latimes.com/news/la-na-soda-tax7-2010feb07,0,5476115.story
latimes.com
Beverage industry douses tax on soft drinks
The idea had been floated as a way to finance a healthcare overhaul while
combating obesity. But the industry has lobbied key lawmakers and financed
scientific studies favorable to its position.
By Tom Hamburger and Kim Geiger
February 7, 2010
Reporting from Washington
Employing a broad-based lobbying effort, the soft drink industry has
smothered a plan to tax sugared beverages -- a plan advocates said would have
reduced obesity and helped finance healthcare reform.
Only months ago,
public health advocates thought the tax would be a natural for congressional
Democrats looking for revenue to fund expanded health insurance coverage. The
soaring costs of treating ailments related to excess weight -- including
diabetes and heart disease -- added urgency to the issue.
But the White
House staff reviewing funding options never embraced the idea even after
President Obama expressed interest last summer. A key congressional committee,
after initially seeming receptive, ended up refusing to consider it. Several
minority advocacy groups, including some committed to fighting obesity, lined up
against the tax after years of receiving financial support from the
industry.
There is no sign that First Lady Michelle Obama will mention
taxes Tuesday when she unveils her new healthy-eating initiative, which had
input from fast food and soft drink representatives.
Meanwhile, beverage
lobbyists attacked some of the country's most distinguished nutrition
scientists, accusing them of bias and distorting available evidence. The
beverage industry also financed research that reached conclusions favorable to
its position.
No one underestimated the difficulty of getting new taxes
approved, but Rep. Linda T. Sanchez (D-Lakewood), a member of the tax-writing
House Ways and Means Committee, said, "We thought we had a chance to punch
through."
That was before the industry unlimbered its
guns.
Target lawmakers
From the beginning, fast food and
beverage company executives were uneasy about President Obama. He and his wife
were known advocates of healthy eating. The executives were also concerned that
the promised Obama healthcare initiative might include taxes or other incentives
to reduce consumption of fast food and high-calorie beverages.
Coupled
with similar initiatives in such states as California, the industry faced the
possibility of a full-scale national debate on sweetened soft drinks and their
effect on health -- and the nation's ever-higher medical bill.
Another
alarm sounded last May, when the Senate Finance Committee heard testimony from
public health advocates who proposed using a soda tax to help finance healthcare
legislation.
Analysts at Yale University have calculated that a
penny-an-ounce tax would induce a 23% drop in consumption, and the Congressional
Budget Office has estimated that a smaller tax could raise $50 billion over 10
years. Although the extent to which such a tax might drive down obesity rates is
scientifically unclear, nutrition experts argue that it would, at the least,
improve health by discouraging consumption of sodas, which have no nutritional
value but are packed with calories.
A few weeks later, soda tax advocates
in the House Ways and Means Committee reported initially favorable responses
from colleagues during closed-door meetings. And in July, President Obama told a
Men's Health magazine reporter that such a tax was an "idea that we should be
exploring."
Sanchez, who was recently diagnosed with gestational
diabetes, was one of the committee members who pushed for consideration of the
idea. She told a closed-door meeting of committee Democrats that it would be a
political winner: "We are on the moral high ground here," she said. "We can
improve health outcomes and get more revenue."
At the beginning, several
other Democrats expressed support, including six-term Rep. Bill Pascrell Jr. of
New Jersey and freshman Rep. Allyson Y. Schwartz of Pennsylvania, the daughter
of a dentist.
Beverage lobbyists immediately went to work, enlisting
other industries to help pressure members of Ways and Means.
"The
industries in our coalition realized that this is a slippery slope, that once
government reaches into the grocery cart, your business could be next," said
Kevin Keane, senior vice president, public affairs, for the American Beverage
Assn.
The coalition, operating under the name Americans Against Food
Taxes, included the soft drink makers, their suppliers, and such mass-marketers
as McDonald's and Domino's Pizza.
Using the argument that higher food and
drink taxes would unfairly burden the poor, the coalition recruited a bevy of
Latino groups, among them the Hispanic Alliance for Prosperity Institute, the
National Hispana Leadership Institute and the League of United Latin American
Citizens.
Public health analysts were surprised to find that the list
included the National Hispanic Medical Assn., which represents 36,000 Latino
doctors and focuses on health issues, such as obesity-related diabetes, that hit
Latino youth especially hard.
"Why in the world would a Hispanic health
advocacy group do this?" asked Kelly Brownell, the director of Yale University's
Rudd Center on Food Policy and Obesity.
Nearly all of the Latino groups,
including the medical association, had received beverage industry money in the
past or have industry representatives on their governing boards.
The
medical association's director, Dr. Elena Rios, said the financial support --
which amounted to no more than $10,000 from a single company -- had nothing to
do with the decision to oppose the tax, which she and the other Latino groups
agreed would hurt minority communities. She also said the evidence is not clear
that the tax would effectively reduce obesity. On Friday, Rios said her
organization had decided to withdraw from the industry
coalition.
