Latest news with #AmericanBeverageAssociation
Epoch Times
20-05-2025
- Health
- Epoch Times
USDA Approves Nebraska's Banning Soda and Energy Drinks From Food Stamps
Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins issued a waiver on May 19 restricting the use of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) funds to buy soda or energy drinks in Nebraska, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) said in a May 19 This is the first-ever state waiver banning soda and energy drinks from SNAP, popularly known as food stamps. 'Prior to this waiver, SNAP recipients could buy anything except alcohol, tobacco, hot foods, and personal care products,' said the statement. The waiver, which takes effect on Jan. 1, 2026, is part of the Trump administration's Make America Healthy Again agenda, the USDA said, adding that this 'historic action seeks to reverse alarming disease trends across the country.' One in three children between the ages of 12 and 19 is affected by prediabetes, it said. Forty percent of school-aged children and adolescents suffer from at least one chronic condition, while 15 percent of students in high school drink a minimum of one soda per day. President Donald Trump Related Stories 5/5/2025 5/15/2025 The waiver issued to Nebraska 'is the first of its kind, and it is a historic step to Make America Healthy Again,' Rollins said. 'Under President Trump's leadership, I have encouraged states to serve as the 'laboratories of innovation.'' The American Beverage Association, a trade group representing the non-alcoholic beverage industry, has consistently 'Millions of Americans rely on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to help feed their families. They deserve the same freedom to choose the foods and beverages that best fit their needs,' it said. 'Restricting products—like soda—from SNAP won't make anyone healthier or save a $1 in taxpayer spending. Instead, restrictions will only grow government bureaucracy and costs while creating a slippery slope to government deciding 'good' and 'bad' foods.' Obesity Driver? In February, Rollins had raised 'When a taxpayer is putting money into SNAP, are we OK with us using their tax dollars to feed really bad food and sugary drinks to children who perhaps need something more nutritious?' she told reporters at the White House on Feb. 14. A 2016 The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says the obesity rate in the United States was 40.3 percent during the 2021–2023 period. Health researchers have long blamed sugary drinks for obesity as well as health issues such as cardiovascular disease and Type 2 diabetes. The American Beverage Association rejects such claims, saying beverages cannot be blamed for driving up obesity. 'While CDC data shows adult obesity is up 37.4 percent since 2000, full-calorie soda sales are down 22.9 percent and beverage calories per serving are down 42 percent,' it said. 'If the two were connected, obesity rates should have decreased with the decline in soda consumption. 'In fact, calories from sugar-sweetened beverages are a small part of the American diet. When consumption of all sugar-sweetened beverages are combined, they account for less than 6 percent of calories in the American diet.' Besides Nebraska, other states are also taking action against SNAP soda sales. Last month, it came to light that Arkansas, Indiana, and Iowa had The American Heart Association supports banning the purchase of sugary drinks in SNAP, the group said in a May 19 'As an organization that has opposed Big Soda for decades, we have worked tirelessly to pass public policies that effectively reduce consumption of sugary drinks,' said Nancy Brown, CEO of the association.
Yahoo
01-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Northern California town's sugary soda tax is first to defy state ban
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A tax on sugary drinks takes effect Thursday in the beachside community of Santa Cruz, seven years after California banned its cities and counties from implementing local grocery taxes as part of a reluctant deal with the powerful beverage industry. The 2-cent-per-ounce tax, approved by voters in November, is the first in the state since lawmakers approved the 2018 deal. The American Beverage Association spent heavily to campaign against the ballot measure in the small city of 60,000, and in court called the tax illegal and likely to strain city resources. Santa Cruz officials are prepared to challenge the state's preemption law in court, and despite the legal uncertainty, hope their new tax will spur other states and cities to act. The measure aims to reduce sugar consumption, especially among children and teens, and raise money for health programs and other community initiatives. 'It's about democracy and and standing up to special interests,' said Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson, vice mayor of the Santa Cruz City Council. 