
SF's Sugary Drink Tax - stanleydrew
https://instapanel.com/san_francisco_prop_e/
======
wpietri
Honestly, given that I have received circa 30 mendacious, bullshit-argument
mailers during election season for this means I would be tempted to vote for E
just to spite its opponents, whether or not this was workable.

But luckily, all their activity convinces me that the proposition will really
work. The soda industry has spent FIFTEEN DOLLARS per SF voter on this. [1]
This tells me that it's not just about San Francisco. They are scared that if
it works here, others will soon follow suit, reducing their profits. So it
seems they believe that this sort of tax will have a substantial impact on
soda consumption. They're telling me that voting for E means a chance of
improving the entire country's health. So I'm definitely in.

[1] [http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Soda-industry-
spends-7...](http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Soda-industry-
spends-7-7-million-to-defeat-SF-5807057.php)

~~~
jmount
I honestly had no strong opinion on the measure prior to the anti-campaign. I
do think sugary drinks are a public health menace, but I did not think a tax
is a good way to deal with them. Then: anti-E canvassers appeared at my door 3
times, I got about 5 robocalls, and about 10 pounds of glossy fliers in the
mail. Clearly somebody with a deeply vested financial interest (not a public
interest) doesn't want this to pass. So it definitely makes me consider
researching the sugar tax a bit more and even consider voting for it.

~~~
malyk
I can't find the cite now, but I recently read that something like each 10%
increase in the tobacco tax reduces smoking by 4%. so there seems to be good
precedent for using taxes to reduce consumption.

------
brownbat
I like the initiative, but it's weird to me that it taxes by oz, rather than
by gram. So a sugar-packed shot-sized energy booster would be lightly taxed,
while a 64 oz water or tea with a touch of sweet would get slammed by over a
dollar.

That means there's no incentive for beverage makers to reduce sugars in
popular drinks over time, to adjust people's palates towards something more
normal.

Syrups added to flavor drinks are exempt. So maybe big drinks just adopt the
tea/coffee model and involve a little more consumer stirring.

That said, maybe this breaks some new ground, and the model regulation
improves upon it.

------
taylored
Why do we subsidize sugar (High Fructose Corn Syrup through corn subsidies)
one one end then tax it on the other? Seems like tax payers are double
spending.

~~~
d2vid
Because Iowa farmers get to vote on federal matters, but they don't get to
vote in SF and NYC.

When I worked at Climate Corp, it was pretty interesting to hear the (nearly
universally) Republican farmers argue for why there should be farm subsidies.
About half wouldn't even try to justify it, and just said if the money's there
I'll take it.

~~~
noir_lord
> About half wouldn't even try to justify it, and just said if the money's
> there I'll take it.

I'd respect those people _more_ than the people who tried to argue it, as it's
a case of don't hate the player hate the game (unless the player is rigging
the game of course).

At least they are honest.

------
hiou
Can anyone explain why Coca-Cola and Gatorade gets taxed but this does not?

[http://www.odwalla.com/products/smoothies/strawberry-c-
monst...](http://www.odwalla.com/products/smoothies/strawberry-c-monster)

Edit: Oops that does have added sugar so it will also be taxed.

Edit 2: So it will not be taxed because it does not use artificial flavors? So
you can put as much sugar as you want in something as long as it does not
contain artificial flavoring? So is this actually an artificially flavored
drink tax?

~~~
objclxt
No: the proposition exempts products that contain only "natural fruit and
vegetable juice", not "natural flavors" \- the two are different. Some
"natural flavors" are only natural in the sense they are derived from natural
compounds, but are still synthesized in a lab.

Similarly, diet sodas - which _do_ contain artificial flavors - are similarly
exempt. You can read the ballot measure in full here:

[http://ballotpedia.org/City_of_San_Francisco_Sugary_Drink_Ta...](http://ballotpedia.org/City_of_San_Francisco_Sugary_Drink_Tax,_Proposition_E_\(November_2014\))

~~~
hiou
So would that Odwalla drink I listed be exempt? It contains a ton of added
sugar. So the rule is that if it has over 25 calories and and nothing
manufactured in a lab you can add as much sugar as you want and be exempt?

So this has a bunch of High Fructose Corn syrup

[http://www.foodfacts.com/ci/nutritionfacts/Beverages-non-
mil...](http://www.foodfacts.com/ci/nutritionfacts/Beverages-non-milk/Ocean-
Spray-Cran-Raspberry-Juice--fl-oz/50452)

Does that count as exempt?

What exactly does "natural fruit and vegetable juice" actually mean?
Concentrated orange juice often has citric acid added to it.

Tropicana Orange Juice from Concentrate has added "natural flavors". Does that
make it taxed?

