beverage bak

this is sugary soda; see also alcohol

see michelle on industry spending, won/loss record

see also sugar

see also plastic on bottles

tool on health effects

https://grassrootschange.net/preemption-watch/

---

AN 4 25

While Republicans throughout the United States are intensifying efforts to regulate soda, lawmakers in Texas, Arkansas, West Virginia, Idaho, Nebraska, Michigan, Arizona, and South Carolina have reportedly declined to support a ban on the drink. However, they are aligned with businessman Michael Bloomberg's other initiatives: banning the purchase of soda with food stamps, formally known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

An article in the Atlantic by Nicholas Florko published on Tuesday noted that these states are taking cues from Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has expressed strong opposition to allowing low-income Americans on SNAP to use government funds to buy soda.

"The soda wars have long broken along partisan lines. New York City’s ban was struck down in court before it could go into effect, but even more modest attempts to regulate soda have been concentrated in deeply blue cities such as Berkeley and San Francisco. Liberals drink soda too, of course, though the drink’s biggest defenders are on the right. President Donald Trump loves Diet Coke so much that in both of his terms, he’s had a button installed in the Oval Office to summon a refill; on the campaign trail, now–Vice President J. D. Vance claimed that Democrats see Diet Mountain Dew, his drink of choice, as 'racist,'" the article reads.

ALSO READ: 'You own this': Top GOP senator who backed RFK Jr. now under attack after HHS mass firings

"The federal government’s own research has shown that Americans who receive food stamps have worse diets than nonparticipants with similar incomes, and soda is surely part of that problem. These proposed bans should be even more palatable because they wouldn’t be permanent; they are pilot programs to try out the idea."

IFrame Content

Overall, Democrats largely continue to stand against soda bans, the article notes. In both Idaho and Arizona, no Democratic legislators in the state Senates supported the proposed measures in their states. To effectively address soda consumption in the U.S., initiatives like these will need to be included in the solution, the author said.

He further pointed out that the Republican Party’s "about-face on soda" is more stark in West Virginia.

"In July, the state removed its soda tax. And now, less than a year later, it is pushing forward with a SNAP soda ban as part of an effort to decrease consumption of 'ultra-processed crap that barely qualifies as food,' Republican Governor Patrick Morrisey said late last month," the article notes.

ALSO READ:A deadly mosquito-borne illness is rising in the US as Trump cuts health funding

Many seasoned advocates against soda express skepticism about Republicans' motives. Marion Nestle, a professor emeritus at NYU and the author of Soda Politics: Taking on Big Soda (And Winning), has supported bans on soda within the SNAP program. She told the Atlantic that she views the current Republican initiatives as a disguise for their true aim, which is to reduce SNAP funding. Nestle added that while soda is detrimental to health, restricting food stamps also poses risks and that research indicates that the program greatly alleviates food insecurity and lowers healthcare expenses.

Supporters of the soda ban emphasize that the official name of the food-stamp program is the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, highlighting that a two-liter bottle of Pepsi does not contribute to nutritional assistance. However, public health and anti-hunger advocates contend that any food is better than having no food at all.

https://www.exposedbycmd.org/2018/03/28/bills-ban-local-soda-taxes-moving-states-coke-pepsi-borrow-tobacco-playbook

Watch out public health advocates – as soda tax campaigns are bubbling up in cities across the nation to combat obesity, diabetes and other serious health conditions – the beverage industry is working to choke off this expression of local democracy.

A state bill banning localities from taxing food and beverages came out of nowhere in Michigan and was signed into law by Governor Rick Snyder within weeks. Last week, Governor Doug Ducey in Arizona signed a similarly fast tracked bill. These are clear instances of corporate special interests convincing legislators to block local laws that would hurt their profitability.

In Washington State, the soda industry is going a step further. After watching Seattle’s soda tax take effect last month, industry started a state wide ballot initiative campaign that would prevent other cities in the state from implementing a similar tax.

The name of the campaign is not “Coke and Pepsi For Obesity and Diabetes,” it’s “Yes! To Affordable Groceries.” The discrepancy is not just laughable it reveals a key industry tactic in the soda wars – change the topic and talk about anything except the devastating public health impact of sugary beverages.

NEW DATA SHOWS PUBLIC HEALTH IMPACTS OF SUGARY DRINKS

The public health community – pediatricians, dentists, the American Heart Association and more – are energized to take action as never before on soda and other sugary drinks because new data is showing that consuming sugar in liquid form increases risks of serious health conditions, such as heart disease, Type 2 diabetes, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, and obesity in a much more significant way than was previously known.

If you are a Mountain Dew addict, get ready for this statistic. One study found that consuming just one to two sugary drinks a day increases your risk of developing diabetes a whopping 26 percent. Another study showed that men averaging one can a day of a sugary drink had a 20 percent increased risk of heart attack. Further, more than three-quarters of American adults are considered overweight or obese, and 30 percent of children.

Statistics like these and skyrocketing rates of obesity in Mexico City inspired public health advocates there to champion a soda tax in 2012 that has led to a significant fall in consumption – a 6% drop in the first year after the tax was introduced was followed by a 12% decline the second year.

Berkeley, California was the first U.S. city to follow Mexico’s lead uniting physicians, dentists, school board members, Latino leaders, the NAACP, black churches, teachers unions, farm and food advocates, moms and dads behind a grassroots effort to crack down on “big soda” in 2014. They won a landslide victory, and early data shows that consumption of sugary drinks is down 21% and healthy water consumption is way up.

But as cities and counties in the United States utilize the tools of local democracy to introduce modest tax increases on soda, they are facing sophisticated opposition spearheaded by the American Beverage Association (ABA) the blandly named trade association representing Coke, Pepsi, Dr. Pepper Snapple Group and other producers of sugary drinks.

BIG DOLLAR AD BUYS IN LOCAL INITIATIVE CAMPAIGNS

When they are up to no good, brand name companies like to hide behind their trade association. The American Beverage Association is a 501(c)(6) trade association and a $79 million lobbying powerhouse bankrolled by the largest players in the soft drink industry. Coke brands including, Fanta, Sprite, Fresca, Desani, Honest Tea and Minute Maid represent a $32 billion market. PepsiCo brands including, Gatorade, 7Up, Tropicana, and Mountain Dew represent an $18 billion market.

In every locality that has introduced a soda tax in recent years, the beverage industry has responded with the techniques of a industry that knows it has a big public relations problem. The ABA has set up grassroots-sounding front groups and has blanketed the neighborhood with flyers and messaging. In Richmond in 2012, for instance, the ABA group fighting a soda tax referendum on the ballot was called “Community Coalition Against Beverage Taxes.” In El Monte, the front group was called “El Monte Citizens Against Beverage Taxes.”

The ABA has worked to rebrand the issue and shift the terms of the debate. It doesn’t want to debate a soda tax, so it spins it as a “grocery tax” that harms everyone not just those who drink soda. It doesn’t want to talk about the rising rates of obesity, it would rather talk about the “high cost of living.” Recent campaign names have included “Enough is Enough: Don’t Tax Our Groceries” in San Francisco to “Keep Seattle Livable for All.”

In TV and internet ads produced by the trade association, you don’t see the CEOs of Coke and Pepsi making the case against the soda tax. Rather, the ABA puts up a diversity of spokespeople to carry its preferred messaging. San Francisco grocery store owner Abdul Taleb tells the camera “politicians say it is a soda tax, they are lying. This is a tax on groceries.” In Chicago, a professional-looking African American woman tells the camera “we’re being taxed out of Cook County, I’m a single mom. I can’t afford this tax.” In Philadelphia, a hoagie shop owner says “we try to offer the best food at the best price…with that tax the working man can’t afford it anymore.”

The soda industry spent $48.9 million on recent soda tax opposition campaigns in Cook County, IL; Philadelphia, PA; Boulder, CO; San Francisco, CA; Oakland, CA; Seattle, WA, Santa Fe, NM; and Albany, California, according to a November 2017 report by the watchdog group Center for Science in the Public Interest. The ABA does not engage in absolute concealment of their sponsorship, but it does work to shield its brand name companies from responsibility and culpability.

The ABA has won some of these battles, rolling back a soda tax in Chicago and defeating one in Sante Fe, but it has lost more than it has won, so it is shifting the battle ground to state legislatures. In doing so it is following a timeworn path utilized by other industries that are hazardous to public health.

