Philadelphia and Berkeley, California, are the only U.S. cities that have a so-called "soda tax" on the books.

Philadelphia and Berkeley, California, are the only U.S. cities that have a so-called "soda tax" on the books.

But on Election Day, four more cities will decide whether they want one.

Residents of Boulder, Colorado, and Californians who live in San Francisco, Oakland and Albany will vote on ballot measures calling for a new tax on sugar-sweetened beverages. The Boulder measure calls for a two-cents-per-ounce tax, while the three California cities are calling for a tax of one cent per ounce.

The proposed soda taxes would target not only sodas but sweetened teas, fountain drinks, energy drinks and beverages with sugar added. Some sweet drinks, though, would be exempt. For instance, the tax would not apply to 100% juice products, infant formula, milk products, diet soda and in most cases, alcohol.

Soda tax proponents cite the need to reduce the incidence - especially in children - of diabetes, obesity and other harmful health effects of sugar.

The proposed ordinance in Albany, California, for instance, notes that "a single 20-ounce bottle of soda ... typically contains the equivalent of approximately 16 teaspoons of sugar." Proponents of the measure in Boulder say it contains "22 packets of sugar." In either case, it's a lot.

In addition to reducing sugar-related health problems, a soda tax is also promoted as a way to help bring down the public cost of treating those health problems.

The new soda tax revenue is typically directed into a city's general fund, but at least in Boulder there's a call for it to be used specifically for health initiatives.

Opponents of the soda tax make several arguments. Among them, specialized taxes raise the accounting and administrative burdens on business owners. And even though the soda tax is technically levied on beverage distributors, it is likely to be passed on to consumers by way of higher prices. Plus, low-income consumers, who buy the taxed product more than other groups, are least able to afford higher prices.

The jury is still out on the efficacy of taxing one type of beverage or food to reduce the incidence of diabetes or obesity.

Studies in Mexico, which imposed a soda tax nationwide in 2014, found consumption is down, as has early research in Berkeley, where the soda tax went into effect last year, said Donald Marron, director of economic policy initiatives at the Urban Institute. That alone isn't surprising. "Prices go up, people buy less," Marron said.

The potential health effects of the tax, however, aren't clear yet, he noted. What if consumers choose to substitute sugary beverages that are taxed for high-sugar beverages that are untaxed, such as 100% juice?

There's still debate among health experts as to whether naturally occurring and additive sugars are equally harmful or if additive sugars are worse in causing diabetes and obesity, Marron said.

These Cities Are About to Reach a Verdict on the Soda Tax

These Cities Are About to Reach a Verdict on the Soda Tax

Tim Boyle—Getty Images

They’ve become the latest battleground in a so-called “War on Sugar.”

As Americans vote for a new president on Tuesday, hundreds of thousands of voters in California’s Bay Area and Boulder, Colorado, will also decide whether they want levies on sugary drinks, another step toward making soda taxes a norm.

Three cities in California – San Francisco, Berkeley and Albany – and Boulder, Colorado, have become the latest battleground in a so-called “War on Sugar” that centers on sweetened drinks. Over 800,00 voters will decide on ballot measures to introduce taxes of 1 or 2 cents per ounce on soft drinks on Nov. 9, just weeks after the World Health Organization (WHO) advocated that governments should impose these types of levies.

The push for taxes on sugar and sodas has gathered momentum this year, as officials and health advocates seek ways to stem health epidemics of diabetes and obesity. On most ballots, the tax would not apply to diet sodas but does affect some juices, sports drinks and other beverages with added sugar.

Reducing consumption of sugary drinks is seen as a relatively easy way for people to cut down on added sugars, recommended by groups including the WHO, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the American Heart Association.

The trend has prompted worry and millions of dollars in advertising and lobbying campaigns from beverage industry giants like PepsiCo  PEP -0.15%  and Coca-Cola  KO -0.36%  that are facing declining sales of their flagship products in markets including the United States.

So far this year, Britain and Philadelphia decided to introduce levies on soft drinks and countries including South Africa have proposed similar measures. This follows a decision by Mexico to introduce such a tax in 2014. The broadening of these efforts raises the prospect of establishing them as the norm after numerous previous attempts failed, advocates say.

