No sooner had the idea of a soda tax come forward on December 1, but Dr. Harold Goldstein told the Vanguard that CalBev had come to town and they took no prisoners, dropping money for ads and scaring off key supporters of a local soda tax.
The lessons from San Francisco and Berkeley were clear – if Davis was going to pass a soda tax, it was going to have to go through a million dollar plus campaign. Just as proposals for wood burning restrictions and plastic bag bans took a few go-rounds, so too with the soda tax.
But as we saw last week in Davis, so too do we see in the state legislature. In mid-January, a field poll was released showing overwhelming and growing voter support for warning labels on sugary beverages, much as the Surgeon General has a warning on cigarettes. Seventy-eight percent of those polled supported requiring warning labels on sugary drinks, which is up from 74 percent two years ago.
This despite the $12 million that the soda and beverage industry spent on lobbying efforts to fight both local and statewide regulations.
Senator Bill Monning sponsored SB 203, which had fallen just one vote short of passage in the Senate Health Committee last year. SB 203 would establish “the Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Safety Warning Act, which would prohibit a person from distributing, selling, or offering for sale a sugar-sweetened beverage in a sealed beverage container, or a multipack of sugar-sweetened beverages, in this state unless the beverage container or multipack bears a safety warning, as prescribed.”
It would also have required the warnings on soda machines, as well.
As Greg Glassman wrote a few days ago in an op-ed in the Sacramento Bee, “This legislation wouldn’t stop Californians from buying soda, but it would better inform them about what they are buying.”
He added, “What’s more, it would send a message to Big Soda that Californians are getting wise to the role of sugary drinks in making us sick.”
A year ago, Senator Bill Monning, after being defeated on SB 203, issued a statement, “The scientific evidence of the proven adverse health impacts of sugar-sweetened beverages demands a health warning label, and it is only a matter of time before California enacts legislation that informs individuals about healthful beverage choices.”
In the same release, Dr. Harold Goldstein noted, “People may know that sugary drinks aren’t good for you, but most people do not know the profoundly harmful end results of consuming liquid sugar, which include type II diabetes and other metabolic disorders.”
He added, “Warning labels offer consumers the information that they have a right to know, in a simple, straightforward and transparent manner.”
Joining Senator Monning last year was Senator Richard Pan, a doctor who represents Sacramento, Senator Holly Mitchell and our own Senator Lois Wolk.
In January, the Senate had a chance to make this right. They had a poll that showed the overwhelming majorities who support a warning label. This time, however, the bill never even came up for a vote. Dr. Goldstein told the Vanguard that they didn’t have the votes.
But, as Mr. Glassman argues, “despite falling just one vote short of passage in the Senate Health Committee last year, the same committee opted to keep SB 203 in limbo this year. Instead of debating the bill’s merits, legislators capitulated to Big Soda lobbyists, even though 78 percent of Californians support warning labels.”
Mr. Glassman writes, “Big Soda is rich and powerful. The industry has gone so far as to pay the so-called exercise sciences community to drum up research that denies that sodas are largely to blame for the obesity and diabetes epidemics.”
Warning label legislation, known as SB 1000 in 2014, originally passed the California State Senate but did not pass in the State Assembly’s Health Committee due to strong beverage industry opposition.
“The beverage industry and their legion of lobbyists made it their top priority to kill warning labels and keep consumers from learning about the significant health implications associated with these sugary products. Nonetheless, what has begun in California will surely spread nationwide as New York moves forward to inform and protect their citizens,” said Dr. Goldstein last year. “How many more people need to get diabetes, and how many more legs need to be amputated, before we warn consumers about the harmful effects of liquid sugar?”
In Davis, we opted not to fight that fight either. Last week, the city council voted 3-2 not to put the soda tax measure on the ballot.
However, the Vanguard has been told that the soda tax is not completely dead either. The council did move to create a community-based task force which could do real outreach to the community and create a Davis-based approach much like the plastic bag ban.
It took several bites of the apple to get both wood burning and plastic bag bans through in Davis, and it might take the same approach for a soda tax.