'It's about having the independence to generate revenue for our community.' The trade organization representing Coca-Cola, PepsiCo and others said in a statement Wednesday that it is assessing next steps. The tax was opposed by a broad coalition, including labor unions and small businesses, "as an unfair burden on working families struggling with record-high prices,' said Steven Maviglio, a spokesperson for the American Beverage Association. Health advocates have been fighting for more than a decade to tax sugar-sweetened beverages, saying higher prices would curb consumption of a product that increases the risk of obesity, heart disease and stroke. Opponents say the regressive tax disproportionately impacts low-income families who can least afford it and hurts local businesses. Berkeley, a nearby city similar to Santa Cruz, in 2014 passed the country's first tax aimed specifically at sugar-sweetened beverages. A handful of other cities followed, including nearby San Francisco, Oakland and Albany, as well as Philadelphia; Seattle and Boulder, Colorado. No state has approved a sweetened beverage tax at the state level, although some have tried. In 2018, California lawmakers reluctantly passed the Keep Groceries Affordable Act, banning local taxes on soda and other sugary drinks until 2031. In exchange, the advocacy group California Business Roundtable withdrew a beverage industry-backed ballot measure that would have made it much harder for cities and counties to increase any taxes. The deal forced Santa Cruz to abandon its plans to bring a sugary drink tax to a vote. But city leaders didn't give up. That same year, a city councilmember and health advocacy nonprofit sued, arguing that the Groceries Act's penalty provision unlawfully targeted voter-approved charter cities from exercising its authority over local affairs. Under the act, a charter city that pursued a local tax on sweetened drinks could be penalized by losing its sales tax revenue. In 2023, however, a state appeals court struck down the penalty provision as unconstitutional, but did not rule on the preemption itself. In June, the Santa Cruz City Council placed a tax measure on the ballot and in November, nearly 32,000 voters approved it by a margin of 52 to 48. The "no" side spent $2.8 million; the 'yes' side spent under $100,000. The 2-cent-per-ounce tax applies to sodas, ice teas, sports drinks and any other non-alcoholic beverage that contains an added caloric sweetener and has 40 calories or more per 12 fluid ounces of drink. There is an exemption for small businesses with less than $500,000 in gross receipts a year. Carina Moreno opposed the tax measure and said she will have to raise prices at her restaurant, Tacos Moreno. "I was really disappointed when I heard that it did pass,' she said in an email. 'We already pay high prices for sugar drinks." But tax advocates say the Santa Cruz win is stunning given how much money the opposition spent. Dr. John Maa, a San Francisco surgeon and chair of the American Heart Association's advisory committee in California, said the future of sugary drinks taxes may lie in smaller communities where advocates can mobilize grassroots support. 'This is a big week for the soda tax movement,' he said.
Winnipeg Free Press
01-05-2025
- Business
- Winnipeg Free Press
Northern California town's sugary soda tax is first to defy state ban
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A tax on sugary drinks takes effect Thursday in the beachside community of Santa Cruz, seven years after California banned its cities and counties from implementing local grocery taxes as part of a reluctant deal with the powerful beverage industry. The 2-cent-per-ounce tax, approved by voters in November, is the first in the state since lawmakers approved the 2018 deal. The American Beverage Association spent heavily to campaign against the ballot measure in the small city of 60,000, and in court called the tax illegal and likely to strain city resources. Santa Cruz officials are prepared to challenge the state's preemption law in court, and despite the legal uncertainty, hope their new tax will spur other states and cities to act. The measure aims to reduce sugar consumption, especially among children and teens, and raise money for health programs and other community initiatives. 'It's about democracy and and standing up to special interests,' said Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson, vice mayor of the Santa Cruz City Council. 'It's about having the independence to generate revenue for our community.' The trade organization representing Coca-Cola, PepsiCo and others said in a statement Wednesday that it is assessing next steps. The tax was opposed by a broad coalition, including labor unions and small businesses, 'as an unfair burden on working families struggling with record-high prices,' said Steven Maviglio, a spokesperson for the American Beverage Association. Health advocates have been fighting for more than a decade to tax sugar-sweetened beverages, saying higher prices would curb consumption of a product that increases the risk of obesity, heart disease and stroke. Opponents say the regressive tax disproportionately impacts low-income families who can least afford it and hurts local businesses. Berkeley, a nearby city similar to Santa Cruz, in 2014 passed the country's first tax aimed specifically at sugar-sweetened beverages. A handful of other cities followed, including nearby San Francisco, Oakland and Albany, as well as Philadelphia; Seattle and Boulder, Colorado. No state has approved a sweetened beverage tax at the state level, although some have tried. In 2018, California lawmakers reluctantly passed the Keep Groceries Affordable Act, banning local taxes on soda and other sugary drinks until 2031. In exchange, the advocacy group California Business Roundtable withdrew a beverage industry-backed ballot measure that would have made it much harder for cities and counties to increase any taxes. The deal forced Santa Cruz to abandon its plans to bring a sugary drink tax to a vote. But city leaders didn't give up. That same year, a city councilmember and health advocacy nonprofit sued, arguing that the Groceries Act's penalty provision unlawfully targeted voter-approved charter cities from exercising its authority over local affairs. Under the act, a charter city that pursued a local tax on sweetened drinks could be penalized by losing its sales tax revenue. In 2023, however, a state appeals court struck down the penalty provision as unconstitutional, but did not rule on the preemption itself. In June, the Santa Cruz City Council placed a tax measure on the ballot and in November, nearly 32,000 voters approved it by a margin of 52 to 48. The 'no' side spent $2.8 million; the 'yes' side spent under $100,000. The 2-cent-per-ounce tax applies to sodas, ice teas, sports drinks and any other non-alcoholic beverage that contains an added caloric sweetener and has 40 calories or more per 12 fluid ounces of drink. There is an exemption for small businesses with less than $500,000 in gross receipts a year. During Elections Get campaign news, insight, analysis and commentary delivered to your inbox during Canada's 2025 election. Carina Moreno opposed the tax measure and said she will have to raise prices at her restaurant, Tacos Moreno. 