Should there be a sugary beverage tax in San Francisco?Position: YESPA 724 Group Policy DebateFall 2014 Oriol Zales, Nicole Barcan, Kathleen Zierolf, Cody Mitcheltree

IntroductionA significant tax on sugary beverages =● Reduced healthcare costs● Improved health outcomes● Increased revenue● Decreased environmental

degradation

Healthcare Costs● US spends nearly $400 billion on

health care associated with diabetes and obesity.

● Columbia University study shows how a sugary beverage tax would save $17.1 billion over a ten year period.

● San Francisco’s City Budget and Legislative Analyst estimate that Type 2 diabetes and obesity cost San Francisco’s economy approximately $1 billion in direct and indirect costs annually.

● Modest tax not only improves health outcomes for citizens, but will also reduce health care expenditures in San Francisco.

Health Outcomes● Consumption of sugary beverages has been positively associated

with:o Obesityo Type 2 diabetes o Total stroke and cerebral infarctiono Coronary heart disease

● 4 of top 7 causes of death are obesity and diet related diseases

● $69 billion lost by the reduced productivity of individuals with diabetes

● $312 billion lost by direct healthcare costs and lost productivity from heart disease and stroke

Revenue● Raise $54 million for SF health/physical

education programs ● Shrink SSB consumption by 31%● Reduce regressive damage of aggressive

marketing by Big Soda industry on SF’s low-income communities

Environmental degradationSugary beverages contribute to environmental degradation in two ways:

● The chemical compounds in artificial sweeteners do not decompose and end up in drinking water and open water sources such as oceans

● The plastic beverage containers add to the abundance of these containers already polluting the environment. A quarter of million tons of plastic are in the oceans alone which equals 5.25 trillion particles of plastic or 269,000 tons (Scientific American, Dec. 2014).

● A tax on will give buyers and sellers an incentive to take into account the external effects of their actions. Without the corrective action of a tax, this negative externality will produce a larger cost of production for society than for the producer.

ConclusionTime for San Francisco to take a stand for the betterment of the health, economy and environment of its constituents by supporting a sugary beverage tax, as well as pave the way for other cities and states to follow suit.