One thing that is clear and has been increasingly exposed is that the soda industry is going to fight against even commonsense approaches like warning labels. I think we need to, as a community and as a state, re-think the threat that soda and sugar-sweetened beverages pose to us and, much as we did with cigarettes, we are going to have to fight them inch by inch – even on very modest measures like warning labels.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I agree, but highly doubt there are very many people who don’t know that having a soda might not be so good for you. But, it’s more commonsense than taxing everyone who wants to buy one.
Wasn’t this the whole debate on cigarettes? It took a 1964 Presidential Task Force to really start getting the facts on how bad smoking was. Central to that health campaign was the Surgeon General’s warning label. Do you disagree?
The reason people cut back on cigarettes is a product of education, severe taxes and people frowning on being around someone else’s smoke. Unless soda is highly taxed or not allowed in in establishments a one cent per ounce tax will do nothing.
BP
“Unless soda is highly taxed or not allowed in in establishments a one cent per ounce tax will do nothing.”
“Nothing” is a very big word. I personally would prefer that the tax be very high. But I am quite willing to accept small steps even if I know that there will be a lesser impact. Promotion and enactment of very small measures draws public awareness to issues. Look at how many exchanges there have been between posters here on the Vanguard, articles and replies on the issue in the Enterprise, at least two columns by Bob Dunning, who seems to be widely read addressing this issue with responders.
I believe that just addressing the issue at all may be enough to raise people’s awareness of the severe detrimental affects to their health as opposed to as you state simply knowing that it “is not good for you”. Yes, I want this measure on the ballot. But what I want more is primary prevention and secondary prevention. And I will support any ethical and legal route to achieve that goal one tiny step at a time.
I don’t agree. Let’s consider buying a 12 pack. On sale, you can purchase a 12 pack for $3 to $4. A 12 pack has 144 ounces (12 * 12 ounces per can) which would be $1.44 in tax. So the price could rise to $4.44 to $5.44, that’s a 33 to 50 percent price increase. Likewise, a 64 ounce bottle could cost $.99 and sometimes as low as $.79 on sale and so you adding $.64 to cost. Those are large increases in cost. So to say that they would do nothing is false. I agree you might not have a huge impact on a 12 ounce can or a 20 ounce bottle, but that’s only part of the market.
You are correct, that is a large increase in cost, one that might even be significant to some buyers. The problem with this approach, however, is that will be the cost when the product is purchased in Davis, but not so in Dixon, Woodland or West Sacramento. Those people who consume the most product, the ones in greatest need of a reduction in consumption, will simply move their purchases to another locale. That is why this needs to be a regional approach and not a local one. Our poor decisions in the past have already shifted much of the retail business (and the sales tax revenue) to other communities, and this is just one more step in that same, anti-business, direction. The greatest impact of a local soda tax will be the increased sales of soda at regional Costco and Wallmart stores.
Yes. The local soda tax proponents have failed to understand this point. In addition, when a shopper goes out of town to make their big soda purchase they are likely to make other purchases as well, thus reducing purchases made in Davis. Ultimately this will hurt Davis retailers and the City due to reduced sales tax receipts.
I view it somewhat differently. While it is true that some will undoubtedly take their business out of town, a lot of people will not and they will either buy less or eat the costs. In the meantime, the meaningful change is going to happen when we get a critical mass of communities who are imposing taxes and taking on this issue headfirst.
Here is another issue in which we Americans shoot ourselves in the foot by our love of the adversarial approach combined with a maximizing profit at all cost mentality. This approach has devastating consequences.
Imagine for a moment what would happen if the soda manufacturers took some responsibility for the effects of their products. I would not expect them to stop production, but what if they were to gradually lower the sugar content of their beverages and to decrease their portion sizes. Slowly, over time people who have been convinced to drink huge quantities of these beverages through advertising could be weaned back down. They would then consume less over time ( not precipitously ) giving them time to develop and market less harmful products. What if they were to use some of those millions spent on defense of current practices on efforts to improve those products or convert to healthier choices ?
Now that is a partnership I would welcome. I am not holding by breath.
What I disagree with is thinking the election of people who succumb to lobbying money are not corrupt and the guys who propose legislation based on the Good of the People cannot get through.
“That is why this needs to be a regional approach and not a local one.”
I agree that this needs to be a regional approach. And, in my opinion, the best way to start a regional approach is with a local one. All societal changes are made one step at a time, convincing one individual at a time. When enough individuals agree, you have a movement. And then you have a local, then a regional, then a state and ultimately a national approach. All built one individual at a time.