FOLLOWING IN THE FOOTSTEPS OF THE NRA AND BIG TOBACCO

Cities and counties have long played a valuable role as “laboratories of democracy” for important public policy innovations, including public health policies. When U.S. cities led the way regulating guns in the 1970s, the NRA responded with a raft of bills that prohibit localities from adopting reasonable gun laws tailored to local conditions. Faced with local ordinances to regulate tobacco products or create “tobacco free” work environments in the 1980s, the industry jumped into action.

“We could never win at the local level… So the Tobacco Institute and tobacco companies’ first priority has always been to preempt the field,” said a tobacco lobbyist. Today, the majority of states have some type of tobacco preemption, twelve states preempt local smoke-free ordinances and eight states have recently moved to ban local regulation of E-cigarettes.

“In 1988, it was Phillip Morris’ Smokers’ Alliance. In 2018, it’s Big Soda’s YES! TO AFFORDABLE GROCERIES. Both are front groups, then the tobacco industry’s and today the American Beverage Association’s,” said Mark Pertschuk. Pertschuk is the Director of a small advocacy organization called Grassroots Change. He is the former President of American for Nonsmokers’ Rights, which battled the tobacco industry for smoke-free workplaces.

Today, Pertschuk’s “Preemption Watch” project tracks effortsthat step on local democracy. There has already been preemption of local ordinances related to nutrition in 11 states, this applies not just to a soda tax, but to menu labelling and other policies. More preemption bills (or statewide referendums) are likely to be introduced in 2018.

In working to “preempt the field” the ABA is getting help from many of the usual suspects. Affiliates of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have been active in local fights along with restaurant and grocers associations. Front group propagator and master propagandist Richard Berman cut ads in Sante Fe for a State Policy Network “think tank,” prompting an ethics complaint. Other State Policy Network groups have been producing and promoting questionable research saying that the soda tax harms the economy. An ALEC legislator successfully preempted local food and nutrition policies with an ALEC “model bill” in Kansas. And the National Federation of Independent Businesses, which has been battling paid sick leave ordinances, lobbied in favor of soda tax preemption in Michigan.

Grassroots activists know they are up against big institutions and big money, but they also know they have the people on their side. While Congress is universally reviled, local government is almost universally supported. In a recent pollin Pennsylvania conducted by the American Heart Association, 71% of likely voters agreed that “…government closest to the people governs best” and a preemption law that takes away the ability of local governments to solve their own problems is a bad idea.

“The reason we got to 76% of the popular vote in Berkeley is because people believed in this policy. It came from the ground up,” said Sara Soka who was the campaign manager for the Berkeley Healthy Child Coalition.

And that’s why grassroots public health campaigners can still win on this issue and many more.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/13/health/colombia-soda-tax-obesity.html

Planet Fat

Articles in this series are exploring the causes and the consequences of rising obesity rates around the world.

NESTLÉ GOES DOOR-TO-DOOR

How Big Business Got Brazil’s Poor Hooked on Junk Food

RESHAPING AFRICAN PALATES

Obesity Was Rising as Ghana Embraced Fast Food. Then Came KFC.

THE SODA TAX SHOWDOWN

She Took On Colombia’s Soda Industry. Then She Was Silenced.

A U.S.-STYLE DIET

A Nasty, Nafta-Related Surprise: Mexico’s Soaring Obesity

STRANGE BEDFELLOWS

In Asia’s Fattest Country, Nutritionists Take Money From Food Giants

A FATHER'S FIGHT

One Man’s Stand Against Junk

She Took On Colombia’s Soda Industry. Then She Was Silenced.

The debate over taxing sugary drinks has turned into a ferocious global

policy brawl. In Colombia, proponents faced intimidation and censorship.

Leer en español

By ANDREW JACOBS and

MATT RICHTEL

NOV. 13, 2017

BOGOTÁ, Colombia — It began with menacing phone calls, strange malfunctions of the office computers, and men in parked cars photographing the entrance to the small consumer advocacy group’s offices.

Then at dusk one day last December, Dr. Esperanza Cerón, the head of the organization, said she noticed two strange men on motorcycles trailing her Chevy sedan as she headed home from work. She tried to lose them in Bogotá’s rush-hour traffic, but they edged up to her car and pounded on the windows.

“If you don’t keep your mouth shut,” one man shouted, she recalled in a recent interview, “you know what the consequences will be.”

The episode, which Dr. Cerón reported to federal investigators, was reminiscent of the intimidation often used against those who challenged the drug cartels that once dominated Colombia. But the narcotics trade was not the target of Dr. Cerón and her colleagues. Their work had upset a different multibillion-dollar industry: the makers of soda and other sugar-sweetened beverages.

Their organization, Educar Consumidores, was the most visible proponent of a proposed 20 percent tax on sugary drinks that was heading for a vote that month in Colombia’s Legislature.The group had raised money, rallied allies to the cause and produced a provocative television ad that warned consumers how sugar-laden beverages can lead to obesity and diet-related illnesses like diabetes.

...

Planet Fat

Articles in this series are exploring the causes and the consequences of rising obesity rates around the world.

NESTLÉ GOES DOOR-TO-DOOR

How Big Business Got Brazil’s Poor Hooked on Junk Food

RESHAPING AFRICAN PALATES

Obesity Was Rising as Ghana Embraced Fast Food. Then Came KFC.

THE SODA TAX SHOWDOWN

She Took On Colombia’s Soda Industry. Then She Was Silenced.

A U.S.-STYLE DIET

A Nasty, Nafta-Related Surprise: Mexico’s Soaring Obesity

STRANGE BEDFELLOWS

In Asia’s Fattest Country, Nutritionists Take Money From Food Giants

A FATHER'S FIGHT

One Man’s Stand Against Junk

She Took On Colombia’s Soda Industry. Then She Was Silenced.

The debate over taxing sugary drinks has turned into a ferocious global

policy brawl. In Colombia, proponents faced intimidation and censorship.

Leer en español

By ANDREW JACOBS and

MATT RICHTEL

NOV. 13, 2017

“If you don’t keep your mouth shut,” one man shouted, she recalled in a recent interview, “you know what the consequences will be.”

Their organization, Educar Consumidores, was the most visible proponent of a proposed 20 percent tax on sugary drinks that was heading for a vote that month in Colombia’s Legislature. The group had raised money, rallied allies to the cause and produced a provocative television ad that warned consumers how sugar-laden beverages can lead to obesity and diet-related illnesses like diabetes.

The backlash was fierce. A Colombian government agency, responding to a complaint by the nation’s leading soda company that called the ad misleading, ordered it off the air. Then the agency went further: It prohibited Dr. Cerón and her colleagues from publicly discussing the health risks of sugar, under penalty of a $250,000 fine.

Dr. Esperanza Cerón, director of Educar Consumidores, a group that campaigned for a tax on sugary drinks. Colombia’s consumer protection agency barred her from talking about the link between sugar and obesity. Credit Juan Arredondo for The New York Times

The battle over taxing sugar-sweetened beverages is becoming one of the world’s most ferocious policy brawls — a clash of science, politics and money in dozens of countries and cities.

“The industry sees sugary-drink taxes as an existential threat,” said Dr. James Krieger, executive director of Healthy Food America, which tracks beverage tax initiatives.In the United States, the industry has spent at least $107 million at the state and local levels since 2009 to beat back soda taxes and beverage warning labels, a new study found. Compared to the domestic tactics, Dr. Krieger said, overseas, “it’s much dirtier, much more bare-knuckled.”

The harassment of Dr. Cerón and her colleagues was never proven to be carried out by the industry, and federal prosecutors declined to investigate. In response to questions from The New York Times, Coke and Pepsi said they were not involved, and Postobón, the soda company that filed the complaint about the organization’s ad, deferred comment to The National Business Association of Colombia. The association, which represented national and international beverage makers on the soda tax issue, said it had nothing to do with the episodes.

The International Council of Beverages Associations, the parent organization of trade groups around the world fighting the taxes, would not directly answer the question about whether its allies in Colombia were connected to the alleged harassment, but it condemned such actions.

“We reject under any circumstance the improper influence or harassment of any individual or organization for any purpose, at any time, in any way,” Katherine W. Loatman, executive director of the organization, said in a statement.

The experience in Colombia may be the most extreme, but a juggernaut of industry opposition has killed or stalled soda tax proposals around the globe, including in Russia, Germany, Israel and New Zealand.

Nevertheless, the idea is gaining momentum; such levies have been enacted in 30 countries, including India, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Thailand, Britain and Brunei. More than a billion people now live in places where such taxes have driven up the price of sugar-sweetened beverages.

