Beverage/ soda

this is sugary soda; see also alcohol

see michelle on industry spending, won/loss record

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

The No on Measure D campaign on Oct. 8 covered the Ashby BART station with signs — on the floor, on the walls, and next to the ticket machines. BART workers accidentally took down some of the signs Wednesday night, but they will be reinstalled. Photo: Marian Mabel

Any traveler who walked into the Ashby BART station Wednesday night would have been barraged by “No on Measure D” ads. They were plastered on the walls across from the trains, pinned to spaces near the ticket machine, and laid out on the floor of the station.

It’s known as saturation advertising and the No on Measure D campaign is using it across Berkeley to get its message across. There are ads in bus shelters. There are ads on Berkeleyside. There are ads in the Daily Californian and on SF Gate. There are campaign signs pinned to posts and stuck in medians around town.

Get used to it. Newly filed campaign disclosure reports show that the No on Measure D campaign has spent $1.675 million so far trying to defeat a 1-cent-per-ounce tax on sugary beverages, which is about $275,000 more than was previously disclosed.

The American Beverage Association California PAC, which is funding the campaign, donated $1.4 million but has actually spent more. The campaign is also carrying $947,433 in accrued expenses. The bulk of the money is going to campaign literature, advertising, a website and campaign, and public relations consultants.

That comes to $21.43 for each of Berkeley’s 78,144 registered voters. In comparison, the beverage industry is spending $15.50 per registered voter in San Francisco, according to the San Francisco Chronicle. (The stakes for soda manufacturers are higher in Berkeley, where the measure only needs a 50% majority to pass; in San Francisco, a two-thirds majority vote is needed.)

The amount of money spent dwarfs previous Berkeley political campaigns, and distorts the electoral process, according to Daniel Newman, the president and co-founder of MapLight, a nonpartisan research organization in Berkeley that reveals money’s influence on politics.

“When one side has more than 10 times as many resources as another, it starts to make a mockery of what our democracy is supposed to be like,” said Newman. “If one side has 10 times more money to send mailers, and pay people to have conversations with voters, it creates distorted conditions for voters to effectively decide on what laws they want.”

Roger Salazar, a spokesman for the campaign, would not directly answer whether the amount of money the beverage industry is spending in Berkeley would turn off voters. He pointed out that the Yes on D campaign is also using seasoned campaign consultants, and that all the city officials running for re-election are using their bully pulpit to push the tax — a legal tactic, but one, as he put it in a previous interview, that gives “moral authority” to the campaign. The beverage industry must overcome that, he said. In addition, the Berkeley City Council spent $60,000 to conduct a poll about the proposed 1-cent-tax-per-ounce measure, he said.

“They’ve got government sponsorship,” said Salazar. “We are going to be informing voters about the flaws and impacts of this misguided venture.”

Council did spend $60,000 on two polls, but the questions that were posed covered a range of issues, not just the soda tax.

Dustan Batton of Rodriguez Strategies (left) and Josh Daniels (right) argue the merits of Measure D, a proposed tax on sugary beverages, at an election event on Oct. 6. Batton is a spokesman for the No on D campaign, and Daniels is co-chair of the Yes on D campaign. Photo: Mark Coplan

Only a small portion of the $1.675 million declared recently was spent in Berkeley, according to campaign finance documents reviewed by Berkeleyside.

Dustan Batton, who works for Rodriguez Strategies,

12121 Wilshire Boulevard

Suite 1260

Los Angeles, CA 90025

p : (424) 208-3202

e : info@rodriguezstrategies.com

http://www.rodriguezstrategies.com/

the Los Angeles-based consulting firm that is running the Berkeley campaign, paid $622 to stay at the Durant Hotel, according to campaign filings. The campaign has paid Wong Property Management $11,040 for rent, and $1,020 to Parking Concepts for parking.

Two print shops were paid for printing campaign literature: Zee Zee Copy and Alliance Graphic got a combined $4,239. The campaign has paid Berkeleyside $9,393 for advertising. It has also taken out ads that cover two full pages in the Daily Californian.

Here are some of the major expenditures, according to campaign filings:

TV ads: $327,453, with $96,236 going to KGO and KPIX
Radio spots: $17,848
BART advertising: $46,750, according to Alicia Trost, BART’s communication manager
Campaign literature: $603,470
U.S. Postal Service: $62,287
Its website: $63,832
Polling: $44,000
Travel: $17,164 on airline tickets and $5,863 on hotels
Office supplies: $7,845
It has paid a San Rafael law firm, Nielsen Merksamer Parrinello Gross & Leoni, around $59,000 to prepare campaign finance reports for both Measure D and San Francisco’s Measure E.
It paid $530,578 to EWC Media Services to place local ads.

Advertising: flyers and lawn signs

A flyer produced and distributed by the No on D campaign — a reprint of an op-ed piece published on Berkeleyside. The other side shows another op-ed piece also published on Berkeleyside. Click on image to enlarge it.

In addition to blitzing the Bay Area with ads, the No on D campaign has sent out at least seven mass mailings, which is defined by Berkeley election law as those going to more than 200 households.

There may have been more. In recent days, the No on D campaign has been passing out a flyer that features excerpts from two anti-soda tax op-eds that were published on Berkeleyside in the Opinionator section. Berkeleyside’s logo is prominently featured at the top of the page. Many Berkeley residents have been confused by that campaign literature, and have asked Berkeleyside whether the news site has taken a position to oppose Measure D. Berkeleyside does not take editorial positions. The flyer is a production of the No on Measure D campaign.

Read more about Berkeleyside’s position on endorsements.

The proliferation of campaign signs has also been a problem. The city of Berkeley has sent the No on Measure D campaign two letters informing it that its signs are illegally placed in Berkeley. Berkeley’s sign ordinance does not allow campaign signs on wooden utility poles, public sidewalks, median strips, fire hydrants, curbs, or any traffic control fixture.

On Oct. 2 and then again on Oct. 6, Berkeley noted that there were No on Measure D signs on at least six different roundabouts or median strips.

BART workers mistakenly took out some of the ads that the No on Measure D campaign had paid $46,750 for. Photo: Chris Watters

(Note: Just hours after the No on D advertising was plastered around the Ashby BART station, the film on the floor and other ads were mistakenly taken down by BART workers, said Trost. The workers thought they were unauthorized. They should be put back in the next few days.)

Campaign strategy

The campaign — and a similar one in San Francisco — is being run by Goddard Gunster, a Washington, D.C.-based public relations firm, according to Salazar. The firm has had a role in defeating numerous soda tax initiatives across the country, including one proposed by New York state and a portion size cap in New York City. A previous incarnation of the firm made the “Harry and Louise” commercials that helped derail President Bill Clinton’s effort to overhaul health care.

The No on D campaign has sent Goddard Gunster at least $863,305, according to the campaign filings. But it is difficult to tell from the campaign expense reports exactly how much the PR firm has kept, for it has passed on significant amounts of that money to subcontractors. For example, Goddard Gunster has paid $530,578 to EWC Media Services, which places local ads.

The campaign is also using three different political consulting firms. Rodriguez Strategies of Los Angeles is running the ground campaign in Berkeley, said Salazar. The No on D campaign has paid it around $109,273, according to campaign reports. The campaign hired Salazar’s firm, Alza Associates, to talk to the press, and has paid the firm $12,090. Other firms include First Tuesday, a South Carolina firm that has been paid $75,000.

The campaign has used Amplified Strategies, a Seattle-based direct mail company that has worked with Goddard Gunster and the American Beverage Association on numerous other campaigns. Amplified Strategies worked on an anti-soda tax campaign in Washington state, as well as against California’s Prop. 37, which would have required labeling of genetically modified foods.

It appears as if two of the No on Measure D campaign’s public faces moved to the East Bay expressly to fight the proposed soda tax. Dustan Batton and Leon Cain work for Rodriguez Strategies of Los Angeles. Cain filed a lawsuit against the city of Berkeley in August objecting to some of the language council used in the ballot argument. An Alameda County Superior Court judge ruled that the wording did not comply with the law andordered the city to change it. Cain recently moved to Berkeley from San Francisco and only registered to vote here Aug. 4, according to the East Bay Express. The lawsuit was filed Aug. 15, 2014.

Batton lived in the Los Angeles area until recently, according to his LinkedIn profile, and now resides in Walnut Creek. He worked as a public affairs consultant for the American Beverage Association from May 2012 to March 2013. He was the lead organizer for a soda tax campaign in El Monte, Calif., which was defeated 76% to 24%, according to Batton’s profile. As of Thursday afternoon, his Twitter profile still identified Los Angeles as his location.

