On Tuesday, San Francisco Supervisor Scott Wiener says he will propose a 2 cents-per-ounce tax on sugar-sweetened beverages. If the board passes his proposal, San Francisco voters will see it on the ballot next November.
This tax is double the amount proposed last year in elections in the California cities of Richmond and El Monte. Those were a penny-per-ounce each and both were defeated by voters.
In addition to the amount of the tax, there’s another major difference between Wiener’s proposal and the two that failed. In Wiener’s plan, revenues generated by the tax — an estimated $31 million per year — would be earmarked for children’s recreation and nutrition programs. In Richmond and El Monte, revenues would have gone to the general fund. Voters were skeptical that soda tax revenues would ever really fund children’s health programs, despite city council resolutions that they would.
Harold Goldstein, executive director of the California Center for Public Health Advocacy, said he thinks the plan has “a very good chance” before San Francisco voters, specifically because of the earmarked funds. Continue reading
Law was set to take effect Tuesday
A judge struck down New York City’s ban on sugary beverages larger than 16 ounces on Monday, less than 24 hours before the law was scheduled to go into effect. In a decision [PDF] from the state’s Supreme Court in New York County, Judge Milton Tingling found that the Board of Health’s rule was “arbitrary and capricious.”
New York City’s Board of Health had approved the rule [PDF] last September, a significant public health effort from Mayor Michael Bloomberg. In his ruling Tingling also said the rule violated the separation of powers, that this type of action should be determined by the city council, not the New York City’s Board of Health. “The Rule would not only violate the separation of powers doctrine, it would eviscerate it,” Tingling wrote. “Such an evisceration has the potential to be more troubling than sugar sweetened beverages.”
A lawsuit challenging the rule was brought by a coalition of groups including a statewide coalition of Hispanic chambers of commerce, New York’s Korean-American Grocers Association, several unions and the American Beverage Association. Continue reading
By Mina Kim
Richmond voters may have crushed an effort to pass a soda tax last fall, but that’s not stopping one lawmaker from trying to tax sodas statewide.
State Senator Bill Monning (D-Carmel) tried to pass a statewide soda tax two years ago that failed, but with Democrats expected to hang on to supermajorities in both houses, Monning thinks this time is different.
“The political train has changed in 2012, but it’s still not going to be automatic by any means,” Monning says. “Any tax is going to be an uphill fight.”
Monning’s bill would slap distributors of sugary drinks with an excise tax of a penny-per-ounce, the same amount that was proposed in Richmond and El Monte, in southern California. The bill would further create a Children’s Health Promotion Fund which would then split all revenue between the State Department of Public Health and Superintendent of Public Instruction.
A recent Field Poll showed support for a tax if the money went to children’s nutrition and physical education. Continue reading
(Rex Sorgatz: Flickr)
The people of Richmond will decide in November whether businesses should have to pay a fee for every ounce of sugar-sweetened drinks they sell. In other words, a soda tax is on the ballot November 6th. If voters approve the measure, Richmond would be the first city in California to impose such a fee.
“The city of Richmond has the opportunity to make history,” Harold Goldstein of the California Center for Public Health Advocacy told me today, adding that the campaign will be closely watched nationally. “Cities and states will be watching this across the country. … They too want to put a small tax on sugary drinks and use those funds to mitigate the harmful effects that all these sugary drinks are causing.”
Debate stretched more than four hours at last night’s City Council meeting to determine whether to put two related measures on the ballot. In addition to the penny-per-ounce business license fee, a second measure asks voters if they wish the money to be directed to obesity prevention programs. The measure is an advisory one. If voters approve the new fee, the money it generates goes into the general fund. Richmond’s finance director estimates the fee will generate from $4 million to $8 million for city coffers. Continue reading