VOTE NO ON PROP 1:

SUGAR SWEETENED
BEVERAGE TAX TO
CURB OBESITY
Financial Impacts
One of the proposed benefits of the soda tax is that the
money generated will go directly to health campaigns to help
combat obesity and other nutrition related diseases.
However, soda taxes are modeled after existing cigarette
taxes, where the money does not go directly to anti-smoking
programs but instead goes into the general funding pool (1).
In contrast, many sugar sweetened beverage companies
donate large sums of money directly to the nations top
health organizations. In 2012, Coca Cola donated $125,000 to
the American Diabetes Association to support health
education for the African-American and Latino communities
and also gave $25,000 to the Childrens Medical Center
Foundation in Dallas for obesity education and prevention.
With funding so scarce for many low income, minority, and
non-profit advocacy groups, sugar sweetened beverage
companies should not be demonized when they are an
important sources of funding for these organizations (2).

Soda Can be Part of a Balanced Diet

According to the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics,
consumption of caloric sweeteners is safe, when consumed
with a diet that follows current federal nutrition
recommendations (3).
Enjoying sweetness is a biological response, and consuming
sweeteners can enhance the pleasure of eating. Caloric
sweeteners used in SSBs are carbohydrates, meaning they
provide energy the body needs (3).
The 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans states that the
body cannot tell the difference between naturally occurring
sugars and added sugars because they are chemically
identical. This means that added sugars and naturally
occurring sugars are metabolized the same. The 2010 DGA
also states that there is limited evidence showing that the
intake of sugar sweetened beverages is linked to higher
energy intake in adults. With an energy balanced diet, added
sugars are no more likely to cause weight gain than any other
source of calories (4).

Summary Statement

Taxes on sugar sweetened beverages have

a minimal effect on consumption, and an
even smaller effect on obesity levels.
SSB taxes dont fund health programs, while
corporations provide much needed funds to
health services!
Sugar sweetened beverages in moderation
can be part of a healthy diet.

Soda Taxes Dont Affect Consumption

Soda taxes are not effective at changing the amount of
calories purchased. When a particular beverage is taxed,
people will reallocate their money to another beverage often sugary beverages like juice or sports drinks (5).
In Ohio, a soda tax of 1 cent per 12 fl oz of soda was enacted
in December 1992 and repealed in November 1994. The
average BMI in Ohio dropped significantly in 1993, but
rebounded to higher than 1992 levels (6).
Most models that show a dramatic weight loss from an SSB
tax use a static linear model for weight loss, which is
unrealistic. There would likely be a leveling off within 180
days, especially if SSB consumption is the only thing that
changes (5).
While cigarette smoking can directly influence lung cancer
risk, sugar sweetened beverages are not the only cause of
obesity - and consumers will replace taxed beverages with
other sources of calories (6).
Some people suggest that the taxes are too low, but even
larger soda taxes of up to 12% have been shown to be
ineffective in changing consumer behavior (6).
In studies that DO show a calorie reduction, its small and
insignificant. A 2012 study showed that a 1 percent per ounce
tax would only reduce caloric intake by 9 calories per day (7).
The research supporting any economic policy for health
related outcomes is limited, particularly when it comes to
food. Peoples responses to a tax on certain foods is more
complex than a tax on tobacco, precisely because there are a
plethora of other foods available. Traditional, linear economic
models cant be counted on to make accurate representations
of behavior (9).
Adam Drenowski, director of the Nutritional Sciences
Program at University of Washington called the soda tax
punitive and threatens to make less accessible one of the
few small pleasures many poor people can enjoy. (17)

Campaign sponsored by SODA LOVERS, INC. and Liz SUllivan, Kathleen Schofield, Chelsey Way

VOTE YES ON PROP 1:

SUGAR SWEETENED
BEVERAGE TAX TO
CURB OBESITY
Financial Impacts
SSBs are among the least expensive sources of energy.
Although the consumer price index for food rose 80% (156%
for fruit and vegetables) during the 1980s to early 2000s, the
index for soda rose only 26% (10). The low purchase price of
this liquid candy doesnt reflect the full costs to society. Its
estimated that the United States spends $174B per and at
least $147B (9.1% of US health care costs) on health issues.
A tax of 1% per ounce of beverage would increase the cost of
a 20 oz. soft drink by 15-20%. In 2012, the Yale Rudd Center
estimated a modest increase would have generated
approximately $13B in new tax revenue in 2010 and $79B
over the period 2010-15 (11) at a national level. Taxes at the
state level would also generate revenue in 2014, for
example, $197M in Washington, with $18.8M specifically
generated for Seattle, WA.

