![]()
The city of Berkeley, California was plastered with advertising urging residents to vote for or against "Measure D." In the months leading up to November of last year, organizations opposed to the measure went so far as to purchase most, if not all, of the available advertising space at the city's two major BART metro stations. They paid canvassers and distributed fliers. All together, those opposed spent a reported $2.4 million to try to defeat the measure. The hot issue prompting the large political display wasn't to promote a candidate for public office or vote on a more controversial subject like gun control. Measure D was about soda — specifically, whether Berkeley would become the first city in the United States to pass a $0.01/ounce tax on the sugar-sweetened beverage. Soda taxes had been attempted before in Seattle, New York City, Philadelphia, and many others. And all of them failed. Those for and against the Berkeley soda tax knew that this could be the final test for the measure — if soda taxes couldn't pass in this uber-liberal university hub, they were unlikely to be implemented anywhere. But despite, or perhaps because of, the fierce lobbying and advertising by the American Beverage Association and other anti-Measure D advocates, the soda tax passed with 75 percent of the vote. So what has kept so many other cities from passing similar measures? Is Berkeley just a liberal unicorn, or were the techniques used by Yes on D organizers more effective than those used elsewhere? To fully explain the difficulty of passing these measures, it's important to understand the reasoning behind most soda taxes. This is not just a way for cities to make some extra income; soda taxes are, in essence, a "sin tax." Placed on bad-for-you products like alcohol or tobacco, the main goal is to raise prices enough to lower consumption. The reason health advocates and other groups are singling out soda is because of the rising levels of obesity in the United States (and many other countries). Currently more than one-third of all U.S. adults and one-sixth of all children are considered obese. Obesity has been associated with a number of serious — and largely preventable — illnesses like heart disease, diabetes, and even cancer, with estimated annual costs of treating obesity in this country ranging from $147 to $200 billion each year. As food policy expert Marion Nestle writes in her new book Soda Politics, "sugary drinks collectively account for fully half — yes, half — of all sugars consumed in the United States." Sodas in particular, she adds, represent one third. Sugar, as you may recall from the food pyramid and lessons from mom, is not all that good for you in large quantities. It provides calories and energy (or sugar crashes) without the nutrition to go along with it, prompting people to consume more than they would if dining on substantial foods alone. Coca-Cola, as Nestle notes in her book, has listed obesity as the primary risk to the company's bottom line in its SEC filings every year since 2003. As a direct assault on the soda industry, it's not a surprise that corporations and lobbying groups have worked hard to prevent these taxes. A sin tax on soda doesn't just mean potential loss of revenue, but loss of reputation as well. No product — especially one commonly consumed by children and teens — wants to be put in the same category as alcohol or tobacco. Even without taxation, Americans as a whole are already drinking less soda. Earlier this year, the Wall Street Journal reported, "U.S. per-capita consumption of carbonated soft drinks fell to its lowest level since 1986." By 2016, industry experts predict consumers will be purchasing more bottled water than soda. (Of course, bottled water is also a source of revenue for beverage companiesm though at much lower profit margins.) Soda taxes or caps on soda sizes (as Michael Bloomberg unpopularly tried to pass in New York City) would only further cut into the beverage industry's falling profits, and as a result, they lobby against these issues vigorously. In years when Congress or local governments are considering measures — like the federal soda tax briefly on the table in 2009 —lobbying spending by the American Beverage Association (ABA) rose from $700,000 in 2008 to $19 million. Collectively, Nestle notes, the ABA, Coca-Cola, and PepsiCo "spent at least $70 million to defeat soda tax initiatives from 2009 to 2012." Money doesn’t just influence elected officials, but local community groups, as well. This money doesn't just influence elected officials, but local community groups as well. The small price increases associated with soda taxes are often framed as an attack on the poor, who drink more soda and are more affected by the cost of goods. The soda industry has given large donations to the NAACP, the National Association of Hispanic Nurses, and other minority organizations who have later spoken out against soda taxes and similar initiatives. Leading up to San Francisco's soda tax vote, the Harvey Milk LGBT Democratic Club received a $45,000 donation from the ABA. They later publicly opposed the tax. While lobbying is often seen as a numbers game — big business gets its way because they spend more than the little guy — it's really about "shaping information," not giving gifts, says Lee Drutman, author of The Business of America Is Lobbying and senior fellow of the political reform program at New America. Frankly, "people making policy decisions are dealing with a ton of issues which are pretty complicated," Drutman explains. "They can only spend limited time on any issue and their staff tend to be stretched pretty thin." Lobbyists for the beverage industry are often former politicians who understand not only how to get meetings with the right person, but also how to make a convincing argument. If politicians (and even community leaders) don't have time to do their own research, trained lobbyists are there to do it for them. And, of course, the more people who an organization is able to reach, the better. "It's about building large coalitions and activist networks, funding a lot of research, and getting op-eds placed in various papers," Drutman says.
