Podcasts about soda tax

This week, I covered "Soda Tax" from season 5. Leslie faces a moral dilemma; Tom and Chris help get Andy in shape; and Ben has a difficult time with his new interns. FILLER: Cobra Kai S6E1-5 and Deadpool and Wolverine (BOTH SPOILER FREE) CONTACT: citizensofpawnee@gmail.com and Instagram @citizensofpawneepodcast and @parksrecmemes New episodes every Tuesday. SEGMENTS: Intro/general nonsense (00:15) Cobra Kai (3:46); Deadpool and Wolverine (7:31) "Soda Tax" (11:23)

SO MANY GUEST STAR VOICE MEMOS! So many incredible visuals and government tax opinions!!!! And Madi is here! For the first hour, we hear from 3 guest stars that were in our Season 5 premiere of Ms. Knope Goes to Washington. First, *Jenny Anne Hochberg* @jenny.anne.hochberg incredible BTS of shooting in DC, giving Leslie a fist "pound", telling Pratt that she's a pretty princess after getting hair/makeup, and more deleted scenes that we didn't get to hear! Make sure you check out her acting classes here! https://www.jennyannehochberg.com/about-8https://www.imdb.com/name/nm5181988/Second, *Jessica Hansen* @jessacts, who is an amazing voice actor and coach and was so sweet to send me a voice memo even though her incredible new studio isn't set up yet! Learning about John Hay from the Hay-Adams hotel being in Abe Lincoln's administration, John McCain leading her around on set, and shooting for 10 or 11 takes!Her Coaching Studio: SigSound.nethttps://www.imdb.com/name/nm2430582/ Third, *Amy Tolsky* @amy.tolsky, loved learning about Dean Holland's direction informed her performance, compliments to the best hair and makeup team, plus you can watch her on Quiz Lady (with Awkwafina and Sandra Oh) and an iPhone 15 commercial! She also has some amazing projects that she has coming up. :)https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0866212/THANK YOU ALL!Then after an hour of the best voice memos ever from the first episode of Season 5, we venture into Soda Tax! We discuss cringe Ben, the insane amount of sugar consumed PER MONTH, and we watch Andy defeat external goals while Chris learns internal goals are just as important. :) We also learn where Tom got that golf cart *eye roll*Lastly, we get an amazing voice memo from *Bobby Reed* who played the purse stealer in the townhall! He has an incredible bio on IMDB (below), tells us what this episode was originally called and reminds us that Kyle Newachek, the director, IS TALL! Oh ps - he gets paid the most from these residuals and that makes me happy that Parks pays him. https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0715327/Incredible details and I'm so forever grateful! Thank you all for joining! Support the Show.Rate and review us on Apple Podcasts!Follow us @parkpalspodcast on Instagram! Or email us at parkpalspodcast@gmail.com

AGREE TO DISAGREE: WA AG candidate's false job claims // SnoCo to decide on 0.2% sales tax increase for criminal justice // UK's soda tax cut kid consumption in half // A scary situation with a hot dog saved by good Samaritan // WE HEAR YOU! and WORDS TO LIVE BY

Broadway star Mary Faber joins Jim O'Heir and Greg Levine to discuss her recurring role as Pawnee's Restaurant Association member Kathryn Pinewood. In this episode, they discuss soda cups large enough to hold a liquified toddler, the first cries for Leslie Knope's recall, and the underlying attraction between Pinewood and another one of Leslie's nemeses, Councilman Jamm.Got a question for the Pawnee Town Hall? Send us an email at ParksandRecollectionTownHall@gmail.com!

What's the relationship between front-of-package food labeling and consumer choice, and how can it potentially impact grocery prices? Dr. Chen Zhen is a professor in Food Choice, Obesity, and Health Economics at the University of Georgia.  His research focuses on the impact of interpretative front-of-package labeling on consumer behavior and food prices.  In this conversation, Zhen discusses policies that can discourage consumption of less nutrient-dense foods (such as taxation) versus those that focus on access (making more nutritious food more accessible and less nutritious food less accessible), as well as the potential confusion caused by nutrition facts panels. While a combination of policies may benefit the nutritional intake of lower-income consumers, Zhen highlights a study that demonstrated how a soda tax reduced the consumption of sugary beverages among low-income individuals, while a fruit and vegetable subsidy did not have a significant impact on their overall nutrition score.  He discussed three categories of policies to address the issue of food prices and consumer choices. The first category is taxation, where the aim is to tax unhealthy food to discourage consumption. However, there are concerns about the potential costs and impact on consumer welfare. The second category is access policy, which involves making healthier food more accessible and less healthy food less accessible. For example, removing sugary drinks from schools. However, there can be compensation effects where people consume more unhealthy food outside of school. The third category is information provision policy, such as nutrition fact labels. Chen mentioned the recommendation for interpretative and summary nutrition labels on the front of packages to help consumers better understand the information. He also mentioned his research on yogurt and consumer confusion with labels. He referenced a study on yogurt that examined the impact of a nutrition labeling change on sales. The study found that when a yogurt product received a lower nutrition score, its sales decreased. Conversely, when a yogurt product received a higher score, its sales increased. However, the study also discovered that retailers adjusted the prices of the yogurt products to offset the sales effects of the labeling change. After accounting for the pricing effect, it was found that about 40% of the labeling effect was offset by the retailer's pricing strategy. This suggests that the impact of nutrition labeling on consumer behavior can be influenced by pricing strategies implemented by retailers. Chen mentioned that low-income individuals tend to purchase less healthy foods due to financial constraints. Chen also highlighted the potential impact of labeling and pricing strategies on nutritional disparities. He is now working on a USDA grant that aims to examine the nutrition disparity resulting from nutrition labels. The hypothesis is that if a product receives a lower nutrition score, retailers may lower the price, and low-income individuals may be more sensitive to these price reductions, leading to increased consumption of unhealthy foods. Chen also mentioned a study on pricing policies, where a soda tax was found to reduce the consumption of sugary beverages among low-income individuals, while a fruit and vegetable subsidy did not have a significant impact on their overall nutrition score. He suggested that a combination of taxes on unhealthy foods and subsidies for healthier options may be more effective in addressing nutritional disparities. Dr. Zhen discussed three categories of interventions that policymakers can make to address the obesity epidemic: pricing strategies (such as soda taxes), access policies (making healthier food more accessible and less healthy food less accessible), and information provision policies (like nutrition labels). Chen emphasized that while taxes can be effective, they come with costs, so labels are often preferred by economists. Chen's research focused on the impact of soda taxes and found that low-income households responded more to the taxes, resulting in reduced consumption of sugary beverages. Additionally, Chen explored the potential unintended consequences of labeling and pricing strategies, particularly in relation to low-income individuals. However, it's important to note that any food taxes are regressive and may face political resistance. If you're curious as to how front-of-package labels and food policies can have unintended consequences on grocery prices and his predictions on grocery inflation, listen in for more of Zhen's research and insights.    