Batton started to work for Rodriguez Strategies, which is running the No on D campaign, in February 2013, according to LinkedIn. He recently appeared as the campaign spokesman at a forum hosted by the Claremont-Elmwood Neighborhood Association on Oct. 6. Batton identified himself as a lobbyist at that meeting, according to people who attended.

The soda industry has experience defeating proposed soda taxes

The willingness of the beverage industry to move people to Berkeley and to pour close to $2 million into the campaign to defeat the proposed soda tax should come as no surprise. The beverage industry has spent $117 million since 2009 to squash or roll back soda taxes, according to the New York Times. The beverage industry has defeated more than 30 initiatives around the United States in those years.

Nationwide, the fight has been funded by political action committees of the American Beverage Association, a trade organization made up of the world’s largest beverage companies and businesses that sell their products. They include the Coca-Cola Company, PepsiCo, Dr. Pepper-Royal Crown Bottling Co., Canada Dry Bottling Co. of New York, the Can Manufacturers Institute, 7-Eleven Convenience Stores, and Yum! Brands (KFC, Pizza Hut and Taco Bell).

The brands include Honest Tea, Snapple, Tropicana, Minute Maid, Aquafina, Mountain Dew, Starbucks coffee drinks, Fuze Tea, Odwalla, Glacéau Vitaminwater, Hawaiian Punch, 7-Up, Coca–Cola and many more.

The American Beverage Association has also gotten prominent non-profits to remove their support of soda taxes in exchange for large donations, according to news reports.In 2010, the soda industry offered to pay Philadelphia $10 million if its city council backed away from a plan to tax sugary beverages. Council agreed, and the soft drink industry donated $10 million to the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

Salazar said the beverage industry wants to help people reduce their sugar consumption, just not through local legislation. The soda industry has reduced the calories in many of its drinks by 10% in the last 10 years, and just recently pledged to reduce it an additional 20%, he said.

“From our perspective, it’s bad public policy,” said Salazar, of local legislation. “There are ways you can promote healthy lifestyles. We don’t believe taxing people is the way to do it.”

Beverage companies donate $800,000 to fight soda tax (09.22.14)

Judge changes Berkeley soda tax ballot measure (09.04.14)

Berkeley councilman faces PR man in ‘soda tax’ debate (07.30.14)

Berkeley puts sugar tax on November ballot (07.02.14)

Plans firm up for Berkeley soda tax, city parks measures (05.21.14)

Community survey shows difficulties for ballot measures (05.06.14)

Sugar tax hits the sweet spot for Berkeley residents (03.14.14)

Will Berkeley be first in nation to impose soda tax? (02.12.14)

http://www.berkeleyside.com/2015/05/20/berkeleys-new-soda-tax-panel-begins-its-work/

:{ new :(style="background-color:#ffffff;"):}::{Berkeley:(style="background-color:#ffff66;"):}::{ “panel of experts”:(style="background-color:#ffffff;"):}: charged with allocating money collected from the city’s recently implemented soda tax convened for the first time Tuesday night, electing Jennifer Brown and Xavier Morales as chair and vice chair, respectively.

Brown, a parent and soda tax activist, and Morales, executive director of the Latino Coalition for a Healthy California, will lead the nine-person panel, officially titled the “Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Product Panel of Experts,” in bi-monthly or monthly meetings that will establish the direction of funding from Berkeley’s new sugar-sweetened beverage tax, which was approved by voters in November.

“This moment right now is probably the biggest moment we’ve ever been in,” panel member and health activist Joy Moore said to her peers.

A small group of community members were present at the meeting, at the North Berkeley Senior Center, including Berkeley City Council members Laurie Capitelli and Linda Maio, and Berkeley School Board Member Josh Daniels.

“We’re all in a fishbowl built out of a magnifying glass,” Capitelli told the panel of activists, health professionals and parents, referring to the national attention the soda tax has garnered and the strong community interest in the work about to be done.

On Monday, Capitelli and other council members announced that the soda tax had brought in$116,000 in its first month.

The new panel hopes to establish a vision statement and plan for community engagement over the next few weeks.

The biggest issue on the panel’s plate is submitting its initial budget, which needs to be approved by the Berkeley City Council by June 30. Council voted in favor of directing $500,000 from the General Fund, to be repaid in full by soda tax revenues, to programs determined by the panel. Panel members themselves are not compensated in any way.

Council asked the panel earlier this month to direct $250,000 to the school district “to ensure that total school site programming offered to students through the Cooking and Gardening Program for 2015-16 exceeds that which was supported by the District in 2014-15.” Council also asked that the panel bring back recommendations for the rest of the money by Oct. 1.

While the group will propose recommendations for soda tax revenue, it is council alone that will approve or reject where the money ultimately goes.

Daniels spoke briefly on behalf of the school board during Tuesday’s public comment period when he requested that the panel decide on funding for the school district before BUSD’s June 10 budget deadline. “The school district needs to feel comfortable by June 10 that the commission is going to recommend the $250,000 to BUSD,” Daniels told Berkeleyside.

Daniels said the panel does not need to submit its recommendation to council by that time, nor does the district need to receive funding by that date. It simply needs to have “some sense” that the panel is comfortable allocating the money so BUSD can include it in its upcoming budget proposal.

Panel members appeared anxious to begin work on developing a framework for funding recommendations, as well as a format for presenting information to the interested public. And city officials said they were relying on the group to get the job done.

“You are our brain trust,” Councilwoman Maio told the panel. “We have to do this right.”

The panel meets next June 3 from 6-8 p.m., but the location has not yet been determined. The group plans at that time to develop its approach for community engagement, collect information about prevention strategies and craft a vision statement. In the future, the panel may also consider a suggestion by member Poki Namkung to create a children’s health trust, a dedicated fund focused on children’s health concerns.

Who’s who on Berkeley’s soda tax panel of experts

The nine members of the panel of experts were nominated by Berkeley council and community members, and represent an array of professions and community health interests.

Jennifer Brown, panel chair, is a Berkeley parent and health activist who was active in the Measure D soda tax campaign. She was nominated by Berkeley Councilman Max Anderson.
Xavier Morales, panel vice chair, is the executive director of the Latino Coalition for a Healthy California, and longtime community health and social justice advocate. He was nominated by Councilman Darryl Moore.
Pat Crawford is an adjunct professor at the University of California, Berkeley, as well as director of the Dr. Robert C. and Veronica Atkins Center for Weight and Health. She was nominated by Councilwoman Susan Wengraf.
Nancy Fenstermacher is a dentist in Berkeley. She was nominated by Councilwoman Linda Maio.
Joy Moore is a longtime community food activist and an instructor with the gardening and cooking program at BUSD. She was nominated by Councilman Kriss Worthington.
Poki Namkung is a former public health officer for Berkeley and Santa Cruz County. She was nominated by Councilwoman Lori Droste.
Bobbie Rose is a pediatric public health nurse and educator for the California Sudden Infant Death Program. She was nominated by Councilman Laurie Capitelli.
Holly Scheider is a public health advocate and previously was the outreach manager for the Berkeley Healthy Child Coalition. She was nominated by Councilman Jesse Arreguin.
Julie Sinai is a former Berkeley School Board member and was nominated by Mayor Tom Bates.

Sign up for updates on the city website about the panel’s work and upcoming meeting information.

Op-ed: We trust officials to spend soda tax money wisely (10.01.14)

Soda distributors frustrated at city of Berkeley’s lack of guidance on soda tax(03.02.15)

Why Berkeley passed a soda tax while other cities failed (11.05.14)

Op-ed: The Berkeley tax may have passed, but the campaign has not ended for Big Soda (03.19.15)

Campaign donations reach record levels in Berkeley (10.07.14)

klobachar sellout on kid food:

FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTION

James H. Davidson believes in the First Amendment. The former college newspaper editor turned lawyer turned Senate aide is now one of the most powerful lobbyists in Washington.

For two decades, Davidson has been the point man for the advertising industry in free speech issues. More recently his clients have also included food and beverage companies in alliance with advertisers. They have joined forces to lead the fight against the proposedgovernment guidelines on sugar, salt and fat in food marketed to 2- to 17-year-olds.

Davidson also says there is no proof that food marketing causes obesity, and without it, there is no legal basis for restricting the ads.

"The First Amendment protects this type of speech," he said.

Other lobbyists pointed to the role of potentially unlimited political donations in explaining how industry has been able to so thoroughly defeat the proposed salt, sugar and fat guidelines.

