Search results: soda tax

Sometimes the actions of food companies defy credulity.

Get this: The Community Coalition Against Beverage Taxes, a “grassroots” group funded by the American Beverage Association, has taken the city of Richmond, California to court to block it from requiring disclosure of funding sources in election campaigns.

In case you haven’t been following this situation, the Richmond city council got a soda tax initiative (“Measure N”) placed on the November ballot.

Richmond is a low-income, mixed-race city (80% non-white), with an 11% unemployment rate, and an average household income of $23,000 a year.  It population is largely obese and drinks a lot of sodas.

You would hardly think a city like this would get on the radar of Big Soda, but you would be oh so wrong.

For details, we have to thank Robert Rogers who writes for the local Contra Costa Times.

Mr. Rogers has been following the money.

Because California requires lobbyists to register, he has been able to get hard numbers on the relative spending of anti-tax forces and those who favor the tax.  The difference is impressive.

The city of Richmond must have suspected that something like this would happen because the city council passed an ordinance that requires special interest groups to disclose who funds them in campaign literature.  They must list their top five funders.

You might think this idea entirely appropriate to a democratic society, but the American Beverage Association (translation: Coca-Cola and PepsiCo) does not.

According to Rogers’ account on September 4, Big Soda has sued the city in federal court to stop it from insisting that campaigns disclose who funds them.

On what grounds, pray tell?

The First Amendment, of course.

The suit, filed in federal court in San Francisco on Aug. 30, seeks an order barring the city from imposing its campaign ordinance on the Community Coalition Against Beverage Taxes, a declaration that the groups’ First Amendment rights were violated and money to cover court costs.

The coalition is funded mostly by the American Beverage Association and has spent more than $350,000 locally in an effort to defeat a November ballot measure that could impose a penny-per-ounce tax on sales of all sugar-sweetened beverages in the city.

…Coalition spokesman Chuck Finnie said Tuesday that the law itself is unconstitutional and should not be applied to the anti-soda tax groups.

“The law in question is being enforced to prevent opponents of an unfair, misleading and misguided tax from being able to communicate effectively with Richmond voters,” Finnie said. “The sponsors of the Measure N tax don’t want voters to hear how the tax is going to raise grocery bills, hurt local businesses on which livelihoods depend, and the fact that city politicians would be free to spend all of the money raised by Measure N in any way they see fit and that not one penny must be used to fund anti-obesity efforts.”

In other words, revealing funding sources prevents “effective communication.”

The court will hear this suit on Friday.  Stay tuned.

In the meantime, here are the relevant documents, thanks to Robert Rogers.

• Document: Richmond’s campaign disclosure ordinance
• Document: Soda-tax opponent’s application for temporary restraining order
• Document: Soda-tax opponent’s lawsuit against Richmond campaign disclosure law

The press release: USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins Approves First Ever State Waiver to Restrict Soda and Energy Drinks from Food Stamps in Nebraska

U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke L. Rollins today signed the first-ever waiver to amend the statutory definition of food for purchase for Nebraska’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Effective January 1, 2026, taxpayers will no longer be subsidizing the purchase of soda or energy drinks in the State of Nebraska.

Nebraska governor Jim Pillen put it this way:

There’s absolutely zero reason for taxpayers to be subsidizing purchases of soda and energy drinks. SNAP is about helping families in need get healthy food into their diets, but there’s nothing nutritious about the junk we’re removing with today’s waiver. I’m grateful to have worked with Secretary Rollins and the Trump Administration to get this effort across the finish line. It is a tremendous step toward improving the health and well-being of our state. We have to act because we can’t keep letting Nebraskans starve in the midst of plenty.

USDA Secretary Rollins then announced approval of SNAP soda waivers in Indiana and Iowa.

On Secretary Rollins’ first full day in office, she sent a letter to the nation’s governors (PDF, 88.8 KB), outlining her vision for the Department and inviting them to participate in a new “Laboratories of Innovation” initiative to create bold solutions to long-ignored challenges.

More are sure to follow.

Full disclosure: I was a member of the advisory committee for SNAP to Health, a project of the Center for the Study of the Presidency and Congress, chaired by Dr. Susan Blumenthal.  We released our report at a congressional briefing in 2012 (here’s what I said about it at the time.  Alas, most of the links no longer work, but here’s the report).