“The more these taxes pass, the more they will be considered in other jurisdictions,” said Jim O’Hara, health promotion policy director with the Center for Science in the Public Interest in Washington.

SODA ON THE DEFENSIVE

Both Pepsi and Coke are increasing options for less sugary drinks, responding to changing consumer tastes. Consumption of carbonated soft drinks hit a 30-year low in the United States last year, as water sales continued their climb, according to Beverage Digest.

The majority of California voters support government measure to reduce consumption of sugary beverages, according to a Field Poll released in February. In San Francisco, a 2014 vote for a similar tax failed to pass a two-thirds vote, but is expected by many to succeed this time around, as only a simple majority is required. The votes in the other cities are expected by both advocates and opponents alike to be tighter.

Fighting for survival, Big Soda has been outspending advocates of the measure, but not by much. Industry spending to oppose the taxes this year in the Bay Area alone has swelled to around $27 million to $28 million, versus around some $19 million by advocates, according to estimates from both sides.

Billionaires including Michael Bloomberg have joined the fray, contributing $15 million to pro-tax campaigns in the Bay Area. The former mayor of New York waged an unsuccessful campaign in the city to cut soda sizes in 2014.

Opponents say the tax, which would be levied on distributors, is unfairly targeted at drinks makers and could raise food costs beyond just soda.

“In effect, this is a grocery tax. It could be spread out on many items” by distributors, said Joe Arellano, spokesman for the “No Grocery Tax” campaigns in California’s Bay area.

In the California cities, the measures would introduce a penny-per-ounce tax. In Boulder, it would be 2 cents.

Big Soda-Funded Studies Don’t Often Link Drinks to Obesity

Compared to independent studies, industry-sponsored studies are less likely to link sugary drinks to diseases

Soda Companies Fund 96 Health Groups In the U.S.

Medical organizations, health foundations and government groups recently accepted money from Coca-Cola or Pepsi

When studies are funded by the beverage industry, they are less likely to find a link between sugary drinks and obesity and type 2 diabetes, according to a new report.

A team of researchers from the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) looked at 60 studies published between 2001 and 2016 that analyzed the link between sugary drinks like soda and obesity and type 2 diabetes. Their research was spurred by legal proceedings between the soda industry and the city of San Francisco, theNew York Times reports. Last year, the city started requiring advertisements for sugary beverages to carry warning labels linking the drinks to diseases like obesity. The beverage industry sued the city and said the labels were misleading and harmed free speech laws. The city hired the author of the new study—Dr. Dean Schillinger of UCSF, who focuses on diabetes—to research the link between sugary drinks and health issues.

During his research, Schillinger found that when studies are funded by the soda industry, they report different findings than studies that are done by independent researchers. In the new report, published in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine, Schillinger and his colleagues report that out of the 60 studies they reviewed, 26 did not find a relationship between sugary drinks and obesity or diabetes, and 34 did report a link. All of the studies that did not link the drinks to disease were funded by the beverage industry. Only one of the studies that did report a link was industry-funded.

“This industry seems to be manipulating contemporary scientific processes to create controversy and advance their business interests at the expense of the public’s health,” the study authors concluded in their report.

This is not the first time the soda or sugar industry has been criticized for interfering with public health. In October, a study published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine reported that between 2011 to 2015, 96 national health organizations accepted money from Coca-Cola, PepsiCo or both companies. In 2015 it was revealed that Coca-Cola funded an organization called the Global Energy Balance Network that tried to shift public health messaging away from a focus on diet and onto exercise.

“The reality is we are in a public health war with diabetes right now,” says Schillinger. “In every war there is propaganda. What the public should take away from [these findings] is that we are being played. If you exclude the studies funded by industry and only look at the independently funded studies, it becomes apparent that sugar-sweetened beverages cause obesity and diabetes.”

In a statement emailed in response to the report, the American Beverage Association said that “we have a right—and a responsibility—to engage in scientific research. The research we fund adheres to the highest standards of integrity for scientific inquiry based on recognized standards by prominent research institutions. It contributes to the body of scientific knowledge, meets the needs of regulatory agencies and enables consumers to make informed decisions.”