Tune in to hear my conversation with Drew Murray Republican candidate for Philadelphia Council At-Large. We explore the following topics: Quality of Living, Soda Tax, Wage Tax, No Safe Injection Sites, Universal Pre-K, Education. You can learn more about here: https://www.murray4phl.com/issues Technical Director: Camille Porter Host: Onika Carrine Guest: Drew Murray IG: Drew.Murray.5688 X: DrewIMurray Threads: drew.murray.5688 IG: OnikaCarrine X: OnikaCarrine FB: Onika Elizabeth Johnson

When Seattle started taxing soda and sugary drinks in 2018, part of the intent was to reduce consumption. The good news: people drank less soda. The bad news: it meant reduced funds for programs that help vulnerable communities. As the city council prepares to vote on the 2023 budget, it made some changes to avoid deep cuts. But it's a short-term fix.

Martha's Vineyard, Immigration, targeting Trump Allies, and Soda Tax.    

This Fear Of Missing Out Friday we explore everything from Whoopi thinking SCOTUS is violating her religious freedom to pondering whether Jesus would have used social media. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/foruncommonsense/message

According to research conducted at the University of Georgia, Philadelphia's soda tax has not effectively limited the city's consumption of sugary beverages—with many residents crossing city-lines to buy cheaper beverages from surrounding areas. University of Georgia researchers suggested that in order for a tax to impact behavior, the policy needs to be even more authoritative—meaning it needs to be adopted at the state or federal level.

Would you name your baby Thanos? Lots of people are along with some other inadvisable names. Plus - looking back at "Grease", Milli Vanilli, and a tax on soda pop!

This week Mark and Allen break down the Episode where Ron finally meets Diane! Leslie proposes her first bill to tax the city's sodas, hoping to discourage citizens from drinking them. She meets with Pawnee Restaurant Association spokeswoman Kathryn Pinewood to discuss the terms of her bill and to question the reasoning behind the city's growing drink sizes. Kathryn warns Leslie that if her bill passes, local restaurants will suffer, causing massive job losses. Kathryn goes on to say that if Leslie doesn't vote against the bill, a press release will be issued, putting the blame solely on Leslie for the layoffs. This puts Leslie in the middle of a moral conundrum:  vote her conscience and risk job layoffs, or save jobs by going against her gut. Meanwhile, Ben and April are still settling into their new environment in Washington DC, with Ben trying to get his interns in line, while April remains her irreverent self, putting in minimal effort. Displeased with his interns' behavior, Ben attempts to be more assertive, but to no avail. After seeing crude, mocking drawings of him on the wall, Ben calls his boss Jennifer Barkley to request intern changes, but upon realizing how connected they all are, he changes his tactics and attempts to "kiss their asses" instead by ordering pizza and setting up frisbee games. Finally, Chris and Tom volunteer to help Andy get into shape for his police entrance exam, which is 3 months away. Chris and Tom coach Andy during his two-mile run at Pawnee Community College, which must be done in less than 25 minutes. When Andy's first attempt takes around 30 minutes, Chris asks Andy why he wants to be a policeman. After coming up with a good reason ("do it for April"), it serves to motivate Andy, but depresses Chris, as he realizes his reasons for keeping fit are purely physical. As always, we tackle the tough questions, such as ... How will Leslie vote on the bill? Does April ever rise up above minimum effort? Can Andy complete 2 miles in under 25 minutes? Is Kathryn Pinewood bluffing? Can Ben find his way into the interns' hearts by ordering pizza and rocking scoobers? Will Chris snap out of his depression? Why do they call their 512-ounce cup a "Child Size"? Who is drawing pictures of Ben, and will it stop? What changes does Tom make to the pace car? Podcast viewers, Season 5 shows no signs of slowing down! Tune in to enjoy this episode with us, and then stick around for a sneak preview of our interview with the talented actress behind Kathryn Pinewood herself, Mary Faber! Many thanks to our sponsor, the Pawnee Restaurant Association. 

Seattle's soda tax has been effective in reducing consumption of sugary drinks. Turns out, money from the tax also helps low income communities, according to a University of Washington study.

Do you donate to political parties? Which one? Would you be happy for everyone to know? Would you be happy to be quizzed on it? In Canada, the media is exposing people who donated to the trucker convoy. Not surprisingly, this affects free speech because when the left hears something it doesn't like, it responds with violence - and no one is safe from their vengeance. https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/threats-close-stella-luna-gelato-cafe-after-owners-name-appears-in-givesendgo-data-leakClean Up Australia needs your help to tackle face mask pollutionhttps://fee.org/articles/seattle-s-nanny-state-soda-tax-backfired-spectacularly-and-hilariously-new-study-shows/

Philadelphia Councilman David Oh returns to the Dom Giordano Program to discuss the potential end to a soda tax that has handcuffed businesses in Philadelphia since it took effect in 2017. First, Oh contextualizes the debate over the soda tax, telling that the tax has actually cost the city a lot of money, being lost wages, businesses, and taxes that would come with healthy businesses. Then, Oh tells why and how he will be proposing a potential end to the extra cost on sugary beverages. In addition, Oh offers his thoughts on the heightened crime in the city, and tells how he thinks the city can dig themselves out of the hole dug by Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner. (Photo by Getty Images)

