RUNNING HEAD: Sugary Beverage Tax

Should Soda Have a Tax? University of Wisconsin-Green Bay

Ben Berndt, Amanda Jo Danihel, Sara Darr,

Abby Phillips & Amanda Rice

Sugary Beverage Tax 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary……………………………………………………………………………..2

Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………...3

Background……………………………………………………………………………………...3

Issue Analysis: Case Overview.………………………………………………………………....4

Audience Analysis……………………………………………………………………………….5

Burden of Proof & NRDd……………………………………………………………………..…7

Possible Arguments…………………………………………………………………...…………7

Toulmin Model……………………………………………………………………………….…..9 Affirmative Side………………………………………………………....……………………..9 Negative Side…………………………………………………….………………..…………..11

Winner…………………………………………………………………………………………...13

Suggestions…………………………………………………………………………………..…..14

So What…………………………………………………………………………………………..14

Continuous Improvement………………………………………………………………………..15

Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………….15

References……………………………………………………………………………………….17

Appendix……………………………………………………………………………………..….18

100 Facts………………………………………………………………………………….......18

Audience Analysis Chart…………………………………..…………………………………27

KISS Chart………………………………………………………………………..………….27

Possible Arguments………………………………………………………………….……….28

Meeting Agendas…………………………………………………………………….……….29

Toulmin Models……………………………………………………………………………….31

Sugary Beverage Tax 2

Executive Summary

Cities across the United States are experimenting with the implementation of a tax on

soda and other sugary beverages. A soda tax is a tax imposed on drinks with added sugar. Two

experts, Kelly Brownell and William Shughart II, argue both sides to decide if a soda tax is truly

as beneficial as many make it out to be.

Kelly Brownell is the Dean of the Sanford School of Public Policy at Duke University

and an expert on obesity. He argues the affirmative side - that it would be beneficial to enact a

tax on soda and sugary beverages. William Shughart II, a former economist at the Federal Trade

Commision, argues the negative side of this argument. For this case, two audiences were

analyzed, Green Bay residents and Wall Street Journal readers.

The burden of proof in this case is that imposing a soda or sugary beverage tax will

produce positive results. The group used models such as NRDd and the Toulmin Model to

analyze the case and the arguments presented. The affirmative side presented arguments such as

health and revenue, while the negative side’s arguments were convenience and questioning how

far the tax would go.

The ultimate winner differs based on audience. After presenting both arguments, Wall

Street Journal readers would be in favor of enacting a soda tax, while Green Bay residents would

be against a tax on sugary beverages. A soda tax will be favorable to some and displeasing to

others, it all comes down to the values of the audience and an open mind to look at both sides of

the argument.

Sugary Beverage Tax 3

Introduction

Benny and Nuggs was assigned the issue of whether or not there should be a tax on soda,

with the goal of proving that enacting a tax on soda and other sugary beverages would be

beneficial. The group approached this case with split outlooks on this issue, but were open to

analyzing and considering both sides of this case.

Background

A soda tax or sugary drink tax is a tax imposed on drinks with added sugar. Drinks

covered under a soda tax often include carbonated soft drinks, sports drinks, and energy drinks.

Typically diet sodas are excluded from this tax, as many people argue that the science suggesting

that diet soda is an unhealthy beverage is a less solid argument than the evidence of regular soda

being harmful. The initial goal of the tax is to lower the consumption of these beverages by

discouraging unhealthy diets and offset the growing obesity issue.

As of now, the United States does not have a nationwide tax on soda implemented, but a

few cities have enacted a soda tax on their own. The first two cities to tax soda were

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and Berkeley, California, followed by San Francisco, California;

Oakland, California; Albany, California; Boulder, California; Cook County, Illinois; and

Portland, Oregon. The most recent city to put a soda tax in place was Seattle, Washington, which

started on January 1, 2018.

Sugary Beverage Tax 4

Issue Analysis: Case Overview

In the article depicting the arguments for the case that Benny and the Nuggs were given,

the affirmative side was represented by Kelly Brownell, who was advocating for the change in

policy, and the voice of the negative side was William Shughart II who was fighting for the

policy to remain the same.

Kelly Brownell is an American scientist, professor, and expert on obesity. He is the Dean

of the Sanford School of Public Policy at Duke University and is a professor of Public Policy

(2018). In his arguments in favor of the soda tax, Brownell claims that the tax will improve the

health of citizens, which will in turn save the country money from the reduced medical issues

due to obesity. He also argues that the revenue from this tax can be used for beneficial

government programs that promote healthy lifestyles. For example, with Seattle’s newly

implemented tax, some of the revenue will go towards the city’s Fresh Bucks program, which

helps people using food stamps buy more fresh fruits and vegetables at farmers markets.

William Shughart II is the Research Director and Senior Fellow at the Independent

Institute, the J. Fish Smith professor in Public Choice in the Jon M. Huntsman School of

Business at Utah State University, and past president of the Southern Economic Association

(2018). His arguments against the tax center around the idea that the tax will not deter enough

people from buying soda, thus not lowering the purchases enough to make a difference in health.

He also argues that if one city or state implements the tax, that people will just find ways around

the tax by driving to a different location and buying it through the black market. Finally, he

addresses the revenue that the tax would produce, saying that there is no regulation set in place

Sugary Beverage Tax 5

that dictates what the government does with the money. Therefore there is no guarantee that it

will go towards helpful programs in the city.

Audience Analysis

For the case, there were two main audiences to address: Green Bay residents and Wall

Street Journal readers. Benny and the Nuggs performed research for each group to understand

who the audiences are as a whole and what tends to influence, motivate, and concern them. The

group then determined the impact on the audience if the tax was implemented and the impact if

the tax was not. The Audience Analysis Chart depicting the group’s findings can be found in the

Appendix.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, Green Bay residents are equal ratios male and

female, with their ages predominantly between 25-54 years old (2010). The demographics and

psychographics from the research determined that if a soda tax was enacted in Green Bay,

residents would drive to other towns nearby, like Ashwaubenon or Allouez to get soda without

the tax. The group also inferred that the tax will keep consumption at the same level or lower it,

but it will not cause a rise in consumption. However, Benny and the Nuggs decided that if a tax

was not put in place, consumption will continue to rise and obesity and health issues will rise

along with it.

Wall Street Journal readers are primarily college educated men with an average income

of $242,007 and average age of 43 (Wall Street Journal, 2017). From this information, Benny

and the Nuggs inferred that if there is a tax on soda, the rise in price will not affect this audience

Sugary Beverage Tax 6

much due to their large expendable income. Without the tax, the consumption of soda will stay

about the same and obesity and health issues will continue to progress.

KISS

The group then used the previous information to delve further into audience analysis

through a KISS chart. Using this chart, the group analyzed what is known and what can be

inferred about the two audiences, as well as what should be done and should not be done when

arguing the case. This chart was a stepping stone in the group’s process of determining the

strongest arguments for the audiences. The group’s KISS chart can be found in the Appendix.

First the group assessed Green Bay residents. It is known that Green Bay residents are

concerned with local occurrences and current events. Based on this knowledge, it can be inferred

that they will gravitate toward locally-focused news. The group determined that the best course

of action was to demonstrate how the taxation of soda could possibly have a positive effect on

the local community, while refraining from addressing the positive global effects, as they would

not be as interested.

Secondly, the group assessed the Wall Street Journal readers. From the previous audience

analysis, it is known that most have a college degree and typically they have a higher income.

Based on this knowledge, the group can infer that they are educated and have a larger disposable

income. The best course of action for this audience is to educate them on how the tax will lower

health issues and how it will benefit society. The group planned to refrain from focusing on the

cost of the tax, as money is not as much of a concern for them.

Sugary Beverage Tax 7

Burden of Proof & NRDd Model

The burden of proof always lies with the affirmative side. For this case, the burden of

proof is the claim that imposing a soda or sugary beverage tax will produce positive results.

One model that can help analyze this case is the NRDd Model. When using this model,

the need for fundamental change would be for people to stop drinking soda, sugary beverages, or

any beverage similar. A remedy to this would be taxing these types of beverages. One

disadvantage to the tax would be many people would continue to drink soda and other similar

beverages. The devil, or the personification of the issue related to the need, in this case is soda

and other sugary beverages.

Possible Arguments

As stated in the audience analysis, the two audiences involved in this case are Green Bay

residents and Wall Street Journal readers. Benny and the Nuggs assessed possible affirmative

and negative arguments for both of these audiences and each argument was ranked by

importance to the audience. It was decided to focus on the top two arguments for each side and

audience.

For the affirmative side, the Green Bay residents would resonate most with the fact that a

soda tax would bring in government revenue. This revenue could be used for parks and

recreation, beautifying the city, or the public works department. An increase in revenue would be

very beneficial and help make Green Bay a better place to live. The second most important

argument related to health. Soda has been a major factor in the increase of obesity, heart disease,

stroke, diabetes, and poor dental health. These illnesses can lead to higher health care costs for

Sugary Beverage Tax 8

not only the individual, but the community. The article for this case gives Benny and the Nuggs

this possible argument.

Benny and the Nuggs ranked health as the number one argument for Wall Street Journal

readers and increase in government revenue as second. Other possible arguments include less

waste and the decrease of plastic bottles.

On the negative side, Green Bay residents would be most influenced by the argument of

“where does it stop?”. Is the tax only only to by in the city of Green Bay, what will stop residents

from going to Bellevue or Ashwaubenon? If the tax is in Green Bay area, why not go to the Fox

Valley or Brown County? Why not just tax the entire state? These questions could create a lot of

grey area for only tax that would be imposed.

The question of what classifies as a sugary beverage would also be an issue. In some

places where a soda tax is already enacted, diet sodas and juices are not included in the tax. Does

this tax include all soda, what about sports drinks or drinks that are loaded with sugar? Where

does the line get drawn when enacting a soda/sugary beverage tax?

The second possible argument for Green Bay residents is that people will still buy the

soda. People will just pay for the convenience of grabbing a soda where they are. This is proven

at the UW-Green Bay campus. Although soda or other items are taxed more, the price of most

items on campus is much higher than the gas station right off campus and nearly double or triple

the two grocery stores nearby. If the tax is only a few cents per ounce, people are just going to

pay the price. The convenience of not having to travel outside the affected soda tax area would

outweigh the added cost imposed by the tax.

Sugary Beverage Tax 9

For Wall Street Journal readers, the main argument is a soda tax would be a war on poor

people. According the article given for this case, the people in the communities that don’t have a

large disposable income, or any at all, would be most affected by the raise in cost for a soda.

Something as simple as buying a bottle of soda would no longer be in reach for this group

because it would put a larger strain on their families. The second major argument the same as

Green Bay residents, people will pay for the convenience. Other arguments for the negative side

would be the issue associated with a possible black market for untaxed soda. Also, the question

of unlimited refills on soda fountains. The rating chart for possible arguments can be found in the

Appendix.

Toulmin Model

Affirmative Side

For the affirmative Toulmin Models, the group took a deep dive and examined the

arguments through the “glasses” of the two audiences; Wall Street Journal readers and Green

Bay residents. After the group crafted the Toulmin Models, they were ranked--one, being the

argument with the weakest with the least impact on the specific audience, to ten, being the

strongest argument that would resonate with the specific audience.

