Today the Los Angeles Times had an article about how the soda tax debate has shifted to the states since there has been such opposition at the national level by the soft drink companies and their lobbyists. When I spoke with Brent Wilkes, the executive director of LULAC, he mentioned that one of the reasons his organization was opposed such a tax is that it really hasn’t been proven to be effective and that a successful trial hasn’t really taken place. Well, imagine what might happen if cash strapped states taxed soda and other junk food and instead funneled the money to build parks, more open space for community gardens, or even basic dental care. For example, the state of California is already cutting dental coverage for the poor. Let’s face it soft drinks and even their diet counterparts are not good for the teeth.
The soft drink industry spent $18 million in lobbying and millions more in direct campaign contributions to put a halt to any sort of federal level tax on sugary drinks in the last year. This doesn’t even count the money contributed to issue organizations and other charities. Next time you are in your state capitol or in DC and attend an event, note if there are any logos from Coca Cola or Pepsi on the schwag that is handed out.
The part that caught my eye in the LA Times piece was this:
“When California Senate Majority Leader Dean Florez (D-Shafter) introduced his soda tax bill, he said one penny of tax per teaspoon of added sugar in any sweetened beverage would generate as much as $1.5 billion each year. That money would pay for parks, recreation and school health programs, Florez said.”
and this:
“In California, the state affiliate of the League of United Latin American Citizens this weekend will consider a resolution urging its national assembly to leave the coalition that opposes the tax.”
At a time when states are already cutting dental and health programs for the poor that could have broader public health implications for the society at large, I still maintain that it is worth examining and even having a trial run on a soda tax. A recent poll in New York found that over three quarters of those surveyed backed a soda tax. It even appeals to blacks and Hispanics and tax-shy Republicans:
“A Quinnipiac survey found 76 percent of voters back a tax on soft drinks.
Even 60 percent of tax-shy Republicans favored the plan.
Support for the so-called soda tax to close budget gaps was strong among black, white and Hispanic voters in every borough.”
I’m hopeful that LULAC and some of the other Latino organizations that opposed a soft drink and junk food tax will reconsider, especially if it is popular. There is already a sense in the blogosphere and in the larger Latino community that our issue organizations are out of touch. Coke and Pepsi are laughing all the way to the banks, while our communities continue down an unhealthy path toward obesity and diabetes. Imagine what kind of battles we will be facing now that we are in a post-Citizens United era where corporations like Coke, Pepsi, and McDonalds can throw even more cash to our candidates. If you want to contact LULAC to voice your opinion about the organization’s stance on the soda tax, you can reach the organization via this link.
12 responses so far ↓
1 Will LULAC leave the coalition that opposes the soda tax? | Latino News // Feb 22, 2010 at 8:35 am
[...] From: Latino Politics Blog [...]
2 Anna // Feb 22, 2010 at 12:11 pm
I hope they listen to the people they supposedly represent and leave the coalition. I also wish we could start a campaign to get vending machines that sell soda, candy, chips, etc. out of the schools.
http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/childhood/prevalence.html
Obesity Among Racial/Ethnic Groups
Although obesity has increased for all children and adolescents over time, NHANES data indicate disparities among racial/ethnic groups. The following graphs compare the prevalence for racial/ethnic groups of adolescent boys and girls aged 12 through 19 years.
Racial/Ethnic Comparison: Boys Aged 12–19 Years
The most recent NHANES data (2003–2006) showed that for boys, aged 12–19 years:
•The prevalence rate of obesity was higher among adolescent Mexican-American boys (22.1%) than among non-Hispanic white boys (17.3%) and black boys (18.5%).46
Data from NHANES III (1988–1994) through NHANES 2003–2006 showed that the largest increases in the prevalence of obesity occurred among adolescent non-Hispanic black boys (7.8%) and Mexican American boys (8.0%) compared to non-Hispanic white boys (5.7%).
•Among Mexican American boys, the prevalence of obesity increased from 14.1% to 22.1%.
•Among non-Hispanic white boys, the prevalence of obesity increased from 11.6% to 17.3%.
•Among non-Hispanic black boys, the prevalence of obesity increased from 10.7% to 18.5%.
3 Francisco // Feb 22, 2010 at 2:21 pm
So who decides what will get taxed extra and what won’t? Why must the answer be MORE TAXES?? If u don’t want to drink soda, then don’t. If u don’t want to be a smoker, then don’t smoke. Taxes are the goverment’s way of control; not way of giving choices. Latinos should educate their children and show them the effects of all this “unhealthy” stuff. America is a place to have the freedoms, not tax what it thinks is not good for folks. First sodas, then what? Mexican food? Seriously folks, let people live free, respondsible (for ourselves) lives! Us Latinos need to quit expecting the government to take control, and be respondsible for our own lives and futures. WE NEED TO MOVE FORWARD!
