[ad_1]
MP Matthew Harper (R-Huntington Beach) sips a Coca-Cola as members of the California Assembly debate Thursday a ban on local taxes on soft drinks in Sacramento. (Rich Pedroncelli / AP)
The beverage industry won a decisive victory in its fight against soft drinks taxes this week as California lawmakers voted to ban local taxes on sweetened beverages [19659003] movement, the adoption of laws to reduce the consumption of soft drinks in four jurisdictions. But under the quick ban introduced on June 23 and signed five days later, no new tax on food and beverages can be passed in the state before 2031 at the earliest.
The law represents an important, if long anticipated, change among the sodamakers of the nation, who have already fought taxes, city by city, spending millions of dollars in the process. The soda companies say that state bans more effectively protect jobs and businesses that might be harmed by local tax laws.
But public health advocates say state preemptions undermine the will and health of voters. tobacco companies and fast-food chains to repel everything from cigarette taxes to menu labels.
Now supporters of the soda tax movement are looking for other options in California – and are gearing up for similar fights across the country. It is feared that California will disappear and that the nation will end up, "said Sabrina Adler, a lawyer at ChangeLab Solutions, which develops public health policies." This could be the beginning of a larger pre-emption in other states. "
Proponents say that the tactical shift of sodamakers was not unexpected, although the speed of the California ban has surprised many people. has long been regarded as the vanguard of the soda tax movement, which aims to reduce the consumption of sugary drinks while increasing the revenues of local governments.
Soda is a major source of calories and added sugars, which passed taxes – like Berkeley, California, which became the first in 2014 – saw consumption drop.According to the American Heart Association, eight cities now have taxes on them. soda s, including four in California, and several other cities in the state prepare ballots.
But California's current taxes will remain in effect this week's ban, others in the pipeline can no longer continue. The American Beverage Association, the soft drinks trade group, protects consumers and retailers.
Stores in other cities that have adopted soft drink taxes have seen sharp declines in sales, which is likely to create jobs. The group also argued that soft drink taxes disproportionately affect low-income consumers, who spend more of their income on food and beverages. William Dermody, vice president of ABA policy, in a statement. "At the same time, we are working with the public health community and government officials to help Californians reduce sugar consumption so that they do not create jobs or hurt small businesses that are so important to them. local communities. "
Such choices should be left to the local communities, argues Carter Headrick, the state director and local obesity policy at the American Heart Association, who fought against the local community. ;prohibition. Cities are best placed to judge whether a tax will improve health and increase incomes in their jurisdiction, he said, and the experience of most cities has been positive. Only two states, Michigan and Arizona, have already adopted this type of preventive prohibition and, in no state, no city is actively pursuing taxes.
Critics also contested the way the ban was introduced. After advocating for another much more radical tax measure, ABA and other business groups have agreed to ban the tax on soft drinks under the umbrella. a last-minute agreement with legislators and unions
. describes the ban as a way to kill this voting initiative, which would have made it much more difficult for cities and counties to pay taxes on everything, let alone soda. "
" We are disappointed with the vote, and we are disappointed with the signing of the governor of the bill, "said Headrick." But we are particularly disappointed that the ABA has resorted to a voting measure of blackmail and used it to force a pre-emption law across the legislature. "
However, some advocates see a glimmer of hope in this escalation.Continental California cities could now be more open to d & rsquo; Other anti-soda measures, such as warning labels and restrictions on children's meals, said Mr Adler.There is also hope that lawmakers, many of whom said in statements that they felt obliged to approve the ban, will now support a state-wide soda tax – which is not prohibited by this legislation. "said Margo Wootan, vice president of the utrition at the Center for Science in the Public Interest. Public health advocates are not strangers to preemptive laws like California's, says Wootan, or similar bans in Pennsylvania, Oregon, or Washington
The strategy is closely associated with the tobacco companies that are blocking taxes on cigarettes. smoke in public spaces. More recently, Wootan has opposed groups of restaurants that sought to prohibit the labeling of menus at the state level.
Today, she points out, these bans are irrelevant: early May, the Food and Drug Administration the number of calories after years of pressure from health groups.
"We are used to working on these issues for decades," said Wootan. "The industry hopes that this will become a major impediment to the movement of the soda tax.But it is a temporary victory for them."
Read more:
Soda ad blitzes visibly match with food voucher schedules, according to a study
Why UK Soft Drink Tax Could Work Better than Soft Drinks Taxes
Why Chicago's Soft Drink Tax Fizzled Out two months – and what it means for the anti-soda movement
[ad_2]
Source link