In 2009, Congress passed a measure proposed by Harkin and Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kansas) to ask the FTC and three other agencies -- the CDC, the Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration -- to draft voluntary nutrition standards for children's food marketing. The two senators were motivated by studies showing that children develop lifelong preferences from watching ads that target them with saltier, sweeter foods than adults.

reuters see michelle for all

http://www.alternet.org/print/personal-health/how-coca-colas-obesity-pr-stunt-blew-companys-face

astroturf

marion nestle

http://www.alternet.org/food/soda-sales-decline-qa-rebecca-spector-center-food-safety

http://www.alternet.org/books/our-unhealthy-addiction-sugar-harming-poor-and-making-rich-richer

Everyone knows that obesity, type 2 diabetes, and the other diet-related diseases are shortening lives and draining public coffers, right? But nobody knows the formula to stop them. And so there are a lot of people watching the city of Berkeley to see if its new tax on sugar-sweetened beverages can make a dent.

Voters passed the tax just last November, so it’s far too soon to tell if it’s having any impact on health. But we can, even at this point, fact-check a couple of predictions that were making the rounds before the vote.

During the political campaign, the group opposing the tax suggested that Berkeley wouldn’t actually spend the money it raised on health programs, and that stores wouldn’t actually increase the price of soda. Let’s look at what has actually happened so far.

Is the money really going to health and nutrition programs? Yes.

Those opposing the tax suggested that the city was cynically using it as a way to grab more money. For instance: “Measure D is written so that the City Council can spend the tax revenue on anything they want.”

But, instead of funneling the tax money into Caribbean vacations for public employee unions, the money is, indeed, going to public health education. The city council appointed a commission to figure out what to do with the money, and it recently voted (unanimously) to give $250,000 to the school district for nutrition education.

That commission is mostly made up of community advocates who got involved during the campaign; only one member is a nutrition researcher: Pat Crawford,director of the Atkins Center for Weight and Health at UC Berkeley. That concerned me. For Berkeley to make a good test case, it would have to employ the best, evidence-based interventions. But Holly Scheider, another member of that commission, said that there were sound reasons behind the commission’s makeup. It’s important to have a scientist on board, like Crawford, she said, but it’s also important to have people who understand what will work in their communities.

“From the beginning we embraced communities of color, which are at the highest risk of developing obesity and diabetes, and understood the importance of bringing them into the leadership and decision-making process,” Scheider said.

Scheider said she expected that the rest of the money would go to programs zeroing in on the people most at risk of developing diet-related disease. But because 1-in-3 children are overweight, “we also wanted something broad that would catch all those kids. The school program does that.”

Are stores passing on the tax in the price of drinks? Some are; some aren’t, yet.

The tax will be most effective if — in addition to providing money for programs — it also raises prices and discourages people from buying the least healthy drinks. But Berkeley didn’t tax consumers directly; instead, it taxed beverage distributors. (There are several reasons for this — the most important one is that sales tax is capped at 9.5 percent in California, and Berkeley had already maxed that out.) The idea was that distributors would pass the tax on to the stores, which would then pass it on to the people buying drinks.

Opponents of the tax warned that retailers might not increase the price of sugary drinks, and instead would just raise the price of all food.

When Contra Costa Times columnist Tom Barnidge checked a couple of stores to see if they were charging more for sodas, it looked to him like the predictions of opponents had come true. But when I checked a few weeks later, it was clear thatseveral stores had boosted prices.You can see it clearly in this photo:

http://grist.org/food/lots-of-crazy-claims-about-soda-taxes-which-panned-out/

The sugar-sweetened Coke is 60 cents more than the diet Coke. That’s 7.5 ounces x 8 cans x 1 cent tax per ounce = 60 cents. Safeway and Andronicos (a local grocery chain) are passing on the tax in this way. Another store, The Dollar Tree, has simply stopped selling sodas. But other sellers, including drug stores, are still on the fence. I didn’t see any difference in prices at CVS. Barnidge talked to a store manager:

Berkeley CVS store Manager Danny Rogers said his store is simply absorbing the added cost. “We’re just taking on the tax and paying it,” he said. “We’re still looking into should-we, should-we-not (charge customers).”

It appears that some retailers are simply eating the tax while trying to figure out what to do. Others, like Safeway, may have just needed some time to adjust their system.

Unintended consequences

The campaign rhetoric didn’t invoke the travails of beverage distributors, but since the tax passed they have been saying it’s giving them major headaches. I talked to one distributor who spoke on background (the company has a policy against talking on the record, so that it doesn’t get singled out for opprobrium). Distributors typically use an inventory-management program to track where everything is going — and the tax throws a monkey-wrench into the works. It requires a lot of manual adjustment when the stores in one city get a different price from everyone else.

The distributors pass the tax on to retailers, so it doesn’t cost them anything, but the extra regulation does cost them in labor — so much so that some of the smaller distributors may simply stop delivering sugary beverages to Berkeley. Anti-obesity advocates might cheer that development, but tying small businesses up in red tape is a rough way to solve a problem. And of course, it won’t halt the flow of soda, because the big companies have distributors in house. (I called a Coke distribution center in the Bay Area, but they referred me back to corporate headquarters, which didn’t respond to my query.)

Several campaign claims haven’t played out yet.

Is one cent an ounce really enough to make people switch to the diet version (or something healthier)? Will people just buy soda across city lines and bring it back to Berkeley? And supposing the price increase, or the education, works, and people change their behavior: How much will it improve public health?

The whole thing is a big open-air experiment. UC Berkeley public health researchers are taking advantage of the way that experiment is unfolding in their backyard: A team of researchers is collecting data to see if the city is able to budge the intractable problem of dietary disease. But we’ll have to wait to see what they can learn.

Last year, an initiative to tax sugary beverages in San Francisco failed, so instead the city’s board of supervisors voted unanimously Tuesday to require companies to slap a warning labelon their sugary-beverage ads. The labels won’t go on the cans and bottles themselves, but the law does require all ads to bear the words:

WARNING: Drinking beverages with added sugar(s) contributes to obesity, diabetes, and tooth decay. This is a message from the City and County of San Francisco.

The warning must comprise 20 percent of the advertising space. Existing ads get a pass: The Coke bottle over the Giants’ field and the neon billboard that greets drivers as they come off the Bay Bridge won’t have to add labels. But you can see how the warning rule would discourage any more high-profile ads like those.

At the same time, San Francisco prohibited the use of city money to purchase sugary drinks and banned advertisements for them from city property. That’s quite an assault on sweet beverages, but it’s still mild in comparison to the some of the horrific labels showing up on cigarettes.

Many studies have suggested a strong causal link between sugary drinks and weight gain. One study found that children that drank a soda a day increased their odds of becoming obese by 60 percent. That’s persuasive evidence. But I suppose the world is not yet ready for a label that says “Please drink me, I’d like to take up residence in your subcutaneous regions.” grist 6/15

tax

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Why-Berkeley-passed-a-soda-tax-and-S-F-didn-t-5879757.php

3/6/2015 Why Berkeley passed a soda tax and S.F. didn’t SFGate

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/WhyBerkeleypassedasodataxandSFdidnt5879757.php 3/5

Many Americans consider San Francisco and

Berkeley two peas in a very liberal pod — both

of them farleft, wacky cities filled with potsmoking,

quinoa eating eccentrics whose

mayoral candidates go by names like Chicken

John (San Francisco, 2007) and Running

Wolf (Berkeley, 2012).

But there are plenty of differences between the

two bluest of blue Bay Area cities. Take a look at

Tuesday’s election and the very different

outcomes for both cities’ attempts to pass a tax on sodas.

Hannah Doherty joins fellow opponents to Proposition E at a victory party at Chambers in the Phoenix Hotel

in S.F. They got $9.1 million for their campaign.

There was, of course, a lot of Wednesday morning quarterbacking after the election — and a lot

of thoughts as to why two such similar cities had two such different outcomes.

One is simple demographics. Berkeley is smaller, whiter and a bit wealthier than San Francisco.

A number of political observers likened Berkeley to one big Noe Valley. And it’s those Noe Valley

types who were most likely to vote for a soda tax.

Corey Cook, a political science professor at the University of San Francisco, used preliminary

election results to create precinctlevel maps showing how residents voted on the city’s various

propositions.

If all of San Francisco voted along the lines of the Castro, Haight, Potrero Hill and, yes, Noe

Valley, the soda tax would have won. But neighborhoods with more lowincome and minority

voters, including Chinatown, BayviewHunters Point and Visitacion Valley, voted against the

tax.

That has been the case in just about every city that has tried to pass a soda tax.The American

Beverage Association, which funneled $9.1 million into defeating Prop. E, often concentrates its

campaign spending in low-income, minority neighborhoods — and wins.

Georgetown University Professor Lawrence Gostin, who specializes in public health law and

supports soda taxes, said the strategy is common because lowincome people drink more soda

and cannot easily afford the extra taxes. To win them over, soda tax proponents must work

closely with churches, health advocates and community leaders in those neighborhoods.