One of our recommendations:

Provide States with Flexibility to Evaluate Fresh Approaches to SNAP The USDA should grant states greater flexibility for waivers to pilot test and evaluate program changes in SNAP that would improve nutrition (e.g. pilot projects to assess the feasibility of incentivizing the purchase of healthy foods and/or limiting the purchase of high-calorie, nutrient-poor products with
SNAP benefits).

Our commission favored pilot projects to remove sodas from SNAP, but not at the expense of overall benefits.  We cited evidence that SNAP recipients would not necessarily object to having sodas removed; they could still buy sodas using their own money.

Historical note: the original plan for food stamps, the forerunner of SNAP, was to have sodas on the list of foods that could not be purchased with benefits.  The soda industry and retailers succeeded in lobbying to keep sodas in the program.

Guess who is objecting to the waivers: soda trade associations and retailers.  They say the new exclusions are “misguided” and could “create chaos and confusion.”

Food assistance advocates have long argued that restrictions are condescending and are in any case a cover for cutting SNAP benefits.

They are not wrong about that.  The Trump administration has cut SNAP benefits by 20% or so.

Will budget cuts make SNAP recipients healthy again?  I doubt it.

As for the waivers: I hope researchers in these states are lining up.

I want to know what effect these restrictions will have on overall SNAP food and drink purchases, drink purchases using their own funds, and overall health.  And I particularly want to know how SNAP recipients feel about the changes.

Resource

USDA’s tracking page on SNAP waivers

I was riveted by this report in the Wall Street Journal: USDA Is Fast-Tracking Requests to Yank Soda From Food-Stamps Program.

The Agriculture Department is fast-tracking state requests to yank soda and candy from food-stamp programs. Arkansas and Indiana are among the first in line.

Both states Tuesday said they were seeking clearance from the USDA to implement the changes, and Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins said her agency would move “very, very quickly” to approve them.

“That’s exactly the vision of making America healthy again,” Rollins said in an interview. “I am 100% certain that these changes will be nothing but positive for those underserved communities that are food challenged.”

I’m also riveted by the American Beverage Association statement that provoked her remarks

It’s disappointing that Governor Sanders and Secretary Rollins are choosing to be the food police rather than take truly meaningful steps to lift people off SNAP with good-paying jobs. Nearly 80 percent of families on SNAP work, they just don’t make enough to make ends meet. Low-income working families were promised a new, better era and not to be left behind again. Instead, they’re being denigrated and treated like second-class citizens.

WHAT?  The American Beverage Association is also sounding like me when it comes to root causes of poverty in America?  I never thought I would hear anything like this from that organization.

OK, so what’s going on here.

Let’s start from the beginning.  When Congress was considering authorizing food stamps in 1964, a few foods were excluded from benefits, soft drinks among them.  But lobbying from soft drink companies and retailers (who make money from soda purchases on food stamps) quashed that idea.

About ten years ago, a presidential commission on SNAP (the successor to food stamps), on which I served, recommended pilot projects to test the effectiveness and recipient responses of adding sugary beverages to the small list of foods that cannot be purchased using Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) cards.  Several states and cities petitioned the USDA for “waivers” that would allow them to run pilot projects.  In all cases, the USDA rejected the proposals.

The Trump Administration USDA is reconsidering.

This is not a simple issue.

PRO: 

Public health: Sodas contain sugars but nothing else of nutritional value (empty calories), and are well documented to derange metabolism, increase calorie intake, and to be associated with obesity and chronic disease.

Political: SNAP recipients spend too much money on sodas; taxpayers should not support unhealthful food choices.  SNAP recipients could continue to buy sodas with their own money, just not EBT cards.

CON

Anti-hunger: Removing sodas from SNAP constitutes government interference with personal choice, is condescending, and is unfair to people who have few ways to treat themselves.

Political: Taking sodas out of SNAP is a cover for the Republican agenda to cut SNAP benefits.

Comment

It looks like the USDA will approve state requests.  I have been in favor of pilot projects for a long time, on public health grounds.  But—I want to see careful research studies not only looking at changes is purchases among SNAP recipients, but also at how they perceive the new requirements.

More on this

• USDA’s Snap Rule Waiver home page
• Arkansas governor’s press release
• Idaho governor’s press release
• Indiana governor’s press release
• Indiana to restrict food stamps, put work requirements on Medicaid

Thanks to Jim Krieger of Healthy Food America, for sending this one.

