About a decade ago, public health researchers started advocating for implementation of a soda tax to combat consumption of sugary drinks. Soda intake has long been linked to the exacerbation of a series of potentially avoidable health problems including: obesity, diabetes, and tooth decay. After the recent election, four more U.S. cities voted to adopt a soda tax, spreading this new “sin tax” to more areas across the country. With more than one-third of American adults currently classified as obese, soda taxes could become a go-to method for combatting obesity, while simultaneously generating revenue for state budgets to fund local programs.

What are Sin Taxes?

Sin taxes are state-sponsored taxes that are added to specific products that are generally seen as vices, such as gambling, alcohol, and tobacco. In essence, by utilizing financial means, the government attempts to discourage individuals from engaging in a specific activity or using specific products without actually making those products or services illegal. Sin taxes are often compared to Pigovian taxes, which are taxes that generate negative externalities. In tax policy, a Pigovian tax is a fee assessed against private individuals or businesses for engaging in a specific activity; a negative externality occurs when an economic actor does not fully internalize the cost of activity. A simple example of a Pigovian tax is a pollution-related tax.

Currently, sin taxes are employed in a variety of sectors. Typically, they are added to liquor, tobacco, gambling, and other non-luxury items. There tends to be a decent amount of public support for sin taxes, as they are indirect and only affect those who use the specific products. Sin taxes are also extremely popular when trying to close large state budget gaps. Employing sin taxes for soda and sugar-sweetened beverages can help generate revenue and encourage public health initiatives. One research economist from the Research Triangle Institute has modeling data that suggests a six-cent tax on a twelve-ounce bottle of soda would lead consumers to drink 5,800 fewer calories from sugary drinks per year.

Using Soda Taxes to Combat Obesity

In 2014, voters in Berkeley, California passed the nation’s first soda tax, which went into effect in 2015. Additionally, in 2014, Mexico passed its own soda tax. After one year, sales of soda in Mexico fell as much as 12 percent, while bottled water purchases rose four percent. The researchers also found that while decline was seen across all socioeconomic groups, it was greatest among those who were low-income, with consumption falling 17 percent.

In the U.S., Berkeley’s tax was largely successful; research showed that soda consumption dropped in the city a staggering 20 percent. Philadelphia was the next city to follow suit, passing a soda tax earlier this year–thus becoming the first major city in the U.S. to do so. The tax, which is expected to generate $91 million annually, will be spent on pre-kindergarten programs in the city, creating community schools, improving parks and recreation centers, and libraries.

The beverage industry has fought extensively to keep soda taxes from passing elsewhere in the country. Advocates from the American Beverage Association, which represents all major soda brands, responded to the Philadelphia policy by arguing that the tax was regressive and unfairly singled out “low” and “no-calorie” beverages. In an effort to combat the tax, companies in the roughly $100 billion industry have focused their efforts on reformulating existing drinks to make them more healthy for consumers. However, even “diet” sodas are experiencing a sharp decline in sales, particularly because of increased suspicion regarding artificial sweeteners.

Soda Taxes Passed in November 2016

The World Health Organization recently recommended that governments impose soda taxes in order to combat a variety of diet-related diseases exacerbated by high soda consumption. Soda taxes were on the ballot in early November of this year in  three California cities–San Francisco, Albany, and Oakland–as well as Boulder, Colorado. The soda taxes passed in all four cities with fairly large margins of support, much to the dismay of the beverage industry. The American Beverage Association spent upwards of $9.5 million on an ad campaign opposing the measures entitled “Don’t Tax Our Groceries.”

The amount of tax in each city, however, varies. In San Francisco, Albany, and Oakland, the tax is one penny per ounce of soda. In Boulder, the tax is two pennies per ounce of soda, and the soda tax that passed earlier this year in Philadelphia was set at 1.5 cents an ounce. The disparities in the amount of tax per ounce are likely to continue as more jurisdictions follow suit.

These laws are also coming into effect at a time when soda consumption is down among Americans. In a 2014 Gallup poll, nearly two-thirds (63 percent) of Americans reported avoiding soda in their diet; in 2002 that number was only 41 percent. Moreover, over the last 20 years, sales of full-calorie soda have dropped by more than 25 percent. “Big Soda” is experiencing a substantial and sustained decline, while bottled water remains on track to overtake soda as the largest beverage category. The changing soda consumption patterns are noticeable in schools, where cafeterias and vending machines have stopped carrying regular sodas, and in many workplaces and government offices that have similarly limited sales. Soda, it seems, has now become the new tobacco: an unhealthy product that should be limited, if not outright banned, and taxed significantly.

