Calling Berkeley, California, voters’ recent passage of a 1-cent-per-ounce tax on sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) a “victory for the health of Americans,” Australia’s Rethink Sugary Drink Campaign is urging state and local governments to enact comparable measures. The initiative is a partnership among the groups Cancer Council Australia, Diabetes Australia and Heart Foundation (Victoria). “Australia is among the top 10 countries for per capita consumption of soft drinks,” Cancer Council Australia’s Craig Sinclair said. “Research shows that a retail price increase of around 20 percent would be the most effective in reducing the consumption of these sugar-laden drinks.” The Campaign asserts that SSB consumption is linked to a variety of weight-related health issues and also champions state and local regulations to (i) limit children’s exposure to SSB marketing; (ii) restrict the sale of SSBs in primary and secondary schools; and (iii) reduce the availability of SSB sales in workplaces, government offices, health…
Tag Archives tax
Voters in Berkeley, California, have passed a 1-cent per-ounce tax on sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) and the added-calorie sweeteners used to make them. Revised by court order to reference “sugar-sweetened beverages” as opposed to “high-calorie, sugary drinks,” the ballot measure garnered 75 percent approval to make Berkeley the first city in the nation to adopt a soda tax. The new tax will apparently cover (i) SSBs distributed to stores and restaurants and (ii) sweeteners distributed to restaurants and stores “where they are used to make sugar-sweetened beverages for customers.” Exempted from taxation are sweeteners distributed to stores for direct sale to consumers as well as milk-based beverages, baby formula, alcoholic beverages, medical formulations, and fruit and vegetable juices that do not contain added-calorie sweeteners. Under the new rules, added-calorie sweeteners include sucrose, fructose, glucose, and high-fructose corn syrup, but not “natural, concentrated, or reconstituted fruit or vegetable juice or any combination thereof.”…
A California state court has adjusted the language in the soft drink tax on the November 2014 ballot by replacing “high-calorie, sugary drink” with “sugar-sweetened beverages” to clarify the proposed tax and to conform with election codes. Johnson v. Numainville, No. RG14786763 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., order entered September 2, 2014). Agreeing with the two Berkeley residents who filed the lawsuit, the court found that “the ballot question here asking whether a tax should be imposed on ‘high-calorie, sugary drinks’ is likewise a form of advocacy and therefore not impartial. This phrase suggests that the tax will be limited to certain beverages that contain more than the average calories and too much sugar; in other words, beverages that most people would find to be unhealthy.” The court also found issue with the City Attorney’s Impartial Analysis of the measure, which described it as a tax on “high-calorie, low nutrition”…
Two residents of Berkeley, California, have filed a lawsuit in state court alleging that the proposed 1-cent-per-ounce soda tax, which will appear on the ballot in November, uses “politically charged” language and affects beverages beyond the targeted “high-calorie, sugary drinks.” Johnson v. Numainville, No. RG14786763 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., filed August 13, 2014). The complaint accuses the city council of failing to define the term “high calorie, sugary drink,” and suggests “sugar-sweetened beverage” instead. The plaintiffs also argue that the tax would apply to “any beverage intended for human consumption to which one or more added caloric sweeteners has been added and that contains at least 2 calories per fluid ounce,” despite that under U.S. Food and Drug Administration guidelines, a 12-ounce, 24 calorie drink would actually be considered low calorie. They request that the court order the city council to insert their suggested phrases for the allegedly biased…
U.S. Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) has reportedly introduced legislation (H.R. 5279) seeking to implement a nationwide sugar-sweetened beverage tax. Dubbed the SWEET Act, the measure “would institute a tax of 1 cent per teaspoon of caloric sweetener such as sugar or high-fructose corn syrup,” according to a July 30, 2014, press release. Revenue raised by the proposed tax would be used to fund prevention and treatment programs, nutrition education and other initiatives designed to reduce obesity, heart disease, diabetes, and tooth decay. “There is a clear relationship between sugar-sweetened beverages and a host of other health conditions,” said DeLauro. “We are at a crucial tipping point and the SWEET Act will help correct the path we are currently on.” Meanwhile, Mark Bittman has already penned a New York Times opinion piece in support of the bill, arguing that a national soda tax might not pass congressional muster right now but…