Susie and Beks are back to discuss Season 5, Episode 2 of Parks and Rec: Soda Tax! Topics include:Leslie's soda tax The size of sodas in PawneeBen trying to be cool and some real secondhand embarrassmentChris, Tom, and AndyThis week's National Park is Zhangye Danxia National Geological ParkFollow us here:Twitter: @pawnee_commonsInstagram: pawneecommonspodFacebook: The Pawnee CommonsProducer: Andy MeyerIntro and Outro Music:Life of Riley by Kevin MacLeodLink: https://incompetech.filmmusic.io/song/3976-life-of-rileyLicense: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Links:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhangye_National_Geoparkhttps://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2016/03/02/rainbow-mountains-china-earths-paint-palette/https://www.chinadiscovery.com/gansu/zhangye/danxia-landform-geographical-park.htmlhttps://www.atlasobscura.com/places/zhangye-national-geopark

Chris Sullivan's Chokepoint -- street racing crackdown // Hanna Scott with the latest data on Seattle's Soda Tax // Dose of Kindness -- doctor heals with medicine and music // Gee Scott on the open street clashes in Portland // Col. Jeff McCausland live on the Afghanistan timeline/ Afghan military intelligence // Nicole Jennings on WA DOC workers who would rather quit than get a vaccine See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Join us around Colonel Plump's Slop Trough as we dive into sugar, things that weigh as much as sugar, ultimate frisbee terminology, and much more!Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/parksandrewatch)

Hour 1- Ken calls for Danny Ainge's job after a report surfaces that few GM's around the league trust Ainge; Curtis predicts Cam Newton will return to the Patriots in 2021 after his appearance on the "I Am Athlete" podcast; Elected officials in Massachusetts propose decriminalizing all drugs in addition to other initiatives -23-21 See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

3 PM- Hanna Scott: Seattle soda tax could go statewide, Monday’s your chance to weigh in // Seattle nonprofit launches competition offering kids chance to reflect on COVID, win prizes // Politics Is Seeping Into Our Daily Life and Ruining Everything // Federal agents seize $2.8M in cocaine-frosted corn flakes cereal shipped from South America      See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is another Facebook Live Panel we ran! We have three very special guests on: Alli Fuoco, Amie Markowitz and Nathan Garrison. We broke this episode into 3 segments; Parenting, Schools, and Society.CDC Obesity FactsParenting:How can parents teach their kids about being healthy?What responsibility do parents have to educate their kids?Is obesity, at any point, child abuse or neglect?Schools:What can schools do to educate our kids?Why aren't our meals healthier?Should kids has access to healthy and unhealthy optons?Why are school meals so bad?Pizza is a vegetablePhysical Education StudySociety:Could our culture do better?Should their be a soda tax?Should the government step in?Alli FuocoAmie MarkowitzNathan GarrisonSupport the show (http://www.redefine-fitness.com)

In this episode, we talk to Dmitry Taubinsky from the University of California Berkeley about his paper “Regressive Sin Taxes, with an Application to the Optimal Soda Tax,” which he co-authored with Hunt Allcott and Benjamin B. Lockwood. This paper develops a theoretical model of an optimal “sin tax” i.e., a tax on goods that … Continue reading Regressive Sin Taxes with an Application to the Optimal Soda Tax with Dmitry Taubinsky →

In the first segment [1:40-15:00], hosts Eric Jaffe and Vanessa Quirk discuss this week's top stories: Rent-strikes would offer relief now, but at what cost down the line? (Kriston Capps, CityLab) https://bit.ly/2ywBRfu A short history of the Census — and why this could be the U.S.’s last (Andrew Whitby, Wired) https://bit.ly/2yomeqf Covid has demonstrated just how unevenly public space is distributed (Alissa Walker, Curbed) https://bit.ly/3bNVldJ / In ode of “sociable distancing” (Michael Mehaffy, CNU) https://bit.ly/2wfpKmi In the second segment [15:25-22:25], the hosts interview reporter Gregory Scruggs about the city of Seattle, which has started using the revenues generated from its controversial soda tax to fund emergency grocery vouchers for families during the Covid-19 outbreak. (Next City) https://bit.ly/2JDcnPS And in the final segment [23:00-25:05], the hosts share what made them smile this week. A history of the Drive-Thru (Adam Chandler, Serious Eats) https://bit.ly/3aGP2J0 Lori Lightfoot memes (Susan Moskop, Chicago Tribune) https://bit.ly/2Xdb3LH

How can we reduce the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages? There are efforts globally around the world looking at soda taxes as a solution for bringing down the consumption of foods that we know cause obesity and chronic disease. When those taxes are paired with incentives for eating healthy food, it's a win-win for everybody. Consuming more healthy food and less soda creates more productivity, lower healthcare costs, and less chronic disease. Yet we see organizations such as the American Beverage Association spending millions of dollars fighting soda taxes. It’s obvious that they wouldn't spend that kind of money if they didn't think they would lose profits from a soda tax. Dr. Hyman talks about all this and more in this mini-episode. Learn more about these topics and the actions we can take for more transparency from the government and corporations in Dr. Hyman's new book, Food Fix. FoodFixBook.com See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Being obese puts people at risk for chronic disease like diabetes and is the leading cause of preventable death in the U.S. In this episode we explore a policy approach to deal with this epidemic – a tax on sugary drinks. Kelly Brownell, director of the World Food Policy Center at the Sanford School of Public Policy at Duke University breaks down the research and policy behind the approach. Subscribe to the Leading Voices in Food podcast Read the episode transcript Music: Donnalee by Blue Dot Sessions / Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution  