“We need to consult them, engage them and have the voice come from them,” he said. “They

need to say, 'We won’t stand for this for our children.’”

Supervisor Eric Mar, an author of Prop. E., said the campaign to pass the soda tax didn’t do

enough outreach in Chinese, black and immigrant neighborhoods.

“Our grassroots campaign needed to start earlier in the low income communities,” he said.

“That was one of the weaknesses.”

Mar said another problem with San Francisco’s measure was the way it got started. He

spearheaded the oftmocked, yet ultimately successful ban on free toys in Happy Meals in 2010

and used the excitement among health advocates on that measure to fuel talk of a soda tax.

Mar and his progressive colleague,Supervisor John Avalos, said they’d been working closely with

UCSF researchers and others to craft the soda tax, but that Supervisor Scott Wiener then came in

and took over.

“We were surprised when he jumped out with his soda tax proposal,” Mar said. “We need more

discipline among the elected officials in how to support the coalition and not move forward

prematurely as individual supervisors.”

Mar said he had wanted to wait until the November 2015 ballot at the urging of Mayor Ed Lee,

who didn’t want the soda tax to distract from other measures on Tuesday’s ballot, but that

Wiener rushed the issue.

“I think if we had done what the mayor’s office wanted, there would have been strong support in

2015,” Mar said.

Wiener scoffed at that notion. “There wouldn’t have been any difference between this year and

next year in terms of support,” he said. “Sometimes you have to pull the trigger and move

forward. Sometimes when you’re working on a policy issue that’s hard or there’s going to be

opposition, you can get stuck and there can be some inertia.”

At the July Board of Supervisors meeting to place the measure on the ballot, four supervisors

surprised their colleagues by speaking out vehemently against the tax. Lee refused to take a

stand.

Berkeley, however, had a strong, citywide coalition that had been building for years and had early

buyin from a host of minority community groups.

Polling in Berkeley consistently showed about 60 percent of voters backing the tax, even if the

revenue wasn’t pegged for any particular purpose. Polling in San Francisco showed that voters

were much more likely to back the soda tax if they knew revenue would be spent on kids’

programs and not just funneled into the city’s general spending account. Supporters still think

they were right to go for the measure requiring twothirds support, but it cost them a lot of

money.

That’s because former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg — he of the illfated attempt to ban

the Big Gulp — in midOctober gave $85,000 to the campaign to pass Measure D in Berkeley,

which paid for cable TV ads during the World Series and is credited in part with pushing the level

of support so high.

Bloomberg never gave any money to the San Francisco campaign, though supporters of that

soda tax effort were expecting it. Howard Wolfson, senior adviser to Bloomberg, said the twothirds

requirement made the measure not viable.

“I hope that the folks there who were very passionately committed to this issue decide to look at

it again and think about putting it on the ballot in a different year and a different form,” Wolfson

said.

Money, or lack thereof, was the hardest part of the campaign, said campaign manager Maureen

Erwin. Despite a lengthy and impressive list of endorsements, donations just didn’t come

through. The campaign raised a total of just $255,000.

“We had no funding to execute any communication strategy,” she said, saying there are a lot of

foundations funding health research and education, but not political change. “They’re going to

have to get political. Type 2 diabetes is political, I’m sorry.”

The San Francisco soda tax supporters say they’ll try again. They plan to meet in the next few

weeks to decide their game plan, and Mar said it could reappear on the ballot as soon as next

November.

Their first effort may have gone flat like a can of Coke left unopened too long. But they now

know it can work — across the bay anyway.

Heather Knight is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: hknight@sfchronicle.com

http://www.alternet.org/print/food/watch-out-these-buzzwords-food-companies-use-hype-their-products-are-healthy-they-dont-mean

http://www.sfgate.com/health/article/Richmond-soda-tax-to-fight-obesity-makes-ballot-3564500.php

Richmondvoters will decide this fall whether to impose what could be the nation's first municipal tax on soda and other sugary beverages - a penny-per-ounce surcharge intended to fight childhood obesity.

The City Council voted 5-2 Tuesday to place the measure on the Nov. 6 ballot, despite impassioned protests from grocers and soda drinkers.

The tax would go into the city's general fund, raising between $2 million and $8 million annually for soccer fields, school gardens, diabetes treatment and other antiobesity projects.

"Even a Twinkie has some nutritional value. But soft drinks have none. They're poisonous," said City Councilman Jeff Ritterman, a longtime Richmond doctor who proposed the measure. "I think other cities are going to follow our lead."

he tax would apply to soft drinks as well as Snapple and other beverages with added sugar. Most juice would be exempt, as would diet sodas.

The council's decision came after several hours of heated discussion. Councilmen Corky Boozé and Nathaniel Bates were the dissenting votes.

Tax on the poor

Boozé argued that the tax is unfair because it falls disproportionately on Richmond merchants and soda drinkers who have no means of shopping in neighboring cities.

"This is a tax on poor people. That's all it is," he said. "People are going to drink soda anyway. But people who can't afford carsare going to end up paying more."

Rosa Lara, a Richmond resident who delivered 900 signatures to the council opposing the measure, said an economic downturn is not the time to introduce new taxes, particularly in a city with a high poverty rate. Nearly 20 percent of Richmond residents live below the poverty line, according to federal data.

"People are already struggling to pay their bills," she said. "If the city really wants to fight obesity, why not make the streets safer so kids can play outside?"

Cities throughout the country, including San Francisco and San Pablo, have considered soda taxes as a way to reduce obesity and its related health effects. But no city has gotten as far as Richmond, said Kelly Brownell, director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale University.

"If these products are causing damage to the community, the community has a right to recoup those damages," he said. "I think Richmond's action is quite forward-looking. The science is solid linking soda to obesity."

Preventing deaths

A nationwide soda tax, similar to Richmond's, would prevent 100,000 cases of heart disease, 8,000 strokes and 26,000 deaths over the next decade, according to a January study by UCSF, San Francisco General Hospital and Columbia University.

In Richmond, about a third of African American and Latino sixth- and seventh-graders are obese, and an additional 20 percent are overweight, said Ritterman, who worked as a cardiologist at Kaiser Richmond for 30 years.

Soda is a prime culprit behind obesity because it's consumed far more widely than candy, ice cream or other sweets and has virtually no nutritional value, Ritterman said.

And if city residents can improve their health, and therefore feel better, they'll be more likely to become better students, parents, neighbors and citizens, said Mayor Gayle McLaughlin.

Ultimately, a healthier city will lead to less crime and be a boon for merchants, she said.

"Instead of hurting business, we think this will help business," she said. "People will see us as an innovative city. We'll be a national model."

Juan Cerritos isn't so sure. He drinks four or five Cokes a day and sells several dozen at the taqueria he owns at 27th Street and Barrett Avenue.

"I know it's unhealthy, but I like it," he said. "It tastes good. I don't know why they want to make it more expensive."

Carolyn Jones is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. carolynjones@sfchronicle.com

Am Bev Inst is berman

fdr Am Bev Inst? pays 1.3 m$/yrs to B&Co CCF $1.7 2010

CCF coverage:

:{Soda Taxes’:(style="background-color:#ffff66;"):}::{ Last Stand in San Fran?:(style="background-color:#ffffff;"):}:

(February 10th, 2014)

This year’s state legislative season has been brutal for the activists trying to put punitive taxes on sodas and other soft drinks. Despite some efforts to resurrect California Senate Bill 622, it died at the end of January as the … Continue reading :{→:(style="border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-weight:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}:

read more here »

This year’s state legislative season has been brutal for the activists trying to put punitive taxes on sodas and other soft drinks. Despite some efforts to resurrect California Senate Bill 622, it died at the end of January as the state legislature’s “crossover deadline” passed.

It’s no surprise that legislators, even in an arch-blue state like California, aren’t willing to follow the activists off the political cliff. Polling overwhelmingly shows that citizens do not want to go on the tax-code diet, and the scientific evidence consistently finds that a soft drink tax won’t have a meaningful effect on obesity rates.

So activists are moving to the last refuge of political scoundrels—San Francisco—for one more attempt to go after fizzy drinks. The city council will consider whether to refer a $2.56-per-gallon tax on sodas and similar beverages to the November 2014 election ballot. If history is any guide, even Bay Area residents are skeptical of these regressive, costly taxes: Richmond, a city on the east side of San Francisco Bay, rejected a tax half that severe by a two-to-one margin.

We aren’t expecting this year’s result to be any different. It’s time for activists to stop trying to push discriminatory, limited punishments on food choices and provide the education and lifestyle guidance that are actuallyshowing real-world promise in turning the obesity tide.