Mark: it took 100 cities to pass plastic bag ordinances before the Legislature was willing to act.. I hear what you’re saying but it’s very obvious to me stuff has to start at a local level
I understand David that you are a recent convert to the dangers of sugar in the diet, and as is well known, recent converts make the best zealots. Your attempts at social engineering, however, will do nothing but harm Davis businesses and reduce tax revenues for the City. Those who will be most impacted by the increased costs from a soda tax will be the poor and disadvantaged who are unable to drive to Walmart or Costco to do their shopping. So all you will accomplish is to make Davis a more expensive place to live for those who can least afford the increased costs.
A local soda tax will have no impact on consumption and no benefit for public health. It is all cost and no benefit, and as such, the worst sort of social engineering.
You have posited before David that local non-profits (such as First Five Yolo) need a new source of funding to replace their cigarette tax funded grants. In fact, that was the big justification for the soda tax, to fund local non-profits’ efforts. Instead of pushing a new tax to fill that need, my suggestion is that you and other would be social engineers simply write them a check, and stop trying to spend other people’s money on your social experiment.
Well said, time for the social engineers to open their checkbooks.
Except it is not all the vendors hit with this, SOME people are exempt. When you pass things like this some people are on a side because they profit from it. So of course people FOR it will profit because they are exempt.
That sounds like a general opposition to the use of government to effect social change. I simply disagree with that viewpoint philosophically.
So, a conservative, Republican government, seeking social change to further their views, you’d espouse? Making abortion anathema? Cutting funding for social purposes? Increasing a social priority of military spending? I’m sure there are some commenters here who would LOVE to have the government spend money, influence “to effect social change”…. towards their views… I’m not one of them… the government, in my view, should reflect the society, and change appropriately when society does…
As a process or as a policy? I’m not going to espouse a policy I disagree with, but it could be a legitimate process.
“A local soda tax will have no impact on consumption and no benefit for public health. It is all cost and no benefit, and as such, the worst sort of social engineering.”
You have made this assertion frequently. It is a positive assertion and therefore by your stated rules, warrants substantiation. Can you provide any ?
Definitely… as long as you or others can substantiate the counter-claim that soda taxes reduce the consumption by individuals, reduce the mortality/morbidity associated with a soda, due to a tax…fair is fair…
And I say that as one who really doesn’t care if sodas are taxed at $5/oz… you logic in demanding/requesting data/substantiation in one direction only, I don’t “get”…
I know I would drink more alternative drinks if I knew they were as clean as bottles or cans of soda. When a server in a restaurant mixes me an iced tea after handing money from a customer, I get antsy. When I get dirt in a cup out of a soda machine that has not been cleaned, I prefer a bottle I open. It is not about the sugar, it is about cleanliness, can the ordinance address that?
Soda is nothing close to being the same public health issue as cigarettes. What is wrong with you people!? Put some labels on the stuff. Do some public service education and move on to something actually valuable for spending your time.
Did you notice the markets today? Have you been paying attention to the economy? See the next crash coming? No? Well you should, because here we go again. There are more bubbles all over the place. And the liberal professor brainwashed kids and the working-class adults are keen on voting for one or another destructo-men. And here in Davis… less than eight years after the last crash that sent our local budget far into the red and we have not yet done anything material to better prepare us for the next one.
But we have banned plastic bags and MRAPs and now we are working on a soda tax.
If Davis were a ship, it would be the ship of fools.
“Soda is nothing close to being the same public health issue as cigarettes. ”
I’m not sure that you’re correct on that.
Well, haven’t heard of anyone becoming ill from “second-hand sugar”…
True but people don’t leave cigarettes on a plate for anyone to pick up at public events either like they do cookies and SSBs.
Well David, I suggest you lobby the City Council to prevent them from sponsoring “receptions” at CC meetings, where cake (with sugary frosting), cookies and sodas are offered…
Some folk have problems with sugar intake… others do not… some folk have problems with nicotine intake… others do not. Appears genetics is a factor…
They’ve almost entirely gone away from sweetened food at council receptions
What? Are you implying that someone might come by and drink someone else’s soda? And even if they did is that something we should be that concerned about?
That’s not at all what I’m suggesting. My point was that it’s actually a lot easier to avoid cigarettes and alcohol for addicts than it is sugar.
