Philadelphia’s Mayor Jim Kenney is unperturbed and plans to sign the bill into law on Monday. But Kenney focused on public interest over public health in making the argument to tax sugary drinks. “The tax passed today is a regressive tax that unfairly singles out beverages, including low- and no-calorie choices”, it said a statement. It could also avoid more than $17 billion in total medical costs.
Advertisement
In a story June 16 about Philadelphia’s approval of a soda tax, The Associated Press reported erroneously that it would be the first major American city with a soda tax.
Here in MA, former Governor Deval Patrick tried unsuccessfully for years to get soda and candy taxed, in an effort to generate $52 million in revenue. Voters in Oakland, California and Boulder, Colorado will be deciding on a similar tax this fall. People resent the “nanny-state attitude”, he said.
That approach never worked in Philadelphia.
More cities could follow, using Philadelphia’s tax as leverage and momentum.
The strategy worked in Britain, where a new soft drinks levy was announced in March after officials emphasized the country’s obesity crisis, saying it cost the economy billions of pounds annually and was a huge burden on the state-funded health system.
The council hopes the tax will raise $91m in its first year and the money will be used to fund investment in community schools, parks and recreation centres among other projects. According to the law, exceptions include baby formula and products that are more than 50 percent milk, fresh fruit, or vegetable juice.
As proponents of taxing sugar-laden drinks chalk up a second large win, coming initiatives in a handful of other US cities could determine whether the practice becomes a trend or remains a rarity. And while nanny-staters concerned with consumption and obesity are cheering the new tax (its inclusion of diet beverages notwithstanding), Kenney was candid about it being pretty much about the money.
The soda industry is expected to sue.
“It’s going to raise the price of a 12 pack of soft drinks by $2”.
“The tax might affect teenagers and kids in terms of their consumption because they have less pocket change”, she said, “but the bigger impact is raising funds for programs that elevate, support and lift the lower-income communities’ capacity to better themselves economically, which will mean bettering their health”.
A poll earlier this month by David Binder Research funded by the American Beverage Association found only 38% of Philadelphia residents supported a 3-cent-per-ounce tax. These plan most of the time faced criticism because they were said to be affecting the poor people excessively as they are the most likely consumers of sugary drinks.
“We are on strong legal ground”, he said.
Advertisement
“Water’s a good substitute”.