The battles have been particularly intense in emerging markets as the industry seeks to make up for falling soda consumption in wealthier nations. Latin America has surpassed the United States as the world’s biggest soft-drink market, according to the World Health Organization, with sales of carbonated soft drinks doubling there since 2000 while they declined in the United States.

The beverage industry asserts that soda taxes unfairly burden the poor, cause higher unemployment by squeezing industry sales, and fail to achieve their policy goal: reducing obesity. Studies of soda taxes have shown they lead to a drop in sales of sugar-sweetened beverages — a 10 percent sales decline, for example, over the first two years of Mexico’s tax — however, such measures are so new that there is not yet evidence of their impact on health.

“Slapping a tax on our products and walking away won’t do anything about obesity in this country or globally,” said William Dermody, spokesman for the American Beverage Association, an industry trade group.

The soda industry claimed a tax on sugary drinks would harm mom-and-pop shops like this one in Bogotá. Credit Juan Arredondo for The New York Times

But public health organizations, including the W.H.O., cite soda taxes as one of the most effective policy tools for cutting consumption of what nutritionists call a “liquid candy” that has contributed to an epidemic of obesity and related health conditions around the world. Dr. Kathryn Backholer, an expert on the issue at Deakin University in Australia, said taxes on soda were “low-hanging fruit” in the fight against obesity, diabetes and other weight-related diseases because such drinks are easily categorized to tax and sensible to target because they “have little or no nutritional value.”

Dr. Backholer and other experts said the turning point for soda tax proponents came in 2014, when Mexico — Coca-Cola’s biggest consumer market by per capita consumption — approved a 10 percent tax.

Mexico also showcased how dirty the fight could get.

Last year, numerous advocates of a proposal to double Mexico’s tax to 20 percent received strings of upsetting and fraudulent texts from unknown numbers. One man got a message saying his daughter had been seriously injured; another found a text saying his wife was having an affair; a third received a link to a funeral home. Spyware was found on the phones. The proposal failed....[phones hacked? ad tweaked, censored ppl gag]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/13/health/colombia-soda-tax-obesity.html

Planet Fat

Articles in this series are exploring the causes and the consequences of rising obesity rates around the world.

NESTLÉ GOES DOOR-TO-DOOR

How Big Business Got Brazil’s Poor Hooked on Junk Food

RESHAPING AFRICAN PALATES

Obesity Was Rising as Ghana Embraced Fast Food. Then Came KFC.

THE SODA TAX SHOWDOWN

She Took On Colombia’s Soda Industry. Then She Was Silenced.

A U.S.-STYLE DIET

A Nasty, Nafta-Related Surprise: Mexico’s Soaring Obesity

STRANGE BEDFELLOWS

In Asia’s Fattest Country, Nutritionists Take Money From Food Giants

A FATHER'S FIGHT

One Man’s Stand Against Junk

She Took On Colombia’s Soda Industry. Then She Was Silenced.

The debate over taxing sugary drinks has turned into a ferocious global

policy brawl. In Colombia, proponents faced intimidation and censorship.

Leer en español

By ANDREW JACOBS and

MATT RICHTEL

NOV. 13, 2017

“If you don’t keep your mouth shut,” one man shouted, she recalled in a recent interview, “you know what the consequences will be.”

...

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Trump-administration-kills-push-to-ban-bottled-11824841.php

Trump administration’s latest environmental rollback is an unusual one, but with a familiar feature: It benefits big business.

The National Park Service announced Wednesday that, effective immediately, it will no longer allow parks to ban the sale of plastic water bottles, which have long been criticized for littering lakes and forests.[also approved neonazi sf 8/17]

Since 2011, as part of the Green Parks Plan adopted under former President Barack Obama, the Park Service has encouraged the use of tap water and refillable bottles on federal lands, while allowing parks the option to prohibit the sale of disposable water bottles in shops, hotels and vending machines.

Opponents of the effort, including powerful industry groups, say repeal was long overdue. The initiative never achieved its desired benefits, they said, and allowed the continued sale of other bottled beverages like soda, which are typically less healthy than water.

“Consumption of water in all forms, tap, filtered, and bottled, should always be encouraged,” said Jill Culora, a spokeswoman for the International Bottled Water Association, a trade group. “The rescinded policy was seriously flawed.”

The policy, according to a Park Service memo, sought not only to reduce the environmental footprint of plastic by limiting litter and curtailing high disposal costs, but also to embrace the environmental “symbolism.”

While none of the 23 parks that implemented bans are in California, the Bay Area’s Golden Gate National Recreation Area had been eyeing such a policy.

Advocates of the bans called Wednesday’s action another move by the president to put business before the environment.

Like other federal agencies, the Department of the Interior, which oversees the park service, has come under fire for the president’s appointment of people with ties to industries affected by agency regulations.

Deputy Interior Secretary David Bernhardt, who was confirmed in June, previously spent eight years as an attorney at the Denver law firm Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, whose clients include water bottler Nestle.

“Just as we’ve seen across the board with the Trump administration, this is an example of the industry working behind the scenes to protect its profits,” said Lauren DeRusha Florez, associate campaign director at Corporate Accountability International, a national nonprofit group that advocates sustainable business practices. “Plastic water bottles have a tremendous environmental impact.”

The beverage industry has for years lobbied the federal government for the policy change, and several members of Congress recently joined the chorus.

The National Park Service said an internal review concluded that it didn’t make sense to sell soda and other sugary drinks while barring water.

“We determined that park visitors can best choose how to keep themselves and their family hydrated when visiting a national park,” said parks spokesman Jeremy Barnum.

Supporters of the ban suggested that perhaps a better solution would be to target soda bottles as well. Parks that initiated bans, including the Grand Canyon in Arizona, Canyonlands in Utah and Mount Rainier in Washington state, boosted the number of water-filling stations for reusable bottles.

“The choice between sugary drinks and bottled water is a false choice,” DeRusha Florez said. “The truth is that what this policy had done is increase access to free tap water and make available reusable water bottles.”

Kurtis Alexander is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: kalexander@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @kurtisalexander

Forbes Magazine

When the city council of Santa Fe, New Mexico, placed a measure on the local ballot to tax sugary drinks earlier this year, the soda industry responded quickly, pouring $1.3 million into the anti-tax campaign. To cover their bases, industry lobbyists also pursued a back-up plan: they backed a bill in the state legislature to strip local governments of the power to levy such taxes.

In the end, the state language was added to another bill that sailed through the New Mexico House before dying in a Senate committee, shortly before Santa Fe voters defeated the local soda tax. But as a growing number of cities consider and increasingly pass soda taxes and other measures designed to combat obesity and promote healthy eating, the food industry has turned to a strategy used extensively by the tobacco and gun lobbies.

The strategy, known as preemption, uses state laws to take away the right of cities to enact various kinds of regulations, reserving that power to the state. The tobacco industry used preemption to block or weaken local ordinances that ban smoking in public spaces. The firearms industry used it to beat back local efforts to control gun sales.

Now, lobbyists for numerous industries, including soda makers and fast-food chains, are pushing state laws that block municipal governments from adopting local controls. Aiding the effort is the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a group backed by corporations and conservative foundations, which brings together state lawmakers and industry lobbyists to draft and disseminate model legislation.

At least nine states have passed nutrition-related preemption laws, according to Grassroots Change, a nonprofit group that monitors state preemption efforts. Others have adopted measures that keep cities from requiring employers to provide paid sick leave or nullifying laws that protect gay or transgender people from discrimination.

The federal government can also preempt state and local law. In recent years, Congress has passed several bills with preemption provisions, including a revision of the key 40-year-old federal act regulating chemicals, a law requiring restaurants to display nutrition information, and another relating to disclosure of the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in food products. These laws also limit states and cities from regulating the same products, though each does so in different ways.

In 2011, the National Academy of Medicine urged in a report that federal and state legislators avoid wording preemptive laws “in a way that hinders public health action.” But a growing number of state legislatures are ignoring that plea.

A 2011 Arizona law bars local governments from regulating restaurant giveaways of toys and prizes like those given to children eating McDonalds Happy Meals or at the Chuck E. Cheese pizza chain.

Alabama, Florida, Georgia and Utah ban regulations requiring restaurants to publicly display nutritional information.

Mississippi and Ohio bar both these types of regulations and Wisconsin prohibits cities from restricting food or drink sales based on size, caloric content or nutritional value.

In New Mexico, the soda tax preemption language was added at the last minute to a 300-page substitute bill addressing a variety of tax issues, said William Fulginiti, executive director of the New Mexico Municipal League, an association representing cities, which opposed the preemption as an infringement on the rights of local communities.