“Soda” Image Courtesy of Rex Sorgatz : License (CC BY 2.0)

Issues with Soda Taxes

Not everyone is a fan of soda taxes. While the American Health Association has touted the win as a huge victory, many argue that the taxes affect low-income populations the most. Sin taxes arguably have a disproportionate effect on poor and less educated communities. Since sin taxes are typically regressive in nature, the less money a person makes, the larger percentage of his or her income the taxes take. Essentially, if comparing two “pack-a-day” smokers–one lower-income citizen and one high-income citizen–one can see that the two are spending the same amount of money on cigarettes and taxes each year. The taxes on those same cigarettes, however, are taking up much more of the lower-income citizen’s paycheck.

Additionally, the beverage industry contends that more taxes are not ideal when pursuing public health initiatives. Susan Neely, CEO of the American Beverage Association, stated that consumers don’t want these taxes. She also added that the industry is committed to reducing the amount of calories and sugar in these beverages and combating diet-related issues in a variety of manners. This includes partnering with Alliance for a Healthier Generation in order to try to change behaviors of people who may be receiving far too many calories from beverages. Other strategies include an ad campaign called “Balance What You Eat, Drink & Do” that encourages people to think more readily about the calories they are consuming. The beverage industry is also working with retailers to put more low-calorie choices at eye-level, so consumers will be more likely to pick those choices.

Conclusion

Whether you see soda taxes as a necessary movement or not, the U.S. is certainly grappling with an obesity epidemic. Educating the public about calorie and sugar consumption is critical to combating this public health crisis, in addition to making a myriad of low-calorie, no-calorie, and low-sugar choices more readily available in a variety of communities across the country. Sometimes, the easiest way to help people make changes is by utilizing financial means, and soda taxes may be an effective way to incentivize healthier behaviors. The law of demand works in practice, not just theory: when prices go up, people buy less.

For now, soda taxes seem to be here to stay, as they find their way into more cities across the country. “Big Soda” does appear to be in serious decline, and unless the industry can find a way to keep up with the public’s changing preferences, the downward trend may continue into the future. While the amount of a given tax will continue to vary depending on the jurisdiction, the long-term effects of taxes may be even more effective if taxes are increased and become more widespread. The amount of money generated from soda taxes has the potential to be large, and using the revenue to fund desperately-needed or underfunded programs, like Philadelphia intends to do, may be an ideal solution.

Nicole Zub

Nicole is a third-year law student at the University of Kentucky College of Law. She graduated in 2011 from Northeastern University with Bachelor’s in Environmental Science. When she isn’t imbibing copious amounts of caffeine, you can find her with her nose in a book or experimenting in the kitchen. Contact Nicole at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Are Soda Taxes the New Sin Tax to Combat Obesity? appeared first on Law Street.

This question might conjure chilling images of flavorless fixed rations, compulsory exercise regimes, and the foreboding scales of a totalitarian weight monitoring mechanism.

Take a deep breath. Mandatory weigh-ins have no place in your near future. However, the government already influences your weight in indirect ways using methods more subtle than scales. It’s not because they’re nosy or superficial, it’s because weight, specifically being overweight, is a burgeoning public health plight in the United States.

What’s the big problem with obesity?

In the not-too-distant past, being overweight was a harmless stigma — a matter of aesthetics and not health. Today we know that obesity comes along with a load of serious health complications like heart disease, high blood pressure, Type 2 Diabetes, and some types of cancer. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimate that 112,000 deaths a year are associated with obesity. Related medical expenses burden the United States with more than $100 billion annually. Ouch.

What’s even scarier? Obesity prevalence is overwhelming the United States population. According to the CDC, more than one third of American adults are obese. That’s more than double the rate of the last decade.

Before you brush it off as an unfortunate fact of life, here’s some visual perspective from the CDC on this explosive growth:

Obesity prevalence in 1990. The darkest blue represents a rate of 10%-14% population obesity.

Obesity prevalence in 2009. Note all of the completely new colors. Obesity rates of all states have surpassed those seen in 1990.