Environmental Concerns
Single use soda bottles lead to water waste, environmental
pollution and can endanger the lives of animals.
Water use: To produce one .5 liter bottle of soda, it requires
between 150 to 300 liters of freshwater. That is equivalent to
two to three bathtubs of water (13).
Aluminum and plastic production: Aluminum production is
extremely detrimental to the environment. Bauxite ore must
be strip mined, which releases toxins into the soil and water,
and then refined using fuel oil and chemicals. Lastly, it is
smelted into aluminum ingot, which requires a large amount
of electricity. Plastic bottle production also requires a large
amount of energy, which leads to pollution (14).
Waste: Aluminum cans take 200-500 years to break down and
plastic bottles take 1 million years to breakdown. (Cleveland
State) Plastic caps are often mistaken as food by marine
animals and pieces of broken bottles can be ingested by
livestock and wildlife (14).

Summary Statement

Liquid sugar accounts for almont half the

total added-sugar intake in the US
population.
Consumption of SSBs has been linked to
risks for obesity, diabetes and heart disease.
Taxation could reduce the intake of SSBs,
thus lowering healthcare costs and also
generating needed revenues for
governments to us for health programs.

Health Considerations
SSBs contribute more energy to the American diet than any
other single type of food or beverage (woodward-lopez). Its
estimated that consumption of SSBs accounted for 10-12% of
total daily energy intake of Americans between 1999-2004
(10). These beverages have been shown to provide no
nutritional benefit other than refined carbohydrate and water
(12). Its not surprising, then, that research shows that SSBs
are the only food or beverage to increase the risk of obesity
(12, which has been associated with increased risk of heart
disease, cancer and diabetes.
Economists argue a penny-per-ounce tax (20-25% price
increase) would reduce consumption 10-15%, effectively
reducing daily caloric intake 24% or 145-150 kcal/day. The
metabolic effects of reduced sugar intake include reduced
triglyceride level, reduced blood pressure, and lower glycemic
load thus lower incidence of diabetes and lower obesityrelated health care costs (11)

Social Justice
Corporations that sell SSBs target low income communities
and communities of color through marketing and
philanthropy. These companies simultaneously offer funding
to obesity reduction programs while targeting the same
communities with advertising. (15,16). An SSB tax may help
curb their influence.
PepsiCo, The CocaCola Company, and the American
Beverage association have provided millions of dollars to
anti-hunger organizations, including The Food Research and
Action Center (FRAC) and Feeding America (16)
A 2010 report from Coca-Cola stated that 43% of the US
philanthropic endeavors were targeted toward multicultural
and underserved organizations. The company has given the
NAACP $2.1 million since 1986. The Congressional Black
Caucus receives five or six figure donations from the Coca
Cola Company annually (16).

Campaign sponsored by STOPTHESUGAR.ORG and Liz SUllivan, Kathleen Schofield, Chelsey Way

Fact Sheet References

1.
2.

3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

8.

9.

10.