“It was done quickly. I don’t think they were even aware of what was in the bill,” Fulginiti said of House members who passed the substitute tax measure. Fulginiti said the original bill had been supported by The Coca-Cola Co. and that a Coke lobbyist had visited him to push for the bill.

Sarah Maestas Barnes, the New Mexico legislator who introduced the original preemption measure, received a $1,000 campaign contribution last year from Admiral Beverage Corp., which manufactures and distributes Pepsi and other drinks. Barnes didn’t return several phone calls and emails seeking comment

...

https://ww2.kqed.org/stateofhealth/tag/soda-tax/

Soda Tax tag/ site

POLICY

Oakland Soda Tax Backers to File Complaint over Opposition Ads

By Lisa Aliferis July 14, 2016

https://ww2.kqed.org/stateofhealth/2016/07/14/oakland-soda-tax-backers-to-file-complaint-over-opposition-ads/

Three Oakland City Council members are calling on local and federal agencies to investigate opponents of the city’s proposed soda tax on the fall ballot. They say the beverage industry’s advertising is deceptive.

At issue are oppositionand a flier that label the effort a “Grocery Tax [that] can be applied to any item in the store, not just sodas.”

“This is not a tax on bread or vegetables or milk or cheese,” said Council member Annie Campbell Washington, one of the proponents of the ordinance. “It has been disgraceful to see that the American Beverage Association has put out these fliers with blatant lies.”

Washington and fellow Council members Rebecca Kaplan and Desley Brooks plan to file complaints both with the city’s Ethics Commission and the Federal Communications Commission.

In a statement Joe Arellano, spokesman for the No Oakland Grocery Tax Campaign, defended the choice of words:

The backers of the grocery tax need to read their own measure. It is not a tax on beverages. It is a tax on distributors of sugar-sweetened beverages, which means any retailer who sells soda can decide to spread that new tax over any item in their stores.

Arellano’s group is backed with “major funding” by the American Beverage Association.

The Oakland City Council voted unanimously in May to put a penny-per-ounce ‘health impact fee’ on the distributors of sugar-sweetened beverages on the November ballot.

Similar fees on sugar-sweetened beverages will also be on the ballot in San Francisco and Albany. All three cities’ proposals are modeled after the measure passed in Berkeley in 2014, the first community in the country to pass a soda tax.

PUBLIC HEALTH

San Francisco Voters Will Decide on Soda Tax in November

By Lisa Aliferis June 21, 2016

POLICY

Why A Soda Tax in Philadelphia Matters in the Bay Area

By Lisa Aliferis June 16, 2016

POLICY

San Francisco Soda Tax Proponents Scrambling — Signatures Submitted Day Late

By Lisa Aliferis May 12, 2016

POLICY

Oakland City Council Puts Soda Tax on November Ballot

By Lisa Aliferis May 4, 2016

POLICY

Statewide Soda Tax Bill Dead for the Year

By KQED News Staff and Wires April 13, 2016

POLICY

San Francisco, Oakland Working to Put Soda Tax Before Voters

By Lisa Aliferis April 4, 2016

POLICY

Soda Tax Is Again Before California Legislators

By Lisa Aliferis March 9, 2016

POLICY

Berkeley Soda Tax Means Higher Prices on Some Sugary Drinks

By Lisa Aliferis October 7, 2015

POLICY

Berkeley Soda Tax Brings in $116,000 in First Month

By Andrew Stelzer May 19, 2015

POLICY

Health Advocates Frustrated as Soda Warning Bill Dies

By Lisa Aliferis April 30, 2015

POLICY

New Health Laws Set to Take Effect in California

By Lisa Aliferis December 30, 2014

COMMUNITY HEALTH

In Mexico, People Drinking Less Soda After New Tax

By State of Health December 2, 2014

POLICY

Berkeley Passes Soda Tax; San Francisco Effort Fails

By Lisa Aliferis November 4, 2014

Here’s What Would Be Taxed — or Not — in SF, Berkeley Soda Tax Measures

By Lisa Aliferis October 29, 2014

POLICY

In Berkeley, Soda Tax Measure Is New Front in Social Activism

By State of Health October 20, 2014

POLICY

Election 2014: San Francisco, Berkeley Consider Soda Taxes

By Lisa Aliferis October 15, 2014

POLICY

Judge Rules Berkeley Must Change Soda Tax Language

By State of Health September 2, 2014

...Alameda County Superior Court Judge Evelio Grillo said the city’s statement that the tax would only be

imposed on “high-calorie, sugary drinks” is “a form of advocacy and therefore not impartial.”

Grillo ordered the city to change the summary to say that the tax would apply to “sugar-sweetened beverages,” which he said is more neutral and less likely to create prejudice for or against Measure D.

Anthony Johnson and Leon Cain filed the lawsuit in August. Cain has previously attended Berkeley council meetings on behalf of the No Berkeley Beverage Tax campaign.

Tax opponents had also argued that ballot language that says the tax would be paid by distributors, not by consumers, is misleading because they believe distributors would pass on the extra cost to consumers.

But Grillo ruled against tax opponents on that issue, saying they failed to provide clear and convincing evidence based on the ballot statement that the tax won’t be paid by consumers is misleading or partial.

The judge said tax opponents “only speculate that it is like that such cost will be passed down to consumers, but it is unknown at this point whether or not any of the tax will eventually be passed down to consumers.”

Grillo said the city correctly pointed out that distributors and retailers could choose to absorb the cost of the tax in order to better compete with other businesses.

Berkeley school board member Joshua Daniels, who is co-chair of the campaign in favor of Measure D, said Grillo’s order that the ballot language be changed is only a “relatively minor” development and “doesn’t concern us at all” because “everyone knows that the measure is focused on preventing diabetes,” and he thinks it will still be approved.

Daniels said that overall Grillo’s ruling is “a victory” for Measure D supporters.

Grillo’s ruling came one day before the deadline on Wednesday for the Alameda County Registrar of Voters Office to send ballot arguments to the printer so that voters can receive them well in advance of the election on Nov. 4...

ref:

http://www.berkeleyside.com/2014/08/15/lawsuit-filed-over-berkeley-soda-tax-ballot-language/

...The lawsuit does reference the health issue. It describes the fight to combat childhood obesity as one of the main concerns of the people who are promoting the new tax. But petitioners argue that it isn’t crafted in a way that will significantly improve or protect public health.

As a general tax, the money would go into the city’s general fund. But, according to those championing the tax, it will “pay for programs and services for the people of Berkeley. The soda tax measure creates a panel of child nutrition and public health experts to make recommendations to the city about funding programs that improve children’s health. Our coalition is committed to advocating that the new revenue to go towards supporting programs that give kids and families tools to make healthy choices about what they eat and drink.”

Lawsuit proponents also take issue with the city’s contention that the tax will be paid by distributors, “not the customer.” They say “the ultimate costs” will be passed on to consumers should the measure prevail.

They have asked the judge to remove the phrase “not the customer” from the city attorney’s analysis, saying that its inclusion is “plainly designed to encourage voters to support the tax measure, by persuading them that ‘others’ … will bear the costs of this tax. In other words, it is the implicit promise of a ‘free lunch.'”

The lawsuit asks for changes in the election materials, as well as financial payments to cover the costs of the case and “such other equitable relief as this Court deems just and proper.”

The lawsuit identifies its petitioners, Johnson and Cain, as residents, registered voters and taxpayers of Berkeley. Cain, a political consultant, is listed as an associate at Rodriguez Strategies, a campaign consulting firm based in Los Angeles. (That company’s CEO, Matt Rodriguez, recently faced off, as a representative of No Berkeley Beverage Tax, against Berkeley City Councilman Laurie Capitelli at an election event about the sugar-sweetened beverage tax.) http://www.rodriguezstrategies.com/team

According to Cain’s Twitter feed, he moved to the Bay Area from Southern California in July 2013 and has been working on the “beverage choice” cause in Northern California since that time.

No Berkeley Beverage Tax describes itself as “a coalition of citizens, local businesses and community organizations opposed to beverage taxes,” but has not made a list of its supporters publicly available.

Berkeley School Board President Daniels said that, unlike the Healthy Child Initiative — which countsdozens of Berkeley-based organizations and individuals among its supporters — the No Berkeley Beverage Tax campaign appears to have taken a different approach.

“The opposition is almost exclusively paid for by the big bucks of ‘Big Soda,'” he said Thursday. “Who our supporters are is a genuine reflection of what Berkeley is.”....