Tell that to an addicted smoker or alcoholic.
The way addicted smokers/ alcoholics deal with addiction is through abstinence. The problem for a diabetic is they cannot abstain from food.
Not any more, you mean… 🙂
They can abstain from the wrong kinds of food.
As someone who quit smoking almost twenty years ago, diabetes is harder by far. Unless you’ve experienced it, you don’t really appreciate it.
Well, given the fall in the price of oil, which is generally being cited as the cause of much of the fall in the markets, think I’m going to move more of my investments to that sector… “buy low, sell high”, right? Long-term investors, if they have fluidity, actually LOVE crashes… good chance to ‘double-down’, with big payoffs in the future…
My experience with folk indicate that for some (not all, by far), sugar “fixes”, nicotine “fixes”, alcohol/drug “fixes” become “addictions” leading to ‘drug-seeking’ behaviors.
But the analogy fails when the Surgeon General of the US has not, and the Centers for Disease (diabetes) Control have not identified “soda” as a public health threat… perhaps, in time, they will…
Well, at least this proposal generates revenue. Maybe they should have taxed plastic bags and auctioned off the MRAP.
Reasonable point and reasonable ideas.
But a better idea would have been to retain at least 200 acres of Mace 391 so that the city could develop it into a world-class innovation park and reap all the financial benefits as the land-owner.
Back from a mini vacation with friends that are overweight. Stopped at a Subway on the drive back and they ordered a bottle of water instead of soda but then asked for extra cheese and double mayo on their sandwich. I held my tongue… which was difficult for me because I am a healthy food snob.
My point is that soda is not the root of the problem. The root of the problem is terrible eating habits and crappy food education. Really, what would have been the material difference for my overweight friends to skip the cheese and just have some mustard on their sandwich. Or maybe some avocado, olive oil and vinegar? They did good bypassing the soda, but then stuffed their arteries with bad mayo and cheese fat.
LOL, kind of like having non fat milk with three donuts.
Frankly: The root of the problem is terrible eating habits and crappy food education.
Plus unusually effective marketing and product advocacy techniques.
Plus government subsidies to farmers and businesses.
Frankly
“My point is that soda is not the root of the problem. The root of the problem is terrible eating habits and crappy food education”
This is partially correct. It is only one root of the problem, but a major one since what we drink is an integral part of what we consume. It is more harmful to the body for a number of reasons that you either do not understand or simply will not acknowledge. I have no idea which.
The literature I have read finds that sugar sweetened beverages represents a large percentage of the increase in consumption. So while Frankly is correct that horrible eating habits are at the core, SSB’s are at the core of horrible eating habits.
Frankly: Do some public service education and move on to something actually valuable for spending your time.
That’s what’s happening with this blog article and comment discussion. Folks who are engaged in reading about this (including you) are probably a little less likely to reach for a soda. Whether the policies under discussion go anywhere or not, are effective or not, the fact that the issue is being discussed in this way probably means fewer soda sales among readers.
Not enough people read the VG IMO, and they are not typical the demographic that needs more education on the health risks of over consumption of unhealthy foods, but I get your point.
Soda sales have been declining for the last 11 years. The trend looks to continue. Soda manufacturers are responding with smaller serving sizes and more choices that have less sugar. So education has been happening. We just need to increase it and expand it to include healthy choices in general, and not just focus on one minor player boogieman.
By the way, one of my vendors just left the office a box of gourmet cupcakes. I just had half a cupcake and it hit the spot after my lunch of 2 fish tacos from El Toro Bravo. I will have a handful of almonds sometime before the end of the day. I had gluten-free toast and banana and coffee for breakfast. We will have a salad with grilled chicken for diner and some wine… maybe 2 glasses. And then maybe some sorbet after walking the dog.
Sometimes instead of wine we will have some cocktail. Sometimes we will have one with ginger-ale or cola as the mixer. Although a gin martini or a good whiskey with water has become our favorite standards. Rarely will we just drink a soda, but sometimes it is the thing… like if dinner is a grilled hamburger, then a Coke or Pepsi can pair very nicely.
I am 6’3″ and 200 lbs. Exercise at least 45 minutes 3 times a week except when I am traveling which thankfully is not as much as some. I am fit but not super-fit.