Cigarette Tax. Department of Revenue Washington State Web site. 2010. http://dor.wa.
gov/content/findtaxesandrates/othertaxes/tax_cigarette.aspx. Accessed October 18, 2015.
Selfish Giving: How the Soda Industry Uses Philanthropy to Sweeten Its Profits. Center For
Science in the Public Interest Web Site. 2013. http://cspinet.
org/new/pdf/cspi_soda_philanthropy_online.pdf. Accessed October 18 2015.
Fitch C, Keim KS. Position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics: Use of Nutritive and
Nonnutritive Sweeteners. J Acad Nutr Diet. 2012;112(5):739-758.
U.S Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Dietary
Guidelines for Americans, 2010. 7Th Ed. 2010; 95.
Lin B, Smith T, Lee J, Hall K. Measuring weight outcomes for obesity intervention strategies: The
Case of a sugar sweetened beverage tax. Econ Hum Biol. 2011; 9(4): 329-341.
Fletcher J, Frisvold D, Teft N. Non Linear Effects of Soda Taxes on Consumption and Weight
Outcomes. Health Econ. 2014.
Snowdon, C. The Ineffectiveness of Food and Drink Taxes. Cato Unbound Website. http://www.
cato-unbound.org/2015/01/12/christopher-snowdon/ineffectiveness-food-soft-drink-taxes.
January 12, 2015. Accessed October 14, 2015.
Raise Taxes or Shoot Hoops? Center for Consumer Freedom website. https://www.
consumerfreedom.com/2012/01/raise-taxes-or-shoot-hoops/. January 13, 2012. Accessed
October 14, 2015.
Shemilt I, Hollands G, Marteau TM, Nakamura R, Jebb SA, Kelly MP, Suhrcke M, Ogilvie D.
Economic Instruments for Population Diet and Physical Activity Behaviour Change: A Systematic
Scoping Review. Economic Instruments for Population Diet and Physical Activity Behaviour
Change: A Systematic Scoping Review. 2013; 8(9).
Woodward-Lopez, Gail, Janice Kao, and Lorrene Ritchie. To What Extent Have Sweetened
Beverages Contributed to the Obesity Epidemic? Public Health Nutr. 2010; 14(3): 499509.

11.

Brownell KD, Friedman RR. SUGAR-SWEETENED BEVERAGE TAXES: An Updated Policy Brief. Yale
Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity, 2012.

12.

Vartanian LR, Schwartz MB, Brownell KD. Effects of Soft Drink Consumption on Nutrition and
Health: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Am J Public Health. 2007; 97(4): 667-75.

13.

Ercin AE, Aldaya MM, Hoekstra AY. Corporate Water Footprint Accounting and Impact
Assessment: The Case of the Water Footprint of a Sugar-Containing Carbonated Beverage. Water
Resour Manag. 2011;25:721-741.

14.

All About Beverage Container Waste. Container Recycling Institute Web site. http://www.
container-recycling.org/index.php/all-about-beverage-container-waste/62-issues/zerowaste/272-environmental-consequences-of-beverage-container-waste#energy. Accessed
October 18, 2015.
Targeting Food and Beverage TV Ads at Minority and Low Income Children. Chicago, IL: Bridging
the Gap and African American Collaborative Obesity Research Network.
The Marketing of Unhealthy Food and Beverages in African American Communities. Princeton, NJ:
The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation; 2015.
Huget, JL. Is a Soda Tax Fair? Washington Post website. http://voices.washingtonpost.
com/checkup/2009/08/is_a_soda_tax_fair.html. August 11, 2009. Accessed October 14, 2015.

15.
16.
17.

Presentation and General References

Cabrera Escobar, Maria a et al. Evidence That a Tax on Sugar Sweetened Beverages Reduces
the Obesity Rate: A Meta-Analysis. BMC public health 13.1 (2013): 1072. Web. 29 Sept. 2015.
Chriqui, Jamie F et al. A Typology of Beverage Taxation: Multiple Approaches for Obesity
Prevention and Obesity Prevention-Related Revenue Generation. Journal of public health
policy 34.3 (2013): 40323. Web. 20 Oct. 2015.
Ludwig, David S, and D Ph. He a Lth P Ol Ic Y R Ep or T The Public Health and Economic
Benefits of Taxing Sugar-Sweetened Beverages. 9 (2006): 17. Print.
Pomeranz, Jennifer L. Advanced Policy Options to Regulate Sugar-Sweetened Beverages to
Support Public Health. Journal of Public Health Policy 33.1 (2011): 7588. Web. 20 Oct. 2015.
Snowdon C. The Proof is in the Pudding: Denmarks fat tax fiasco. London, UK: Institute of
Economic Affairs; 2013.
Sustainability Fun Stuff and Fast Facts. Cleveland State University Web site. 2013. https:
//www.csuohio.edu/sustainability/fun-stuff-and-fast-facts. Accessed October 18, 2015.