POLICY

National Soda Tax Bill Introduced in Washington

By Lisa Aliferis July 30, 2014

POLICY

San Francisco Supervisors Put Soda Tax on Ballot

By KQED News Staff and Wires July 23, 2014

COMMUNITY HEALTH

How Coverage of Richmond, El Monte Soda Tax Proposals Played Out

By Lisa Aliferis February 26, 2014

POLICY

Study: No Job Loss from Soda Tax

By Lisa Aliferis February 14, 2014

POLICY

IsSan Francisco Primed to Approve a Soda Tax?

By Lisa Aliferis October 28, 2013

POLICY

New Factors in Play for Legislators Considering Statewide Soda Tax

By Lisa Aliferis May 6, 2013

POLICY

Bill for Statewide Soda Tax Introduced

By Lisa Aliferis February 26, 2013

POLICY

Most Californians Support Soda Tax If It Benefits Children’s Health

By Lisa Aliferis February 14, 2013

POLICY

Can Soda Taxes Lead to Weight Loss?

By Lisa Aliferis October 15, 2012

POLICY

Beverage Companies Blur Line Between Philanthropy & Marketing

By Katrina Schwartz June 21, 2012

Soda Tax: What Can a Penny Do?

By Lisa Aliferis January 9, 2012

POLICY

Could Richmond Be First California City to Tax Soda? 11/11

RichmondSodaTax:obesity epidemic, especially among young people of color, suffer from what used to be called Adult Onset Diabetes. Richmond put 1c/ounce tax on ballot, stipulating that five largest donors had to disclose. Industry lobby front group (that is, “astroturf”” fake grassroots) Community Coalition Against Beverage Taxes sued, claiming First Amendment rights were violated and money to cover court costs, and that revealing funding sources prevents "effective communication." DID THEY WIN?

Lost 2012, 2014? Retry 2016 GMA? Berman?

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCru7uzYj4fvKkANYqO5yKNA

http://www.nooaklandgrocerytax.com/

Registrant Name: Registration Private
Registrant Organization: Domains By Proxy, LLC
Registrant Street: DomainsByProxy.com
Registrant Street: 14747 N Northsight Blvd Suite 111, PMB 309
Registrant City: Scottsdale

PAID FOR BY NO OAKLAND GROCERY TAX, WITH MAJOR FUNDING BY AMERICAN BEVERAGE ASSOCIATION CALIFORNIA PAC.

off bs

Matt Rodriguez is the founder and Chief Executive Officer of Rodriguez Strategies.

A veteran Democratic strategist with more than 15 years of experience working for candidates and causes across the nation, Matt focuses on designing and leading grassroots and grasstops campaigns for diverse entities ranging from Fortune 500 corporations to emerging not-for-profit organizations.

Matt employs his knowledge of the public and private sectors to implement winning strategies for clients at local and statewide levels. He spearheads the American Beverage Association’s coalition building efforts in California and leads the advocacy campaign to educate elected officials about the beverage industry. Matt has also worked with clients such as The Pew Charitable Trusts, AT&T, Bloom Energy, and former California First Lady Maria Shriver.

When advising his clients, Matt draws from his extensive campaign management experience, which includes state legislature races, U.S. Senate races and U.S. presidential campaigns.

In 2008, Matt served as the Western States Regional Director for Obama for America, where he managed campaign operations and executed strategy throughout the Western United States. Prior to the general election, he served as the New Hampshire State Director for the Obama campaign during the 2008 presidential primary.

Matt’s experience in politics dates back to 1997 when he was a press aide to House Democratic Leader Richard A. Gephardt. He later served as the Director of Congressman Gephardt's Political Action Committee in 2002 and the Deputy Political Director on his 2004 presidential campaign. Matt also worked for Senator Bill Bradley's presidential campaign in 2000, managed Senator Chris Dodd's reelection effort in 2004, and successfully guided California State Senator Kevin de León's first campaign in 2006.

In addition to his work at Rodriguez Strategies, Matt is a fellow at the University of Southern California’s Jesse Unruh Institute of Politics and serves on the board of directors of the California League of Conservation Voters Education Fund. He is also a frequent political contributor on AirTalk on 89.3 KPCC, Southern California Public Radio.

Prior to his work in the political arena, Matt was a teacher at a small Jesuit school in Roxbury, Massachusetts. He lives with his wife Renee in Santa Monica.

Ashley Lautzenhiser, Vice President

Ashley is the Vice President of Rodriguez Strategies. She brings a background in public policy and grassroots campaign management to the team, where she leads business development efforts and oversees the execution of the firm's campaigns.

Prior to her joining Rodriguez Strategies, Ashley was an associate in Dewey Square Group’s grassroots practice, where she participated in building and implementing statewide campaigns on issues surrounding healthcare, telecommunications and broadband access, tax measures, the arts, clean energy, resource management and filibuster reform.

While at the Dewey Square Group,Ashley honed her expertise in project management, fundraising and coalition building while working extensively with a diverse array of California stakeholders and thought-leaders, ranging from the underserved and uninsured in Los Angeles to corporate external affairs teams to professors at California's leading universities.

Ashley earned her Master’s Degree in Public Policy from the Sol Price School of Public Policy at the University of Southern California. In 2011, Ashley was selected for the prestigious Presidential Management Fellowship.

Ashley began her career working for Indiana Senator Evan Bayh in Washington, DC as Deputy Executive Assistant. She holds a B.A. in Political Science from Indiana University. Ashley resides in Santa Monica with her husband Christopher.

Jessica Borek, Associate

Jessica brings experience in both government relations and coalition building to her role with Rodriguez Strategies. She crafts impactful communications materials to support coalition building, media outreach and advocacy efforts for both short- and long-term client engagements.

Jessica’s leadership on economic, regulatory and environmental advocacy projects has allowed her to build relationships with community and business groups, as well as with state and national trade associations. Her active participation with Los Angeles-area business organizations positions her to remain involved in important policy developments.

Before joining Rodriguez Strategies, Jessica worked to shape state and federal policy for clients in the energy, environment and defense sectors. Her clients included an organization focused on the development of transmission lines in northern California; a world-renowned environmental NGO; and, a trade association dedicated to the advancement and commercialization of cutting edge marine and hydrokinetic technologies.

Prior to her work in Los Angeles, Jessica was a Junior Associate at SMI, Inc. and Helios Strategies in Washington, D.C. where she supported clients’ research, legislative policy and funding initiatives with the Federal Government.

Jessica graduated Magna Cum Laude from The George Washington University with dual degrees in Political Science and Sociology. She currently resides in Manhattan Beach.

Dylan Johnson, Associate

Dylan Johnson is an Executive Assistant at Rodriguez Strategies. In this role, Dylan oversees day-to-day operations and provides logistical support to the firm's statewide field team.

In addition to being the firm's organizational backbone, Dylan is a successful grassroots organizer. Notably, Dylan worked on a campaign for a leading technology coalition building public support for investment and innovation in the dynamic wireless sector.

Prior to his work at Rodriguez Strategies, Dylan focused his efforts on local consulting projects for a well known lobbying firm. He was also active in the LGBT community through his outreach work at the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation.

Dylan graduated with a BA in Government and International Politics from George Mason University,where he was an active and nationally recognized member of the Speech and Debate Team. Dylan resides in West Los Angele

http://noberkeleybeveragetax.com/

Under Measure D, will all sugar-sweetened products be taxed the same?

Chocolate milk, 100% juice drinks, alcoholic beverages, and some coffee drinks will not be taxed—no matter how much sugar or how many calories they contain. Organic local root beer will be taxed, but diet soda will be exempt. An iced tea is taxed if it is pre-sweetened, but not if the customer adds the sugar. Confused? You’re not alone.

I thought Measure D is supposed to fund health and wellness programs?

Measure D is written so that the City Council can spend the tax revenue on anything they want. A similar measure in San Francisco specifically dedicates beverage tax funds for health and wellness programs. That is not the case with Measure D.

Is it true Measure D is not about making us healthier; it’s just about raising more money for the city?

That’s true. Lawmakers in San Francisco say funds from their proposed tax measure will go toward health and wellness programs. Berkeley lawmakers just want the tax money for the general fund so they can spend it however they choose—and they want Berkeley taxpayers to pay for it.

Under Measure D, will all stores be treated the same?

No. Some stores will be taxed—others will not. And that’s not the only loophole. Under Measure D, a retailer who picks up his beverages outside of Berkeley won’t pay the tax.

What effect will this tax have on other grocery items?

Measure D may force grocery stores and restaurants to recover the cost of the tax by raising the price of everything they sell—not just soda. That means all types of food could get more expensive.

