Richmond measure would tax sugary sodas

Chip Johnson, Chronicle Columnist

Updated 11:02 p.m., Thursday, August 16, 2012

A penny an ounce. No more. No less.
Richmond voters face a one-of-a-kind measure in November to levy a one-cent tax per ounce of soda or other sugary drink sold, served, traded or provided by businesses in the East Bay city.
The proposed business tax is seen by health advocates as precedent setting - a charge that could usher in a new generation of public health policies focusing on sugar the way tobacco has been singled out.
Advocates of the tax have urged the City Council to spend the money - an estimated $3 million annually - on childhood obesity programs, school-based vegetable and fruit gardens, and improved athletic fields and facilities. Richmond City Councilman Jeff Ritterman, who proposed the new tax, has pledged to create a swimming program in a city where only 10 percent of school-age youths know how to swim, he said.
If it is approved, Richmond would be the first city in the nation to adopt the soda tax.
Coming on the heels of a fire at the Chevron refinery in Richmond that sent 9,000 people to area hospitals seeking medical attention for respiratory ailments, it's appropriate that public health policy should be a key issue for Richmond residents in November.
Ritterman is a retired cardiologist who can quote facts and figures about negative health aspects linked to daily soda consumption. But his strongest argument is the health status of some of the children living in the community.
He says that among fifth- and seventh-graders in Richmond, 1 in 3 African Americans and 1 in 3 Latinos are considered obese by state weight and height standards.
While soda and other sugar-sweetened beverages cannot be blamed solely for this situation, it doesn't help that they're part of a daily diet for youngsters or adults.

Industry opposition

Leading soft drink manufacturers consider the Richmond ordinance as the first shot across the bow and an ominous sign that their products could soon be subjected to regulations and stiff tax requirements similar to those levied on tobacco sales.
That's why they are doing all they can to fight it.
The American Beverage Association, a trade industry group of the nation's largest soda makers, has hired a San Francisco public relations firm and helped organize a campaign to defeat the Richmond measure.
In Richmond, the Community Coalition Against Beverage Taxes lists more than 100 local merchants among its supporters on its website. Strangely enough, no individual citizens are listed.
The anti-soda-tax coalition includes two Richmond city councilmen, Corky Boozé and Nat Bates, who say the measure places an undue burden on local merchants and provides no guarantee that taxes would be used to fund health programs. Teamsters have also weighed in, concerned that less soda delivered translates into lost jobs. The antitax campaign has also suggested that the tax would translate into higher food prices for Richmond residents, many of whom are low income.
"The beverage industry is spreading money all over the place, well over $1 million to try and stop it," said Tom Butt, a veteran council member who supports a soda tax.

'It's a no-brainer'

Butt likened the argument over the health risks of soda to global warming.
"There are people who want to deny it, but the medical and scientific community are pretty much on the same page," Butt said. "It's a no-brainer to me."
For Ritterman, a tax on soda is exactly the kind of policy local governments should be considering as a way to break new ground in formulating public health policies and programs.
Chip Johnson's column appears in The San Francisco Chronicle on Tuesday and Friday. E-mail: chjohnson@sfchronicle.com

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/johnson/article/Richmond-measure-would-tax-sugary-sodas-3794725.php#ixzz23ohBs9dw