But here is the thing… I am also not a health nut. Especially when I am on vacation where food and drink are the main attractions, I will robustly partake. I will eat rich foods. I drink a lot (I can handle a lot). I will have a soda now and then. I will eat an entire cupcake… and maybe even two from time to time. I can over-eat and over-drink… although as I get older I do that less and less because of how crappy it makes me feel afterwards.
My point here is that I have a really hard time supporting the need for nanny government to step in to help people make healthy choices. Because I am not extreme by any measure in my commitment to healthy choices, I don’t understand why it is so difficult for others to just moderate and say no to things. I don’t get this lack of control thing… other than a perspective that nanny-ism perpetuates it… basically training people that unless someone takes it away from them then are safe to consume it.
Once someone knows the correct choice, as the Nike advertisement campaign says “Just Do It”!
But here is one thing I did learn that might help some people. I had digestive problems for years that culminated in a diagnoses of mild Celiacs disease. I say mild because I have some auto-immune response symptoms after consuming gluten and the rest are in the “intolerance” category. On of the symptoms was a craving for sweets. It was the result of my gut bacteria being all messed up from my body attacking it while digesting gluten. Once I stopped eating gluten I stopped craving sweets.
I also found that animal milk messes me up. So now I am a big fan of coconut milk products as the alternative. What I notices after stopping the animal milk consumption is that I sleep better and have more energy during the day. And this has helped me stay more consistent with my exercise habits.
My main point here is that I have learned that what we eat makes a big difference in how we feel, and how we feel makes a big difference in our healthy habits. The soda war is silly if our aim is to see people get healthier. The “war” if we should call it that, is to increase the food and nutrition sophistication of people while also advocating mild to moderate, but routine, exercise.
I would also suggest that adults try a gluten-free and/or milk-free diet for a month to see if they feel better. And just stop drinking so much soda… it is really junk food that should be considered a periodic treat and not some staple of the diet.
Frankly: Not enough people read the VG IMO, and they are not typical the demographic that needs more education on the health risks of over consumption of unhealthy foods, but I get your point.
The Vanguard is just one small corner of the conversation. It’s going on elsewhere locally, as well. There are other news venues that covered this issue (Fox 40, Davis Enterprise, Sacramento Bee, for example, I could list more), and as the topic cascades away from the city council discussion, it means that community members are having more conversations with each other on the topic, in person and in social media. It means that locally (Davis, Sacramento area) the soda industry doesn’t control their branding and image as much as they would like.
Frankly
“I don’t understand why it is so difficult for others to just moderate and say no to things.”
Very well spoken. You do not understand. You do not understand why others do not see things the same way you do and make the same choices that you make. But that does not mean that they have the same understanding of the world that you have or are even able to comprehend the world and information presented to them in the same way you do. And you certainly do not understand the complex nature of addictive behaviors.
It would seem it is much easier to just tell everyone to live as I live than it is to address the simple fact that each of us is unique. There is not a single best solution that is understandable, accessible and able to be implemented by everyone no matter how simple and straight forward this may appear to you.
I remember a quote I read in the Enterprise from I think Debra Lo Guercio, to paraphrase:
Our Winter’s mayor got us the P.G.E. training facility, your mayor got you default milk in kid’s meals.
BP
“Our Winter’s mayor got us the P.G.E. training facility, your mayor got you default milk in kid’s meals”
Both seem to me to be desirable outcomes, one in the financial realm, the other in the health and wellness realm. Do we not agree that each realm is important ?
One is a great financial gain for Winters, the other does nothing as is strictly symbolic.
BP
“the other does nothing as is strictly symbolic.”
You perhaps are not old enough to remember when this same statement was made by the tobacco companies, their distributers and restaurants. They were wrong.
There is nothing preventing Davis from doing projects that have financial gain while still addressing health care issues.
I think your statement says more about our mayor than the issue of kid’s meals.
Am starting to come around to the idea of a soda tax… as long as all peanut products are taxed as well, to help those who suffer medical issues from peanut allergies, education, and research… Davis could light the spark, and set this example for the County, the State, the Nation, and the world… after all, peanuts are TOXIC to many, which fits with the concept that sugar (particularly sugary sodas) causes deleterious health effects for some, but not the many.