2016

Oakland: War of words arises from 'soda tax' measure

By David DeBolt, ddebolt@bayareanewsgroup.com

POSTED: 07/15/2016 05:21:31 AM PDT | UPDATED: 3 DAYS AGO

OAKLAND -- Three Oakland council members supporting a "soda tax" measure criticized the beverage industry on Thursday, calling their campaign misleading and accusing the opposition of targeting the city's black and Latino residents.

Council members Annie Campbell Washington, Desley Brooks and Rebecca Kaplan said they plan to file complaints with the Federal Communications Commission and the City of Oakland Public Ethics Commission over a TV ad and mailers sent to residents.

"What we have seen so far from the political arm of the beverage industry is that they are willing to put out lies," Campbell Washington said. The council members objected to opponents calling the tax on sugary drinks a "grocery tax," a term not used in earlier campaigns in Richmond and Berkeley.

The TV ad features a business owner of a Halal market warning people against voting for a grocery tax, and a black business owner doing the same in a campaign mailer by the group No Oakland Grocery Tax and funded by the American Beverage Association of California.

The coalition against the tax have also focused on East Oakland and West Oakland, areas with large black and Latino populations, the council members said. "The soda industry is targeting people of color and they have no shame when it comes to spreading falsehoods," Brooks said. "Their ads should be pulled from TV. Just because they are rich doesn't allow them to be dishonest."

Joe Arellano, a spokesman for No Oakland Grocery Tax Campaign, defended their tactics.

"The backers of the grocery tax need to read their own measure. It is not a tax on beverages. It is a tax on distributors of sugar-sweetened beverages, which means any retailer who sells soda can decide to spread that new tax over any item in their stores," said Arellano, who said the campaign is supported by more than 280 Oakland store owners.

The spokesman said spot checks of more than 20 major and independent retailers in Berkeley show soda prices have not increased since voters there passed a similar tax in 2014, suggesting store owners are absorbing the tax or applying it to other items.

"The facts are clear, this is a tax on distributors who can pass on the tax by increasing the cost of any grocery item," Arellano said. The City Council voted unanimously to place the one-cent-per-ounce tax on sugary beverages on the November ballot

...

kron

il to Oakland voters and broadcast on TV.

“They need to stop telling blatant lies,” Brooks said. Opponents of the soda tax issued a statement saying that the soda tax is a tax on groceries.

The measure will tax distributors of sugary beverages, who can pass the increased cost to retailers, who can raise prices on sugary beverages or any other item.

More than 280 storeowners, who call themselves the No Oakland Grocery Tax Campaign, have joined opponents.

Spokesman for the storeowners Joe Arrelano said the councilmembers’ claim is blatantly false.

He said sugary beverage retailers could also absorb the cost of the tax, thereby defeating the incentive to reduce consumption of the beverages.

He said that’s what has happened in Berkeley where the cost of some sugary beverages is the same as in Concord, which does not have a tax. “Taxes don’t make people healthier, Arellano said.

“Taxes don’t make people healthier, Arellano said. “Diets and exercise do.”

Arellano’s group is funded in part by the American Beverage Association, based in Washington, D.C.

Campbell Washington was unsure when they will file the FCC complaint but they will ask FCC officials to take immediate action.

The councilwomen will also be asking the Oakland Ethics Commission to respond as quickly as possible to the ethics complaint.

sellout:

Founded on April 14, 2012
Short Description

Currently working as spokesman for the 1979 Mission project. Former spokesman for SF Mayor Gavin Newsom, Bay Area Council, Next Gen and Super Bowl 50.

Long Description

Joe Arellano is a communications strategist with expertise in media relations, crisis communications and new media.

He is t:{he Founder and Principal of Joe Arellano Communications, providing communications consulting services to a wide range of clients including initiative campaigns, political candidates, nonprofit organizations and sports teams.

Before starting his own firm, Arellano worked as Communications Director at NextGen, a nonprofit think-tank founded in 2011 by Tom Steyer of Farallon Capital Management and Jim Steyer of Common Sense Media. During his time at NextGen,Arellano helped launch the organization with an article in the New York Times and built the communications infrastructure for the organization and their campaigns.

Prior to joining the Center, Arellano served as Vice President of Communications for the Bay Area Council, a public policy advocacy organization composed of the region's largest businesses. He oversaw a full range of activities, including media relations, public affairs, social media, marketing and event planning.

From 2006-2010, Arellano served as a spokesman and Communications Director for San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom. During his tenure in City Hall, Arellano worked with California political reporters and editors, conducted on-camera interviews in English and Spanish, supervised the communications staff, oversaw the formation of all written materials and managed the mayor’s public events, including his daily news conferences, town-hall meetings, State of the City address and other major appearances.

Prior to that, Arellano worked as an aide to Congresswoman Jackie Speier (D-Hillsborough) and to U.S. Senator Mark Udall (D-CO).

Arellano currently serves as President of the San Francisco Juvenile Probation Commission. He is the Chair of the Commission's Finance Committee. He was appointed to the commission by Mayor Gavin Newsom in 2010 and reappointed by Mayor Ed Lee in 2014.

Arellano graduated from the University of Colorado with a degree in political science. }:

https://www.facebook.com/JoeArellanoCommunications/

[philly did a deal? hospital $?]

The soda industry says it will fight to repeal the tax on sweetened beverages voted in by the Philadelphia City Council this week.

"The tax passed [in Philadelphia] is a regressive tax that unfairly singles out beverages — including low- and no-calorie choices. But most importantly, it is against the law," reads a statement from the American Beverage Association.

The group says it will take legal action to stop the tax. "Similar tax proposals have been rejected 43 times across the country in the past eight years," the ABA says. And the industry points to polling data that suggest the majority of Philadelphia residents don't support it.

But supporters of the tax on sweetened drinks say the victory in Philadelphia could set the stage for similar actions in cities across the country.

"Philadelphia will almost certainly not be the last city to adopt a sugary drinks tax. In fact, the question now is not whether any city will follow suit, but rather how many — and how quickly?" wrote Michael Bloomberg in a statement released Friday.

As we've reported, Bloomberg — who took on sodas as mayor of New York City — contributed significantly to a media campaign in Philadelphia aimed at passing the soda-tax measure.

"Obesity and poverty are both intractable national problems. No policy takes more direct aim at both than Philadelphia's tax on sugary drinks," Bloomberg wrote in the statement.

Bloomberg says he will continue to support cities and nations pursuing

these anti-obesity strategies, and help them "get the support they need to level the playing field with the soda industry." As we've reported, the American Beverage Association spent more than $4.2 million to fight the tax in Philadelphia.

In November, the California cities of Oakland and San Francisco are expected to take up the issue. And voters in Boulder, Colo., may see a ballot initiative, too. As The Denver Post has reported, a group called Healthy Boulder Kids is trying to rally support for a tax on sugary drinks to fund programs aimed at increasing access to healthy food and physical activity.

A tax on sugar-sweetened beverages in Mexico led to a dip in sales. Public health experts predict the same thing will happen in Philadelphia.

"The evidence is clear that when prices go up, people buy less of things," Michael Longof George Washington University told us. He and colleagues at the Harvard School of Public Health published a 10-year estimate of the health impacts of a 1-cent-per-ounce tax on sugary drinks in Philadelphia.

"We'd expect over 12,000 cases of obesity prevented by the end of the 10-year period, as well as $65 million in health care cost savings over the 10-year period," Long told us in an interview.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/06/17/482531399/as-more-cities-eye-soda-tax-industry-vows-to-fight-new-tax-in-philadelphia

http://www.berkeleyside.com/2014/10/09/beverage-companies-spend-1-675-million-to-defeat-berkeley-soda-tax/

Beverage companies spend $1.675 million to defeat Berkeley soda tax

October 9, 2014 3:33 pm by Frances Dinkelspiel

Because California requires lobbyists to register, Rogers has been able to get hard numberson the relative spending of anti-tax forces and those who favor the tax. The difference is impressive.

The city of Richmond must have suspected that something like this would happen because the city council passed an ordinance that requires special interest groups to disclose who funds them in campaign literature. They must list their top five funders. You might think this idea entirely appropriate to a democratic society, but the American Beverage Association (translation: Coca-Cola and PepsiCo) does not.

According to Rogers' accounton September 4, Big Soda has sued the city in federal court to stop it from insisting that campaigns disclose who funds them.

On what grounds? The First Amendment, of course:

The suit, filed in federal court in San Francisco on Aug. 30, seeks an order barring the city from imposing its campaign ordinance on the Community Coalition Against Beverage Taxes, a declaration that the groups' First Amendment rights were violated and money to cover court costs.