The first Toulmin Model looked at the argument that there should be a tax on soda

through the eyes of Green Bay residents. The evidence that would resonate most with this

specific audience would be that the soda tax would bring in government revenue for the city with

the thought that this extra revenue would be put towards bettering the city and community. The

group decided that the warrant for this argument is a generalization and is, “since taxes bring in

Sugary Beverage Tax 10

revenue for the city”. The support for this warrant is the example of Berkeley, California’s

implementation of a soda tax. Their tax brought in 2.5 million dollars worth of government

revenue that was used to create programs that promote nutrition and healthy lifestyle choices for

the community. And lastly, the rebuttal that would poke the most holes in this particular

argument is that Green Bay residence could easily travel to a different location that does not have

a tax on soda and other sugary beverages. De Pere, Allouez, Ashwaubenon, and Bellevue would

all be very close, easy options for Green Bay residence to choose over paying the soda tax. There

could also be a rise of a soda black market, just like the cigarette black market that began in New

York.

Benny and the Nuggs ranked this argument’s effectiveness as a 7.5 out of ten. The group

inferred that Green Bay residence are concerned with local affairs and just how this tax would

affect their community. However, the group ranked it lower than the other affirmative argument

because of the high likelihood that Green Bay residence would opt to travel to a neighboring city

rather than paying the tax. There also would be a slight concern among Green Bay residence of

where the incoming government revenue would go and what it would be used for.

The second Toulmin Model looked at the argument through the lense of Wall Street

Journal readers. However, the evidence the group thought that would be most effective for this

audience is that people who drink soda tend to be more obese. The group used a sign warrant that

“since there is a strong correlation between drinking soda and obesity”, with the support that

according to the American Medical Association, 27 percent of Americans who have one soda per

day tend to be more obese. The rebuttal is there is an argument that there is no direct link

between soda consumption and obesity.

Sugary Beverage Tax 11

The group ranked this argument as a nine because Wall Street Journal readers tend to be

more health conscious and take their health and wellbeing very seriously. Though there is no

direct link between soda and sugary beverages causing obesity, the group believes that Wall

Street Journal readers would see that the benefits of the tax outweigh any negatives that the tax

would bring.

Negative Side

The Toulin Model for the negative side, advocating against a tax on sugary beverages,

was broken down by audience. First, the claim, for Green Bay residents, is a question of policy,

there should not be a tax on soda. The evidence to support this claim is that a tax set too low, will

only affect people who have a lower disposable income. This evidence was present to Benny and

the Nuggs in the provided case brief from the Wall Street Journal. The parallel warrant used to

support this evidence looks at the tax on cigarettes. Even when the tax on cigarettes was enacted,

people that could still afford them, purchased them. The only people that had to give up smoking

all together were the ones with a lower disposable income that could no longer afford them. The

cigarette tax was set too low, therefore not greatly affecting demand. The same would go for a

tax set on soda. If a tax were to be set on sugary beverages, people who could still afford them,

would still continue to purchase them, even with the slight price increase.

On a scale of one to ten, ten being most effective, the group rated this argument an 8.5.

The group believes that Green Bay residents would see resonate more with this argument as it

deals more with the cost, rather than the health concerns.

Sugary Beverage Tax 12

The claim for Wall Street Journal readers would stay the same as Green Bay residents.

The question of policy would claim that there should not be a tax on sugary beverages. The

evidence behind this claim is that even when a soda tax was enacted in the past, people found a

way around it. Again, relating it to a previous case in Chicago, even when a tax was enacted in

one city, that did not stop residents from travel to a nearby city to purchase soda at a cheaper

price. When Cook County, IL, which includes Chicago, passed a penny-per-ounce soda tax,

Chicago reported many cases of citizens driving to the nearby border of Indiana to purchase soda

at a cheaper price. A mere two months later, Chicago voted to repeal the tax based off of the

major backlash they received. This case is a perfect example of how, if a sugary beverage tax is

enacted, people will find a way around it and it will ultimately fail. Anticipating pushback, the

group foresaw a counter-argument claiming that people will just pay for the convenience, that

assuming residents will drive great distances to purchase cheaper soda is absurd. A group

example is the purchasing of soda on the UW-Green Bay campus. Students could easily drive

down the street to Festival Foods or BP gas station to get it a little cheaper, but since they are

right here on campus and no driving is required, people will just pay a little extra for

convenience.

Upon ranking this argument, the group concluded that this argument would sit at a 7.5

out of ten. Although a very strong argument, the anticipated counter-argument could provide

some trouble. Claiming that people will drive a great distance to purchase soda at a mere

discount of ten to twelve cents may be a little bit of a stretch.

Sugary Beverage Tax 13

Winner

The situation in the case led Benny and the Nuggs to a difficult decision when selecting

an overall winner. The outcome of choosing a winner came down to which argument was most

compelling and effective to the audience. Ultimately, the group found that each of the two

audiences, Green Bay residents and Wall Street Journal readers, would resonate with a different

side and opted to select a different winner for each audience.

The Wall Street Journal readers tend to resonate more with health concerns due to the

research founded in audience analysis. While Green Bay residents could also find similarities in

relating to this argument, this was not the strongest for this audience. When rating the winning

argument for both audiences, the scale was one, being the lowest ranking and ten, being the

highest ranking argument. Health concerns (i.e. obesity) was ranked on the affirmative side as a

nine. This argument was the highest rank out of the four Toulmin Models presented. When

collaborating as a group, the decision was clear as to why this was chosen as the winner for Wall

Street Journal readers.