:{California Brings Back :(style="background-color:#ffffff;"):}::{Food Ban Bill:(style="background-color:#ffff66;"):}::{

}:(January 7th, 2014)

As state legislatures convene for their annual sessions, we will shortly see a tsunami of horrible ideas to regulate, tax, and ban our favorite foodstuffs. California looks to be a hotbed of activity: Activists hope to bring back the soda … Continue reading :{→:(style="border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-weight:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}:

read more here »

There’s no shortage of commentators on the political left beating up on people on the political right for being “deniers” when it comes to climate change science. Meanwhile, we have long notedthe hypocrisy of certain activists on the political left in holding up the scientific consensus of climate change while simultaneously ignoring the one around genetically improved foods (GIFs) and chemical safety. Now a science writer has put two and two together in the Washington politics newspaper Politico to make a similar condemnation of anti-science behavior on the political left.

It highlights how activist groups like Greenpeace, the Environmental Working Group, and the Sierra Club ignore the scientific consensus – led by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (and, we would add, numerous other bodies), 25 years of research, and more than 500 independent research groups – around the safety of GIFs. And despite charges that only right-leaning sources are anti-science, as we’ve noted before, it is liberals and Democrats like California Sen. Dianne Feinstein who are spearheading GIF labeling bills in statehouses across the country, dismissing scientists’ belief that such labeling could “mislead and falsely alarm customers.”

We would go further and point out how the unscientific opposition to GIFs also threatens the world’s starving children, who depend on advancements in food technology to prevent malnutrition and death. Unneeded regulations on food technology in the U.S. could potentially cripple the advancement of this lifesaving technology.

And it’s not only GIFs where the Left shows its anti-science stripes. The article also highlights how they are the leading practitioners of “chemophobia” – the unfounded fear of chemical exposure. Epitomized by the neurotic mother who won’t let her child play with plastic toys or crawl on carpets because of trace chemicals used in their manufacture, chemophobes wage a pointless war trying to ban chemicals like bisphenol A. This is despite the fact that scientific consensus – led by the Food and Drug Administration and European, German, and Canadian health authorities – has declared BPA safe at present exposure levels.

Here, the article explains how this position is also dangerous, articulating how its unintended consequences – namely the fact that other, less tested ingredients may be substituted in BPA’s place – are potentially hazardous to health.

There will always activists ignoring science and common sense to promote a dangerous agenda. (They used to be called hippies.) But when they begin to influence an entire political wing – especially one that claims to be the defenders of science – their hypocrisy must be exposed, wherever they lie

Election Recap: Anti-Soda, Organic Activists Appear to Lose Big

(November 6th, 2013)

We previewed ballot initiatives this week with an eye toward how they might change the politics of soda taxes and the scientifically pointless labeling of foods produced using biotechnology. Today, it looks like those politics did not change. Telluride, Colorado’s … Continue reading :{→:(style="border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-weight:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}:

read more here »

Soda Tax Descends into San Francisco

(October 28th, 2013)

Roughly a year after their Bay Area counterparts in Richmond rejected a $1.28 per gallon tax on soft drinks by two-to-one, San Francisco City Supervisor Scott Wiener has proposed a $2.56 per gallon tax on soda sold in the City … Continue reading :{→:(style="border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-weight:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}:

read more here »

(Another) Soda Ban Gets the Can

(August 29th, 2013)

We wrote earlier this week about City of San Jose Councilman Ash Kalra’s proposal to ban ALL sodas and whole milk at city-owned facilities and events, even despite evidence that such regulations don’t achieve their ultimate goal of reducing obesity. Today, however, we deliver … Continue reading :{→:(style="border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-weight:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}:

read more here »

The Anti-Soda Empire Strikes Back in San Jose

(August 26th, 2013)

One would think that the food regulators would give up on their incessant lobbying for total food and beverage control, given the evidence that taxing and regulating soda (and other “junk food”) won’t have a meaningful effect on obesity rates. City of San … Continue reading :{→:(style="border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-weight:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}:

read more here »

Food Companies Beat Soda Tax in Calorie Cut Challenge

(May 30th, 2013)

Readers of The Washington Post were greeted with a full-page announcement by the Healthy Weight Commitment Foundation that the companies participating had achieved their goal of reducing the annual calorie supply by 1.5 trillion calories two years ahead of schedule. … Continue reading :{→:(style="border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-weight:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}:

read more here »

Another Soda Tax Bites the Dust

(May 24th, 2013)

With state legislative seasons wrapping up and official deadlines approaching, activists placed their hopes to end beverage freedom on a California soda tax proposal. Now, legislators have placed it in the “suspense file,” which effectively kills it. Proponents had hoped … Continue reading :{→:(style="border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-weight:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}:

read more here »

No Rest for California Soda Freedom Advocates

(May 21st, 2013)

Yesterday, a California Senate Committee heard testimony on a proposal, Senate Bill 622, to place a $1.28 per-gallon tax on soft drinks in the state. (If that doesn’t sound like much, consider that the state’s tax on the roughly equal-calorie …Continue reading :{→:(style="border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-weight:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}:

read more here »

Consumer Group: Chances Soda Tax Earnings Go to Children’s Health Fund Slim

(May 1st, 2013)

Today the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) called on Senator Bill Monning (D-Carmel) to abandon his misguided proposal to place a penny-per-ounce tax on sugar-sweetened beverages. The bill is scheduled to be heard today at 1:30pm in the Senate Health … Continue reading :{→:(style="border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-weight:inherit;margin:0px;outline:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline"):}:

read more here »

nyt nick c on soda tax

http://www.nytimes.com/video/nyregion/100000002114081/soda-supporters.html?ref=nicholasconfessore

he latest Oxfam video campaign has taken aim at the biggest giants in the sugar industry, accusing them of massive land grabs and the displacement of poor farmers across the world.

“The companies that supply your favorite food brands with sugar may be kicking poor farmers off their lands and out of their homes...Tell Coca-Cola, Pepsi Co and Associated British Foods to make sure their sugar doesn’t lead to land grabs," demands Oxfam in the new video.

The culprits -- Coca-Cola, Pepsi Co. and Associated British Foods -- are combined known as "the Big Three." At least one member of the trio has taken notice of the viral video campaign: Coke recently declared that it would make sure its sugar production doesn't lead to land grabs.

Now that Coke has taken action, the focus has shifted to rival Pepsi with campaigners urging the giant corporation to commit to zero tolerance for land grabs ahead of their shareholder-filing deadline.

OtherWords / By Jill Richardson [1]

Companies That Profit From Unhealthy Food Say Keep Eating Junk, Just Exercise More

August 21, 2013 |

New rule (as Bill Maher would say): If you make billions of dollars a year selling unhealthy food, you don’t get to tell us to work out.

It was one thing when Cookie Monster began telling kids to eat vegetables. Cookie Monster doesn’t earn a living by selling cookies, and vegetables are a fantastic alternative to cookies.

But it was a totally different story when Ronald McDonald [2] went all Richard Simmons on us, visiting schools to tell kids to work out.

Exercise is a great idea, but it’s not diet advice. Yet this is a frequent tactic of many of the corporations that rake in profits by selling us junk.

Take Coca-Cola’s shameless new fitness campaign [3]. “Are you sitting on a solution?” asks a photo on the company’s website, depicting two people cuddled up, sitting on a beach. The thing is, they’re drinking the problem: Coca-Cola.

Let me translate Coke’s new campaign into plain English: “Don’t blame us for America’s public health crisis.” The company is also asking you to not notice that while the American Heart Association recommends [4] no more than six teaspoons of sugar per day for women (nine for men), a single can of Coca-Cola [5] has nearly 10 teaspoons of the sweet stuff.

Or maybe this is what the ad campaign is really saying: “Please ignore the fact that, over the years, we’ve sold our flagship product in larger and larger containers. Just exercise a bit more — here, we’ll even help with some tips — and then you won’t notice that our product is terrible for you. Keep drinking Coke, and don’t regulate us.”

That’s the message, anyway. And what’s more pathetic is that some folks are falling for it.

The BlogHer conference enthusiastically announced [6] that its sponsor, Coca-Cola, will help attendees stay fit by giving out free pedometers as well as other prizes like yoga mats and jump ropes. (Yeah, and I bet Coke will help attendees get Type II diabetes by serving them Coca-Cola.)

As far as our bodies are concerned, eating well and exercising are not an either/or thing. Nor is avoiding smoking, managing stress, getting enough sleep, or brushing your teeth. A healthy body requires all of the above.

So let’s leave exercise out of it and talk about diet. The average American drank 401 servings of Coke products [7] in 2012. Sure, that includes juices, sports drinks, and water, but Coca Cola’s top four brands [8] — each bringing in more than $10 billion in sales per year — are all soft drinks.

McDonalds’ top sellers worldwide are french fries [9] and Big Macs [10], but even the fast food giant’s “healthy” offerings tend to be terrible for you [11].