According to the Daily Beast: MAGA Influencers Caught Red-Handed Shilling for Big Soda

A string of MAGA influencers appear to have been caught taking money from Big Soda to undermine the government’s attempts to ban people from buying soda with food stamps.  Last week, a host of influential online pro-Trump personalities…raised eyebrows on X when they all appeared to abruptly change their views on Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s push to pass legislation which would ban food-stamp recipients from spending their money on soft drinks and junk food….conservative journalist Nick Sortor posted an expose of the offending posts side-by-side on X, alongside claims they had been paid to adopt a pro-soda stance by a social media PR company named Influenceable….“Not a SINGLE ONE of them disclosed they were paid for these posts, which led readers to believe a general SODA BAN was in the works.”

According to The Daily Wire: Soda Lobby Group American Beverage Denies Paying Influencers To Fight SNAP Restrictions

In a statement sent to The Daily Wire on Tuesday, ABA President and CEO Kevin Keane further echoed the denial, saying it had conducted a “thorough vetting” and is “confident” that it was not involved in the effort.

Whew.  What is this about?

The issue of adding sugar-sweetened beverages to the short list of food items that cannot be bought with SNAP benefits (Alcohol, Cigarettes, prepared foods, medicines, supplements) is a difficult one, splitting some public health advocates from some anti-hunger advocates and forging unexpected political alliances.

RFK Jr’s MAHA movement wants sodas out of SNAP.  The MAHA arguments:

• Sodas contain sugars (lots) but no other nutrients.
• Drinking a lot of them correlates with poor health.
• SNAP recipients buy a lot of soda.
• SNAP benefit are not taxed, making the cost of sodas cheaper for them in some states.
• SNAP recipients could still buy sodas with their own (non-SNAP) money.
• The WIC program specifies which foods (all of them healthy) recipients can buy with their benefits; it works fine.

Arguments against:

• Poor people should be able to eat just as unhealthfully as everyone else.
• Blocking them from buying sodas is condescending.
• Doing this removes choice and is unfair.
• A ban will hurt the profits of the soda industry and retailers who sell sodas.

For years, public health advocates and some states have called for pilot projects (“waivers”) to see how removing sodas might work.  The USDA has always rejected such petitions.

I favor pilot projects, in part because of what I learned as a member of the SNAP to Health Commission, and also because of the letters I received after publication of Soda Politics.  SNAP recipients wrote me that they viewed their benefits as a license to buy junk food and would welcome restrictions.  They would not buy as much soda if they had to pay for it with non-SNAP funds.

The new USDA Secretary says she will agree to waivers.  Good.  Let’s try this and see how it works.

Santa Cruz, a college town on the California coast south of San Francisco, has a ballot initiative to tax sugar-sweetened beverages (Berkeley has one too but its vote is expected to be so favorable that the soda industry isn’t even bothering to fight it).

But the soda industry is sinking a fortune—more than $1.6 million so far—into fighting the Santa Cruz proposal.

The reason is obvious, as Politico explains.

In 2018, industry lobbyists succeeded in pressuring the Legislature to pass a bill banning local governments from enacting new soda taxes for six years.

With next month’s vote, Santa Cruz officials hope theirs will be the first city to attempt to defy that ban by winning voter approval for Measure Z. The two-cent-per-bottle tax is specifically crafted to provoke a lawsuit over the constitutionality of the 2018 state law…Those soda giants are now descending on the Santa Cruz boardwalk with a familiar playbook, relying on seemingly bottomless corporate resources to flood the city with an anti-tax message updated for a new moment in which soda has lost its stranglehold on the American palate.

Do soda taxes discourage purchases?  So it seems.  The money also can be used for good purposes, as it has been in Berkeley.  A win-win for public health!

If you are a Santa Cruz voter, here’s your chance to vote for something that might actually do some good—and an excellent reason to go to the polls and do your overall civic duty, while you are at it.

Here’s a report from the World Health Organization on the effects of taxing sugar-sweetened beverages.

