Arrow-right Camera
The Spokesman-Review Newspaper
Spokane, Washington  Est. May 19, 1883

Endorsements and editorials are made solely by the ownership of this newspaper. As is the case at most newspapers across the nation, The Spokesman-Review newsroom and its editors are not a part of this endorsement process. (Learn more.)

Outside View: Seattle finds that taxing sugar is complicated

The following editorial appeared in the Yakima Herald-Republic.

In Seattle, sugar got slammed this week with what amounts to a “sin tax,” much as the state has done for decades with alcohol and tobacco – and more recently, marijuana. The intention is good, but we all know what goes into the paving of the road to Hades – not to mention that this road traverses a mighty slippery slope.

The Seattle City Council is launching a full-on assault against obesity by imposing a hefty tax on sugary drinks – the top-of-mind target being soda pop. The tax amounts to 1.75 cents per ounce – about 56 cents for a 32-ounce drink or $1.18 for a 2-liter bottle. The goal is to discourage consumption of beverages that catch their share of the blame for America’s growing weight problem – and which critics say are heavily marketed toward children, especially in low-income areas.

Critics have noted that the impact will hit low-income residents hardest; advocates reply the same applies to obesity-related ailments. The Seattle council wants to use much of the tax revenue – estimated at $15 million annually – to help people on food stamps buy more fruits and vegetables at farmers markets. Mayor Ed Murray also wants to fund education programs for low-income children.

There is no quarrel with raising the awareness of healthy eating habits. The problem – one of many problems, actually – is assessing whether the intentions get the desired results, and how much a relatively simple act will solve a vexingly complex problem.

Seattle joins a handful of municipal entities with soda taxes, and only a couple have been in effect long enough to gauge any sort of impact. One tax is in Berkeley, California, which two years ago imposed a 1-cent-per-ounce tax; Berkeley has seen consumption of sugary beverages reduced by up to 21 percent and water consumption increaSeattlse. Another is in Philadelphia, where soda manufacturers and retailers who vigorously opposed a 1-cent-per-ounce tax claim sales have dropped up to 50 percent since it started in January, and that it will cause employee layoffs.

The consumption decrease shows the tax could influence behavior, but less so as to how it does. One question is whether customers are shopping in other jurisdictions to avoid the tax, or getting their sugar fix in other products. Of course, sugar infuses many products, and the Seattle City Council debate dealt somewhat with this slippery-slope issue. Being Seattle, the syrup in flavored lattes was a matter of considerable discussion – and the Seattle Times reports that confusion remains on whether the tax will hit syrup. There is no confusion that the tax will cover sports drinks, so-called energy drinks and some fruit drinks.

The measure, which goes into effect next year, sidesteps the many other products in which the added sugar is a hidden yet hefty ingredient.

Even the Seattle tax’s advocates, while hailing its passage, say it alone won’t solve the obesity problem. Any evaluation must take in comprehensive data to determine whether it is cutting consumption and, if so, whether it leads to desired healthy outcomes.