The group also stated that Schillinger is paid by the City of San Francisco as part of the lawsuit. “It’s ironic that he would write about bias in research when he himself is clearly not an impartial researcher,” the ABA wrote. “This paper is the latest in a trend of pro-tax forces writing speculative opinion papers to influence voters a week before a vote on several ballot initiatives to tax beverages.”

Schillinger says that the industry’s influence on public health through funding and research isn’t a new revelation, but calls the number of studies in the report “remarkable”. “This is not an opinion perspective,” he says. “Any high school student could do this study. 

You count up the studies and see who funded them. That’s research. That’s fact.”

Among published studies that found that sugary beverage consumption is linked to higher rates of obesity and diabetes, fewer than 3% were underwritten by the sugar-sweetened beverage industry

That is the probability that a published study that finds no link between sugar-sweetened beverage consumption and poorer metabolic health was underwritten by the makers of sugar-sweetened beverages, or authored by researchers with financial ties to that industry.

Compare that figure with 2.9%. Among published studies that found that sugary beverage consumption is linked to higher rates of obesity and diabetes, fewer than 3% were underwritten by the sugar-sweetened beverage industry or authored by researchers who receive money from them.

That stark mismatch is revealed in an analysis of the last 15 years’ worth of experimental research studies that explored the health effects of sugary soda consumption. The review, published Monday in the Annals of Internal Medicine, was conducted by a team of researchers at UC San Francisco.

The group's findings led them to an equally stark conclusion:

“This industry,” they wrote, referring to companies that market sugar-sweetened beverages, “seems to be manipulating contemporary scientific processes to create controversy and advance their business interests at the expense of the public's health.”

This industry seems to be manipulating contemporary scientific processes to ... advance their business interests at the expense of the public's health.

The controversy over the health effects of sugary drink consumption appears to be very real: Of the 60 experimental studies included in the new analysis, 26 articles — 43% failed to uncover any link between sweetened soda drinking and either obesity or metabolic dysfunction. While the remaining 34 articles — about 57% — did find higher rates of those health problems and consumption of sugary drinks, the scientific evidence would suggest it’s a toss-up.

But to suggest that scientific conclusions cannot be influenced by financial interests would be wrong, say the authors. Nudged by a sponsor, or simply mindful of a financial supporter’s concerns, a researcher with financial ties to an industry affected by his or her research could make many subtle decisions about data that can skew outcomes.

“It’s way too simple to say that companies buy the results they want,” New York University food researcher Marion Nestlesaid Monday. But, she added, “there is something about funding that leads — almost certainly unconsciously and unwittingly — to skewing studies to get the desired results.This is not hard to do.”

She says it has been shown in studies in which pharmaceutical companies fund clinical trials of drugs they make.

The take-home message, says Nestle: “If you read research that favors surprising food products, ask who funded it.” If industry-funded, it needs “even more skepticism than is usual.”

Worldwide, beverage companies sell between $200 billion and $800 billion worth of products a year, about 65% of which is sweetened with sugar or high-fructose corn syrup, Nestle reports in her book “Soda Politics: Taking on Big Soda (and Winning).” Both directly and through their industry group, the American Beverage Assn., beverage giants such as Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Dr Pepper Snapple give financial support to researchers and nutritionists across the United States.

They have a substantial stake in the outcome of research that explores the relationship between a worldwide run-up in obesity and diabetes and increases in consumption of their products.

In a statement issued Monday, the American Beverage Assn. said “we too want a strong, healthy America,” adding, “we have a right – and a responsibility – to engage in scientific research.”

“The research we fund adheres to the highest standards of integrity for scientific inquiry based on recognized standards by prominent research institutions,” the association said. “It contributes to the body of scientific knowledge, meets the needs of regulatory agencies and enables consumers to make informed decisions.”

The new analysis appears to be the first ever to rigorously explore the relationship between beverage industry financial ties and the findings of clinical research on sugar-sweetened soda consumption.

To gauge the effect of industry ties on research findings, the group considered 60 experimental studies that set out to explore whether the consumption of sugary drinks increased the incidence of obesity or metabolic dysfunction, including type-2 diabetes. They ruled out studies that were funded by commercial competitors that do not produce sugar-sweetened beverages (such as companies that bottle water only).