The coalition is funded mostly by the American Beverage Association and has spent more than $350,000 locallyin an effort to defeat a November ballot measure that could impose a penny-per-ounce tax on sales of all sugar-sweetened beverages in the city.

...Coalition spokesman Chuck Finnie said Tuesday that the law itself is unconstitutional and should not be applied to the anti-soda tax groups.

"The law in question is being enforced to prevent opponents of an unfair, misleading and misguided tax from being able to communicate effectively with Richmond voters," Finnie said. "The sponsors of the Measure N tax don't want voters to hear how the tax is going to raise grocery bills, hurt local businesses on which livelihoods depend, and the fact that city politicians would befree to spend all of the money raised by Measure N in any way they see fit [// prop 34 on cigs?]and that not one penny must be used to fund anti-obesity efforts."

In other words, revealing funding sources prevents "effective communication."

The court will hear this suit on Friday. Stay tuned. In the meantime, here are the relevant documents, thanks to Robert Rogers:

This post originally appeared onFood Politics, anAtlanticpartner site.

This article available online at:

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/09/big-sodas-move-to-hide-funding-of-anti-tax-campaign/262092/

Richmond anti-soda tax committee sues for federal protection from city's campaign disclosure rules

By Robert Roger Contra Costa Times

Posted: 09/04/2012 04:24:13 PM PDT

Updated: 09/04/2012 04:54:26 PM PDT

Blog Entries by Susan K. Neely

Great Things Happen When We Work Together

Posted February 2, 2012 | 02/02/12 05:47 PM ET

The non-alcoholic beverage industry is comprised of some of the most innovative and well-respected companies in the world. Our presence is felt in every corner of every community in America -- from our products in the aisles of neighborhood stores, to our local delivery drivers who distribute them, to our...

Read Post

Solutions, Not Soundbites

Posted June 3, 2009 | 06/03/09 12:31 PM ET

This piece is a response to a Huffington Post Column by Michael Jacobson: "Fizzy Math: Tax Soda to Pay for Health Care and Prevention;" May 29, 2009.

The United States has a daunting task before it: funding health care reform. It is a challenge we will...

Read Post

response to:

Fizzy Math: Tax Soda to Pay for Health Care and Prevention

Posted: 05/29/09 10:41 AM ET

Why tax soda? Obesity is expensive and soda is cheap.

To be sure, a lot of factors contribute to obesity, including enormous restaurant meals and the couch-potato syndrome. But sugary soft drinks are the only beverage or food that has been shown to increase the risk of obesity. And obesity, in turn, promotes heart disease, diabetes, cancer, and other expensive-to-treat diseases. All told, Americans spend about $90 billion a year in direct medical costs related to obesity, of which half is paid with Medicare and Medicaid taxpayer dollars.

In other words, Americans are already taxed by soda. Out of every paycheck, and on every April 15, we're each paying to treat diseases promoted by the overconsumption of these uniquely worthless beverages.

What was once a rare treat is now the default drink for many, particularly young people. Our 2005 analysis of soda consumption showed that teenage boys who drink soft drinks consume an average of three 12-ounce cans and girls an average of two 12-ounce cans. One in 10 boys who drinks soft drinks consumes five-and-a-half 12-ounce cans a day, or about 800 calories worth. It's not the only reason, but the increase in soda consumption since the 1970s certainly helps explain why obesity rates have tripled in teens.

We all need food, but no one needs soda. Soda is basically liquid candy, providing empty excess calories without needed nutrients. (The same is true for "fruit drinks" with little juice, so-called "energy drinks" like Red Bull, "sports drinks" like Gatorade, or gimmicky products like VitaminWater.) Besides promoting obesity and disease, soft drinks displace real foods with redeeming health-promoting properties.In fact, in the 1970s, teens drank about twice as much milk as soda. By the 1990s, teens drank twice as much soda as milk. That trend has been reinforced not only by the ubiquitous availability of soft drinks and the ballooning sizes of containers, but also by economics: soda keeps getting cheaper compared to real food.

To some critics, soda taxes are a radical new idea. "We can't live anymore," bemoaned Fox News' Sean Hannity. I don't know if he lives in New York or whether he drinks soda, but if he does, he already pays soda taxes, perhaps without knowing. New York is one of two dozen states that levy small taxes--usually just special sales taxes--on soft drinks or snack foods. Arkansas, California, West Virginia and the city of Chicago are others that do. Those taxes are designed solely to raise revenue and the revenues aren't earmarked for health programs, but they've been around for a while.

Congress should do it differently. A federal excise tax on non-diet soft drinks of one cent per 12-ounce can would raise $1.5 billion per year, and might reduce consumption by 1 percent. A tax of one cent per ounce--as has been suggested by New York City Health Commissioner Tom Frieden (since named to head the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) and Yale obesity expert Kelly Brownell--would raise about $16 billion a year. That kind of a tax would reduce consumption by more than 10 percent and help reverse the obesity epidemic.

Others will claim that a soda tax is regressive. That's true as far it goes, but don't look for this argument from anti-poverty advocates. If we're using soda tax revenues to help pay for expanded health care coverage and for prevention, lower-income Americans will enjoy the biggest share of the benefit.

Members of Congress crafting health care reform legislation have a difficult job ahead of them. Among other things they have to raise $1.2 trillion over the next 10 years. A tax on soft drinks might get a tenth of the way there. Raising excise taxes (which have been eroded by more than one-third since they were last raised in 1991) on alcoholic beverages could get you another tenth of the way there. But unlike payroll taxes, income taxes, or taxes on employer-sponsored health benefits, a soda tax itself would promote health and reduce health care costs. True conservatives should join liberals in seeing the value in that, even if Sean Hannity doesn't.

huffpo

By William Harless

RICHMOND - A powerful Washington, D.C., trade organization that represents PepsiCo, Coca-Cola and other major beverage companies is helping fund a Richmond group that is fighting a November ballot measure to raise taxes on soda and other sweetened beverages, interviews and records show.

A Richmond resident, Rosa Lara, is going door to door identifying herself as an organizer with the Community Coalition Against Beverage Taxes and collecting signatures on a petition. Although Lara doesn't mention it unless specifically asked, her group is supported by the American Beverage Association, the industry's main trade organization.

In May, Lara presented the Richmond City Council with a petition that she said included 900 signatures against the sweetened-beverage tax. Holding up a pile of papers, she also told the council that 100 businesses had signed up to oppose the measure.

"We only have one grocery store. What's going to happen to us? We're going to have to walk," Lara told the council. "We don't have the resources to go out of the city. I've lived here my whole life - I haven't seen changes. We need to make a change for the community. This isn't the way."

Lara, who also presented her case to the council in Spanish, said she represented the Community Coalition Against Beverage Taxes, but did not note the beverage association was helping fund her petition drive.

The city council subsequently voted to place the soda tax on the November ballot. The measure would raise an estimated $2 million to $8 million, which advocates want used for obesity programs, school fruit and vegetable gardens, and playing fields. The tax would apply to soft drinks and other beverages with added sugar. **

In an interview, Lara said she does not mention the American Beverage Association funding when she is collecting signatures. But if asked, Lara said she will acknowledge that she's a paid community organizer.

"What I tell them is I live in the community," she said. "I've lived here my whole life. I tell them I'm with the Community Coalition Against Beverage Taxes, and I'm a community organizer. Most of the people that I talk to ... know me already, they know what I do, so I really don't have to explain who I am."

In a brief statement, Karen Hanretty, vice president of public affairs for the American Beverage Association, said: "ABA is and will continue supporting the growing community coalition that includes Teamsters and approximately 145 businesses against the proposed beverage tax in Richmond."

Representatives with public relations firmGoddard Gunster, which represents the American Beverage Association, did not return calls for comment.

But Chuck Finnie, a vice president of theSan Francisco public relations firm Barnes Mosher Whitehurst Lauter & Partners, confirmed in an interview that his firm is working for the Community Coalition Against Beverage Taxes and rented the office across from the Richmond city hall on behalf of the coalition.

"There are stakeholders nationwide who care about what happens in Richmond," including soft drink makers, bottlers, distributors, retailers and local union workers, Finnie said.

Barnes Mosher partner Sam Lauter is registered as an American Beverage Association lobbyist in San Francisco. Finnie declined to say which organization initially retained the firm but said public campaign finance disclosures due this month will indicate who is funding the coalition and where its money is going.

