San Francisco considers tax on sugary drinks
SAN FRANCISCO — San Francisco may become the latest city to try to curb the consumption of sugary drinks with a proposed ballot measure to impose a tax on beverages seen as a culprit in rising rates of childhood obesity and diabetes.
Supervisor Scott Wiener on Tuesday formally proposed asking voters in November 2014 to impose a 2-cent-per-ounce tax on soda and drinks with added sugar sold in the famously liberal northern California city.
No other city has enacted such a tax, though a similar proposal is in the works in the southwestern Colorado town of Telluride, according to the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity.
Two California cities, Richmond and El Monte, failed last year in their attempts to become the first in the nation to impose taxes of a penny per ounce on businesses that sell sugary drinks.
In New York, Mayor Michael Bloomberg last year spearheaded a ban on the sale of large, sugary drinks, but the move was declared illegal by a state judge in response to a challenge by soft drink makers and a restaurant group. New York's highest court has agreed to hear an appeal.
“We know that this will be a long road,” Wiener said in introducing the measure to his colleagues. “This type of proposal has occurred in other cities, and the beverage industry always comes out full guns blaring, so we're going to need to pull together to make sure that this wins.”
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Postal Service falls short of slower mail delivery standards
- CDC lauds schools for better nutrition
- Memorial service for slain Virginia journalists brings call for action
- University of Texas removes statue of Confederate President Davis
- Motive in ambush of Houston area deputy remains unknown
- Obama administration developing sanctions against China over cyberespionage
- Erika wanes as Tropical Storm Fred forms in Atlantic
- Obama inches closer to veto-proof support for Iran nuclear deal
- Pope Francis’ lack of familiarity with United States unusual
- New Orleans slow to heal 10 years after Hurricane Katrina
- Supreme Court can resolve Kentucky county clerk’s refusal to issue marriage licenses to gays