Previous efforts to confront obesity have focused on individual interventions like nutrition education. The climbing rate of obesity despite these efforts revealed some missing pieces in the strategy. Experts realized obesity wasn’t just a matter of willpower. Recognizing the multi-faceted approach needed to combat obesity, officials fixed their attention on underlying causes that escape an individual’s control.

How is obesity out of individual control?

Obesity isn’t just about individual choices, it’s about individual options. The fight against obesity is futile for those without the right options. For example, poor access to supermarkets because of zoning complications may make smart food choices a hopeless pursuit. A simple jog isn’t an option for those with nowhere to do it safely.

Furthermore, we have a hard time helping ourselves. One study found that concern over weight isn’t a sufficient catalyst for behavioral change. Concerned people who lack access to healthy foods are stripped of the power for change. The pervasiveness of fast food establishments peddling calorie-dense foods present an invincible double threat.

Government regulations can interfere when individual resolve falls short. Large-scale policies to create healthier communities could help those who can’t help themselves.

What can the government do?

The Standard Toolkit

The Commerce Clause of the Constitution bestows the federal government with the right to regulate state commerce. This translates practically to weight-related regulations like food labeling mandates and subsidies on foods. On a more local level, the Constitution grants states the power to regulate the health, safety, and welfare of their populations. This broad power translates to a variety of possible actions.

Here are some examples of perfectly legal government actions that affect what we eat and consequently what we weigh:

Taxes and Subsidies

Some cities and states already have taxes on sugary drinks. Opinions are split on extending taxes on junk food. James Carville thinks it might be a good idea to tax “Twinkies more than apples.”

The government subsidizes certain crops, often increasing their prevalence in our diets. Corn is a popular example of the power of subsidies. In Michael Pollan’s The Omnivore’s Dilemma, one researcher likens Americans to corn chips with legs.

Bans: New York City made history when it took measures to strike trans-fats from restaurant menus.  After the rule survived backlash, other states and cities followed suit. In the next few years, the FDA will undertake a national trans-fat phase out.

Labeling: New York City again led the way by requiring restaurants to disclose nutrition information on their menus. The federally-mandated nutrition label is probably the best known example of enforced food labeling.

Zoning and Land Planning: In some areas, large supermarkets and farmers markets are zoned out, making healthy food hard to come by. Developing parks and sidewalks is a proven way to get people moving without the conscious choice to exercise more.

Transportation: Some studies have shown that people who use public transportation weigh less than those who commute in cars. Unfortunately, more money is invested in highways than in public transportation.

Health Care and Benefits: Tennessee and West Virginia have reimbursement programs for Weight Watchers and 42 states provide gastric bypass surgery for the morbidly obese.

Alternative Approaches

Not all approaches that aim to reduce obesity target diet and exercise. Some of them appear unrelated to obesity at first glance. For example, a breastfeeding facility law requires employers to provide proper accommodations to encourage breastfeeding. While the law helps new mothers in many ways, it’s also a CDC priority strategy to prevent obesity as breastfeeding has been tied to reduced early childhood obesity.

Numerous policies and campaigns aspire to shrink obesity rates. They focus on a broad range of factors from diet specifically to overall health and wellness. CDC’s Division of Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Obesity database lists state-by-state activities if you want to get an idea of what’s in place.

What are lawmakers suggesting?

What does the future hold for the fight against obesity? Check out these examples of what policymakers have been cooking up:

Healthy Lifestyles and Prevention America (HELP) Act: Proposes a multi-pronged intervention strategy to enhance overall wellness of the American people. Children would enjoy enhanced nutrition and physical activity programs in schools and in childcare settings. Adults would benefit from workplace wellness programs. Everyone would benefit from proposed attacks on both salt and tobacco.

FIT Kids Act: Would fund grants for physical education programs that are based on scientific research. States would be required to analyze and identify specific student needs and develop their programs accordingly. The act would also require states to develop indicators of progress.

Reduce Obesity Act of 2013:  Suggests an amendment to title XVIII of the Social Security Act that would require the Medicare and You handbook to include information on behavioral therapy for obesity. It would allow physicians and other experts on Diabetes prevention to provide behavioral therapy outside of the primary care setting.

Stop Childhood Obesity Act of 2014: Seeks to deny financial benefits for companies to advertise and market certain food products to children. Tax deductions granted under the Internal Revenue Code would be barred for advertising to children that promotes consuming foods of poor nutritional quality. The Secretary of the Treasury and the Institute of Medicine would determine what constitutes foods of poor nutritional quality.