Many Americans enjoy these unhealthy foods and beverages. And yes, drinking a soda or eating some nachos once in a while won’t kill you.

But these days, eating anything but junk can feel like an uphill battle. Healthy food is often more expensive, more perishable, and, well, less addictive. Not to mention less available 24/7 through a drive-thru.

Unhealthy diets have reached the point of a public health crisis. And while there can be debate over the role food companies have played in causing the crisis, it’s clearer than Sprite that they’ve profited from it.

The purveyors of junk food and fast food know they have some responsibility too. That’s why they are so worried.

These companies are trying to shift the blame. They want you to believe that it’s your fault that you didn’t run a marathon to burn off the calories from your meal at Taco Bell.

See more stories tagged with:

coca cola [12],

diet [13],

fast food [14],

junk food [15],

mcdonalds [16]

Source URL: http://www.alternet.org/food/companies-profit-unhealthy-food-say-keep-eating-junk-just-exercise-more

Links:

[1] http://www.alternet.org/authors/jill-richardson

[2] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A43011-2005Jan27.html

[3] http://www.coca-colacompany.com/stories/think-share-act

[4] http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/NutritionCenter/Sugars-101_UCM_306024_Article.jsp

[5] http://www.sugarstacks.com/beverages.htm

[6] http://www.blogher.com/Track-Your-Steps-Coca-Cola-BlogHer

[7] http://www.coca-colacompany.com/annual-review/2012/pdf/TCCC_2012_Annual_Review.pdf

[8] http://www.coca-colacompany.com/annual-review/2011/pdf/TCCC_2011_Annual_Review.pdf

[9] http://money.howstuffworks.com/10-popular-mcdonalds-menu-items.htm#page=10

[10] http://money.howstuffworks.com/10-popular-mcdonalds-menu-items.htm#page=9

[11] http://health.usnews.com/health-news/blogs/eat-run/2013/06/27/the-myth-of-healthy-processed-food

[12] http://www.alternet.org/tags/coca-cola-0

[13] http://www.alternet.org/tags/diet

[14] http://www.alternet.org/tags/fast-food

[15] http://www.alternet.org/tags/junk-food

[16] http://www.alternet.org/tags/mcdonalds-2

[17] http://www.alternet.org/%2Bnew_src%2B

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Beverage_Association

The American Beverage Association (ABA) is a Washington D.C.-based trade association for the soft drink industry that lobbies, channels political contributions, and engages in public relations on behalf of its member companies. On its website it describes itself as comprising the "trade association representing the non-alcoholic beverage industry."^[1]

Contents [hide]

History

The American Beverage Association, previously known as the National Soft Drink Association, was founded in 1919 as the American Bottlers of Carbonated Beverages as the trade-industry representative of the non-alcoholic beverage industry. In November 2004, the National Soft Drink Association announced that it was changing its name the American Beverage Association (ABA) "to better reflect the expanded range of nonalcoholic beverages the industry produces." To help spread the message of its name change the ABA also issued a video news release.^[2]

ABA's School Vending Policy

In August 2005, the ABA announced a new school-based policy to provide lower calorie and/or nutritious beverages to schools and to limit the availability of soft drinks at the annual meeting of the National Conference of State Legislatures ^[3] "The first salvo in a broader public-relations counterattack by beverage companies to help the industry reverse its tarnished image", the Wall Street Journal reports, is voluntary restrictions on drink sales in schools. The guidelines, touted "in full-page ads in several national newspapers," suggest that new school contracts remove carbonated soft drinks from elementary schools and remove sugary drinks from middle schools during school hours. All beverages will continue to be sold in high schools.^[4]

Susan Neely, "the creator of the 'Harry and Louise' ads that helped torpedo President Clinton's health-care plan in the early 1990s," heads the industry group and is leading the "multimillion-dollar advertising and PR campaign to show that the beverage industry derives a substantial portion of its sales and growth from healthier beverages." Neely told the Wall Street Journal, "you have to have an industry voice."^[4]

"Soda industry touts school ban to quiet obesity critics," reads the PR Week headline on a story outlining the soft-drink industry's latest defensive move in response to national concerns about childhood obesity. Even leading food-industry publication "Vending Market Watch" noted that, "This new policy is clearly designed to counteract criticism from consumer activists and politicians who say the beverage industry is profiting at children's expense" ^[5] PR giant Porter Novelli is working with the American Beverage Association to promote the trade group's school vending policy. The voluntary code recommends some limits on the sale of sugary carbonated beverages in schools, but still allows for sales of juices and sports drinks.^[6]

According to PR Week, Porter Novelli "will assist [ABA] in talking about the new policy with educators, parents, legislators, regulators, and other groups interested in school nutrition issues." The group has already run full-page ads in The New York Times, The Washington Post, and USA Today publicizing its new policy. Porter Novelli also worked on developing the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Guide Pyramid.^[6]

The ABA policy, however, has no government enforcement or oversight mechanism, and only applies to vending machines, imposing no restrictions on other venues where drinks are sold in schools, such as school canteens and sporting events. The policy applies only to new school contracts, too; it can be amended to old agreements only with the consent of both parties. Beverages are also sold to schools through local distributors, which operate under the jurisdiction of their parent companies, and as such, have the ultimate say regarding which products are made available to schools and under what terms ^[7] This point is conceded by the ABA itself: "the success of the policy is dependent on voluntary implementation of it by individual beverage companies and by school officials"^[8]

In the months after ABA's announcement, Iowa lawmakers rejected a bill aimed at removing soda from schools. Democratic Governor Tom Vilsack supported the moveand applauded the American Beverage Association for its leadership in "taking pop out of machines located in elementary and middle schools" ^[9] Massachusetts legislators introduced a bill that basically mirrored the ABA's voluntary policy a few months later.^[10]

Taking a different tack, in May 2006, the American Beverage Association joined with soda companies, the Clinton Foundation and the American Heart Association to announce a new voluntary school policy to limit the portion size and number of calories available to students ^[11]

Political contributions

The American Beverage Association made the following political contributions to federal candidates through its political action committee as of December 2010:^[12]

Election cycle	Amount	To Democrats	To Republicans
2010	$133,002	69%	31%
2008	$120,865	45%	55%
2006	$107,357	22%	77%

Lobbying

The Association spent $18,850,000 for lobbying in 2009.^[13]

ABA has lobbied on behalf of Coke and other soda companies against legislation that would limit consumption of their products. It has claimed that "sugar-sweetened beverages are not driving health issues like obesity and diabetes." ^[14] Yet, a Centers for Disease Control Study has found that "sugared beverages... "have been linked with weight gain, obesity, poor diet, and, in adults, type 2 diabetes." ^[15]

In 2009, the ABA spent $18.9 million on lobbying, much of which was directed towards an ad campaign trying to stem efforts to implement a federal soft-drink tax to finance the Obama health care bill. ^[16]

The ABA partnered up with Coke in Philadelphia to lobby against similar legislation: "In Philadelphia, they defeated a modest tax on soft drinks by using the tobacco industry tactic of applying strategic philanthropy to purchase leverage in the form of goodwill. The ABA formed a deceptively-named front group, the Foundation for Healthy America, that they then used to funnel a $10 million donation to the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia to, of all things, expand its obesity program." ^[17]

Personnel

As of December 2010 includes:^[18]

Susan Neely, President
James A. McGreevy III, Senior Vice President, Government Affairs
Maureen Storey, Senior Vice President, Science Policy
Kevin W. :{Keane:(style="background-color:#ffff66;"):}:, Senior Vice President, Public Affairs
Barbara Hiden, Vice President, Federal Affairs
Tracey A. Halliday, Vice President, Communications

Board:

Chair Tom L. Bené (Tom L. Bene), President, Pepsi-Cola North America Beverages
Vice Chair Claude B. Nielsen, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Coca-Cola Bottling Company United
William B. Cyr (Billy Cyr), President and Chief Executive Officer Sunny Delight Beverages Co.
Jim Johnston, President, Beverage Concentrate Sales and Latin American Beverages, Dr Pepper Snapple Group

Associations

Alliance for Better Foods, ABA was associated with this front group when it was called National Soft Drink Association
American Council for Fitness and Nutrition, ABA is a member
American Council on Science and Health,front group supported by ABA
Coalition for a Democratic Workplace, ABA is a member of front group opposing unions
International Food Information Council, when ABA was called National Soft Drink Association

