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

Introduction A 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 Obesity o Type 2 diabetes o Total stroke and cerebral infarction o 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 degradation Sugary 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.

Conclusion Time 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.