US Consumer Watchdog Tracks Big Soda Spending to Fight Sugar Taxes

22 Sep 2016 --- One week after the American Beverage Association filed a lawsuit to block a soda tax in Philadelphia, a consumer watchdog and non-profit advisory group claims the US soft drinks industry has spent at least US$67 million in the last seven years to defeat sugar levies and label issues. 

The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), a non-profit consumer lobby group, has put together data on Big Soda, consisting of the ABA, Coca-Cola and PepsiCo, tracking the expenses and detailing where and how money has been spent since 2009. 

It cites US$67 million spent to fight local and state public health initiatives to reduce sugary-drink consumption that have been put forward by various cities and states in recent years as a growing number of government authorities and health organizations call for a soda tax to curb obesity and associated chronic diseases like diabetes and heart disease. 

“On top of that, Big Soda’s big three are spending an average of US$14 million-US$15 million a year on all federal lobbying activities – 10 times what they were spending in the early 2000s. In 2009, that lobbying skyrocketed to US$40 million when a soda tax was floated in Congress as a way to pay for healthcare reform,” says CSPI. 

Speaking with FoodIngredientsFirst, president of the American Beverage Association, William Dermody Junior, says that lawsuits and legal cases pop up all of the time. 

“Generally Americans oppose soda taxes. In the past eight years we’ve seen 43 proposals for tax soda either by referendum or legislative vote that have been rejected throughout a number of states and cities in the US, so it’s not unusual every year to see proposals for soda taxes to pop up. The mayor of the city (Philadelphia) pushed through this tax over the objections of the Philadelphians because our final poll just before the vote took place showed 60 percent of Philadelphians did not want this tax to pass, but of course it did not go to a vote of the people, it went to a vote of the city council and only nine members were needed to pass it and they did,” he says.

“We certainly didn’t want to lose those battles but we consider them to be outliers, not really representing how the vast majority of states and communities in America feel about the soda taxes; they feel they are a bad idea.”

The CSPI report breaks down where Big Soda money has been spent over the years. For instance, the map includes US$15,951,229 in New York State, US$9,862,628 in San Francisco and US$16,797,753 in Washington. 

California has been a hotspot for pro-soda legislation recently with Berkeley successfully passing a soda tax in 2014, whilst Big Soda spent US$2,451,031 trying to fight it. Between January and June this year, the soft drinks industry has spent more than US$700,000 to oppose soda-tax measures in San Francisco and Oakley. 

Just last week, the ABA joined local businesses and residents in Philadelphia to try to prevent the tax from coming into force next January. Philadelphia leaders voted earlier this year to expand early childhood educational access and to provide additional funding for parks and recreation. The plan was to fund this through a 1.5 cents per ounce soda tax. It was expected that the tax would bring in an estimated US$91 million a year.

But Dermody also believes that public health issues cannot be solved with soda taxes. 

“Only about six percent of the calories in the American diet come from beverages and that is all from sodas, sports drinks, energy drinks, juices so as most nutritionists here tell us, you have to look at the entire diet if you want to tackle challenges like obesity. You can’t just focus on small portion of it. Soda taxes are not a solution to public health. They never been shown to improve public health,” he tells FoodIngredientsFirst. 

The CSPI also details some lobbying spending, but says: “Federal lobby disclosure reports do not itemize expenditures by issues, so precise figures on fighting public health initiatives are not available. While Big Soda’s reported lobbying interests include hybrid and alternative fuel vehicle fleets, truck driver hours of service, and water conservation, they also disclose lobbying on significant public health issues including sugar-drink excise taxes and warning labels, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), changes to the Nutrition Facts Panel, and the Dietary Guidelines for American 2015-2020. 

By Gaynor Selby