Today's guest, Dr. Hunt Allcott, had two recent papers with colleagues Benjamin Lockwood and Dmitry Taubinsky, on whether soda taxes are effective, and how an optimal soda tax might be established. They were published by the National Bureau of Economic Research. These are important papers and an important time, given all the activity around the world on soda taxes. I'm Kelly Brownell, director of the World Food Policy Center at Duke University, and professor of public policy at Duke. Welcome to The Leading Voices in Food. Hunt Allcott is a principal researcher at Microsoft Research, an associate professor of economics at New York University, a research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research, and a co-editor of the Journal of Public Economics. Hunt, I'm so pleased to have you join us, and would like to begin with a key question based on your work. What are the key ingredients for calculating the economically optimal soda tax? That's a great question, and thank you so much for having me on the program. I'm a big fan of the program and I'm a big fan of the work that you're doing. The key ingredients for calculating the economically optimal soda tax, I would say, are actually the key ingredients for thinking about the optimal policy in any number of domains. And so, there's a subfield called public economics that has a framework for thinking about this, and it is a utilitarian framework. It starts with the idea that everybody is maximizing their happiness, possibly making mistakes in doing so, but they're trying to maximize their happiness or utility, and there is a benevolent policy maker or a government that's trying to do well by its citizens, but it's trying to maximize this sum of happiness across all people [inaudible 00:01:56], and you might call that social welfare. So the way that we think about lots of economic policy problems, setting optimal taxes on sugary drinks, but also tobacco taxes or income taxes or disability insurance, is from this perspective of a benevolent policy maker that's trying to maximize social welfare. And so, what does that framework specifically then say, or what are the key ingredients for an optimal soda tax? I think that the two key ingredients are, really, a share of health costs that are caused by soda consumption, which are those costs that are born by other people, and then, what you might call internality, is are we making some mistake? Are we failing to maximize our own happiness by drinking too much soda, possibly because we don't know how bad the stuff is for us, or because we have self-control problems? Building on those two key ingredients, you, in general, want impose a corrective tax on tobacco or sugary drinks or carbon pollution or anything else, if and only if the consumption generates externalities or internalities. We, in our paper, calculate what we think is the economically optimal tax rate, and for a nationwide tax, our calculation is that somewhere between one and two cents per ounce actually it would be the optimal nationwide tax rate. And so, there's a sense in which the cities are actually pretty close to the optimal tax that we would set nationwide. And these calculations are speculative. There's a whole industry of economists and public health folks that are thinking about what would be the optimal tax on carbon pollution or the optimal tax on tobacco, and this is an early attempt at setting that optimal tax in the context of soda. And so we've done our best, and I think there's more work to be done there to try to figure out what the optimal amount is. You may have noticed that I was a little bit careful in distinguishing between the optimal nationwide tax versus the taxes that are being set in different cities, and that's actually a key distinction. Most of the taxes, in fact, all of the explicit soda taxes that we have are at the city or sometimes the county level in the US, and when that's been done, there are some papers that document what economists call leakage, in other words, that when you tax soda in Philadelphia, people, when they're shopping outside of town, start buying more soda outside of town. Similar things tend to be happening in Berkeley and I imagine they're happening in other cities that have soda taxes. This leakage reduces the effectiveness of the tax. You know, it's basically, you're taxing one good, which is soda in Philadelphia, and demand for another harmful good, soda outside of Philadelphia, rises. And that means that the optimal level of the taxes lower, and the effectiveness of a tax, at any given rate, is lower. And so, it does mean that the optimal city level tax, taking into account leakage, is certainly lower than the optimal nationwide tax that you would set. And what are the ways in which soda tax design can be improved? The most common structure of soda taxes in the US is that you would tax it one cent or two cents per ounce of sugary drinks. Now of course, sugar drinks vary in the amount of sugar that they contain. Soda pop has more sugar per ounce than some other types of SSBs. Sometimes ice tea, for example, have less sugar per ounce, but it really is that sugar that's causing the harm to our health. And so, we would advocate, and some countries have started to do this, that you would set a soda tax that scales with the amount of sugar in the drink, not the amount of liquid that comes with the sugar. And in fact, our team is working on a paper to sort of quantify that point, and other people have made that point as well. So that's one example, and there are others. And given this work, do you think soda taxes are effective public health policy? Yes, absolutely. Absolutely. So one is that it would be cause consumers to, even if they like some kind of sugary drink, it causes consumers to substitute the less sugary drink, so that's good for their health. And the other benefit is, as you stay on the production side, it will induce faster changes in the product. But it certainly seems like the benefits of a tax are not just that price goes up so demand goes down, but indeed what people infer, what information people start to sense that they're getting from their government about the types of things that are being packed. And as an example of this, you may know that there's a paper by Alex Rees-Jones and Kyle Rozema that is circulating recently, that looks at cigarette taxes, and they look at cities that debated, but in the end, did not pass cigarette taxes. So there was no impact in these places on cigarette prices, yet there was a lot of coverage about the health harms from cigarettes, and there seems to be some evidence that people's cigarette consumption in these areas actually went down in response to these debates. And so I think that's clear evidence that the benefits of taxation are not just through the price channel, but they're also through the sort of public debate and information channel. You also have another line of work on food deserts, and have published impressive work on that topic. How much effort do you believe we should put into combating food deserts by subsidizing grocery stores in underserved neighborhoods? It's a great question, and yes it is a something that we've been interested in. We've just had a paper accepted at the Quarterly Journal of Economics that touches on this issue. And we got interested in this because we've been reading about food deserts and reading about nutritional inequality, just the idea that low income folks aren't able to eat as healthfully as high income folk, and then also the fact that low income neighborhoods often have more convenience stores and fewer healthy grocery stores with fresh produce. This sort of correlation, this connection between lack of healthy supply and lack of demand for healthy groceries might've been sort of a causal thing, where the food desert is causing the lack of demand for healthy groceries. And so, we were interested to try to find out if that was actually true. When new grocery stores open up, does that actually impact, does that actually cause people nearby to buy healthier groceries? And so, we looked at this, we gathered Nielsen Homescan data, and we combined that with data on all the grocery stores that have entered in the United States over the last 15 years or so, and it turns out that when grocery stores enter in the food deserts, they don't cause people to eat healthier food. So what does happen is that people shift their shopping towards the new supermarket, but they don't buy healthier foods. And this is, I think, an important fact, and when we think about why we'd want to subsidize grocery stores in underserved areas, I think that this is an important fact to take into account. It doesn't seem to have much of an impact on healthy eating.