Green Bay residents, on the other hand, would see a tax on sugary beverages as an attack

on people with a smaller disposable income. As seen in the audience analysis, Wall Street

Journal readers have a relatively higher income, thus giving them a larger disposable income.

Green Bay residents do not have as large of a disposable income and thus would feel the

financial effects of a soda tax greater than Wall Street Journal readers. In the Toulmin Model,

this argument was rated as an 8.5 on a one to ten scale. This was the strongest argument and

would in-turn convince Green Bay residents that a soda tax is ineffective and unnecessary.

Sugary Beverage Tax 14

Suggestions

For the affirmative and negative side, the purpose of using suggestions is to show how

both sides of the case can strengthen their arguments. For the affirmative side, our suggestion is

to look further into health concerns caused by the consumption of sugary beverages. By doing

so, the group can show through statistics, health related images and facts the negative effect soda

and sugary beverages have on the human body. As for the negative side, looking at the

correlation between poverty (i.e. low-income communities) and the purchasing of cigarettes

would improve the argument. Since low-income communities tend to have much higher rates of

smoking, this correlation of purchasing soda also has a large effect on this community which was

found in the 100 Facts.

So What?

Overall, this case study provided efficacious learning. Over the course of three weeks, we

used theories and models that were presented in class, such as the Toulmin and NRDd Models.

This assisted Benny and the Nuggs in narrowing down the case to better understand the

affirmative and negative sides of taxing soda. Analyzing each audience made it clear as to why

this case needed to be thoroughly researched in order to understand the study.

Benny and the Nuggs produced three main So What’s for this case. First, having a tax on

soda will lower obesity and bring in revenue for the government. This tax will benefit an

individual’s healthy lifestyle and the money generated from the tax will go toward city needs.

Next, the group determined that different audiences resonate with one side (affirmative vs

negative) more than the other, and it is important to conduct thorough research through the

Sugary Beverage Tax 15

analysis of charts, theories and other valid articles. Then, the group was able to come to a

conclusion to what suits each audience best. Finally, if a tax is enacted, it turns into an issue of

convenience and affordability. This means that people will search for untaxed soda and go

outside their original location to purchase it for the best price.

Continuous Improvement

Following the presentation, the group was presented with some areas of improvement to

strengthen not only the presentation, but the arguments as a whole. The first is specifying a

different winner for each audience, Green Bay residents and Wall Street Journal readers. The

group’s analysis of the arguments showed that Green Bay residents and Wall Street Journal

readers had different values and thus agreed with a different side of the argument. However, the

group had articulated one overall winner in the presentation. This has since been fixed and can

be found in the section, Winner.

The other continuous improvement suggestion the group received was specifying which

arguments came directly from the case and which came from the additional research. The group

took many arguments directly from the arguments of Brownell and Shughart, but some

arguments were generated by the group through extensive background research. This has been

fixed by the group and placed in the Possible Arguments section.

Conclusion

With this research in mind, the group concluded that it is nearly impossible to determine

one winner for the question, “should there be a tax on sugary beverages.” When breaking it down

Sugary Beverage Tax 16

based on audience, Benny and the Nuggs recognized the values of Green Bay residents and those

of Wall Street Journal readers are vastly different. With this in mind, the group recognized that

some arguments would resonate more with one audience than the other. Green Bay residents,

based off of the power of the arguments provided, are going to be strongly opposed to a tax on

sugary beverages. The opposite would go for Wall Street Journal readers as they would welcome

a tax on sugary beverages based on the negative health effects that come with consumption of

these drinks. Benny and the Nuggs are split as a group, each member, after working through this

case, recognizes both sides of the argument and are leaving this case with a new-found outlook

on this global debate.

Sugary Beverage Tax 17

References

N.A. (2018). Faculty - Kelly D. Brownell. Retrieved from http://www.sanford.duke.edu

N.A. (2018) Willaim F. Shughart II. Retrieved from http://www.independent.org

Philpott, T. (2016, November 11). Chicago Will Now Tax Sugary Drinks. Retrieved from

http://www.motherjones.com

U.S. Census Bureau (2010). Quick Facts, Green Bay city, Wisconsin. Retrieved from

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/greenbaycitywisconsin#viewtop

Wall Street Journal (2017). 2017 Media Kit. Retrieved from

http://www.wsjmediakit.com/files/uploads/201410/WSJ.com%20Audience%20Profile.pdf

Sugary Beverage Tax 18

Appendix

100 Facts

1. Boulder, Colorado; Cook County, Illinois(now reversed); Berkeley, California; San Francisco, California; Oakland, California; Albany, California; Seattle, Washington and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania all have implemented a sugary drink tax. (https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2016/11/14/5-more-locations-pass-soda-taxes-whats-next-for-big-soda/2/#78befabf2a7c)

2. The largest source of calories in the American diet is carbonated soft drinks, providing over five percent of overall calorie intake.

3. The American Heart Association recommends that adults consume no more than five to nine teaspoons of added sugar per day.

