You've no doubt been bombarded with mail and TV ads urging a no vote on San Francisco's Proposition E, the sugary beverage tax. These ads are trying to scare voters into believing that their grocery bills will go up, even if they don't buy sugar-sweetened beverages, or that there is a fundamental right to drink soda. There is not. In one of the TV ads a woman says, "There are a great many things to be concerned about ... than whether or not I decide to drink a soda." Guess what? That's not what Prop E is about. She, and everyone else, can drink all the soda they want, but it will cost a little more if Prop E is approved; it is hoped that the increased cost will decrease consumption.
Prop E, which we endorsed last month, imposes a 2-cent per ounce tax on all sugar-sweetened beverages. The revenues generated by the tax, estimated from $35 million to $54 million, are earmarked to fund health, nutrition, physical education, and active recreation programs. It needs two-thirds voter approval because the money is paying for specific programs.
It's critical to understand that the members of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors who voted to place Prop E on the ballot did so for two reasons: combating obesity and diabetes, particularly among children. Currently diabetes and obesity patient caseloads are straining the resources of San Francisco General Hospital and therefore increasing city health care costs. This is not a money grab by the supervisors; the funds would expand recreational activities and health and nutrition services for San Franciscans. This is a public health measure aimed at preventing disease.
San Francisco has a long and proud history of landmark legislation and often leads the country in public health issues. Back in the 1980s, when President Ronald Reagan couldn't even utter the word "AIDS," doctors, nurses, public health officials, and politicians here took action, authorizing millions of dollars in city funds to develop what would become the "San Francisco Model" for fighting and preventing HIV/AIDS. That model saved many lives, prolonged others, and has been replicated around the globe over three decades.
In 2010 the Board of Supervisors confronted a different issue related to childhood obesity when Supervisor Eric Mar introduced legislation that bans toys in kids' meals at fast food restaurants. The law passed 8-3 despite opposition from then-Mayor Gavin Newsom. Dubbed the "Happy Meal ban" after the name of the popular McDonald's children's meals, Mar was laughed at by a lot of people – The Daily Show broadcast a hilarious segment with him talking about the ban in early 2011. Since then, Mar's foresight has become a national trend, with McDonald's and other fast food chains adding items to their menus like apple slices and smaller portions of French fries. "This is a big change that the industry is acknowledging responsibility for childhood obesity and moving in the right direction," Mar told the Chronicle at the time.
To keep moving in the right direction, we urge voters to consider the long-term effects of sugary beverages on the city's residents, especially kids.
The soda industry has been losing customers – and revenue – for years, as more consumers become concerned about their health and choose to drink water or non-carbonated beverages. That's one of the reasons why companies like Coca-Cola and Pepsi-Cola are diversifying and buying up non-soda beverage companies, including bottled water brands like Dasani (Coke) and Aquafina (Pepsi). Both companies even offer versions of their signature brands using "real sugar" (instead of high-fructose corn syrup), potentially creating even more public health issues.
The soda industry is terrified of ballot measures like Prop E, and is pouring millions of dollars into campaigns to defeat them. So far, the industry has been successful. Locally, a beverage tax was defeated in Richmond two years ago. One of the supporters of that tax was Taylor Peck of the Fizzary, an upscale soda store that has outlets in the Mission and the Haight. Recently, Peck told the Chronicle that this year he is against Prop E. Peck said the difference between his position now and two years ago is because San Francisco "is my city and the one I care most about."
We care deeply about San Francisco, too. Kids who are obese at 8, 9, or 10 years old are being set up for a possible lifetime of struggle to lose weight, which is not easy, or years of medications, insulin injections, and other treatment if they're diagnosed with diabetes. And while diabetes doesn't "go away," with weight loss and lower blood sugar levels it can become much more manageable, according to UCSF. "Eating a healthy diet, being physically active, and losing any extra weight is the first line of therapy," the UCSF website on diabetes states. "'Diet and exercise' is the foundation of all diabetes management because it makes your body's cells respond better to insulin (in other words, it decreases insulin resistance) and lowers blood sugar levels."
People disagree about taxes all the time. But don't buy the misleading hyperbole of the multi-billion dollar beverage industry. If soda consumption decreases because of Prop E, that would be a good thing. The larger goal of expanding recreational opportunities and focusing on healthier eating will benefit all San Franciscans.
Help our kids get healthy – vote yes on Prop E.