Contact details

American Beverage Association

1101 16th St. NW

Washington, DC 20036

Main Telephone Number: (202) 463- 6732

Fax Number: (202) 659-5349

Press Questions: (202) 463-6770

Email: info AT ameribev.org

Web: http://www.ameribev.org

Articles and resources

References

↑ American Beverage Association, "About ABA: The American Beverage Association", accessed October 2008.
↑ "It's a 'Bevolution": National Soft Drink Association Changes name to American Beverage Association to Reflect Wide Range of Beverages Industry Produces", Media Release, November 11, 2004.
↑ American Beverage Association, press release "Beverage Industry Announces New School Vending Policy," August 16, 2005.
↑ ^4.0 ^4.1 Betsy McKay, "Soda Marketers Will Cut Back Sales to Schools", Wall Street Journal, August 17, 2005.
↑ Elliot Maras, Beverage Industry Group Supporters Limiting Carbonated Soda in Schools, "Vending Market Watch," August 17, 2005.
↑ ^6.0 ^6.1 John N. Frank, "Soda industry touts school ban to quiet obesity critics", PR Week, August 26, 2005.
↑ Michele Simon "Appetite for Profit: How the Food Industry Underminds Our Health and How to Fight Back," Nation Books: 2006, pg 14-15.
↑ American Beverage Association, press release "Beverage Industry Announces New School Vending Policy," August 16, 2005.
↑ Tom Dorman, Vilsack: Educate Kids on Making Good Food Choices, "Quad-City Times," February 16, 2006.
↑ Tracy Jan, A Sweet Tooth is Tough to Pull: Even When Schools Ban Candy Machines, Pupils Indulge, "Boston Globe," February 15, 2006.
↑ Clinton Foundation "Alliance for a Healthier Generation and Industry Leaders Set Healthy School Beverage Guidelines for U.S. Schools" May 3, 2006.
↑ PAC Summary Data, Open Secrets, accessed December 2010.
↑ Lobbying expenditures, Open Secrets, accessed December 2010.
↑ American Beverage Association Statement on NCHS Data Brief, PR Newswire, August 31, 2011, accessed October 21, 2011
↑ CDC: Why do Half of American Teens Consume Sugary Drinks? International Business Times, September 1, 2011, accessed October 21, 2011
↑ ALEC and Coca-Cola: A "Classic" Collaboration PR Watch, October 12, 2011, accessed October 21, 2011
↑ ALEC and Coca-Cola: A "Classic" Collaboration PR Watch, October 12, 2011, accessed October 21, 2011
↑ ABA team, American Beverage Association, accessed December 2010.

External articles

"It's a‘Bevolution': National Soft Drink Association Changes Name To American Beverage Association to Reflect Wide Range of Beverages Industry Produces", Media Release, November 11, 2004.
Betsy McKay, "Soda Marketers Will Cut Back Sales to Schools", Wall Street Journal, August 17, 2005. (Sub re'qd).
Laura Miller, "ABA's School Vending Policy Fizzes On Obesity Prevention", PR Watch Blogs, August 23, 2005.
John N. Frank, "Soda industry touts school ban to quiet obesity critics", PR Week, August 26, 2005. (Sub req'd).
Michele Simon, "Big Soda's Puyblicity Stunt: The trade group responsible for pushing sugary drinks to children of all ages has just trumpeted another set of useless new guidelines", AlterNet, August 29, 2005.
Anemona Hartocollis, "Failure of State Soda Tax Plan Reflects Power of an Antitax Message", The New York Times, July 2, 2010.

Categories:

==

over $2 mil in richmond

===

7/16 off bs

ABA Team

Executive Leadership

Susan K. Neely

President & Chief Executive Officer

Mark Hammond

Senior Vice President & Chief Financial Officer

Amy E. Hancock

General Counsel / Senior Vice President, Legal and Regulatory Affairs

Genna Gent

Senior Vice President, Government Affairs

Kevin W. Keane

Senior Vice President, Policy and Public Affairs

William Dermody

Vice President, Policy

Barbara Ferreira

Controller

Marie Franco

Vice President, Finance & Administration

Tracey A. Halliday

Vice President, Communications

Barbara Hiden

Vice President, Federal Affairs

Maia M. Jack

Vice President, Science and Regulatory Affairs

Sean Krispinsky

Deputy General Counsel

Kate Loatman

Vice President & Executive Director, ICBA

Fredericka McGee

Vice President, California Government Affairs & Operations

[

News Releases & Statements

February 23, 2016 | back to news

FREDERICKA MCGEE JOINS AMERICAN BEVERAGE ASSOCIATION

AS VICE PRESIDENT OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS AND OPERATIONS

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Susan K. Neely, president and chief executive officer of the American Beverage Association (ABA), named today Fredericka McGee as vice president of California government affairs and operations for the association.

Most recently, McGee served as the deputy chief of staff and general counselin the Office ofAssembly Speaker Toni Atkins, where she oversaw litigation strategy, served as the spokesperson on judiciary and court budget issues, and oversaw major functions of the speaker’s office.

"Our industry has a strong presence in California; Fredericka’s extensive experience in state politics, her long-time service to the Assembly and tofive Assembly speakers,and her deep understanding of statewide public policy will be a tremendous asset to the association as well as the communities we serve," Neely said.

As vice president of California government affairs and operations, Fredericka will represent ABA member companies, including California bottlers, before lawmakers and regulatory bodies across California. California’s non-alcoholic beverage industry directly employs nearly 24,000 people, supports nearly 88,000 more that depend, in part, on beverage sales for their livelihoods, and has a direct economic impact of more than $17 billion. McGee will begin her role at ABA on February 22.

“I have had a wonderful career in public service and am privileged to now join an iconic and innovative industry that also is focused on giving back to the communities in which its employees live, work and play,” McGee said.

McGee has served in many different roles in the California state assembly since 1994, including deputy chief of staff and general counsel for Speaker John Perez; general counsel for Speakers Karen Bass, Fabian Nunez and Antonio Villaraigosa; chief consultant for Jobs, Economic Development and Economy Committee Chair Mark Ridley‐Thomas; consultant for Insurance Committee Chair Juanita McDonald; counsel for Public Safety Committee Chair Mark Leno; and chief of staff for Assembly members Marguerite Archie-Hudson and Sarah Reyes.

McGee has been the recipient of the 2015 Sacramento Business Journal’s “Women Who Mean Business” Award, 2015 California Legislative Caucus’ Burke Award for Outstanding Staff, 2013 Wiley Manuel Bar Association’s Attorney of the Year Award, 2012 The Recorder’s “Women Leaders in the Law” Award and the 2011 California Legislative Black Caucus’ Martin Luther King Jr. Civil Rights Leadership Award. She is a member of the California State Bar and the California Association of Black Lawyers. She is also a current fellow with the American Leadership Forum--Mountain Valley Chapter. McGee has served on various Boards, including the Black Youth Leadership Project, Student Reach, Shiloh Community Services Foundation and the California Earthquake Authority. She is a founding parent at the Westlake Charter School, and a mission team member with the Real Life Church,

McGee holds a bachelor’s degree in broadcast journalism from California State University at Long Beach and a juris doctor degree from The University of The Pacific’s McGeorge School of Law. She lives in Sacramento with her daughter.

]

Departments

Executive Management

Susan K. Neely

President & Chief Executive Officer

Nicole King

Senior Director, Executive Management

Trudi Moore

Meetings & Events Manager

Sam Pinner

Office & Transportation Assistant

Policy & Public Affairs

Kevin Keane

Senior Vice President, Policy and Public Affairs

William Dermody

Vice President, Policy

Tracey A. Halliday

Vice President, Communications

Lauren Kane

Senior Director, Communications

Venus Adkins-Valladares

Director, Graphic Arts & Production

Simone SooHoo

Director, Research

Rachel Hicks

Director, Communications

Kendal Rowe

Director, Communications

Joshua Whitehead

Communications Assistant

Finance/Administration & Membership/IT

Mark Hammond

Senior Vice President & Chief Financial Officer

Barbara Ferreira

Controller

Marie Franco

Vice President, Finance & Administration

Julya Hood

Senior Director, Administration & Membership/IT

Dave Scallion

Director, Accounting

Melanie Ocampos-Barry

Manager, Membership & Administration

Tina Rimbeck

Finance & Administration Assistant

Ja' Franklin

Mailroom Coordinator & AV Technician

Government Affairs

Genna Gent

Senior Vice President, Government Affairs

Barbara Hiden

Vice President, Federal Affairs

Fredericka McGee

Vice President, California Government Affairs & Operations

Bill McManus

Senior Director, Government Affairs

David Thorp

Senior Director, Government Affairs

Sandra Grance

Senior Director, State & Local Affairs

Steve Lodge

Senior Director, Special Projects

Franklin Davis

Senior Director, Federal Affairs

Patrice Webb

Senior Director, Partnerships and Community Outreach

Sarah Doran

Manager, Government Affairs

Nicholas Carton

Administrative Assistant

Legal & Regulatory Affairs/General Counsel

Amy E. Hancock

General Counsel / Senior Vice President, Legal and Regulatory Affairs

Maia M. Jack

Vice President, Science and Regulatory Affairs

Sean Krispinsky

Deputy General Counsel

Kate Loatman

Vice President & Executive Director, ICBA

James Bangasser

Attorney

Charmi Oza

Legal & Regulatory Affairs Assistant

April 26, 2012

It’s Time to Stop Letting Congress Stomp on Nonprofit Advocacy Rights

Richard White/Chronicle of Philanthropy

By Gary Bass and Mark Rosenman

Nonprofit organizations have fewer rights to speak out about important public-policy matters today than they did last year.