Referring to industry donations, Brownell said, "It's all
about payback. Public health advocates ran into the same phenomena when seeking
to increase taxes on tobacco."
The coalition launched an intense lobbying
effort, including a $10-million television ad campaign in key markets warning
against taxing food. The paper industry, a major supplier of fast food
companies, also contacted members of Congress. Even some truckers joined the
fight.
By the time the Democratic caucus held its next closed-door
meeting in early summer, the atmosphere had changed, Sanchez said -- an
assessment shared by Pascrell and some committee staffers.
Democratic
Rep. John Lewis, the civil rights pioneer who represents Atlanta, the corporate
headquarters of Coca-Cola, argued that the soda tax could lead to taxes on other
foods, raising prices for hard-pressed consumers during a severe recession. If
you begin taxing one sugar product, where do you draw the line?, he
asked.
Rep. Ron Kind (D-Wis.), who represents a rural district where
dairy farming is widespread, said he became concerned about the fairness of
targeting one industry. Kind had heard from local Pepsi and Coke distributors,
and he and other members also received letters from the National Milk Producers
Assn. concerned that the proposed tax could apply to chocolate milk.
"We
went from having real interest in this idea to it just falling off the table,"
Sanchez said. "It was my perception that opposition increased as members began
hearing from local businesses" that were part of the beverage industry
coalition.
Focus on the science
While winning its battle at
the Ways and Means Committee, the soft drink industry was also waging a
long-term war over the scientific evidence linking soda consumption to the
nationwide problem of obesity.
In a two-pronged campaign, the industry
attacked the findings of prominent nutrition scientists and underwrote studies
by other scientists whose work was more supportive of beverage companies'
claims.
Among the outspoken scientists criticized by the beverage
association are Yale's Brownell and Harold Goldstein, who heads the California
Center for Public Health Advocacy.
"Sugared beverages are the single
largest source of sugar added to the American diet," said Brownell, noting that
consumption averages 50 gallons a year for every American.
Goldstein
recently joined with researchers at UCLA in a survey of 43,000 Californians that
found adults who drink one or more sodas per day are 27% more likely than
non-soda drinkers to be overweight or obese.
Both scientists have equated
the beverage industry campaign to tactics employed by the tobacco industry in
defense of smoking.
Keane of the American Beverage Assn. said researchers
like Brownell and Goldstein were acting as advocates.
"Cigarettes kill.
Soda doesn't," Keane said. "They pick and choose the facts that support their
view and they attack anyone who disagrees," including those whose work appears
in peer-reviewed journals, Keane said. "It's scientific McCarthyism."
The
American Beverage Assn. website for the campaign against the soda tax points to
three studies in peer-reviewed journals that dispute a link between soda and
obesity.
One was conducted by an author working for Archer Daniels
Midland, a major producer of high-fructose corn syrup. Two were conducted by a
researcher who now works for the beverage association; one of those studies was
funded by a grant from the association.
Despite the funding source, "the
researchers worked independently and their findings were published in a
peer-reviewed journal. That's the gold standard in the scientific community,"
Keane said.
Some of the studies Keane cites point to sedentary lifestyles
and high-fat diets as the significant causes of weight gain. And, largely
through reviews of previously published studies, they say that the existing
science on soft drinks' role is at best unclear.
Keane also says that
soda accounts for just over 5% of the average American's calorie intake, and
that blaming soda for the obesity epidemic "defies common
sense."
Goldstein says the industry is blaming obesity on physical
inactivity -- "that it's the couch, not the can." But one reason Americans need
more exercise "is because they're drinking so much soda," Goldstein
said.
One theory that has been embraced by Goldstein and others is that
the body has not developed a system for processing sugared beverages, which are
relatively new to the human diet. One study found that children who drank soft
drinks consumed nearly 200 more calories per day.
The beverage industry
rejects the argument that liquid calories lead to greater weight gain, pointing
to a study conducted by Frank Sacks, a professor in the nutrition department at
Harvard School of Public Health. The study sought to determine whether certain
diets are more effective than others at achieving weight loss. Sacks concluded
that diets that reduce calorie intake result in weight loss, regardless of which
calories are cut.
Keane argues that the study proves his point: "a
calorie is a calorie," regardless of whether it's consumed in solid or liquid
form.
But Sacks disagrees. "I don't know how they possibly could come up
with that kind of interpretation," Sacks said. "There was no testing of
sugar-containing beverages, and in fact the participants were taught to avoid
them."
The industry has cultivated an unusual relationship with the
American Academy of Family Physicians, sending a contribution "in the high six
figures," AAFP Chief Executive Dr. Douglas Henley acknowledged, to underwrite
"educational materials to help consumers make informed decisions."
Henley
said "content development is completely independent" of the
funding.
Harvard School of Public Health professor Walter Willett
criticized the association's website as "misleading and incomplete." The website
advises men not to consume more than one can of soda per day, an amount,
according to Willett, that "will substantially increase risk of Type 2
diabetes."
tom.hamburger@ latimes.com
kim.geiger@latimes.com
Copyright © 2010, The Los Angeles Times