Win or lose, San Francisco and Berkeley soda tax measures are public health triumphs

printer friendlyprinter friendly

For advocates of public health policy, the sands of time could fill the Sahara Desert.

At least it seems that way as months, years, decades go by before structural and institutional changes are made to improve the health and save the lives of people throughout the nation.

These drawn-out battles have surely taxed advocates' patience and faith in the system. Typically, they've been David vs. Goliath fights with advocates being exponentially outnumbered in funds, political clout and other essential resources. They've involved countless numbers of defeats, both large and small. And at times they've been up against public opinion.

In 2012, I wrote about how change takes time shortly after Johnson & Johnson announced plans to remove a host of harmful chemicals from its products by 2015, becoming the first major company to make such a commitment. It was a change environmental health advocates had sought for nearly a decade — a battle we sometimes highlight as a case study in our media advocacy trainings.

I was reminded about this important lesson when I attended a rally last week that was held by supporters of Berkeley's sugary drink tax initiative, just minutes before it was unanimously approved by the city council for the November ballot. The measure proposes a 1-cent-per-ounce charge to distributors of soda and other sugary drinks and is similar to a bill across the bay in San Francisco. Following the defeat of two soda tax measures in nearby Richmond and in the southern California community of El Monte, where it was voted down after a $2.7 million campaign by the soda industry, supporters of the Berkeley and San Francisco measures face formidable odds.

berkeley vs big soda

At the rally, with its small but enthusiastic band of supporters on the steps of City Hall donning black T-shirts that read "Berkeley vs Big Soda," I heard both timid and boisterous voices giving heartfelt personal testimonies and summoning support for the tax proposal. I was hopeful the proposals would pass, but cautiously optimistic.

But then I remembered the Johnson & Johnson announcement of two years ago, and also the recent news that the board of the Golden Gate Bridge District voted unanimously to approve a $76 million cable net suicide barrier, a topic I've blogged about numerous times. For at least two decades, advocates for the barrier fought to help put an end to the more than a thousand suicides that have occurred at the bridge since it was built. Over the years, they employed a number of strategies including media advocacy to reframe the conversation and address the myths and stigma of suicide. They proved that fostering increased dialogue about suicide and mental illness would eventually lead to increased public support, and eventually, the board's vote on June 27 to approve the funds.

I think that if a soda tax measure were to pass anywhere, it would be Berkeley and San Francisco. These victories would surely lead to similar measures in other cities throughout the country as more communities and their leaders raise their voices in support of policies that make industry and government more accountable for their health. Eventually, one public policy at a time, we will stem the tide of diabetes and other nutrition-related diseases. It just takes time.


Food Marketing Workgroup (1) Coca-Cola (3) childhood lead poisoning (1) social media (2) campaign finance (1) diabetes (1) social math (1) Big Food (2) Whiteclay (4) collaboration (1) safety (1) journalism (1) equity (3) Golden Gate Bridge (2) physical activity (1) Gardasil (1) PepsiCo (1) racism (1) San Francisco (3) Citizens United (1) environmental health (1) Merck (1) corporate social responsibility (1) news (2) cancer prevention (1) Dora the Explorer (1) white house (1) sanitation (1) paula deen (1) regulation (2) tobacco control (2) news monitoring (1) target marketing (9) alcohol (5) beverage industry (2) Rachel Grana (1) obesity prevention (1) Happy Meals (1) media analysis (6) breastfeeding (3) values (1) Big Tobacco (3) gender (1) ACEs (2) beauty products (1) public health data (1) cosmetics (1) community (1) government intrusion (1) food justice (1) Black Lives Matter (1) sexual violence (2) structural racism (1) Bill Cosby (1) digital marketing (3) health care (1) Nickelodeon (1) reproductive justice (1) SSBs (1) soda tax (11) suicide nets (1) Michelle Obama (1) childhood adversity (1) tobacco (5) inequities (1) default frame (1) Bloomberg (3) george lakoff (1) cannes lions festival (1) prison phone calls (1) junk food marketing to kids (2) stigma (1) built environment (2) online marketing (1) advocacy (3) Proposition 29 (1) communication (2) junk food marketing (4) political correctness (1) youth (1) food environment (1) HPV vaccine (1) media advocacy (23) Let's Move (1) soda industry (4) apha (3) food (1) summer camps (1) suicide barrier (2) Johnson & Johnson (1) Aurora (1) paper tigers (1) ssb (1) healthy eating (1) childhood obestiy conference (1) election 2016 (1) abortion (1) violence (2) cervical cancer (1) liana winett (1) weight of the nation (1) cigarette advertising (1) autism (1) measure N (2) Colorado (1) sexual health (1) Amanda Fallin (1) health equity (10) Wendy Davis (1) obesity (10) cancer research (1) food industry (4) chronic disease (2) FCC (1) auto safety (1) junk food (2) SB 402 (1) social justice (2) Community Coalition Against Beverage Taxes (1) tobacco industry (2) Catholic church (1) Texas (1) adverse childhood experiences (3) Sam Kass (1) news coverage (1) industry appeals to choice (1) Telluride (1) community organizing (1) Tea Party (1) personal responsibility rhetoric (1) childhood trauma (3) suicide prevention (2) Measure O (1) Proposition 47 (1) community safety (1) soda taxes (2) cap the tap (1) child sexual abuse (5) institutional accountability (1) news analysis (3) public health policy (2) sugar-sweetened beverages (2) nanny state (2) new year's resolutions (1) food deserts (1) california (1) personal responsibility (3) world water day (1) gun control (2) Richmond (5) food access (1) media bites (1) naacp (1) Penn State (3) communication strategy (1) sports drinks (1) food and beverage marketing (3) Newtown (1) choice (1) marketing (1) race (1) American Beverage Association (1) public health (71) Donald Trump (2) diabetes prevention (1) sexism (2) Berkeley (2) front groups (1) Pine Ridge reservation (1) Pine Ridge Indian Reservation (2) sandusky (2) strategic communication (1) community violence (1) genital warts (1) Oglala Sioux (3) SB 1000 (1) Marion Nestle (1) McDonald's (1) sexual assault (1) mental health (2) education (1) Oakland Unified School District (1) women's health (2) vaccines (1) seat belt laws (1) soda (12) soda warning labels (1) product safety (1) gatorade bolt game (1) media (7) Big Soda (2) Campaign for Safe Cosmetics (1) El Monte (3) violence prevention (8) gun violence (1) children's health (3) Twitter (1) water security (1) food swamps (1) Sandy Hook (2) filibuster (1) sugary drinks (10) emergency contraception (1) Connecticut shooting (1) prevention (1) news strategy (1) snap (1) privilege (1) framing (14) language (6) tobacco tax (1) social change (1) democracy (1) Twitter for advocacy (1) Joe Paterno (1) Chile (1) Jerry Sandusky (3) prison system (1) community health (1) nonprofit communications (1) SB-5 (1) authentic voices (1) messaging (3) childhood obesity (1) indoor smoking ban (1) elephant triggers (1) water (1) food marketing (5)
  • Follow Us On Facebook
  • Follow Us On Twitter
  • Join Us On Youtube
  • BMSG RSS Feed

get e-alerts in your inbox: