Taxing soda and other sugar-rich drinks—a measure lawmakers and voters have weighed to combat the nation’s growing obesity epidemic—would have no negative effect on jobs, a study finds.
Researchers at the University of Illinois (Chicago) found that a 20 percent increase on the price of sugar-sweetened beverages would have an overall positive impact on the labor market.
The American Beverage Association has long pushed back against such a tariff on the price of soda, arguing that the decreased demand for the drinks would cause job losses in the industry. But the new study evaluates the overall job market, including the effect on jobs in the non-sugary-drink sector as well as the added positions in state and local governments that result from the new revenue. The study finds that the employment gains in other sectors of the economy far outweigh the job losses for soda makers.
“People who don’t spend a dollar on a sugar-sweetened beverage still have that dollar to spend elsewhere,” said Lisa Powell, the study’s primary author and a professor at UIC.
That dollar could go to support the fruit-juice industry and the milk and dairy industry, or it could go back to the bank. But that dollar is still a dollar to be spent, along with the added revenue from the sugar-sweetened beverage tax, a factor that was not taken into account by studies released by the American Beverage Association, Powell said. While soda makers may face job losses, perhaps a truck driver begins to transport milk due to the new increased demand from the soda tax, she said.
When asked for a comment, ABA reiterated its original findings about job losses in the beverage industry, and added that taxes on sugary drinks have not garnered the support of voters nationwide.
“Americans have made it clear they don’t support taxes and other restrictions on common grocery items, like soft drinks,” said ABA spokesman Chris Gindlesperger in an email. “Soda taxes have unintended consequences on middle-class jobs and small businesses. For these and other reasons, tax proposals continue to fail wherever they are introduced.”
The UIC researchers looked at Illinois—their home state—and California to study the effects of soda taxes on the labor market. California is one state where voters have considered but defeated soda-tax ballot measures, and San Francisco is considering another tax measure again this fall. The researchers found an increase of 4,509 jobs in Illinois and 6,252 jobs in California.
The study was conducted independently through a grant from the Healthy Eating Research Program of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, which is a philanthropic organization devoted to improving public health.
“It’s important for health; it is a substantial amount of money, and it looks like it would not hurt jobs and may even modestly help,” said Jim Marks, senior vice president at RWJF. “The question is, will in any jurisdiction, will the leaders and the public support such a tax in a way so that it can implemented and see its effects in the real world?”
While sugar-sweetened beverages have been linked with obesity, diabetes, and other health problems, ABA also says its members are not directly responsible for the nation’s obesity epidemic. Obesity has been on the climb while the sugar content of drinks has fallen. Despite the debate around the overall public health effect, numerous soda-tax measures around the country include provisions to spend a portion of the revenue on childhood wellness and anti-obesity programs.
What We're Following See More »
"On Wednesday afternoon, Rep. Eric Swalwell, (D-Calif.), a Democrat on the House intelligence committee, and Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), the senior Democrat on the House government oversight committee, announced they were introducing legislation to create a bipartisan commission to investigate any attempt by the Russian government or persons in Russia to interfere with the recent US election. The commission they propose is modeled on the widely-praised 9/11 Commission."
"Two Colorado presidential electors Tuesday filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging a state law that requires them to vote for the winner of the state’s popular vote," in this case Hillary Clinton. They say they want to "vote for a third-party candidate to keep Trump from receiving 270 electoral votes," and work with other faithless electors around the country to "shift their Democratic votes to a consensus pick."