4. People (adults) who drink one or more sodas in a day are 27 percent more likely to be overweight.

5. Berkeley, California was the first place to impose a sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) tax in 2014. (https://www.heart.org/idc/groups/heart-public/@wcm/@mwa/documents/downloadable/ucm_484502.pdf)

6. Berkeley’s soda tax has raised nearly $2.5 million dollars for the community. (http://www.berkeleyvsbigsoda.com/about)

7. SSB are associated with an increase risk of obesity, Type 2 diabetes, heart disease, and heart failure. (https://www.cnn.com/2016/11/01/health/soda-tax-benefits-mexico/index.html)

8. Places that have implemented a SSB tax have seen an increase of water consumption. (https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/08/23/491104093/berkeleys-soda-tax-appears-to-cut-consumption-of-sugary-drinks)

9. The American Heart Association found that a person who grabs a diet soda weekly is three times likely to have a stroke or experience dementia. (https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/01/23/taxing-our-soda-interfering-our-diets-wont-always-result-slimmer-waistlines-katrina-trinko-column/1055578001/)

10. Two out of three adults and one out of three children in the United States are overweight or obese. (https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/sugary-drinks-fact-sheet/)

11. The US spends approx. $190 billion a year treating obesity-related health conditions. 12. The 1950s is when the traditional 12 oz soda can was introduced. 13. Prior to the 12 oz can, soda was served in 6.5 oz cans. 14. Every day, about half the United States consumes a SSB.

Sugary Beverage Tax 19

15. A 20 oz drink can contain 15 to 18 teaspoons of sugar or 22 packets of sugar. (https://cdn1.sph.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/30/2012/10/sugary-drinks-and-obesity-fact-sheet-june-2012-the-nutrition-source.pdf)

16. In 2013, the United States spend $14.3 on sugary drinks. 17. Coca-Cola, Dr. Pepper, Snapple Group, and PepsiCo are the three major soft drink

companies. (http://www.sugarydrinkfacts.org/sugary_drink_facts_in_brief.aspx) 18. SSB can be sweetened with brown sugar, corn sweetener, corn syrup, dextrose, fructose,

glucose, high-fructose corn syrup, honey, lactose, malt syrup, maltose, molasses, raw sugar, and sucrose.

19. Americans drink 52 percent of SSB at home. 48 percent away from home. 20. The intake of SSB is geographically motivated.

(https://www.cdc.gov/nutrition/data-statistics/sugar-sweetened-beverages-intake.html) (http://www.kickthecan.info/fast-facts)

21. Sugar sweetened beverages, such as soda, are the single largest source of added sugars in the American diet.

22. The average american drinks nearly 42 gallons of sweetened beverages each year (equivalent to 39 pounds of extra sugar each year)

23. Between 1977 and 2001, Americans’ daily calorie consumption increased by 250-300 calories (43 percent of which came from sugary drinks alone)

24. Over the past 30 years, adult diabetes rates have nearly triples. In the same period, soda consumption doubled

25. Individuals who drink one to two sugar-sweetened beverages per day have a 26 percent higher risk of developing Type II diabetes

26. There is overwhelming evidence of the link between obesity and the consumption of sweetened beverages, such as soft drinks, energy drinks, sweet teas, and sports drinks

27. Obesity increases the risk of diabetes, heart disease, arthritis, asthma, and certain types of cancer

28. Adults who drink one soda or more daily are 27 percent more likely to be overweight or obese

29. Among children, those who drink 1 or more sugar-sweetened beverages per day have 55 percent greater odds of being overweight.

(https://listverse.com/2013/05/09/10-fascinating-facts-about-soda/) 30. Coca-Cola alone has 3,500 different soft drinks internationally 31. Kosher Coke is produced in March and April to coincide with Passover season, it is

sweetened with cane sugar and can be identified with a yellow cap (https://www.phactual.com/11-tasty-facts-about-soda/)

32. Without the added food color, Coca-Cola would be green 33. The average American drinks just less than two sodas a day (it makes up the number one

source of calorie intake in America)

Sugary Beverage Tax 20

34. Coke is so popular that even Diet Coke sells more than Pepsi 35. Soda can be used to get rust stains off of car bumpers 36. In 1995, Mountain Dew became the official sponsor of the first-ever X Games. 37. Pepsi once ran an advertisement with the slogan “Come alive with Pepsi”, in China this

translated to “Pepsi brings your ancestors back from the grave.” 38. The name Fanta came from the German word “fantasie” which means imagination

(https://nutritionfacts.org/topics/soda/) 39. Consuming aspartame (as found in diet sodas) can lead to premature birth if drank during

pregnancy 40. Diet coke has more potential than any other tested food to cause erosion of the tooth

enamel 41. Evidence from PET scans suggest that brain activity changes from the overconsumption

of sugar and may parallel that of a drug addiction 42. The caramel coloring used in many sodas has been linked to cancer 43. Colas contain phosphate additives, which appear to damage blood vessels, accelerate the

aging process, and contribute to osteoporosis 44. The average soda sold in the United States has more than doubled in size since the

1950s, from 6.5 ounces to 16.2 ounces a. Woodward-Lopez G, Kao J, and Ritchie L. (2011). To what extent have

sweetened beverages contributed to the obesity epidemic? Public Health Nutr, 14(3): 499-509

45. In 1955, a cup of Coca-Cola and McDonald’s was seven ounces. Today, a children’s size Coca-Cola at McDonald’s is 12 ounces and a medium is 21 ounces

a. Ghorayshi A. (2012). Too big to chug: How our sodas got so huge. Mother Jones. Available at (http://www.motherjones.com/media/2012/06/supersize-biggest-sodas-mcdonalds-big-gulp-chart)

b. Just DR and Wansink B. (2014). One man’s tall is another man’s small: How the framing of portion size influences food choice. Health Econ, 23(7): 776–791.

46. The American Heart Association recommends a maximum daily intake of six teaspoons of added sugars for women and nine teaspoons for men

a. 2 American Heart Association. (2016). Added sugars. Available at http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/HealthyLiving/HealthyEating/Nutrition/AddedSugars_UCM_305858_Article.jsp#.WHZW71UrLcs.

47. Soda, energy drinks, and sports drinks are a top source of calories in children’s and teens’ diets, accounting for 118 calories per day.

a. U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, op cit.