Citizens of San Francisco and Berkeley will be voting on the implementation of a soda tax in the November 2014 elections. Similar taxes have failed to garner sufficient support in the past five years, with about 30 propositions introduced and none passed, including two that went to ballot and were defeated in California in 2012. Other countries have found more success with similar measures—among others, France and Mexico have each imposed taxes on sugary drinks. The San Francisco proposal, which needs a two-thirds vote to pass, would add a 2-cent-per-ounce tax on sugary drinks, excluding milk or natural fruit juice without added sugar, while the similar Berkeley proposal is 1-cent per-ounce and needs only a majority of the vote. See Associated Press, July 8, 2014. Issue 529
A Papa John’s customer has filed a putative class action against the pizza company in Illinois state court, alleging that the chain illegally charges sales tax on delivery fees, resulting in each delivery customer overpaying by $0.16. Zucker v. Papa John’s Int’l, Inc, No. 14-668 (Madison Cty. Ct., filed May 5, 2014). Zachary Tucker argues that Illinois sales tax may be imposed only on the total sales price of tangible property, excluding the delivery fee, so long as the actual cost of delivery is less than the amount of the delivery fee. As a result, the complaint alleges, Papa John’s has violated and continues to violate the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (UDTPA), an Illinois consumer protection statute. In addition to class certification, Tucker seeks a cease-and-desist ruling to prevent Papa John’s from continuing to charge sales tax on delivery fees in Illinois, as well as damages for negligence, breach of…
A French Senate committee has issued a report, “Taxation and Public Health: Evaluation of Behavioral Taxation,” urging lawmakers to implement a “behavioral tax” to counteract poor dietary habits and help cover health care expenditures associated with consumption of “unhealthy” foods. While emphasizing the need for a sugar-sweetened beverage tax, the report also advocates harmonizing tax rates on vegetable oils, aligning cigarette and other tobacco product taxes, and repealing value-added tax breaks for certain foods and drinks linked to increased health care costs. See Tax-News.com, March 20, 2014. Issue 518
Researchers with the University of Illinois, Chicago, Institute for Health Research and Policy have published a study allegedly concluding that, contrary to industry claims, sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) taxes “do not have a negative impact on state-level employment.” Lisa Powell, et al., “Employment Impact of Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Taxes,” American Journal of Public Health, February 2014. Using a macroeconomic simulation model to assess the employment impact of a 20-percent state-level SSB tax in California and Illinois, the study’s authors also factored “changes in SSB demand, substitution to non-SSBs, income effects, and government expenditures of tax revenues” into their final calculations. Based on this analysis, the study estimates that SSB sales would decline by $678.8 million in Illinois and $1.2 billion in California as the result of a 20-percent tax. At the same time, however, SSB taxes would increase government revenue by $554.3 million in Illinois and $940.4 million in California while sales revenue…
“Soda and other sugary drinks are popping up on city and state dockets across the nation, as lawmakers attempt to curb America’s consumption of certain beverages,” writes Time reporter Katy Steinmetz in this February 20, 2014, article summarizing recent campaigns to limit sales of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) and energy drinks while raising revenue for government-backed health initiatives. In addition to San Francisco’s efforts to impose a SSB tax, Steinmetz notes similar proposals under consideration in Illinois and Berkeley, California, as well as attempts by Maryland and Los Angeles legislators to impose age restrictions on energy drink purchases. According to the article, San Francisco’s latest measure has garnered broad support from the city’s board of supervisors, “effectively guaranteeing that it will be on the ballot,” where it will need to gain approval from two-thirds of voters. But opponents of SSB taxation and the age restrictions on energy drinks have claimed that…