Beyond regulations and policies…

Some suggest that legal approaches may fill in the gaps left after regulations. The paper Innovative Legal Approaches to Address Obesity presents techniques that leverage law to  tackle obesity:

Regulating conduct: The Massachusetts decision to ban self-service displays of tobacco was upheld in the case of Lorillard Tobacco v. Reilly. Perhaps courts would uphold similar decisions to remove processed foods from checkout aisles.

Ingredient caps: The government can limit the alcohol content of beer. They might do something similar with sugar if it’s proven to be harmful and addictive.

Limits on food marketing: Advertising messages are protected under First Amendment rights. As early as 1978, the FTC attempted a rule to limit advertising of sugary products to children. The rule was struck down after massive industry opposition. Many hope to revisit similar rules as obesity-related health consequences surface.

Compelling industry speech: A near opposite to limiting advertising would be to compel industry speech and require companies to disclose information that might affect consumption. The United Kingdom’s traffic light system provides an extreme example.

Increasing government speech: Government speech could be leveraged to counteract the prevalence of advertising messages by encouraging the consumption of healthy foods. The “5 a Day” fruit and vegetable campaign in the United States is one such example.

Purchase limits: The Supreme Court has allowed individual purchase limits on items like prescription drugs. Perhaps a limit on the amount of sugary beverages a minor can purchase could also be enacted.

Penalties for causing addiction: The government has a right to restrict sales of certain products to minors that it finds harmful or addictive — like alcohol and cigarettes. Some studies have suggested certain food additives are addictive. Companies could be vulnerable to litigation if they have been knowingly manipulating ingredients to encourage overconsumption.

Nuisance law: Pollution is considered a public nuisance. Likewise, the creation of obesogenic foods proven to be harmful to health could be deemed a public nuisance, punishable by fines or criminal sentences.

Performance-based regulation: Performance-based regulations would put responsibility in the hands of industry. A company might be given a measurable goal related to reducing obesity rates. Businesses that fail to meet assigned outcome goals would be financially penalized.

Where do we go from here?

Let’s be honest, the obesity issue has been confounding us for years. Explosions of diet fads that vilify certain ingredients don’t help matters. Fat? Sugar? Gluten? Carbs? Most people just don’t know what to eat even though they’re being showered with ample advice.

Obesity lacks a simple cause, making it a convoluted case to crack. An array of dimensions in behavior, lifestyle, and environment contribute to it. Policy makers have their work cut out for them in innovating a range of initiatives that might control it. Consumers have their work cut out for them in sorting through all of the advice thrust at them to make sound decisions. Neither can stand alone. Consumers need all the help they can get from carefully designed government regulations that don’t infringe on privacy.

Should the government do more to help the population control their weight? Should they do less? Comment to tell us what you think.

Resources

Primary

CDC: State Legislative and Regulatory Action to Prevent Obesity and Improve Nutrition and Physical Activity

Yale University: Innovative Legal Approaches to Address Obesity

Additional

Millbank Quarterly: Public Health Law and the Prevention and Control of Obesity

Yale University: Improving Laws and Legal Authorities for Obesity Prevention and Control

CDC: Adult Obesity Facts

CDC: Overweight and Obesity Policy Resources

George Washington University: Review of Obesity Related Legislation & Federal Programs

Washington Post: U.S. Sugar Subsidies Need to be Rolled Back

The New York Times: Proposed Tax on Sugary Beverages Debated

Coalition for Sugar Reform: Reform Legislation

Intelligence Squared: Obesity is the Government’s Business

NIH: Evidence for Sugar Addiction: Behavioral and Neurochemical Effects of Intermittent, Excessive Sugar Intake

SAGE: The Role of Self-Efficacy in Achieving Health Behavior Change

Georgetown University Law Center: Assessing Laws and Legal Authorities for Obesity Prevention and Control

Ashley Bell

Ashley Bell communicates about health and wellness every day as a non-profit Program Manager. She has a Bachelor’s degree in Business and Economics from the College of William and Mary, and loves to investigate what changes in healthy policy and research might mean for the future. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How the Government Regulates Obesity appeared first on Law Street.