Let's say that you are a public health advocate and would like to see a tax on sugar sweetened beverages established in your community. What steps would you take? What coalitions do you think you'd need to build. And how would you go about the extraordinary work of gathering support from both the public and political figures? Few people are in a position to tell the story in such a compelling way as today's guest Dr. James Krieger, who joins us from Seattle--one of the many places in the world that now has such taxes. About James Krieger James Krieger is the founding executive director of Healthy Food America and is a clinical professor at the University of Washington Schools of Medicine and Public Health. Prior to that position, he served as chief of the Chronic Disease and Injury Prevention Section for the Seattle King County Department of Public Health. He is a physician and an expert in public health, and is recognized widely for his work on policies around school nutrition menu labeling, increasing access to healthy foods, and sugary drink taxes. Interview Summary So Jim, you've been a very important figure in this issue with sugar sweetened beverage taxes, not only in Seattle but elsewhere around the country, and in the world. But before we dive in with that topic in particular, can you tell us a little bit about your organization, Healthy Food America? Sure Kelly, and thanks for inviting me to join you on this podcast. Healthy Food America is a nonprofit organization that provides research and public education, raises awareness about issues of healthy food policy, and reducing exposure to unhealthy foods in communities across America. And we're particularly interested in improving health equity in terms of diet quality and disease outcomes related to nutrition related illnesses. By the way, I urge our listeners to visit your website because it's just rich with information on these various issues you tackled, especially sugar sweetened beverage taxes. So let's, let's turn our attention to that issue, the taxes. So let's turn our attention to sugary drink taxes. And let me begin by asking a pretty broad question. What did it take to get a tax passed in Seattle? Well you know the tax in Seattle or anyplace else is not something just pops up overnight. It may look like that from the outside but in Seattle, as elsewhere, it takes years of ground work to successfully develop and win a tax adoption campaign. And during those years where things are kind of quiet and moving behind the scenes, all sorts of things are happening. Coalition development is a key element of this phase where people come together from the public health sector, from the community sector, from the government sector, and figure out exactly why they want a sugary drink tax, what problem is it going to address in their communities and how do they go about crafting a policy that meets those community needs. It also is a question of waiting for the right moment. There has to be a window of opportunity to win a policy where there's broad recognition among elected officials and the public and community-based organizations and communities that there is a problem, that a tax ready to fix. And there needs to be the right people in place to make that happen, particularly leaders in the community who are willing to put some energy into making it happen, as well as elected officials who will be the champions to take the tax policy and move it through the legislative process. And the only other thing I think that really is important in this early phase is assuring that there's adequate funding for the campaign because these campaigns cost money to run and win. And so lining up funders, both local and national, is pretty important. But I think to summarize all that, I think you really need to take the time upfront to engage with communities, particularly those communities that are most effected by sugary drink consumption, and those chronic diseases that are caused by consumption, and make sure that the leaders of those communities are on board and excited about working towards this policy goal. So do you believe there's any benefit to the just having the debate itself on the taxes that's irrespective of whether the tax passes or not? Yeah, I think there probably is because in effect, having a debate on the taxes becomes a free media campaign or public awareness campaign. Whenever the tax is discussed, it inevitably comes down to questions of why these products should they be taxed and what are their health consequences? So that's a great way to raise awareness in the public in general, whether or not the tax succeeds. I think that's actually an interesting question, which would be interesting to try to get more rigorous research to evaluate what the impact of the awareness raising prior to tax adoption is on consumption and attitudes about sugary drinks. So how large is the tax in Seattle and what's tax on? What do you see so far in terms of effectiveness? So in Seattle, our tax is on the higher range of the taxes that have been adopted in the US at 1.75 cents per ounce. The tax is levied on the distributors of sugary drinks, and those include everything from sodas to sports drinks, and energy drinks, to sweetened coffees and teas to fruit drinks. The tax is generating substantial revenues in Seattle. Close to, we estimate, $23 million in the first year. And so from a revenue collection perspective, the tax has been quite successful. The tax has also effectively increased the shelf price of the taxed products in Seattle almost a hundred percent, 97% to be precise across all beverage categories. So the tax is performing as anticipated. We haven't had a lot of feedback from the distributors that's difficult for them to comply with tax collection. We don't know yet if there is much tax avoidance going on, that is something that's under consideration right now. But given the amount of revenues that are coming in, it does not seem to be a major problem. And there really hasn't been very much opposition, push back or concern raised either by the beverage industry or by others in our community. Perhaps because people realize that the revenues in Seattle are going to support things that people care about: access to healthy food for low income people and support for families with very young children age zero to three in terms of early education support. When you talk about tax avoidance are you talking about people leaving the area where the tax occurs and buying their soda elsewhere? Yeah, exactly. There's concern raised that people will cross the border from any city that has a tax and shop outside to avoid tax. And while that's theoretically a possibility any place, in Seattle, from the initial data that we have, it doesn't look like that's happening much which might be because the Seattle's specific geography. We're a city bounded by big bodies of water on the east and west, and it's only small areas in the north and south that are connected with other communities. So there aren't that many physical borders that are easy to cross to shop at. We're seeing more cross border shopping if you look at a place like Philadelphia, which has border pretty much on all sides. And so I think, how much of that cross border shopping really is going to be a city by city consideration. The other area of tax avoidance is whether businesses are paying the taxes required and it seems like they are. So how are the revenue is being used? And do you believe that how they're used affects public opinion about the usefulness of the tax? Yeah, I think that for some people who support the tax, the revenue use is the most important justification or rationale for the tax. Even more than reducing consumption. I think some people who are particularly concerned about health equity, view the equitable investment of revenues that they're invested in those communities