[http://www.tropicana.com/#/trop_products/productsLanding.swf...](http://www.tropicana.com/#/trop_products/productsLanding.swf?NonRefrigerated/92)

------
zaroth
Some comments on the site, since the topic is kind of ridiculous... It's not
immediately obvious you can click on the faces. Also, I'd like a better
overview of what panelists have to say, but it's too much clicking to look at
person individually. Finally, it could be helpful to write/generate a
transcript to read versus the video to watch. Some might like the video for
added cues, but it would be nice there was an alternative to watching 30
minutes of talking heads.

~~~
d2vid
Transcript is a good idea, we've been looking into APIs & mechanical turk for
that. In general we're trying to figure out how to present the responses in an
interesting/informative way without you having to watch ALL the videos.

Generally when you run an in-person focus group or user interview, you're
combining the interview time with the "watching" time since you're there in
the same room. With instapanel, it's definitely faster than doing the
interviews yourself, but there's no forcing function to watch the videos.

Reminds me of how my dad stopped watching talks at Xerox PARC once they
started webcasting them. Without needing to show up for the talk at a specific
time, he could always say "I'll watch that later".

------
d2vid
As much as I think vice taxes are a good idea, the panelists raised a lot of
great points about the holes in Prop E.

It's only SF so people will just drive to Daly City to stock up on soda. There
are tons of other sugary products that won't be taxed - like milkshakes or
candy. It's a tax at the distributor level, so small businesses will just get
their soda from outside the city.

~~~
stanleydrew
Those types of arguments fail to impress me. They are the equivalent of "But
Mikey's mom lets him ride his bike without a helmet?!"

Are we so naive to think that until the entire country or the entire world
decides to implement the same tax that nobody should attempt to make progress?

~~~
7Figures2Commas
So a tax that is regressive represents "progress"?

I assume your reference to "progress" is based on an assumption that the tax
will produce the intended effect of forcing individuals to make healthier
choices, but there's no evidence that this is the case. In fact, there's
evidence that many consumers will just substitute in untaxed high calorie
foods[1].

[1]
[http://www.rti.org/newsroom/news.cfm?obj=5C84B2F7-5056-B100-...](http://www.rti.org/newsroom/news.cfm?obj=5C84B2F7-5056-B100-0CB8AEE3EBB2AE3E)

~~~
wpietri
Cigarette taxes are regressive and definitely represent progress. They were a
big help in reducing smoking, and in turn reducing smoking-related health
problems.

~~~
7Figures2Commas
Putting aside a debate over regressive taxes, the problem with your comparison
is that you assume the market for sugary drinks functions the same way the
market for cigarettes does when, in fact, studies have not found the same type
of substitution dynamic[1].

In other words, "support soda taxes because cigarette taxes!" is not an
argument based on any hard data. If you're going to argue for the use of
taxation to force behavior, as a starting point you should have real evidence
that the specific tax in question has a high likelihood of producing the
specific behavior you're trying to change. Relying on some other tax that may
have influenced another behavior is simply specious.

[1]
[http://tigger.uic.edu/~fjc/Presentations/Papers/taxes_consum...](http://tigger.uic.edu/~fjc/Presentations/Papers/taxes_consump_rev.pdf)

~~~
wpietri
I don't believe I made that argument.

Also, if your view is "before you can do an experiment you must have hard data
to prove the experiment will work" then it sounds like you aren't getting many
experiments done.

~~~
7Figures2Commas
Data already exists, and you can model against it. Apparently you didn't read
the study I linked to:

> The study, published online in the American Journal of Agricultural
> Economics, found that a half-cent per ounce increase in sugar-sweetened
> beverage prices, which adds up to about ten cents on a typical 20-ounce
> bottle of soda, could reduce total calories from the 23 foods and beverages
> examined under the study.

> However, researchers found, the reduction in sugary beverages due to a soda
> tax would likely lead consumers to substitute for those beverage calories by
> increasing their calorie, salt and fat intake from untaxed foods and
> beverages.

> “Instituting a sugary beverage tax may be an appealing public policy option
> to curb obesity, but it’s not as easy to use taxes to curb obesity as it is
> with smoking,” said Chen Zhen, Ph.D., a research economist at RTI, and the
> paper’s lead author. “Consumers can simply substitute an untaxed high
> calorie food for a taxed one. And as we know, reducing calories is just one
> of many ways to promoting healthy eating and reducing nutrition-related
> chronic disease.”

Other studies[1] have come to similar conclusions, and note that much of the
research predicting significant reductions in obesity are flawed because they
failed to look at substitution.

If you are genuinely interested in implementing a tax ("experiment") that
actually has a chance of producing the intended outcome irrespective of cost,
the first study suggested that instead of taxing based on ounces, a tax based
on calories would address some of the fundamental flaws in ounce-based taxes
like those proposed in Prop E.

[1] [http://www.news.wisc.edu/22659](http://www.news.wisc.edu/22659)

~~~
wpietri
The study you linked to didn't even mention the word "sugar", so I'm not sure
what you're talking about there. I'm not going to read an entire apparently
unrelated study because some anonymous dude says it's relevant to an argument
I'm not even making.