Led by Dr. Dean Schillinger, the UC San Francisco group considered only studies that explored the link between drink consumption and metabolic problems experimentally — by comparing the outcomes of participants who did not consume sugar-sweetened beverages with those who did.

Sugar industry funded research to cast doubt on sugar's health hazards, report says

In some of those 60 studies, comparison groups would have been created by researchers who assigned subjects randomly to one “experimental condition” or another. In other studies included in the analysis, researchers took advantage of existing databases that allowed the comparison of people who chose to consume sugar-sweetened beverages with those who did not.

Just over half of the studies considered in the newly published analysis were “meta-analyses” of such experimental studies. Essentially, such studies aggregate the findings of many experiments to reach a conclusion.

These studies are thought to have strengths as well as weaknesses. Because they rely on many smaller studies conducted under widely different circumstances, meta-analyses are often discounted by researchers. At the same time, meta-analyses that show strong convergence on a given finding can help distill scientific consensus, precisely because they demonstrate that studies conducted differently have reached similar conclusions.

In a letter published Monday, Schillinger and his team caution that industry sponsorship of research and of researchers is likely influencing the dietary advice that Americans get along a wide front. In laying the scientific foundation for the drafting of U.S. “Dietary Guidelines” every five years, theU.S. Department of Agriculture does not specifically consider industry funding of research as a source of bias, they write.

In its statement Monday, the ABA noted that Dr. Schillinger, the study’s lead author, is a paid expert in a lawsuit brought against San Francisco by the beverage industry in July. Citing infringement of the industry’s 1st Amendment rights, that lawsuit seeks to prevent implementation of a new San Francisco ordnance that would require health warnings on ads for sugar-sweetened beverages that appear on buses, billboards and city property.

“It’s ironic that he would write about bias in research when he himself is clearly not an impartial researcher,” the ABA said. “This paper is the latest in a trend of pro-tax forces writing speculative opinion papers to influence voters a week before a vote on several ballot initiatives to tax beverages.”

Coca-Cola apuesta por los beneficios de la reducción de azúcar.

Coca-Cola apuesta por los beneficios de la reducción de azúcar.

El miércoles, Coca-Cola reportó que sus ganancias del tercer trimestre. En una llamada de seguimiento con los inversores, la relación del gigante de refrescos con azúcar llegó una y otra vez.

La necesidad de reducir el azúcar - en función de cada botella, así como en la cartera más amplia de Coca-Cola - se está convirtiendo en un desafío central para la empresa como el consumo de refrescos sigue cayendo.

En el tercer trimestre de Coca-Cola, las ventas por volumen de cajas unidad de bebidas carbonatadas, como la soda, se mantuvieron estables a nivel mundial, debido principalmente a una disminución en América Latina.

Mientras tanto, aún las ventas de bebidas aumentaron un 3%, gracias a las fuertes actuaciones de agua y bebidas deportivas. Estas bebidas que tienden a ser más bajos de azúcar, o, en el caso de algunas bebidas deportivas, por lo menos son vistos por los clientes como una alternativa saludable a los refrescos.

Coca-Cola también está trabajando para reducir el azúcar en sus refrescos a nivel mundial con receta baja en azúcar renueva. En julio, la compañía marcó de nuevo su sin azúcar, baja en calorías de soda Coke Zero como Coca-Cola Zero azúcar en Gran Bretaña. La nueva marca lanzará en otros mercados europeos en el próximo trimestre.

Luego hay una estrategia que se ha convertido en un clásico de Coca-Cola en los últimos años: la venta de bebidas en latas y botellas más pequeñas para reducir la cantidad de calorías en las etiquetas de nutrición. En el último trimestre, Coca-Cola lanzó más nuevos envases de tamaño más pequeño en los mercados como México, India y China.

Coca-Cola no está solo en sus esfuerzos para ayudar a su cuenta de resultados mediante la reducción de azúcar.

La semana pasada, PepsiCo anunció que para el año 2025, dos tercios de sus bebidas tendrán 100 calorías o menos de azúcar añadida, por cada 12 oz servir. En la actualidad, este tipo de bebidas azucaradas constituyen aproximadamente el 40% de las bebidas de PepsiCo.

Para ambas empresas, el abandono de azúcar ha sido impulsado en gran parte por la necesidad de dar la vuelta ventas a medida que disminuye el consumo de refrescos.