Sugary Beverage Tax 21

48. Sugar-sweetened beverages are any liquids that are sweetened with various forms of added sugars like brown sugar, corn sweetener, corn syrup, dextrose, fructose, glucose, high-fructose corn syrup, honey, lactose, malt syrup, maltose, molasses, raw sugar, and sucrose.

a. U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2015-2020. 8th Edition ed. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office; 2015

49. The prevalence of Americans who drink SSB at least once per day differs geographically. For example, 68 percent among adults living in the Northeast, 67 percent among adults living in the South, 61 percent among adults living in the West, and 59 percent among adults living in the Midwest reported drinking SSBs one or more times per day.

a. Park S, McGuire LC, Galuska DA. Regional differences in sugar-sweetened beverage intake among US adults. J Acad Nutr Diet. 2015;115(12):1996-2002.

50. In only two states out of 23 states and DC surveyed, less than 20 percent of adults were daily SSB consumers.

51. In four states and DC out of 23 states and DC surveyed, 20 percent to less than 25 percent of adults were daily SSB consumers.

52. In seven states out of 23 states and DC surveyed, 25 percent to less than 30 percent of adults were daily SSB consumers.

53. In three states out of 23 states and DC surveyed, 30 percent to less than 35 percent of adults were daily SSB consumers.

54. In seven states out of 23 states and DC surveyed, 35 percent or more of adults were daily SSB consumers. (https://www.cdc.gov/nutrition/data-statistics/sugar-sweetened-beverages-intake.html)

55. Sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) or sugary drinks are leading sources of added sugars in the American diet. Frequently drinking sugar-sweetened beverages is associated with weight gain/obesity, type 2 diabetes, heart disease, kidney diseases, non-alcoholic liver disease, tooth decay and cavities, and gout, a type of arthritis.

a. Malik V, Popkin B, Bray G, Desprs J-P, Hu F. Sugar-sweetened beverages, obesity, Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, and Cardiovascular Disease risk. Circulation. 2010;121(11):1356-1364.

b. Malik VS, Hu FB. Fructose and Cardiometabolic Health: What the Evidence From Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tells Us. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015;66(14):1615-1624.

c. Bomback A, Derebail V, Shoham D, et al. Sugar-sweetened soda consumption, hyperuricemia, and kidney disease. Kidney International. 2010;77(7):609-616.

Sugary Beverage Tax 22

d. Bernabe E, Vehkalahti MM, Sheiham A, Aromaa A, Suominen AL. Sugar-sweetened beverages and dental caries in adults: a four-year prospective study. J Dent. 2014;42(8):952-958.

56. Adults and adolescents who smoke, don’t get enough sleep, don’t exercise much, eat fast food often and who do not eat fruit regularly are more likely to be frequent consumers of SSBs. Additionally, adolescents who frequently drink SSBs also have more screen time (e.g., television, cell phones, computers, video games)

a. Park S, Blanck HM, Sherry B, Brener N, O’Toole T. Factors associated with sugar-sweetened beverage intake among United States high school students. J Nutr. 2012;142(2):306-312.

b. Park S, Sherry B, Foti K, Blanck HM. Self-reported academic grades and other correlates of sugar-sweetened soda intake among US adolescents. J Acad Nutr Diet. 2012;112(1):125-131.

c. Park S, Pan L, Sherry B, Blanck HM. Consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages among US adults in 6 states: Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, 2011. Prev Chronic Dis. 2014;11:E65.

57. Chicago attempted to implement a soda tax in 2017, but it fizzled out after two months 58. Sweetened drink taxes are often based on drink volume, thus taxing high- and low-sugar

drinks equally. But soft drinks differ greatly in their sugar content. Some have less than two teaspoons of added sugar in each eight-ounce serving, for example, while others have more than seven. From a public health perspective, volume taxes thus do too little to discourage high-sugar drinks and too much to discourage low-sugar drinks. Focusing taxes on drinks with the most sugar would do more to reduce sugar consumption for any given level of taxation.

59. Taxes based on sugar content may also encourage manufacturers, distributors, and retailers to redesign their product lineups and marketing plans to favor drinks with less sugar. Such incentives are more pronounced for taxes levied by jurisdictions with large beverage markets than by small ones.

60. The federal government has both the authority and the capability to tax soft drinks based on their sugar content. The federal government has long taxed spirits based on their alcohol content and has experience applying different tax rates to different groups of products, such as spirits, wine, and beer. It could pursue either approach with sugary soft drinks.

61. Other nations have already enacted drink taxes based on sugar content. Hungary has a one-tier levy that taxes drinks with relatively high sugar levels. The United Kingdom recently announced a two-tier levy that taxes moderate-sugar drinks at one amount and high-sugar drinks at a higher amount. And South Africa plans to tax the added sugar content of beverages.

Sugary Beverage Tax 23

62. State and local governments, as well, often have the ability to implement taxes based on sugar content, but they face more constraints in implementing their tax policies. The tools available to a city or county can differ from those available to a state or nation because of legal limitations (e.g., statutory or constitutional limits on the taxes a jurisdiction can levy) and administrative constraints. The magnitude of taxes they can levy may be limited by the ability of consumers and noncompliant businesses to shift purchases to neighboring jurisdictions. When taxing manufacturers based on sugar content is infeasible, local governments can consider tiered volume taxes collected from distributors. Several states apply tiered taxes to wine and beer based on alcohol content or divide alcoholic beverages into different categories for taxing. Many states include soft drinks in their sales tax base even when food for consumption at home is excluded, applying the general retail sales tax to purchases.