The news article you link to is about two attempts at this in the 1990s, looks
broadly, covers places with a very different food culture than San Francisco,
and treats obesity as the only relevant health issue from sugar. So I would
call it interesting, but not necessarily relevant.

Moreover, you seem to ignore that this is a process. If the soda tax doesn't
work, then people will try other things. But this is the thing on the ballot,
and the question isn't, "Is this the best possible thing to do?" It's, "Shall
we try this next?"

~~~
7Figures2Commas
> The study you linked to didn't even mention the word "sugar"...

[http://www.rti.org/newsroom/news.cfm?obj=5C84B2F7-5056-B100-...](http://www.rti.org/newsroom/news.cfm?obj=5C84B2F7-5056-B100-0CB8AEE3EBB2AE3E)

> The study, published online in the American Journal of Agricultural
> Economics, found that a half-cent per ounce increase in _sugar_ -sweetened
> beverage prices, which adds up to about ten cents on a typical 20-ounce
> bottle of soda, could reduce total calories from the 23 foods and beverages
> examined under the study.

> However, researchers found, the reduction in _sugar_ y beverages due to a
> soda tax would likely lead consumers to substitute for those beverage
> calories by increasing their calorie, salt and fat intake from untaxed foods
> and beverages.

> “Instituting a _sugar_ y beverage tax may be an appealing public policy
> option to curb obesity, but it’s not as easy to use taxes to curb obesity as
> it is with smoking,” said Chen Zhen, Ph.D., a research economist at RTI, and
> the paper’s lead author. “Consumers can simply substitute an untaxed high
> calorie food for a taxed one. And as we know, reducing calories is just one
> of many ways to promoting healthy eating and reducing nutrition-related
> chronic disease.”

[http://ajae.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/07/28/ajae...](http://ajae.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/07/28/ajae.aat049.full)

Study name: Predicting the Effects of _Sugar_ -Sweetened Beverage Taxes on
Food and Beverage Demand in a Large Demand System

Study publication date: July 29, 2013

> I'm not going to read...

At this point I think it's fair to say that is precisely your problem.

~~~
wpietri
When I say "the study you linked to" I am referring to the link in this post:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8547734](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8547734)

Because I presume that's what you were referencing when you said, "Apparently
you didn't read the study I linked to."

That study is titled "How Effective are Taxes in Reducing Tobacco
Consumption?" and continues not to mention the word sugar. Probably because it
is about tobacco.

~~~
7Figures2Commas
I might be wrong, but I'm responding to you because I think you're genuinely
confused and not trolling.

You pointed to the efficacy of cigarette taxes in clear support of the Prop E
tax ("Cigarette taxes are regressive and definitely represent progress. They
were a big help in reducing smoking, and in turn reducing smoking-related
health problems.").

I linked to multiple studies which found there was a strong likelihood
consumers would simply substitute the taxed sugary beverages with untaxed
foods that are just as unhealthy, calling into question the efficacy of such a
tax.

I included a link to a study about cigarette taxes in support of my argument
that "the problem with your comparison is that you assume the market for
sugary drinks functions the same way the market for cigarettes does when, in
fact, studies have not found the same type of substitution dynamic."

To make this simple for you:

1\. Studies on sugary beverage taxes find strong substitution effects.

2\. Studies on cigarette taxes do _not_ find strong substitution effects.

Given this, your suggestion that taxes on sugary beverages are likely to have
a similar level of efficacy to taxes on cigarettes is not congruent with the
evidence. Instead of needing to explain this to you, you could have just read
what I posted before responding to it. If you did that, you probably would
have noticed what the lead researcher for one of the studies stated:

> “Instituting a sugary beverage tax may be an appealing public policy option
> to curb obesity, but it’s not as easy to use taxes to curb obesity as it is
> with smoking."

Good night.

~~~
wpietri
Hi! Thanks for the detailed reply. I see where things got confused.

> You pointed to the efficacy of cigarette taxes in clear support of the Prop
> E tax

No, I didn't.

You wrote "So a tax that is regressive represents 'progress'?"

I replied to that by giving an example of a regressive tax that represents
progress. That's all. Your comment struck me as annoyingly glib, constructing
a false contradiction through word games. Since cigarette taxes have been so
successful, I thought it was a good counterexample to the false contradiction.
Everything else you write is about what you read into my statement, not what I
said.

But to address your point:

I agree that a sugary beverage tax in San Francisco _could_ lead to
substitution and no net health gain. But A) the circumstances are different
enough (and the original sample size is small enough) that I'm happy to try it
out to see what happens, and B) if it doesn't work like the proponents hope, I
think that's fine because humans often have to try the obvious thing before
they will try the less obvious thing.