At the Richmond City Council meeting, Lara also did not mention her association with the beverage lobbying group, though the petition listed it as a funder and member of the Community Coalition Against Beverage Taxes. Last week, the coalition filed documents with the Richmond city clerk indicating it is sponsored by the American Beverage Association, though as of Monday, the coalition's website did not mention the group.

The website's domain is registered under Goddard Claussen Public Affairs in Washington. The beverage association hired the same public relations company, now known as Goddard Gunster, when former New York Gov. David Paterson proposed a similar tax in that state.

A page on the Goddard Gunster website says the company has worked on behalf of the food and beverage industries against fat and soda taxes since 2009. "Today as the food and beverage tax battles wage on state-by-state, you will find us right there every step of the way," the website reads.

According to Finnie, rallying the community "is how elections are won and lost in Richmond."

"They're won and lost by organizing voters, bringing the debate to the local level, to the street, and talking with people one on one," he said. "And we will have built a coalition of thousands of voters before this is over to oppose the tax."

The office rented by Barnes Mosher previously served as campaign headquarters for Richmond City Council Member Corky Boozé, an outspoken soda-tax opponent. Boozé has appeared on Fox News and PBS and was quoted in The New York Times this month speaking against the tax. The office was vacant when Lara approached Boozé to ask who its landlord was, according to Boozé.

The councilman said he was unaware that either the American Beverage Association or Barnes Mosher had any involvement in the anti-tax effort.

Jeff Ritterman, the cardiologist-turned-council member spearheading the fight for the sweetened-beverage tax, said he, too, was unaware that the American Beverage Association had entered the local fray, but he said he is not surprised.

"I think it says that there's intense interest from people outside of Richmond, primarily the beverage industry, to defeat the measure and that they're willing to commit significant resources to do that," said Ritterman, who hopes the tax will encourage children to reduce their consumption of sugary drinks and cut rates of obesity, diabetes and other illnesses.

In Richmond, 52 percent of schoolchildren are overweight or obese, according to Contra Costa County Health Services statistics. Among adults, 58 percent of the population is obese or overweight.

Ritterman has started his own group, Richmond Fit for Life, to fundraise for the pro-tax effort. Juan Reardon, an activist working with Ritterman, said that as of Monday, the group had raised about $6,000. Reardon said the group does not have any institutional support but would welcome it.

As for the American Beverage Association, Ritterman said: "I think the sad thing is that they recruit local people who work with them when in fact the end result of what they're doing hurts our children and hurts our community."

The Community Coalition Against Beverage Taxes disagrees. On a petition to gather supporters, the group told Richmond business owners: "Some politicians say the money will solve the city's obesity problem, but there is no guarantee the money will actually be spent on children's health."

"Their 'promise' is a bait-and-switch tax to get voters to approve their tax hike," the petition said. "The city council should pay attention to real problems like unemployment, violent crimes, and gangs."

William Harless is an investigative reporter for California Watch, a project of the nonprofit Center for Investigative Reporting. Find more California Watch stories here.

www.norichmondbeveragetax.com

off bs

https://www.facebook.com/Community-Coalition-Against-Beverage-Taxes-434540439905103/info/?entry_point=page_nav_about_item&tab=page_info

...

graph

http://richmondconfidential.org/2012/10/10/cinemark-joins-american-beverage-association-in-funding-opposition-to-measure-n/

Campaign contributions show the significant influence of Washington D.C. based lobby group, American Beverage Association and Cinemark from Plano, Texas in Richmond’s Measure N campaign. (Illustration: Tawanda Kanhema)

:{:{:{

}:}:}:

:{:{}:

Most of the $25,293 spent in support of Measure N came from an individual contributor from Saratoga, Calif., Tor Braham.

Braham’s contribution breathed life into the Yes on N campaign, whose only other major contributors with donations of more than $1,000 were a New York-based nutrition school called the Institute for Integrative Nutrition, which gave $2,000, and another individual contributor, Richard Hart of San Carlos, Calif.

The CCABT’s expenditure records also show that at least $300,000 spent so far to oppose Measure N was spent outside of Richmond, mostly on legal fees and production costs for videos and other media against the measure. The coalition spent at least $30,000 on campaign teams engaged to do canvassing work like interacting with voters and planting yard signs, more than what Yes on N has spent in total....

1st amend label

http://richmondconfidential.org/2012/09/07/federal-judge-grants-anti-soda-tax-committee-exemption-from-campaign-disclosure-law/

BEVERAGE INDUSTRY‐BACKED ANTI‐SODA TAX WEBSITES

Updated July 2012

Below is a list of beverage industry‐backed anti‐soda tax websites, compiled by Nancy

Huehnergarth, co‐founder and executive director, New York State Healthy Eating and

Physical Activity Alliance, which can be also be found in her July 2012 article in the Huffington

Post.

Industry backed anti‐soda tax websites:

New Yorkers for Beverage Choices http://nycbeveragechoices.com/ created to fight

Bloomberg’s 2012 proposal to limit soda serving sizes to 16 ounces and under

The Community Coalition Against Beverage Taxes http://www.norichmondbeveragetax.com/

founded to fight the proposed soda tax in Richmond, CA

Texas: No Texas Beverage Tax
Rhode Island: Rhode Islanders Against the Beverage Tax
Illinois: Illinois Coalition Against Beverage Taxes
Hawaii: No Hawaii Beverage Tax

7. :{Californians Against Food and Beverage Taxes http://nofoodandbevtaxca.com/ created in

response to the two attempts to pass a CA statewide beverage tax}:

New Yorkers Against Unfair Taxes http://www.nobeveragetax.com/ created when NY State

was considering a beverage tax

Washington State: Washingtonians Against the Beverage Tax
Baltimore: Stop the Baltimore City Beverage Tax
Chicago: Chicago Coalition Against Beverage Taxes
Philadelphia: Philly Jobs. Not Taxes.
Pittsburgh: No Pittsburgh Beverage Tax
Vermont: Stop the Vermont Beverage Tax
Kansas: Kansans Against Food and Beverage Taxes
Washington, D.C.: No DC Beverage Tax
Oregon: Oregon Coalition Against Beverage Taxes

18. :{Americans Against Food Taxes http://www.nofoodtaxes.com/ created to fight the failed

beverage tax introduced to help fund the Affordable Care Act}:

Susan Neely

BS Former Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs, U.S. Department of Homeland Security

President and CEO of American Beverage Association

One of the architects of the nation's first Department of Homeland Security, Susan Neely has been at the heart of policy and politics regarding the security and protection of the United States from the beginning. Exclusively represented by Leading Authorities speakers bureau, she is an engaging presenter who speaks with authority on issues from a Washington insider's perspective.

In the Circle of Trust. Neely talks about being a member of Secretary Ridge's inner circle from the White House to the new department. She describes playing a key part in the decision-making that led to new security measures that the public participates in every day, whether at airports, major bridges, tunnels, ports, chemical sites, National Parks, highways, or train stations. She articulates how she shaped the policy of threat warnings, national preparedness and response, visa issuance, privacy rights, and information sharing. Audiences get a first-hand account of what it is like to be special assistant to the president for Homeland Security in the White House and then assistant secretary for public affairs in the department, and the gravity of being responsible for the public face of the homeland security. She discusses the management of everything from threat announcements, to branding, to public education campaigns, to crisis communications. BS

richmond 2012? coalition

SODA

BMWL:

660 Mission Street

Suite 200

San Francisco, CA 94105

http://www.bmwl.net/?p=88

Chuck Finnie

Vice President of Media & Communications

Chuck Finnie

Contact Chuck:

415.615.0311 x15

One of San Francisco’s most recognized and respected public affairs journalists, Chuck uses his familiarity with the making of the news, policy, research and story-telling principles to help our clients meet their public affairs and public relations objectives in a rapidly changing communication landscape.

During a 20-year newspaper career, Chuck led local government and political reporting for the Hearst Corporation’s San Francisco Chronicle and San Francisco Examiner newspapers as a City Hall beat writer, investigative reporter and finally as Assistant Metro Editor—San Francisco. Previously, he co-authored a political column for SF Weekly; covered the court system and legal affairs in the Bay Area and Washington, DC for the Contra Costa Times, San Francisco Daily Journal and Legal Times; and reported for the Orange County Register, Los Angeles Times and Fresno Bee.

Chuck is a 1988 recipient of a Master of Arts degree from the renowned University of Missouri School of Journalism, and a 1983 graduate of Saint Michael’s College of Vermont. Chuck has two sons, lives in Kentfield, and excels at all manner of poker. Follow Chuck