En 2015, el volumen total de sodio consumido en los EE.UU. cayó un 1,2%, frente a una caída del 0,9% en 2014, según el informe anual de Beverage Digest. La cantidad de Coca-Cola que consumen los estadounidenses se redujo en un 1% en volumen, mientras que Pepsi Cola cayó un 3,2%.

En abril, CEO de PepsiCo, Indra Nooyi, anunció que menos del 25% de las ventas mundiales de la compañía son de las bebidas gaseosas - la misma proporción de las ventas de Pepsi trae en su categoría de "naturalmente nutritiva", que incluye agua embotellada y bebidas sin azúcar.

Nooyi dice que la compañía está "a prueba de futuro" por su cartera "remodelarla para capitalizar el creciente interés de los consumidores en la salud y el bienestar."

Coca-Cola Del mismo modo ha aumentado constantemente su inversión en las bebidas más baja en azúcar que los clientes ven como más saludables. La compañía ha invertido recientemente en zumo, té, café, y marcas de agua embotellada, en un intento de diversificar su cartera.

En la llamada ganancia del miércoles, Quincey dijo que Coca-Cola ha aumentado el porcentaje de bebidas sin gas en su cartera de alrededor de un 1% al año desde la década de 2000.

The most iconic American soda company once pulled a stunt that infuriated masses and nearly drove its business to the ground.

The most iconic American soda company once pulled a stunt that infuriated masses and nearly drove its business to the ground.

Coca-Cola announced it was replacing its original formula with 'New Coke' in April of 1985.

The drink could have saved the company millions by cutting back on some of its costlier ingredients, but it proved to be a complete failure. 

The switch from the original formula sparked outrage nationwide with many boycotting the beverage company. 

Acclaimed food critic Mimi Sheraton stated on "New Coke:'" "It is sweeter than the original formula and also has a body that could best be described as lighter. It tastes a little like classic Coca-Cola that has been diluted by melting ice."

It took the company 79 days to realize what a huge mistake it had made.

Less than three months later on July 11, 1985, Coca-Cola announced its decision to return to the original formula. 

The secret formula that molded the billion dollar company is currently held in a highly secure 10-foot-tall vault at the World of Coca-Cola in downtown Atlanta. 

The formula was moved to The World of Coke in 2011 in honor of The Coca-Cola Company's 125th anniversary.

It was previously held in Trust Company Bank, now SunTrust, in Atlanta for 86 years, according to The Coca-Cola Company.

"The move of the Coca-Cola secret formula is a historic moment for the company," said Phil Mooney, director of archives of The Coca-Cola Company, when the company announced the move. "The company has always gone to great lengths to protect it, and now by safeguarding it at the World of Coca-Cola, we can share its legendary legacy with people around the world."

The vault now functions as a very popular interactive tourist exhibit.

Visitors can participate in a number of activities to learn about the history of Coke's formula and even try a full-body interactive game to learn about where the formula has been kept throughout the years, according to The Coca-Cola Company. 

Due to its secrecy, the formula has been the subject of a number of rumors.

According to one claim, the ingredients are known only by two senior executives at the company. 

Coca-Cola has never publicly revealed how many people know the recipe, but says the number of people with that knowledge is slim.

"Not a lot of people know. We don't know how many people know," said Jacquie Wansley, Coca-Cola marketing manager.

Many people have also speculated that the original Coca-Cola formula contained cocaine.

In an interview with Salon in 2013, Mark Pendergast, author of For God, Country, and Coca-Cola, claimed that Coca-Cola was named for its two principal drug ingredients: Coca Coca leaf and Kola nut. 

"Coca Coca leaf from Peru contained cocaine. Kola nut from Ghana contained caffeine," Pendergast said. "Original Coca-Cola had a very small amount of cocaine in a six-ounce drink, about 4.3 milligrams. The company took out all but a minuscule amount of cocaine in 1903 and the final amount in 1928."

Coca-Cola says the formula never contained added cocaine, he explains.

"The official company line seems to be that Coca-Cola never contained added cocaine - i.e., they didn't add white powdered cocaine, which is true," Pendergast said. "But it did contain fluid extract of coca leaf, which contains cocaine."