that are disproportionately targeted by predatory industry marketing practices, communities where exposure to sugary drinks is high because they're available everywhere and therefore consumption is high. If revenues are invested in those communities to address important community needs and health inequities, then that's considered a very important goal for the taxes. I'm just going to give some examples of how the revenues are being used in cities across the nation. So I mentioned in Seattle we are very heavily investing in providing subsidies so low income people can have subsidized purchases of fresh fruits and vegetables, whether at grocery stores or farmer's markets. Other communities are also doing that. In Seattle, as I mentioned, we're investing in early education by providing home visiting services and subsidized childcare slots and Philadelphia is doing that also. That's their primary focus and doing significant investments, creating literally thousands and thousands of a subsidized childcare slots for low income people in Philadelphia. Other communities are working on preventing chronic diseases like diabetes. They're doing education around the health effects of sugary drinks. They're putting hydration stations in public places or schools. They're promoting oral health access. They're supporting community gardening programs. They're supporting physical activity recreation programs in parks and rec centers. And they're even supporting high school completion and graduation programs and support for kids going to the community colleges. So it's a wide range of programs, which I think illustrates that each community knows what it needs and knows the best used to put those revenue towards. Well it's nice to hear the various examples, and my instincts are the same as yours that ultimately, whether these taxes will be accepted and expanded in various places will be determined by how the revenue is being used. And it's nice that various localities are doing things that fit their own needs. And it will be interesting to see that story going forward. Now one thing I wanted to ask, Jim, you mentioned earlier that it takes money to run these campaigns. And I'm assuming one of those reasons is because industry is spending so much money is to oppose the campaign. So what are some of the things that you've seen in the industry do to help stop these taxes? So industry is really fully engaged in all out war against these taxes. I should say that I actually used this word, Kelly, at one point, that they view them as an existential threat to their existence. And it's probably their number one public policy agenda item is to block sugary drink taxes. So they will spend literally millions and millions of dollars to oppose a tax campaign, when it's launched, you know, upwards of $20-30 million in any particular location. If it's a big city, they will selectively use the research findings to try to make the case that taxes don't work. They will fund their own research to try to show the taxes are having negative consequences on jobs and small business revenues. They'll create what are called astroturf coalitions, fake coalitions that they provide the money for. And then put other's up to be the front people for them to try to suggest that there's community opposition to these taxes when the opposition is really being generated by industry. Perhaps most concerning is the move that they are now making to preempt taxes. Preemption means the state government passes a law that prevents local governments from acting. In this case from enacting a sugary drink tax. And the industry is aggressively promoting preemption legislation in states across the country to try to block local governments from passing taxes. It's a script that is remarkably familiar because of the tobacco companies doing almost precisely the same things. And in the case of the tobacco companies, they had some temporary success in stalling or blocking public health activities, but ultimately they got hit big time. And I wonder whether the soda companies aren't in for the same thing. What are your thoughts on that? I mean, I think they are. And I think despite the intense level of industry opposition, it's interest in sugary drink taxes remains strong. And what I think we'll be seeing actually is adoption in the next few years of these taxes at the state level. So far, all the action in the US has been at the local level. The state level is immune from preemption and covers a much larger population and therefore the cross border shopping issues we talked about before are more muted at that level. So I think just like you said, we will see continued progress in this despite the industry opposition just like we did in tobacco. Industry is not going to give up easy. They're going to try where they can to even repeal existing taxes. We're seeing right now as the Philadelphia primary election season approaches, that industry is inserting itself heavily, even in local politics in Philadelphia, supporting council candidates who oppose taxes and opposing candidates who have supported taxes as well as the mayor. But when I talk to folks in Philadelphia they think any efforts to repeal the tax in Philadelphia are dead on the start because people are so supportive of the way of monies, the revenues are being invested in Philadelphia. And there is no alternative revenue sources to support this Pre-K and community schools and parks and rec programs. Are there unintended consequences of the taxes? Well, I think that's always an important question to ask about any policy. This one included. One of the unintended consequences that's brought up by both industry and by some progressives as well, is whether the tax places a regressive burden on low income households. Meaning, do poor people in income households pay a greater percent of their household income on taxes than wealthier people. And I think by definition, yes that's going to be true. But the question is how much is that? Is it $100 a year or $20 a year or $10 a year per house? So, I think we need the answer to that question. That hasn't been done yet. We're actually embarking on some research to try to answer that question. And I think any household level effects need to be balanced by the benefits that those same low income households receive from the revenues we've been talking about. They're going to programs that benefit low income people, whether it's paying for childcare or providing subsidies so low income people can buy food. So on balanced is the tax policy regressive in terms of allocation of more revenues to low income communities. And I think we'll try to get the answer to that question as well. Two other areas where industry keeps talking about unintended consequences where there's no evidence at this at this point. One is job loss. Industry claims that that because sales will go down, jobs will be lost. However the most objective peer reviewed studies like one in Mexico published recently shows that there's been no effect on employment rates in Mexico generally in the affected sectors. And, and data from unemployment claims in Berkeley show similarly that it hasn't been the effect of the tax in Berkeley on employment in the food sector. In terms of small business revenues and small businesses not being able to make an or go out of business, industry claims that all the time. Again, there's zero objective evidence for that at this point, but I think it merits further study and there are studies in the field look at that. Well, Jim when I introduced you, I promised people would be hearing one of the most comprehensive views of the subject that anybody could have and you delivered. So thanks so much for joining us today and congratulations for what you have accomplished. I look forward to seeing even more, and again, I invite our listeners to visit your website at Healthy Food America.  

