Proposed Soda Tax Fizzes Out in Committee

A proposal to tax soda across the state went flat on Monday, shortly after it bubbled up. 

The bill, AB 669, would have levied a penny-per-fluid-ounce tax on beverages with added sweeteners, such as soda, sports drinks and ready-to-drink teas. Its proponents said the bill would have helped combat childhood obesity while raising millions of dollars for local schools. 

But the legislation, authored by Assemblymember Bill Monning, D-Carmel, was shelved in Sacramento on Monday by the Assembly's Committee on Revenue and Taxation. It is not likely to advance to the Assembly floor unless it can win two-thirds majority support — no small feat given universal Republican opposition.

A major backer of the legislation, the California Center for Public Health Advocacy (CCPHA), downplayed the defeat on Monday, simply tweeting: "AB 669 put on suspense until next month - no vote today."

Assemblymember Monning said Monday in a statement that he remains "committed to continuing to pursue this issue and educating the public about the dangers of sugary drinks—the biggest contributor to current obesity trends."

Even before yesterday, San Leandro City Councilmember Michael Gregory, a proponent of the so-called soda tax, said he knew passing such legislation wouldn't be easy.

"We know it's going to be a long process, if it happens at all," Gregory said.

He spoke about the merits of such a tax to a group of students involved with the nonprofit group Girls Inc. on April 12.

The idea of a soda tax emerged at the federal level in 2009 as a way to fight a worsening epidemic of childhood obesity while generating funds to pay for healthcare reform. Some states already have some type of tax on sugary beverages and others are considering a tax similar to the one proposed in California. 

In a study, the California Center for Public Health Advocacy (CCPHA) found the tax could mean an extra $51.6 million annually for Alameda County schools.

Councilmember Gregory estimated that the tax could bring in about $4 million annually to San Leandro schools.

The tax would raise an estimated $1.7 billion statewide every year and send 85 percent of that to counties to pay for education and children’s health programs, the CCPHA study found. The additional 15 percent would go to state run anti-obesity programs.

Of the money returned to local school districts, 57 percent would go to the classroom, 20 percent to help pay for improvements to physical education and nutritious school meals, and and 23 percent to support local children’s activities such as youth sports and afterschool programs, according to the study.

Study co-author and CCPHA Executive Director Dr. Harold Goldstein said a soda tax would return about $233 per student in the county to programs aimed at protecting children's health. "That's a smart investment," he said in a press release.

According to data released by the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, 30.5 percent of California children aged 10-17 were obese in 2007. And ailments such as hypertension and Type 2 diabetes, once considered the result of unhealthy lifestyles in adults over 30, are now showing up in children under 10 years old. 

Experts warn that obese children born after the year 2000 could be the first generation not to outlive their parents.

"The numbers are alarming. I can't take all the kids who are victim to all of this," Councilmember Gregory said. "It's really sad."

Representatives for the soft drink industry argue they are being unfairly singled out and made to pay for a national problem with obesity. Opponents, including grocery stores, fast food restaurants and business groups, also say decisions about what and how much to drink are a matter of individual responsibility and parental authority, and the government shouldn't try to shape behavior.

The nonprofit Center for Consumer Freedom, a coalition of consumers, restaurants and food companies, says the impact of a soda tax on weight loss would be minimal. The group points to academic research published in the Archives of Internal Medicine in December, which calculated that a federal 40 percent tax on sugary drinks would only translate to an average weight loss per person of 1.3 pounds.

“Taxes shouldn’t be a tool for social engineering, or an instrument to penalize people for doing nothing wrong,” said J. Justin Wilson, senior research analyst at the center.