The study:

Consumption of SSBs is associated with increased risk of overweight and obesity (5), cardiovascular events (6), hypertension (7) and diabetes (8). There is now substantial evidence that SSB taxes can both discourage consumption and encourage reformulation (9,10). SSB taxes have also been found to have positive impacts on population weight and to potentially have greater health benefits among lower socioeconomic populations (11,12)….This study takes a policy analysis lens to studying SSB tax adoption and implementation in the WHO European Region. The focus was on the politicoeconomic and stakeholder dynamics in cross-sectoral policy-making, as well as considering adaptation in policy design.

https://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/disease-prevention/nutrition/publications/2022/sugar-sweetened-beverage-taxes-in-the-who-european-region-success-through-lessons-learned-and-challenges-faced-2022

https://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/disease-prevention/nutrition/publications/2022/sugar-sweetened-beverage-taxes-in-the-who-european-region-success-through-lessons-learned-and-challenges-faced-2022

• Be adapted to a country’s legislative, fiscal, economic and health context.
• Be designed and implemented through collaboration between finance and health policy-makers.
• Take revenues into consideration.
• Expect opposition from industry.

On this last point, the report says:

SSB taxes were strongly opposed by actors in the food and beverage industry in all the study countries, before and after  implementation. Industry made strong public statements regarding the negative economic impact that the tax would have on industry, particularly in relation to employment. In Finland, France, Hungary, Ireland and Portugal, they also argued that the tax would be regressive and, therefore, have a negative impact on consumers. In Belgium, Finland, France and Hungary (notably, these were earlier taxes), industry actors raised concerns that the tax singled out beverages and/or the beverage industry for differential taxation. Industry actors also presented a range of arguments regarding the taxes being ineffective and poorly designed.

Soda tax advocates need strategies to counter this opposition.  Plenty are available.  See the toolkit at Healthy Food America, for example.

I’ve just received a copy of Larry Tramutola’s The People VS Big Soda: Strategies for Winning Soda Tax Elections.

Larry was involved in the successful Berkeley soda tax initiative, and this is his account of how they won an election wtih an astonishing plurality of 76%.  I consider this initiative to be a model of how to do food advocacy, and it’s great to have this practical guide to the details of starting a campaign like this or, for that matter, any other food campaign.

He covers such matters as:

• Coalition building
• Dealing with industry arguments
• Framing the issue
• Recruiting volunteers
• Winning despite limited financial resources
• Building power, step by step
• Staying with it no matter what happens

These are important lessons for anyone involved in food advocacy.

I can’t find anything about this booklet online, which means that if you want one, you must contact him at:

I’m out of the country for a few weeks (México) and missed the House hearing on whether SNAP-eligible food items should continue to include sugary beverages.

From what I gather, most witnesses opposed any change in the program, with one from the American Enterprise Institute the lone holdout.

As I discussed in the chapter on SNAP in Soda Politics, I continue to think that taking sugar-sweetened beverages out of the package is a no brainer.

• They are sugars and water and have no nutritional value.
• Tons of research links their consumption to a higher risk for obesity and its consequences.
• SNAP recipients spend a lot of taxpayer money on them.
• SNAP recipients may well have worse diets and higher proportions of chronic disease than equally poor people who do not get SNAP benefits.
• Surveys say that SNAP recipients would not mind this change.
• SNAP recipients can always buy sodas with their own cash.

I recognize that not everyone sees things this way.  I suspect that people opposed to this idea are worried that any change to SNAP will leave it vulnerable to cuts, and they could well be right.

Here are their arguments:

• The Hill: Restricting what recipients of SNAP benefits eat won’t fix nutritional issues
• FoodDive: Grocery and food industry to Congress: No SNAP soda ban
• Washington Post: How liberals undermine the food stamp program
• Politico: Few fans for restricting SNAP purchases

Politico provides some sound bites on the topic:

• “Food surveillance violates the basic principles of this great country.” — Rep. David Scott (D-Ga.)
• “What can we do to incentivize rather than punish?” — Rep. Rodney Davis (R-Ill.)
• “If you want to do a pilot program, I’m happy to co-sponsor one at the White House. I’m worried about our president’s eating habits.” — Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Ma.)

The state of Maine, however, has just renewed its request to USDA to remove sugar-sweetened beverages and candy from SNAP-eligible items.

Maine believes the purchase of sugar sweetened beverages and candy is detrimental to the health of the SNAP population, and is antithetical to the purpose of the SNAP program.

SNAP is supposed to be a nutrition program, no?  Nutrition is about a lot more than calories (and this from someone who wrote a book about calories).