Quick Take
Measure Z was a big win for Santa Cruz, California, public health and democracy, write James Krieger and Jennifer Falbe, researchers from the University of Washington and UC Davis who have evaluated sweetened drink taxes in the Bay Area and Seattle. By beating Big Soda – which outspent the locally funded initiative 30 to 1 – Santa Cruz has become a role model for other communities, they say. It also created a challenge to Big Soda: Will the beverage industry push to overturn a democratic election?
Have something to say? Lookout welcomes letters to the editor, within our policies, from readers. Guidelines here.
Santa Cruz voters sent a clear message on Election Day: We want a healthier and more sustainable community, and we will defend democracy. By approving Measure Z, the sweetened beverage tax, Santa Cruz sparked renewed interest in California and across the nation in taxing the powerful sweetened beverage industry.
The tax will raise money for valued community programs and decrease sales of unhealthy beverages. Equally important, at a time when democracy is under attack across the nation as billionaires and large corporations spend heavily to shape election outcomes and influence politicians, voters rejected Big Soda’s $1.8 million campaign to defeat the tax. Santa Cruz voters served notice – they let it be known that local communities will decide what’s best for them, not large corporations.
Now it’s up to other cities to follow.
Also on Election Day, Berkeley overwhelmingly voted to extend its existing sweetened-drink tax. Berkeley’s tax is popular because it is delivering on its promises to fund community programs that build school gardens, support early childhood, provide water bottle filling stations and prevent chronic diseasses. It has led to declines in sugary drink sales and consumption.
As researchers from the University of Washington and UC Davis who have evaluated sweetened drink taxes in the Bay Area and Seattle, we watched Measure Z closely. It was the first California effort to pass a sweetened beverage tax in California since 2018, when a law prohibiting cities from adopting such taxes took effect. However, a recent court ruling opened the door for Measure Z.
Its success has important implications for the rest of California.
Big Soda – the American Beverage Association, Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Dr Pepper/Keurig, Red Bull – went all out to defeat the tax in Santa Cruz. They used the playbook from their past efforts to thwart beverage taxes. It’s a playbook initially developed by Big Tobacco to block tobacco taxes. It goes like this: Flood the city with cash to buy the election and outspend health advocates by huge margins (in Santa Cruz by 30 to 1). Make false claims and spread disinformation. Sow divisions in the community. Sound familiar to what we are experiencing in our national politics?
Their playbook failed this time.
Tax advocates in Santa Cruz built a diverse community coalition. They effectively countered the predictable industry disinformation. They identified popular services that revenues would support, such as community health programs, parks and open spaces. They used their social networks to promote the tax. They mobilized volunteers to go door to door to talk with neighbors. They highlighted how soda companies are the world’s leading plastic polluters. They showed that a small community can take on Big Soda and win.
Santa Cruz showed that it is not afraid to take on powerful corporate interests. Residents are willing to support a tax if it benefits their community. They are independent thinkers not easily swayed by Big Soda’s misleading arguments, and they value their right to decide what’s best for themselves.
A leading – but false – industry claim is that sweetened-drink taxes are regressive. Yet these taxes are paid directly by the sweetened-drink industry, which chooses to pass them through to beverage prices.
However, even when the tax is passed on to consumers, sweetened-drink taxes are economically progressive. Research has found that sweetened-beverage taxes in San Francisco, Seattle and Philadelphia raised most of their revenue from higher-income households, while people with lower incomes benefited most from revenue-supported programs.
Industry falsely claimed that sweetened-drink taxes have “never been shown to improve public health.” Yet credible research shows that taxes reduce cavities, improve weight status and yield better pregnancy and birth outcomes.
And importantly, as cities face budget shortfalls and declining federal funding, they will need new revenue sources such as sweetened-drink taxes to sustain the programs they value.
What’s next?
Big Soda will likely pick a legal fight with Santa Cruz, citing the state law that bans cities from adopting sweetened-drink taxes. Industry forced the legislature to pass this law by “ransom,” threatening to launch a ballot measure to severely limit local governments’ ability to raise revenue for critical services like firefighting and schools. Legal experts believe this law is invalid and that Santa Cruz is likely to win in court. The courts have already ruled the provision of the ban that imposes financial penalties is illegal.
It’s up to industry – will it challenge a fair vote? Or will it respect the outcome of a democratic election?
The win in Santa Cruz, the ongoing popularity of the tax in Berkeley and the overturning of the tax-ban penalty provision will likely encourage other cities in California to adopt taxes.
The successes of sweetened-drink taxes in Santa Cruz and Berkeley are wins for public health, the environment and democracy. They show that despite corporate deep pockets and aggressive political and legal tactics, democracy can prevail.
They offer hope that local and state policies can continue to advance health and equity despite the increasingly inhospitable national political climate. Santa Cruz and Berkeley have paved the way for more cities in California and across the nation to adopt sweetened-drink taxes, an effective and evidence-based policy.
James Krieger is a physician and public health researcher whose work focuses on policies that support good nutrition. He is an emeritus professor at the University of Washington School of Public Health and executive director of Healthy Food America.
Jennifer Falbe is a public health and food systems researcher. She is an associate professor of nutrition and human development at UC Davis.