'I was really disappointed when I heard that it did pass,' she said in an email. 'We already pay high prices for sugar drinks.' But tax advocates say the Santa Cruz win is stunning given how much money the opposition spent. Dr. John Maa, a San Francisco surgeon and chair of the American Heart Association's advisory committee in California, said the future of sugary drinks taxes may lie in smaller communities where advocates can mobilize grassroots support. 'This is a big week for the soda tax movement,' he said.
The Independent
01-05-2025
- Business
- The Independent
Northern California town's sugary soda tax is first to defy state ban
A tax on sugary drinks takes effect Thursday in the beachside community of Santa Cruz, seven years after California banned its cities and counties from implementing local grocery taxes as part of a reluctant deal with the powerful beverage industry. The 2-cent-per-ounce tax, approved by voters in November, is the first in the state since lawmakers approved the 2018 deal. The American Beverage Association spent heavily to campaign against the ballot measure in the small city of 60,000, and in court called the tax illegal and likely to strain city resources. Santa Cruz officials are prepared to challenge the state's preemption law in court, and despite the legal uncertainty, hope their new tax will spur other states and cities to act. The measure aims to reduce sugar consumption, especially among children and teens, and raise money for health programs and other community initiatives. 'It's about democracy and and standing up to special interests,' said Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson, vice mayor of the Santa Cruz City Council. 'It's about having the independence to generate revenue for our community.' The trade organization representing Coca-Cola, PepsiCo and others said in a statement Wednesday that it is assessing next steps. The tax was opposed by a broad coalition, including labor unions and small businesses, "as an unfair burden on working families struggling with record-high prices,' said Steven Maviglio, a spokesperson for the American Beverage Association. Health advocates have been fighting for more than a decade to tax sugar-sweetened beverages, saying higher prices would curb consumption of a product that increases the risk of obesity, heart disease and stroke. Opponents say the regressive tax disproportionately impacts low-income families who can least afford it and hurts local businesses. Berkeley, a nearby city similar to Santa Cruz, in 2014 passed the country's first tax aimed specifically at sugar-sweetened beverages. A handful of other cities followed, including nearby San Francisco, Oakland and Albany, as well as Philadelphia; Seattle and Boulder, Colorado. No state has approved a sweetened beverage tax at the state level, although some have tried. In 2018, California lawmakers reluctantly passed the Keep Groceries Affordable Act, banning local taxes on soda and other sugary drinks until 2031. In exchange, the advocacy group California Business Roundtable withdrew a beverage industry-backed ballot measure that would have made it much harder for cities and counties to increase any taxes. The deal forced Santa Cruz to abandon its plans to bring a sugary drink tax to a vote. But city leaders didn't give up. That same year, a city councilmember and health advocacy nonprofit sued, arguing that the Groceries Act's penalty provision unlawfully targeted voter-approved charter cities from exercising its authority over local affairs. Under the act, a charter city that pursued a local tax on sweetened drinks could be penalized by losing its sales tax revenue. In 2023, however, a state appeals court struck down the penalty provision as unconstitutional, but did not rule on the preemption itself. In June, the Santa Cruz City Council placed a tax measure on the ballot and in November, nearly 32,000 voters approved it by a margin of 52 to 48. The "no" side spent $2.8 million; the 'yes' side spent under $100,000. The 2-cent-per-ounce tax applies to sodas, ice teas, sports drinks and any other non-alcoholic beverage that contains an added caloric sweetener and has 40 calories or more per 12 fluid ounces of drink. There is an exemption for small businesses with less than $500,000 in gross receipts a year. Carina Moreno opposed the tax measure and said she will have to raise prices at her restaurant, Tacos Moreno. "I was really disappointed when I heard that it did pass,' she said in an email. 'We already pay high prices for sugar drinks." But tax advocates say the Santa Cruz win is stunning given how much money the opposition spent. Dr. John Maa, a San Francisco surgeon and chair of the American Heart Association's advisory committee in California, said the future of sugary drinks taxes may lie in smaller communities where advocates can mobilize grassroots support. 'This is a big week for the soda tax movement,' he said.