It is no secret that the United States has a deep love for sugar. In cereals, donuts, candy bars, and icy Coca-Cola, Americans cannot seem to get enough. When ex-New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg tried to limit the sizes of soda, many were outraged. Critics of the law got their wish when the New York City limit was officially declared dead on June 26, 2014. Soda limits and sugar taxes are consistently struck down. Would a higher tax on soda be a smart move to treat the American sweet tooth and ever-growing obesity epidemic?

What is America’s problem with excess sugar?

Sugar is not necessarily a bad thing. The problem many Americans have is consumption of sugar in levels of extreme excess. High levels of sugar consumption contribute to obesity and diabetes. Often foods with high amounts of sugar are also high in empty calories and contribute to weight gain. More than two-thirds of American adults and nearly one-third of children and adolescents between ages six and 19 are overweight or obese. According to the San Mateo Health System, a child’s risk for obesity increases 60 percent with each additional daily serving of soda. Data from the New York City Health Board shows that sugary drinks make up 43 percent of added sugar in Americans’ diets. Further, the average American consumes 50 gallons of soda and sweetened beverages each year. The increase in portion sizes plays a role in this increased sugar intake. In 1974, the largest drink offered at McDonald’s was 21 ounces. This was long before the days of the SuperSize menu, which features a 42-ounce beverage. People are encouraged to get larger drink sizes because the per ounce cost of larger drinks is much cheaper than the smaller counterpart. Watch below for a clip from “Parks and Recreation” discussing ridiculous increases in soda size. Although it’s obviously fictional, it’s not far from the truth:

So what happened with soda in New York?

Popularly termed the “soda ban,” Bloomberg’s plan for New York was not actually a ban on soda, but a portion-cap rule. The law was initially passed by the city’s health board on September 13, 2012 to promote health and prevent obesity. The proposed rule banned the sale of sodas larger than 16 ounces in restaurants, delis, movie theaters, stadiums, and street carts. However, on June 26, 2014 the New York Court of Appeals struck down New York City’s cap. The Court stated that the the city’s health department had overstepped its bounds by making policy rather than simply dealing with health regulations. Watch a discussion of the law below:

What were the problems with the soda limit?

Exemptions

Critics claim that the New York City law treated restaurants and small businesses unfairly, especially since grocery and convenience stores would be exempt from the 16-ounce limit. 7-Eleven’s Big Gulp would be completely unaffected by the law. Many local small-restaurant owners felt their businesses would be harmed by selling smaller beverages when consumers could go to convenience stores to get much larger sodas if they so desired.

Debatable Effect

Because many stores would be exempt from the size-limit, some wondered if the limit would have any effect at all. Further, the ban would be easy to circumvent since people could still buy two 16-ounce sodas if they really wanted more soda. However, when faced with the choice, many consumers would simply go for the default option rather than buy two individual sodas. Limiting the size of soda also reverses the typical incentive of buying a larger soda to get more bang for the buck. Without a limit, larger soda is cheaper per ounce. With a size limit in place, buying two sodas to get the same quantity as before becomes more expensive.

Soda Marketing

The American Beverage Association and National Restaurant Association led the fight against the New York City restriction. The lobbying groups spent millions on their campaign and even created the New Yorkers for Beverage Choice coalition to coordinate public relation efforts. The American Beverage Association spent $12.8 million in 2010 alone on lobbying at the New York state level to protect soda from restrictions. The bad publicity for sugar and soda itself has led to a decline in soda sales over the last decade. Soda marketers still spend $500 million each year to reach children and adolescents with messages about sugary products — more than is spent marketing any other product. Given the amount of money spent, soda marketers were obviously unhappy with the proposed ban. Obesity has many contributing factors, so soda companies feel they are constantly unfairly singled out for sugar content.

Individual Liberty

Many take issue with the soda limit simply on a basis of individual liberty and the city acting too paternalistic toward consumers. People should be given the freedom to make decisions on their own. The argument is made that the city should instead be focused on health education to allow consumers to make educated decisions when eating. The desire to have a healthy society should not outweigh individual freedom. Once a city starts to regulate soda quantities for health reasons, some worry regulation will spread to other foods or sectors.

Would more tax of soda be effective?

It is hard to say. Twenty-three states currently tax soda at the normal sales tax rate. Only four states (Arkansas, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia) levy an excise tax on soda at the wholesale level. However, the revenue generated is not used for obesity prevention, and Arkansas and West Virginia still have some of the highest obesity rates in the country. In recent years some states, like Illinois and California, have proposed an excise tax on sodas. For example, Illinois proposed a tax of a penny per ounce on all bottled sugar-sweetened beverages. This would mean consumers pay an additional $2.88 per case of soda. Such proposals have been met with swift defeat by heavy lobbying by the beverage industry.