We even have, in the schools, particularly pre-school (in Davis) with serious prohibitions against treats containing peanuts, products that are processed by equipment that is also used to process peanuts… washing of hands by kids who had a PB&J sandwich for lunch, etc.
Wouldn’t want to have a soda initiative that would leave folk with peanuts envy, would we?
hpierce
I honestly do not mind removal of peanut products to protect a specific individual. I was once on a flight where passengers willingly gave up all of their peanut containing products for the benefit of a little boy aboard with severe allergy. But there are a couple of points that you post does not mention .
1. In the developed world and estimated 4-8 % of the population have at least one food allergy. Compare that to the approximately 1/3 – 1/4 th of the population who have dietary related metabolic disorders and you are talking about completely different magnitudes of risk.
2. Sugary beverages are easily identified. Peanut containing products, not so much so. Kind of like it was much more effective in WWII to identify and round up Japanese Americans than those of German descent. Think of it as starting with the low hanging fruit.
OK, that WW II reference was written partially tongue in cheek following your lead on this and many posts.
hpierce
“And I say that as one who really doesn’t care if sodas are taxed at $5/oz… you logic in demanding/requesting data/substantiation in one direction only, I don’t “get”…”
Maybe you don’t get it because that is not what I am doing. I have never demanded or requested unidirectional substantiation. I don’t pretend to have knowledge that I do not have. I have put forth what factual information I have regarding the differences of sugary beverages impact on the body, the rates of overweight and obesity in pregnant women in our own community, my knowledge of what the risks are to both mother and fetus in the case of dietary related metabolic and vascular disorders ( gestational HTN and pre eclampsia). I have further asserted as a model how raising taxes was part of a multifactorial effort over many years that lowered the incidence of cigarette smoking. That is the best I can do as a doc with a day job.
Mr. West has repeatedly asserted as though he knows as fact that this measure would be ineffective. I have put my supporting evidence out there. I would merely like him to do the same. And it was his claim on previous posts that those who are making positive assertions have an obligation to support them. That was my reference. Not a demand . Certainly a request.
What is ineffective is the logic that exempts certain “local businesses” from paying the “tax”. Once you consider everyone is affected by it OR NOT, you are deciding whether you are persuading behavior, or letting some people profit at others’ expense.
you cannot argue for health benefits when the people proposing the Ordinance exempts anyone from it.
The links between what you have observed, and anecdotal accounts, are just that… anecdotal… there may be causality, there may not be… how many healthy women, who had healthy pregnancies, did you even inquire about sugary soda consumption?
Yes, I believe that women, prone to diabetes/obesity, who consumed too much sugar, became obese/diabetic as a result, had all of the bad situations you have witnessed… yet I know of many women without those ‘risk factors’ had pre-eclampsia, for example. Yes, anecdotal.
Perhaps we should pass a soda tax, and “earmark” all of the money to: first, making sure that the collection, distribution, and auditing of the funds generated (including retro-actively for staff costs incurred to date, an all costs to put it on the ballot) make it a ‘zero-sum’ situation for the City; second, diverting all remaining proceeds to actually research the causality by Surgeon General, CDC, or those working on their behalf. That might be an effective way to actually solve the problem.
Miwok,
On this, I happen to agree with you. I would like to see equal application of a tax. I think that mitigation is warranted to help small businesses survive. I would support some means of helping them to stock other kinds of more healthful drinks so as to both supplement their income while gradually introducing new beverages to their customers. I do not believe that this is at all discriminatory. Large merchants, Safeway and the like are in no need of our assistance. Mom and Pop’s may well need our help.
Miwok
“I prefer a bottle I open. It is not about the sugar, it is about cleanliness, can the ordinance address that?”
This ordinance would not address that. But you could very easily. Just speak to the manager of your favorite restaurants about stocking your favorite drinks. If you are a regular, you will have a very good chance of having your favorites acquired.
Nope, I have seen the shows on TV where they spit in your food if you mention anything… I just leave. Never return. Some people have cast iron stomachs, and need them. 🙂
Don’t really have any control over what they stock to drink.. Even bartenders. Thanks for the suggestion, though
Miwok
“Nope, I have seen the shows on TV where they spit in your food if you mention anything… I just leave. Never return”
Well, you have got me there. There is no ordinance in the world that will help with that level of paranoia.