63. If policymakers are more focused on raising revenue than reducing sugar consumption, however, they may prefer broader taxes that spread the tax burden more evenly. Philadelphia’s decision to tax all sweetened beverages, rather than just sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs), is a good example.

64. Policymakers thus face trade-offs among policy goals. Taxes that target high-sugar drinks provide the most sugar reduction relative to the economic burden placed on consumers. Taxes based on sugar content minimize the cost of reducing sugar in soft drinks. But taxes based on volume or price minimize the cost of raising revenue by taxing sweetened beverages.

65. As soft-drink taxes become more common, individual jurisdictions may find the easiest path is to adopt the same design as neighboring jurisdictions. Such coordination will reduce the administrative burden on both governments and businesses. But it also raises the importance of identifying and implementing good tax designs early on, lest ad hoc choices lead jurisdictions to miss out on better tax designs (http://www.heart.org/idc/groups/ahaecc-public/@wcm/@adv/documents/downloadable/ucm_490771.pdf)

66. The World Health Organization has been urging the government to tax sugary drinks to stave off obesity, diabetes and other non communicable diseases.

(https://www.cnn.com/2016/10/12/health/who-soda-tax/index.html) 67. In 2016, Americans drank more bottled water than soda.

(https://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/10/americans-drank-more-bottled-water-than-soda-in-2016.html 68. A study published in the American Journal of Public Health found that a daily soda habit

can age your immune cells almost two years. 69. The study found that Drinking an eight-ounce daily serving of soda corresponded to 1.9

years of additional aging, and drinking a daily 20-ounce serving was linked to 4.6 more years of aging.

Sugary Beverage Tax 24

70. The latter is the same association between smoking and aging. 71. This effect was not shown in diet soda intake. 72. The effect was also not shown in non-carbonated sugary beverages like fruit juice.

(http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2014.302151?journalCode=ajph&) 73. Each year, youth see hundreds of television ads for sugar-containing drinks. 74. In 2010, preschoolers viewed an average of 213 ads for sugary drinks and energy drinks,

while children and teens watched an average of 277 and 406 ads. 75. Beverage industry-funded studies are four to eight times more likely to show a finding

favorable to industry than independently-funded studies. 76. On any given day, half the people in the U.S. consume sugary drinks; one in four get at

least 200 calories from such drinks; and five percent get at least 567 calories—equivalent to four cans of soda.

77. Sugary drinks are the top calorie source in teens’ diets (226 calories per day). (https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/sugary-drinks-fact-sheet/)

78. Nearly half of all Americans drink soda daily. (http://news.gallup.com/poll/156116/nearly-half-americans-drink-soda-daily.aspx)

79. Studies have shown that diet soda is not promoting weight loss or helping people take in fewer calories.

80. Research suggests that drinking diet soda may speed up brain aging and increase the risk for stroke, dementia, and Alzheimer’s disease.

(https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/wellness/whether-diet-or-regular-soda-can-be-deadly-heres-how-you-can-quit/2017/06/29/29c4e348-4fb2-11e7-be25-3a519335381c_story.html?utm_term=.616d58741401)

81. United States soda consumption has been dropping since 2000; obesity has held steady. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/food/is-a-soda-tax-the-solution-to-americas-obesity-problem/2015/03/23/b6216864-ccf8-11e4-a2a7-9517a3a70506_story.html?utm_term=.bfa680b465a0)

82. Seattle enacted a sweetened beverages tax that went into effect on January 1, 2018. 83. Store owners, many consumers, unionized beverage-industry workers, and critics

opposed the tax. 84. A racial equality analysis said that including diet beverages - which are more popular

among wealthy people and white people - would make the tax more fair. Council chose to exclude them.

85. Consumption remains highest among black and Hispanic consumers who also are at greater risk for obesity. (https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/promoting-health-at-a-hefty-price-seattles-soda-tax-starts-jan-1/)

Sugary Beverage Tax 25

86. There were soda taxes prior to 2013 but they were very small and mainly focused on revenue generating, not health. For that reason, public health officials and researchers consider Berkeley the first soda tax in the US.

87. All four California cities and Cook County will have a one-cent-per-ounce tax, Philadelphia a 1.5-cent-per-ounce tax, and Boulder will have a two-cents-per-ounce tax. https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2016/11/14/5-more-locations-pass-soda-taxes-whats-next-for-big-soda/2/#15b348b72a7c

88. The first soda taxes had nothing to do with health. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/04/06/what-happened-when-america-put-a-national-tax-on-soda/?utm_term=.b374f9ca94b6)

89. Congress levied a nationwide tax on soda-makers during World War I, hoping to raise funds for the war effort.

90. West Virginia, which is currently considering a one-cent-per-ounce soda tax 91. When it came to taxing soda, soft-drink manufacturers were the initial targets:

Companies like Coca-Cola paid a cent-per-gallon tax on bottled soft drinks, and a five-to-20-cent-per-gallon tax on soda ingredients, like syrup and carbonic gas

92. A year later, after the war had ended, Congress scrapped that strategy for a dual manufacturing/retail tax that charged manufacturers a ten percent tax on bottled soda sales, and charged consumers a penny for every ten cents bought

93. Soda taxes raised only $58 million a year at their peak, or $789 million adjusted for inflation. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/04/06/what-happened-when-america-put-a-national-tax-on-soda/?utm_term=.b374f9ca94b6)

94. A penny-an-ounce soda pop tax was slated to take effect on July 1, but its imposition was put off by a local judge after the state retail merchants association and a group of local grocers challenged its legality.

95. Chicago is one of about a dozen areas around the nation that have instituted a soft-drink tax.

96. Seattle was the most recent and now Massachusetts is considering becoming the first state to enact one.

97. Philadelphia's soda tax, which began on Jan. 1, was challenged in state court, but the tax opponents failed, and it went into effect.