Associated Press
01-05-2025
- Business
- Associated Press
Northern California town's sugary soda tax is first to defy state ban
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A tax on sugary drinks takes effect Thursday in the beachside community of Santa Cruz, seven years after California banned its cities and counties from implementing local grocery taxes as part of a reluctant deal with the powerful beverage industry. The 2-cent-per-ounce tax, approved by voters in November, is the first in the state since lawmakers approved the 2018 deal. The American Beverage Association spent heavily to campaign against the ballot measure in the small city of 60,000, and in court called the tax illegal and likely to strain city resources. Santa Cruz officials are prepared to challenge the state's preemption law in court, and despite the legal uncertainty, hope their new tax will spur other states and cities to act. The measure aims to reduce sugar consumption, especially among children and teens, and raise money for health programs and other community initiatives. 'It's about democracy and and standing up to special interests,' said Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson, vice mayor of the Santa Cruz City Council. 'It's about having the independence to generate revenue for our community.' The trade organization representing Coca-Cola, PepsiCo and others said in a statement Wednesday that it is assessing next steps. The tax was opposed by a broad coalition, including labor unions and small businesses, 'as an unfair burden on working families struggling with record-high prices,' said Steven Maviglio, a spokesperson for the American Beverage Association. Health advocates have been fighting for more than a decade to tax sugar-sweetened beverages, saying higher prices would curb consumption of a product that increases the risk of obesity, heart disease and stroke. Opponents say the regressive tax disproportionately impacts low-income families who can least afford it and hurts local businesses. Berkeley, a nearby city similar to Santa Cruz, in 2014 passed the country's first tax aimed specifically at sugar-sweetened beverages. A handful of other cities followed, including nearby San Francisco, Oakland and Albany, as well as Philadelphia; Seattle and Boulder, Colorado. No state has approved a sweetened beverage tax at the state level, although some have tried. In 2018, California lawmakers reluctantly passed the Keep Groceries Affordable Act, banning local taxes on soda and other sugary drinks until 2031. In exchange, the advocacy group California Business Roundtable withdrew a beverage industry-backed ballot measure that would have made it much harder for cities and counties to increase any taxes. The deal forced Santa Cruz to abandon its plans to bring a sugary drink tax to a vote. But city leaders didn't give up. That same year, a city councilmember and health advocacy nonprofit sued, arguing that the Groceries Act's penalty provision unlawfully targeted voter-approved charter cities from exercising its authority over local affairs. Under the act, a charter city that pursued a local tax on sweetened drinks could be penalized by losing its sales tax revenue. In 2023, however, a state appeals court struck down the penalty provision as unconstitutional, but did not rule on the preemption itself. In June, the Santa Cruz City Council placed a tax measure on the ballot and in November, nearly 32,000 voters approved it by a margin of 52 to 48. The 'no' side spent $2.8 million; the 'yes' side spent under $100,000. The 2-cent-per-ounce tax applies to sodas, ice teas, sports drinks and any other non-alcoholic beverage that contains an added caloric sweetener and has 40 calories or more per 12 fluid ounces of drink. There is an exemption for small businesses with less than $500,000 in gross receipts a year. Carina Moreno opposed the tax measure and said she will have to raise prices at her restaurant, Tacos Moreno. 'I was really disappointed when I heard that it did pass,' she said in an email. 'We already pay high prices for sugar drinks.' But tax advocates say the Santa Cruz win is stunning given how much money the opposition spent. Dr. John Maa, a San Francisco surgeon and chair of the American Heart Association's advisory committee in California, said the future of sugary drinks taxes may lie in smaller communities where advocates can mobilize grassroots support. 'This is a big week for the soda tax movement,' he said.