Leslie runs into opposition as she tries to pass her first ever bill, a tax on sugary drinks, and Ben struggles to relate to his young interns.

On today's DJV Podcast, we're focusing on FOOD news - a new study is showing that eating a spicy diet could actually cause you to develop dementia later in life, the Paleo diet is negatively impacting followers down the line and Macy's is being accused of fat shaming shoppers with a line of dishware that didn't quite hit the mark. We answer whether or not soda taxes actually limit the amount of sugary beverages that consumers drink and Bayer is coming out with a new product to try and win back it's customer base after their recent Roundup lawsuits. There's happy news for Chelsea Clinton and Mike Pence's oldest daughter and we're celebrating two amazing ideas around the country to help out animals stuck in animal shelters. Want the details on these stories and more? We'll explain everything you need to know and what you want to hear more of - just find us on social media and share us with your friends on twitter @djvshow or at facebook.com/djvshow.     

In this week's episode, Anupam Manur, Yazad Jal and Gayatri Ganpule discuss the booming job market in rich countries, disruption of the interlinkages in the tech industry and welfare-motivated sin tax on sugary drinks. Editor: Ananya Iyer

An Ontarian says that he felt “intimidated” by a voicemail left by Premier Doug Fordtelling him to be “careful” about who he calls “corrupt”. He had texted the premier some poll numbers, admittedly in anger, and received the voicemail in response. Guest: Duff Conacher, Cofounder of Democracy Watch, adjunct professor at University of Ottawa. Ontario Liberal MPs are eyeing the idea of a soda tax ahead of the October election campaign. Guest: Rosie Schwartz. Registered dietitian, Nationally best-selling author of The Englightened Eater's Whole Foods Guide. Rosieschwartz.com. The steel and aluminum tariffs have been lifted but are there still concerns that remain moving forward? Guest: Catherine Cobden, Canadian Steel Producers Association. The United Nations is urging Canada to take more Central American migrants. Guest: Christina Clark-Kazak, Associate professor , Faculty of Social Sciences University of Ottawa. Researches refugee policy in Canada and on an international stage.

