drinks have intensified a fight against proposed taxes on their products, as a growing number of cities and states are weighing the measures to help fill depleted coffers.

A soft-drink bottler offered what it called a $10 million good-will-gesture donation for health and recreation programs in Philadelphia, as city officials there considered a proposal for an excise tax to help plug a budget hole and fight obesity. The tax, proposed by Philadelphia’s Democratic Mayor Michael Nutter, would amount to two cents an ounce on soda and other sweet drinks.

Industry officials are also considering trying to organize a referendum in Washington state to repeal a three-year excise tax on carbonated beverages of two cents on every 12 ounces.

The moves come as officials in at least 20 cities and states have proposed new taxes or the removal of tax exemptions on non-alcoholic beverages so far this year. The beverage industry has spent millions of dollars since 2009 on lobbying and advertising against proposed taxes, including a federal tax initially proposed as part of the health-care reform bill.

So far, few such taxes have actually been imposed. The final federal health overhaul didn’t include a soft-drink tax. And while several state and city legislators initially expressed enthusiasm for new soda taxes, only Washington state has approved a new excise tax on soda thus far, while Colorado removed a sales-tax exemption.

Several other states have existing small taxes on soft drinks, but those stirring controversy are the proposals for new, larger taxes.

Industry officials argue that taxes would penalize consumers at a time when people are already struggling and lead to lost jobs for bottlers and distributors.

“This is all about grabbing money to fill budget deficits and pay for more government,” said Kevin Keane, a spokesman for the American Beverage Association, the main trade organization representing Coca-Cola Co., PepsiCo Inc. and other beverage makers. “There’s really a grassroots disdain for more taxes, especially on grocery items.”

The ABA spent $18.9 million in 2009 on lobbying, compared with about $668,000 in 2008, with most of the money going toward ads against a federal soft-drink tax. The organization spent $5.4 million in the first quarter of 2010, up from $140,000 in the year-earlier period, with most of the money in the latest quarter spent on advertising changes that have been made in beverage selections at schools to reduce calories, the ABA said. The figures don’t include money spent by local coalitions and lobbyists to battle state and local taxes.

In Philadelphia, the donation offered by Canada Dry Delaware Valley Bottling Co., which included funds from other beverage companies, would have funneled $10 million into health and wellness programs in the city through the Pew Charitable Trusts.

Larry Ceisler, a representative of the Save Philly Jobs, a coalition of bottles, distributors and other interested parties, and a spokesman for Harold Honickman, the distributor’s chairman and a philanthropist, said the donation offer was a good-will gesture after the soda-tax debate “raised our antenna to the dual problems” of the revenue shortfall and childhood obesity. It was not meant as a payoff, he said. “We’re trying to be good, responsible corporate citizens here,” he said.

While the offer stood even after the Philadelphia City Council effectively killed the proposed tax Thursday, voting instead to plug the budget hole with a property-tax increase and a tax on tobacco products, the council has turned the money down for now.

“We’d love to have the $10 million but not now; because the [soda tax] was on the table, it wasn’t considered the thing to do at this point,” said council spokesman Tony Radwanski.

Still, some beverage-industry executives privately worry the donation could set a precedent, with other cities expecting donations, as beverage makers continue to combat tax proposals across the country.

In Washington state, the new soda tax is meant to help plug a budget hole of nearly $2.8 billion, said Viet Shelton, a spokesman for Democratic Gov. Christine Gregoire. New taxes were aimed at “what you consider discretionary purchases,” he said, adding, “There was a significant presence of lobbyists from the soft-drink industry during our last legislative session.”

The ABA’s Mr. Keane said his organization was “considering our options” in regard to a possible referendum in the state.

Washington, D.C.’s city council was weighing a penny-per-ounce tax on sweetened drinks, capped at 30 cents a bottle, but the initiative died Thursday amid industry lobbying and council members’ concerns about the impact on poor families.

A bottle tax proposed by Baltimore’s Democratic Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake has stalled as city-council members look for alternative ways of plugging the budget, amid pressure from grocers, bottlers and other businesses.

New York’s Democratic Gov. David Paterson’s proposed penny-per-ounce soda tax hasn’t won wide legislative support and is expected to die.

Kelly Brownell, director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale University, who helped raise the idea of a penny-per-ounce excise tax in an April 2009 paper in the New England Journal of Medicine, said he was “not a bit” discouraged that more soda taxes haven’t been passed.

“How could you be discouraged when major cities and states all over the country are considering the idea?” Dr. Brownell said. The potential revenue gains and public-health arguments will eventually persuade some cities or states eventually to pass hefty taxes, he predicted, “and then I think the floodgates will open.”

Coke CEO responds to soda tax

Thursday, October 8th, 2009

coca-cola_logo5

We posted an article a few weeks ago about the possibility of a soda tax being imposed by certain states. The tax is intended to combat the growing obesity epidemic as well as provide some additional revenue to states marred in debt. We didn’t endorse the tax or discredit it, and said we would reserve judgment while the debate took hold.

Muhtar Kent, the CEO of Coke, has weighed in on the debate in today’s Wall Street Journal. Muhtar makes the argument that obesity has risen while soft drink sales have declined. He makes valid points about the amount of time Americans spend watching TV and playing video games. He also points out that the debate should be shifted to include the amount of calories a person burns off, and not solely on what they take in.

There are some good points here and they should be included in the debate. Bravo to Mr. Kent for taking a position to defend his company and lash out against a tax he feels unreasonable. The real question is, do his arguments have merit? Read the article and let us know your thoughts.

Coke Responds

Soft Drink Tax

Friday, September 18th, 2009

California lawmaker Alex Padilla  is introducing new legislation that would impose a tax on soft drinks. Padilla previously led an anti-obesity crusade in California that spearheaded menu calorie disclosures and the banning of unhealthy foods in schools across the state. Padilla has brought t he obesity epidemic to the forefront of the California and National conscience. He argues that soft drinks are nothing more then liquid sugar and one of the foremost culprits for America’s ever expanding waistline.


colas

Padilla certainly has some valid concerns. One 12 ounce can of soda can contain over 54 grams of sugar, often in the form of corn syrup. The average American consumes 90 grams of sugar a day. Do the math and you realize that one soft drink puts you over halfway there. Pretty scary stuff.

There are legal and political ramifications to this issue. Are we delving further into a Nanny State, where the government decides what we can and cannot eat or drink, or rather, penalizes us for eating or drinking something? The tax percentage increase has not been determined but you are at least looking at an 8% price increase on your favorite soft drink. Is that taking things too far?

The government does impose have excise taxes on alcohol and cigarettes; two notorious culprits in America’s deteriorating health profile. Taxes on alcohol and cigarettes can run as high as 30% in some states. Some may ask, if you’re ok with that, why oppose the soda tax?

This is a controversial issue, one that is sure to be debated (and most likely enacted) in some form down the road. This will surely begin as a state issue, and I would surmise to say that more progressive states like California will be the first to enact legislation. So hide your Pizza, they might be coming after that next!