4 chalan // Feb 22, 2010 at 3:47 pm
I think we should tax those things which are not good for us. Sodas, cigarettes, booze, pot, cocaine, bullets, guns, porn, gas guzzlers, polluters, irresponsible financial institutions, gang bangers, corrupt politicians, and dirty cops. The list is endless and possibilities unlimited. All we need is some creative legislators. For sure states, wouldn’t have financial crises. I don’t see LULAC doing the right thing on this one as it won’t generate a photo opp or funding from Coka Cola for it’s next gala.
5 Anna // Feb 22, 2010 at 4:42 pm
Re: “WE NEED TO MOVE FORWARD!”
I don’t see how a tax on soda full of high fructose corn syrup holds anybody back. Drinking all that garbage and getting fat and sick is what holds people back.
I agree that the best solution is education, but unfortunately, many schools no longer offer health and physical education classes. Instead children are exposed on campus to soda industry advertising and access to soda from vending machines. It’s disgraceful. These changes have contributed mightily to increases in obesity and diabetes among children.
If this tax passes, hopefully some of the money will be used to provide education about nutrition and health.
6 Reyfeo // Feb 23, 2010 at 5:40 pm
Francisco, when they start taxing “liberalism” then and only then will folks like chalan and few others on this website feel the impacts to the point they’ll start to see things your way.
7 chalan // Feb 25, 2010 at 10:32 am
Orale Reyfeo, I’ve read your comments on this blog for sometime now, and your view of the world is through a very narrow prism having only 2 views, conservative and liberal. Come on I dare you to say something progressive, even pragmatic. Let me make it easier on you…, say something relevant. I double dare you
8 Anna // Feb 26, 2010 at 12:25 pm
I’m reading this book called “Good Calories Bad Calories” by Gary Taubes and in it he cites a 1950s government report about the Pima Indians of AZ regarding their rates of obesity and diabetes. For those who don’t know, the Pima have the highest rates of obesity and diabetes in the country and they are the object of much study.
They are often studied in relation to the Pima Indians of northern Mexico who have been able to maintain their traditional diet and levels of exercise. Unlike the AZ Pima, the Mexican Pima are thin, with little or no diabetes.
In the mid-19th century, the AZ Pima were exposed to flour and sugar by white settlers travelling to California. The author says the two groups traded with each other.
Fast forward to the 1950s. The Pima are on a reservation and dependent on government rations of flour, cheese, lard and beans. Their main beverage is sugary soda. And they have the highest rates of obesity and diabetes in the world. Does this diet sound familiar?
Our government knows the effect of sugar on the body, and yet they allow soda companies to market and sell their products in public schools. Children are getting hooked on sugar. This needs to stop!!!
LULAC needs to stop taking money from soda companies! If they need money, they should launch a membership drive.
9 Anna // Feb 26, 2010 at 6:06 pm
Excellent video about Latino childhood obesity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MA0ZldJ9sA&feature=player_embedded
10 Anna // Feb 26, 2010 at 8:42 pm
Some books and links about Latinos fitness:
http://jorgecruise.com/about-me/
http://www.amazon.com/Mario-Lopezs-Knockout-Fitness-Lopez/dp/1594868840/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1267244866&sr=1-1
http://www.amazon.com/Extra-Lean-Fat-Burning-Plan-Changes/dp/0451230167/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1267244866&sr=1-2
http://www.fithometeam.com/fht.htm
http://www.amazon.com/Gordito-Doesnt-Mean-Healthy-Latina/dp/0425207706
http://www.healthiergeneration.org/healthcareprofessionals.aspx?id=3289
http://news.illinois.edu/news/09/0728cancer.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100209095753.htm
11 Anna // Feb 28, 2010 at 6:54 pm
Yesterday I was at the Montebello Mall walking through the food court, and I saw a woman with a baby in a stroller. He about two years old. His mother gave him a fried chicken strip, covered in batter, and he was sucking on it like a pacifier. It was the most disgusting thing I have ever seen in my life.
12 Jane // Mar 11, 2010 at 9:10 am
I find this article and half of these comments ridiculous. Do you really think that adding a few cents to the cost of soda is going to stop people from drinking it? If you do, you’re kidding yourself.
People will continue to drink it because they enjoy it. This is about personal responsibility, Coca-Cola and Pepsi aren’t MAKING anyone drink their products.
Not to mention that sugar sweetened beverages only make-up 5% of the American diet. Sorry people, but even if soda were eradicated from the earth, we’d still have obesity. People today eat horribly and don’t exercise. That’s what it comes down to.
Let’s stop pointing fingers and finding a scapegoat for what we as a society have done to ourselves. If we really want to see some change, we all need to take some responsibility for our health and that of our loved ones. Why should someone else have to do that for us?
Leave a Comment