Let’s remind the soda industry of some pertinent facts: Sugary drinks, including full-calorie sodas, sports drinks and sweetened coffees and teas, are the single largest source of added sugars in the American diet. Excess consumption of added sugars not only contributes to weight gain — it also raises the risk of heart disease, high blood pressure and Type 2 diabetes. Just one sugary drink each day can increase your risk of high blood pressure by 8 percent and your risk of heart disease by 17 percent.
Soda companies know this. They also know that despite recent declines in sugary drink consumption, overall intake among adults and children remains unacceptably high. Nearly two-thirds of U.S. adults report drinking sugary beverages at least once a day. Kids in the U.S. consume an average of more than 30 gallons of sugary drinks per year — enough to fill a bathtub. The bottom line is that drinking sugary beverages sets kids up for a lifetime of health challenges, including a higher risk of chronic disease.
Despite the clear threats of sugary drink consumption to public health, the soda industry doggedly opposes policies that threaten to lower sales and profits. Take sugary drink taxes, for example. The soda industry has worked to defeat dozens of efforts in states and communities nationwide to increase excise taxes on sugary drinks, lower consumption and fund programs that protect and improve health. In many cases, the industry has succeeded in defeating sugary drink tax proposals and prohibiting local governments from even considering them.
But in places where public health advocates have overcome the industry’s largesse, higher sugary drink taxes have had the intended impact of decreasing purchases. For example, volume sales of sugary drinks declined by more than 50 percent after Philadelphia enacted a sugary drink tax in 2017. Seattle saw a nearly 25 percent decline in volume sales after its sugary drink tax took effect in 2018.
The soda industry’s latest setback was in Santa Cruz, Calif., which on May 1 implemented a 2-cents-per-ounce tax on sugary drink distributors. This measure, which the American Beverage Association spent millions to oppose, will generate an estimated $1.3 million per year for the city. The measure was a defeat for the soda industry not only at the local level. It also represented a victory for Santa Cruz officials and public health advocates who successfully challenged the constitutionality of a statewide ban on local sugary drink taxes. The American Beverage Association engineered that ban in 2018 in a secret backroom deal with state legislators and then-California Gov. Jerry Brown.
We must continue to take on the soda industry by advocating for sugary drink taxes and preserving the authority of communities to consider them. But our work doesn’t end there. The soda industry is using the same playbook of deceptions and half-truths to undermine proposals to prohibit sugary drink purchases in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Sugary drinks are already prohibited in other federal nutrition programs, but SNAP currently allows such purchases.
That may soon change, which is terrifying to the soda industry. Several states are hoping the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which oversees SNAP, will allow them to remove sugary drinks from the program. This is a change supported by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the federal health secretary. Predictably, the soda industry is working against these commonsense proposals in its effort to protect the profitable pipeline of sugary drink purchases in SNAP.
Let’s again remind the soda companies of the facts: Sugary drinks contribute to poor health outcomes, increased health-care spending and diminished quality of life. Removing sugary drinks from SNAP could improve diet quality and significantly reduce consumption and cardiovascular disease. Improving the nutritional quality of foods and beverages in SNAP could lead to improvements not only for SNAP recipients, but for everyone in America because of SNAP’s influence on the products sold in grocery stores and the development of healthier foods.
The American Heart Association stands with these states in support of excluding sugary drink purchases from SNAP. The USDA should rapidly approve state waiver applications with the goal to refine SNAP’s approach to nutrition, increase consumption of healthy foods and protect the investment in this critical program.
For years, the soda industry has compiled a successful record of opposing measures to lower sugary drink consumption. But with the implementation of a sugary drink tax in Santa Cruz and the growing momentum in states nationwide for removing sugary drinks from SNAP, the tide is changing. With continued efforts, we will overcome the soda industry’s opposition and improve health in America.
Nancy Brown is CEO of the American Heart Association.
Governing’s opinion columns reflect the views of their authors and not necessarily those of Governing’s editors or management.