98. A new study suggests 30 percent of kids in the U.S. consumed more than two sugary drinks per day. (https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2017/07/11/chicago-becomes-latest-battleground-over-soft-drink-taxes/464575001/)

99. The battle over taxing sugar-sweetened beverages is becoming one of the world’s most ferocious policy brawls — a clash of science, politics and money in dozens of countries and cities.

Sugary Beverage Tax 26

100. In the United States, the industry has spent at least $107 million at the state and local levels since 2009 to beat back soda taxes and beverage warning labels

101. More than a billion people now live in places where such taxes have driven up the price of sugar-sweetened beverages. (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/13/health/colombia-soda-tax-obesity.html)

102. Most states do not tax groceries, but most do apply their sales tax to soda . 103. Under a fairly typical seven percent general sales tax, the effective tax rate per ounce

of soda might vary from 0.19 cents (on a 33 cent can purchased as part of a 12 pack) to 0.58 cents (on the purchase of a single can at a price of $1).

104. The term “soda tax” refers not to general sales tax but to a special excise tax on soda and other sugary beverages based on sugar content.

105. The only two sugar sweetened beverage taxes enacted in the US are currently set at 1 cent per ounce in Berkeley, California and 1.5 cents per ounce in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Sugary Beverage Tax 27

Audience Analysis Chart

Audience Demographic Impact on Group

(taxes added) Impact on Group (taxes not added)

Green Bay Area Residents

- Equal ratios male & female - Primarily 25-54 years old

- GB residents will drive to nearby areas to get soft drinks if only put on Green Bay (Allouez, Ashwaubenon, Bellevue) - Consumption might stay the same, or might decrease

- Soft drink consumption will continue to rise - Obesity and diabetes may continue to increase due to soft drink consumption

Wall Street Journal Readers

- Men to women is 62/38 - Average age is 43 - Average income: $242,007 - 81% are college graduates

- Rise in prices will not affect this population all that much, would still be willing to buy the soda

- Soft drink consumption will stay the same - Obesity and diabetes may continue to increase from it

KISS Chart

Audience Know Infer So What to Do So What NOT to Do

Green Bay Area Residents

- Are concerned with local occurrences

- Gravitate toward local news

- Show them how the taxation of soda could have a possible positive effect on their local community

- Generalize the effect and show them how it will affect the entire world

Wall Street Journal Readers

- More than ¾ have college degrees - Make more than NY Times or USA Today readers

- Educated - Have larger disposable income

- Educate on how the tax will lower health issues - Focus on how it benefits society

- Neglect to educate on the positives - Focus on the cost of the tax

Sugary Beverage Tax 28

Possible Arguments

Key Affirmative Arguments GB Residents WSJ Readers

● Health ○ Increase costs

■ Heart disease ■ Diabetes ■ Stroke ■ Obesity ■ Dental

○ Increase of water consumption

2 1

● Brings in Government Revenue 1 2

● Less bottle/plastic waste 5 5

● Decrease paying for health benefits 3 3

● Saving money for patients/less money spent for this health issue

4 4

Key Negative Arguments GB Residents WSJ Readers

● “War Against Poor People” 3 1

● Where do you stop? ○ Location ○ What is classified as a sugary beverage?

1 4

● Rise of a Black Market 4 3

● People will still buy it ○ How high should the tax be?

2 2

● What about Restaurant Refills? 5 5

Sugary Beverage Tax 29

Meeting Agendas

Agenda 1/31

- Come up with a game plan To Do List Ben & Amanda - AA/KISS Charts

Demographic Disposition Impact on Group

If Taxes added If Taxes not added

Sara, Abby, & Jo - All possible arguments Relating back to facts

Agenda 2/12

- Parallel or Series - Parallel

- Affirmative: There should be a tax on Soda - Negative Case: There isn’t a tax on soda and it should stay that way - Prima Facia: I have a problem with no tax on soda - NRDd for each of the audiences

- Need: a tax on soda - Remedy: taxing soda - Disadvantages: public pushback - Devil: what is “soda”?

- Toulmin Model - Claim “There should be a tax on soda”

- Question of Policy - Evidence “Strong links to: obesity, poor dental health, paying more for health

care” - Increase in Obesity

- Personal - Circumstantial - Casual - Negative - Eager

- Warrant “(logos) sign: strong correlation between drinking soda and obesity”

Sugary Beverage Tax 30

- Support: People (adults) who drink 1 or more sodas in a day are 27% more likely to be overweight.

- Sign (co-occurrence) - There is a strong correlation between obesity and soda

+consumption - Reservation: “There is no direct link”

- There is no way to scientifically prove that soda consumption is the direct cause of obesity.

- Qualifier: n/a - Burden of Proof: Taxes will decrease obesity,

ASSIGNMENT: Find arguments for why there should be soda tax - Health links to soda consumption - Job loss - Grow community economy

Agenda 2/21

- Meeting in Library Study Room - 6:00pm - Run Arguments through models

- NRDd - Toulmin Model

- Create Powerpoint - Decide who will be speaking on what

Agenda 2/26

- Meeting in MAC Hall - 6:00pm - Finalize Powerpoint

- Go through Debate Analysis, ensure all parts are there - How are we going to present this exactly? - Create Paper Outline

- Divide parts up based on presentation parts - NEXT MEETING

- Have your part 100% completed - Be ready to present and make final touches

Agenda 2/28

- Final meeting in MAC Hall - Fix any errors - Run through presentation as many times as possible - Who is going to print off the slides?

Sugary Beverage Tax 31

Toulmin Models

Sugary Beverage Tax 32