Tax stigmatizes sugary beverages and increases their expense. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that a 3-cent tax on sugary drinks would generate $24 billion over four years. A 2009 “Perspective” piece in the New England Journal of Medicine says that a one-cent excise tax on soda would reduce consumption by 10 percent. A study by the academic journal Health Affairs showed that a one-cent tax per ounce of soda could prevent 2.4 million cases of diabetes and 8,000 strokes over 10 years. Some European countries have taxes on sugar as part of austerity measures. In January 2012, France instituted a tax on soda of about six Euro cents per liter on sugary drinks, which is expected to raise $156 million a year in government revenue. Listen for discussion of soda tax below:

Another proposal is to ban or tax the use of food stamps to buy soda. Currently a sales tax is not levied on food, including soda, bought with the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). A study by Health Affairs showed that a ban on the use of food stamps to buy soda could prevent 130,000 kids from becoming obese and 240,000 adults from developing Type-Two Diabetes. The money generated by these taxes could then be used to fund healthcare initiatives, including childhood nutrition and obesity prevention.

Many economists say that taxing soda, as is done with cigarettes or alcohol, would be more effective than the New York City-style limit. However, the effectiveness of a tax largely depends on consumer behavior and on finding the specific price point at which a tax is effective. When faced with a relatively small tax, consumers may not change their buying patterns at all. Alternately, consumers could shift their behavior to drink other sugary beverages that are not taxed. Or consumers may start drinking diet beverages and then get a sugar fix from other foods. Other studies show that a tax would have little impact on the actual weight of consumers.

What else is being done?

Aside from taxing or limiting the size of sodas sold, few initiatives garner public support. In California, a measure to slap warning labels on sodas regarding the effects of over-consumption of sugar was defeated in committee. Other advocates urge the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to take action rather than allow states to make their own laws. They say the FDA should place a federal limit on the amount of sugar allowed in drinks on the market. However, it is difficult to push for sugar limits in sodas if similar limits do not exist for other sugar-laden products like cereal or baked goods. Some states banned sodas in public schools in an effort to combat childhood obesity. However, studies show that these students then replaced soda with other sugary drinks and drank them at the same frequency as their peers who were allowed to buy soda. More recently, Coke and Pepsi are trying to bring consumers back by creating smaller drinks. The beverage companies rolled out 7.5-ounce mini-cans in an effort to meet consumer-demand for portion control. While the government seeks to improve public health through limiting sugary drinks, many consumers simply want to be able to make choices on their own.

Resources

Primary

CDC: Obesity Facts

OLR Research Report: Taxes on Soft Drinks or Candy

County of San Mateo: A Soda Tax Could Stop Us from Pouring on the Pounds

Additional 

ABC: Drink Up, NYC: Ban on Big Sodas Canned

New Yorker: Downsizing Supersize

THV 11: Food Stamp Soda Ban

WFMZ: Food Stamp Soda Ban Could Help Prevent Obesity

Time: Goodbye, Big Soda: New York Becomes First City to Ban Large-Sized Soft Drinks

Verdict: The Soda Ban or the Portion Cap Rule?

Time: Soda Wars Bubble Up Across the Country

University of Pennsylvania: Taxing Caloric Sweetened Beverages

Time: Sugary Drinks in California Could Come with Warning Label

Illinois Policy: Does Illinois Need Soda Taxes and Soda Permits?

Illinois Policy: Does Illinois Need Soda Taxes and Soda Permits?

Center for Science in the Public Interest: Soda Industry Ups Political Spending

BNA: Extras on Excise: Debate over Soft Drink Tax

Atlantic: Should Food Stamps Buy Soda?

—

Alexandra Stembaugh is a senior at the University of Notre Dame studying Economics and English. She plans to go on to law school in the future. Her interests include economic policy, criminal justice, and political dramas. Contact Alexandra at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Vox Efx via Flickr]

Alexandra Stembaugh

Alexandra Stembaugh graduated from the University of Notre Dame studying Economics and English. She plans to go on to law school in the future. Her interests include economic policy, criminal justice, and political dramas. Contact Alexandra at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why Are Limits on Soda Fizzing Out? appeared first on Law Street.