Ballot measures in Southern California and the San Francisco Bay Area are intended to tackle a pervasive problem in this country: the ballooning number of Americans that are overweight or obese.
If adopted, the proposals in the cities of El Monte and Richmond would assess a license fee on businesses that sell sugar-sweetened beverages.
Critics claim the measures would result in higher beverage costs and fail to fight obesity.
Richmond's Measure N would impose a business license tax of one penny per ounce of sugar-sweetened drinks.
Those in favor of Measure N contend sugary drinks are the main culprit behind the overweight and obesity problem plaguing Richmond, an East Bay city with a population of more than 100,000. The proposal could reduce consumption of sugary drinks, encourage families to purchase healthier products and raise money to help fight obesity and diabetes, according to arguments in favor of the measure.
Chuck Finnie, a spokesman for the campaign against Measure N, said the tax would impact hundreds of products including juices, sweetened coffees and sports drinks.
"It will be a nightmare" if the measure is passed, Finnie said in a phone interview. "The result is local market stores and restaurants are going to be forced to raise prices."
The measures are set to face California voters several months after the American Medical Association (AMA) recommended that revenues from taxes on sweetened beverages be used to treat obesity and related conditions. "Taxes on beverages with added sweeteners are one means by which consumer education campaigns and other obesity-related programs could be financed in a stepwise approach to addressing the obesity epidemic," the AMA stated in a policy that was adopted in June.
The finance department in the City of Richmond estimates Measure N would raise an additional $3 million in business license tax revenues per year. However, city officials would have broad discretion concerning how to allocate those monies. Taxes would be placed into a "general fund and can be used for any lawful city purpose," according to an impartial analysis of the measure from City Attorney Bruce Goodmiller.
Measure H, if passed by voters in El Monte, a city known as "The End of the Santa Fe Trail", also wouldn't guarantee that tax monies are appropriated to fight obesity. City staff estimates the business license fee of one cent per fluid ounce of sugar-sweetened beverage would raise between $3.5 million and $7 million in general tax revenues.
But proceeds of the tax "may be used for any governmental/municipal purpose, including but not limited to park and street maintenance, recreational programs, the restoration of emergency reserves and public safety and emergency response services," Rick R. Olivarez, City Attorney, wrote in an impartial analysis of the measure.
The disparity in funding between proponents and critics of Measure N has been enormous. Since January, the Community Coalition against Beverage Taxes has spent $2.2 million, according to an Oct. 8 article from Richmond Confidential, an online news service produced by the Graduate School of Journalism at UC Berkeley. By contrast, the Fit for Life campaign in support of the measure has only spent $25,293, the report said, citing campaign contribution statements filed with the Richmond City Clerk.
The American Beverage Association has led funding against the measure and given more than $1.4 million this year to the Community Coalition against Beverage Taxes, Richmond Confidential wrote last week in a separate article.
The nationwide debate over sugary drinks has reached a crescendo in New York City where a ban on large beverages faces a lawsuit, although the litigation has more to do with separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches than the prohibition's merits or lack thereof.