The latest assault on advocacy came in a spending bill Congress approved to provide money to education, health, and human-service groups.

These new restrictions on advocacy were passed as part of a coordinated campaign by conservatives to quash popular democracy. Unfortunately, as contrasted with past “defund the left” efforts, charity leaders didn’t find out about them in time to take action to prevent their passage.

The challenges to nonprofit advocacy began more than three decades ago when the Heritage Foundation started making new restrictions a priority. This attack was pushed by the Reagan White House in the early 1980s, took the form of major Republican congressional legislative efforts in the mid-1990s, and has arisen in various forms since then.

Some conservative lawmakers and Republican White House officials have tried to go so far as to limit what charities can do with private contributions; others have tried to restrict the types of activities that nonprofits can conduct with federal funds.

Most of their efforts were stopped by groups whose missions were to serve as watchdogs to protect charities’ rights and the coalitions they organized.

---

The Masterminds Behind the Phony Anti-Soda Tax Coalitions

JULY 05,2012

Deja vu all over again?

In June, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg proposed a controversial cap on sugary drink portion sizes. If the proposal is passed, sugary drinks larger than 16 ounces will no longer be able to be sold in the city's restaurants, stadiums, food carts and movie theatres.

Last week, a so-called "grassroots" coalition, New Yorkers for Beverage Choices, emerged to oppose the mayor's measure. But an investigation by the *Republic Report* found that the coalition is entirely the creation of the American Beverage Association and its high-powered issue advocacy firm Goddard Gunster (formerly Goddard Claussen):

The group bills itself as a "coalition of citizens, businesses, and community organizations who believe that consumers have the right to purchase beverages in whatever size they choose."

But the "organizations" listed on the website simply run the gamut of businesses that sell soda, ranging from AMC Entertainment to the Chik-Fil-A.

Goddard Gunster is not a group of concerned citizens in New York City. It is based in Washington, D.C.

If this is all sounding familiar to you, you're not imagining things. Back in 2010, the *New York Times* reported on a "grassroots" coalition dedicated to killing Governor David Paterson's proposed penny per ounce soda tax:

Enter New Yorkers Against Unfair Taxes, set up by the beverage industry, grocers and the Teamsters, who work as drivers and in production. The organization's Web site describes it as a humble coalition of "hard-working individuals, struggling families and already burdened small businesses," like Benny's Pizza and Kay's Deli.

But behind the scenes, much of the strategic work came from Goddard Claussen, the public affairs company whose "Harry and Louise" commercials helped defeat President Bill Clinton's health care overhaul efforts. The company was retained by the American Beverage Association to lobby against the New York tax.

Goddard Claussen was so proud of killing the NYS soda tax that it highlighted its New Yorkers Against Unfair Taxes coalition on its website with a full page write-up that boasted: "As part of a comprehensive outreach effort, we recruited over 10,000 citizens and 158 businesses to join New Yorkers Against Unfair Taxes." Shortly after this web page was discovered by the media, it was removed from the website.

Goddard Gunster continues to promote its work derailing soda taxes. Subsidiary Goddard Claussen West currently highlights the California astroturf coalitionit formed in 2009-10:

GC coordinated with the national effort (now known as Americans Against Food Taxes) and created a California coalition, Californians Against Food and Beverage Taxes (CAFBT). CAFBT initially recruited hundreds of supporters throughout the state including organizations whose leaders and members could serve effectively as spokespeople for the coalition in the press and as messengers to key legislators. The California Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Neighborhood Market Association and California Retailers Association took lead roles in that regard.

If you're wondering about the national anti-soda tax coalition effort cited above, the Center for Media and Democracy'sSource Watch has this to say about it:

Americans Against Food Taxes (AAFT) is a front group funded by the beverage industry, which consists of major restaurant chains, food and soft drink manufacturers and their associated lobbying groups. It was organized by the American Beverage Association to fight a proposed three to ten cent tax on soda, sugary drinks and energy drinks to help fund health care reform in the United States ... its extensive membership consists mainly of lobbying groups for packaged food and soda companies, chain restaurant corporations and the world's large food and soft drink manufacturers and distributors, including the Coca-Cola Company, Dr. Pepper-Royal Crown Bottling Co., PepsiCo, Canada Dry Bottling Co. of New York, the Can Manufacturers Institute, 7-Eleven Convenience Stores, and Yum! Brands.

Its domain name, www.nofoodtaxes.com, was formerly registered to Goddard Claussen public relations, based in Washington, D.C. The website's domain registration has since changed to Domains By Proxy, Inc., which allows registrants to remain anonymous.

Ties run long and deep between the beverage industry and Goddard Claussen. According to her bio, American Beverage AssociationPresident Susan Neely previously worked for Health Insurance Association of America and "created and managed numerous issues campaigns, including the award winning 'Harry and Louise' TV commercials and campaign" in 1994, which was created by Goddard Claussen.

With the beverage industry on overdrive to halt sugary drink taxes and now the Bloomberg portion cap proposal, it's not surprising that almost everywhere a soda tax or portion cap has been proposed, an anti-soda tax or anti-portion cap coalition and website has quickly appeared. In Richmond, Calif., which will have a soda tax measure on the November ballot, the Community Coalition Against Beverage Taxes, was recently created by the beverage industry. The coalition's website domain is registered under Goddard Claussen Public Affairs in Washington.

http://http//www.norichmondbeveragetax.com/ 404

More At: www.huffingtonpost.com

http://www.city-data.com/city/Richmond-California.html

http://www.todaysdietitian.com/newarchives/050310p14.shtml diabetes

Big Soda's Move to Hide Funding of Anti-Tax Campaign

By Marion Nestle

As Richmond prepares to vote on a soda tax, does revealing funding sources prevent "effective communication"?

Sometimes the actions of food companies defy credulity. The Community Coalition Against Beverage Taxes, a "grassroots" group funded by the American Beverage Association, has taken the city of Richmond, California to court to block it from requiring disclosure of funding sources in election campaigns.

In case you haven't been following this situation, the Richmond city council got a soda tax initiative ("Measure N") placed on the November ballot. Richmond is a low-income, mixed-race city (80% non-white), with an 11% unemployment rate, and an average household income of $23,000 a year. It population is largely obese and drinks a lot of soda.

You would hardly think a city like this would get on the radar of Big Soda, but you would be wrong. For details, we have to thank Robert Rogers who writes for the local Contra Costa Times and has been following the money.

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

:{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
:{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

Beverage/ soda

this is sugary soda; see also alcohol

NEW DATA SHOWS PUBLIC HEALTH IMPACTS OF SUGARY DRINKS

BIG DOLLAR AD BUYS IN LOCAL INITIATIVE CAMPAIGNS

FOLLOWING IN THE FOOTSTEPS OF THE NRA AND BIG TOBACCO

Beverage companies spend $1.675 million to defeat Berkeley soda tax

Advertising: flyers and lawn signs

Campaign strategy

The soda industry has experience defeating proposed soda taxes

Who’s who on Berkeley’s soda tax panel of experts

Is the money really going to health and nutrition programs? Yes.

Are stores passing on the tax in the price of drinks? Some are; some aren’t, yet.

Unintended consequences

Several campaign claims haven’t played out yet.

Tax on the poor

Preventing deaths

Companies That Profit From Unhealthy Food Say Keep Eating Junk, Just Exercise More

History

ABA's School Vending Policy

Political contributions

Lobbying

Personnel

Associations

Contact details

Articles and resources

Related SourceWatch articles

References

External articles

==

over $2 mil in richmond

===

News Releases & Statements

FREDERICKA MCGEE JOINS AMERICAN BEVERAGE ASSOCIATION

AS VICE PRESIDENT OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS AND OPERATIONS

It’s Time to Stop Letting Congress Stomp on Nonprofit Advocacy Rights

Related Content

---

Big Soda's Move to Hide Funding of Anti-Tax Campaign

By Marion Nestle

Blog Entries by Susan K. Neely

Great Things Happen When We Work Together

Solutions, Not Soundbites

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

Susan Neely

Attachments