For people around the world who believe that taxing sugared beverages is a good public health policy, the country of Mexico passing such a tax was a stunning victory. There was a significant need in Mexico to be sure, given high rates of obesity, especially in children, and very high consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages. But there was also a powerful beverage industry fighting the taxes. A fascinating story unfolded as the tax was being considered with a number of courageous and creative individuals at the center. One key figure is today's guest, Dr. Juan Rivera. About Juan Rivera Dr. Juan Rivera is a leading public health official. He is the general director of the National Institute of Public Health in Mexico and is a professor of nutrition at the Mexican School of Public Health. His research focuses on the epidemiology of malnutrition in all its forms, including obesity, prevention and the design and evaluation of policies. Interview Summary The National Institute of Public Health was instrumental, I know, in the design approval and evaluation of the sugar-sweetened beverage tax in your country. Can you talk about the evidence that you and your team generated around the tax and how the evidence got used? Well, thank you very much, Kelly. Yes, the National Public Health Institute had been working in the area of obesity for many years before the tax was implemented. So we conduct the national nutrition surveys in Mexico, and we were able to show the very high burden of chronic diseases in Mexico, and in particular the very high prevalence of obesity and diabetes. So this was a very important piece that led to the approval of the tax eventually. The other piece of evidence that was very important was the very high consumption in Mexico of sugar-sweetened beverages. We have been conducting (within the national nutrition surveys) dietary surveys, and we have known that in Mexico, the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages is probably one of the highest in the world. The other piece of information was that we have reviewed studies on the effects of sugar-sweetened drinks on health and we publish that information. We made that available to NGOs, to government officials, and to the Congress. Then the other thing that we did was that we published a book about the different interventions that could reduce the prevalence of obesity in Mexico. So we came up with a package of interventions with the tool kit of obesity prevention. And one of the considerations was the use of taxes. So for the first time in Mexico, we started talking about the use of taxes. And one of the recommendations in that book was to study and estimate the price elasticity of demand for sugar-sweetened beverages and the gross price elasticity to identify which were the substitutes for sugar-sweetened beverages. And we also made available that information that was very, very important for obesity prevention. Particularly the fact that the price is elastic so that if you increase the price through taxes, you will have every direction in the intake of sugar-sweetened beverages. And the cross-price elasticity showed that most of the substitutes where water and other healthy drinks. So the other thing that we also did was to estimate revenue for different scenarios of taxes. And the scenarios that we managed were 10%, 20%, 30% of tax. So all of that information was made available to NGOs and also to the Congress and to lobbying organizations that were working with the Congress. So, that was the basic information that was taken by the NGOs and the lobbying organizations. So the advocacy organizations raise awareness about the public health implications of sugar-sweetened beverages. At the same time, lobbying organizations convince members of the Congress to champion the tax. And finally we approached the Ministry of Finances, and we show them that you would get very high revenue with the tax, and at the same time, you would get some important health gains through the reduction of sugar-sweetened beverages. So that was basically the information that we generated, and that was used by these different actors so that the tax was approved in 2013. So, Juan, you and your colleagues put together an impressive portfolio of scientific studies supporting the reduction in sugar-sweetened beverages. So why choose attacks as the main way to uh, to go down the road as opposed to say, educating people to consume less of the beverages? Well, first of all in the book that I mentioned before, That put together a set of interventions for the prevention of obesity, we came up with a very important statement. That statement was that if you have an environment that is obesogenic such an environment that that really makes it difficult for people to adopt healthy behaviors and in this case a healthy diet because you lack water in the schools; because you have promotions and advertisements in every place about sugar-sweetened beverages and junk food; and because you have prices that favor a sugar-sweetened beverages over other healthy drinks and so on. If you have such an adverse environment, then education is really not very useful. So what we agreed, the team of people who work in this book is that we really needed to change the environment, to change the school environment, the community environment, to make the healthy options, and in this case, healthy diet and also physical activities that could be easily adopted. And of course there is a role for education, but that role for education is once you have a healthy environment. So what we then looked at was that foods or beverages that were very highly consumed. In this case, sugar-sweetened drinks. And we decided that the tax was a good idea, first of all, because it compensates for some of the negative externalities related to the purchase and consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages. But also because the price was elastic meant that people would reduce the intake of these beverages. What we have in terms of evidence around the world is that education per se is very ineffective in terms of changing behaviors as opposed to changes in the environment: such as increasing prices. Juan, the big soda industry is very powerful in Mexico. And given that Mexico was one of the first countries to consider passing such a tax, the industry went all out to fight it. What are some of the things that the industry did and how did the tax prevail despite the industry's opposition? Well, you know, this an amazing story, Kelly, because let me tell you the truth. At many points during the process, I thought that we would not be able to pass the tax. The industry is very powerful. They use all their power against the idea of the tax. They lobbied in the Congress, they lobbied at very high levels in the executive branch of government, including the office of the president. And despite that, I think that the elements that made the tax a success were the following: first of all academia, particularly the National Public Health Institute that generated the evidence had meetings with the Ministry of finances. And this evidence was also passed to advocacy organizations that raised the awareness among the public in terms of the negative effects of sugar-sweetened beverage intake in Mexico, and lobbying organizations that convinced members of the Congress. Then we had members of the Congress that really championed the idea. They were part of the opposition. And finally, once that the public was demanding this policy it was amazing how the advocacy organizations were able to convince people that the tax was a good idea. Nobody likes to pay taxes, but particularly when this advocacy organization, and let me tell you the name of that organization because I think they made a very important contribution is El Poder de Consumidor. They showed that if some of the revenues of the taxes were used to have water safe water in every school, water fountains in every school, then the opposition that generated at the beginning, the idea of paying a tax completely shifted to support on the part of the population. So we have support from the population, we have members of the Congress, particularly from the opposition that were for the tax. And finally we had the Ministry of finances that were also in favor of the tax, and finally the executive branch of Congress. The first proposal was a tax that amounted to about 20% of the value, an excise tax of 20%. And the executive branch of the Congress intervened. They were the majority, and they compromised with a 10% tax. So I think that the industry was not prepared. They thought that they would convince the government that they were convinced, you know, both the federal government and also the Congress. And the fact that there were these organizations along with academia was something that they were never expecting. So the relationship between academia, NGOs and you know, part of the government that was supporting the tax made this possible. Thank you, Juan, for mentioning the consumer organization involved in this. We have recorded a podcast with the director of that organization, Alejandro Calvillo, and he had some very interesting things to say. So I appreciate the fact that you worked so closely together. So let me ask about the effect of the tax. Can you summarize what the effects of the tax had been thus far? Yeah, so we have been looking at the effect of the tax on different areas. First of all, we have looked at the impact on purchases. We have used a data set of consumers, a commercial data set, and we were able to show that after two years of implementation of the tax, 2014 and 2015, there was an average reduction in the purchases of sugar-sweetened beverages of 7.6%. So a tax that is close to 10%, a little bit less than 10%, had an effect on a reduction on purchases of 7.6% which amounts to about 5.1 liters per capita per year. And the other impact that we showed was that there was an average increase in the purchase of untaxed beverages, particularly water of 2.1%, in the same period of 2014-2015 which amounts to about 6.5 liters per capita per year. The other very important piece of evidence that we were able to obtain is that the reduction in purchases of taxed beverages was much higher in the lower socioeconomic tertile. So, just to give you an example, in 2015 the reduction in the lower tertile was 14% as compared to the high tertile was 6%. So low socioeconomic status people benefited more from the tax. The other thing that we did was also to use sales, and we have very similar results. Sales showed that there was a reduction in sales of close to 7.5 percent. The other thing that we did was to look at changes in employment associated with the taxes. So we used monthly and quarterly data on national unemployment and by sector. And we found no reductions in employment in the manufacturing sector for beverages and no changes in employment in commercial stores selling beverages. And there was no increase in national unemployment rate associated with the taxes. So industry claims that the tax is not working, that there are no effects on health, that it is regressive, that jobs are lost. And we have shown, first of all, that there has been an effect. Of course, we do not expect to have a reduction in obesity prevalence with a single intervention in a short period of time. So they are misleading the public opinion saying, well, you have not changed the body composition. Well, the tax was designed to reduce the purchase of sugar-sweetened beverages or the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages, and it has demonstrated that it has done that job. Now if you really want to reduce more the purchases of sugar-sweetened drinks, then we should increase the tax. The tax is very small, only 10% and what we would really like is to take it either to 20 or 30% to have a more measurable effect. But the other important message is that we need a package of interventions. Any single intervention is not going to be able to solve. The problem is really the addition of many interventions--a package of obesity preventions that will really solve the problem. Those are very impressive results that I know that the future of the tax will likely be affected by all the data that you and your colleagues are collecting. So congratulations on that. Let me ask one final question. How has the revenue to being used as far? Well, part of the revenue but a very, very, very small amount has been used to improve water availability in schools. It has been used to construct some water fountains in schools, but unfortunately, it has been a very, very small amount. So something that the NGOs and the academic organizations and also some members of the Congress are trying to do is that we really need to ensure that the taxes, or at least part of the taxes, are used for obesity prevention. I think that that's one of the in Mexico that has not worked very well and currently, we are working with the Congress to see if we can increase the tax, but also to see if we can have some mechanism so that part of the taxes can be used for obesity prevention.

Michael describes a fierce battle with Big Soda and how you can help.

A couple of medical groups are calling for advertising regulations on soda advertisements, as well as taxes for soda drinks. Would you still buy Coke, or Pepsi, or Sprite, if you had to pay extra taxes to purchase these drinks? Guest: Natalie Muth       Chair-Elect, American Academy of Pediatrics Section on Obesity

Full Show 3/21Gov. Newsom proposes a water tax that could charge taxpayers $10 a month to clean up water, controversy ensues.Former convicted stock broker getting calls from parents in college scandal.Large meeting held in Lake Elsinore to deal with Superbloom crowds.San Clemente council member backs out of interview discussing homeless problem.Kale is now one of the dirtiest vegetables.More families accused in college admissions scandal.

A conversation for UBVO between Professor Marion Nestle (NYU Steinhardt) and Professor Claude Fischler (CNRS, Paris), December 2018.

Today's guest has had a fascinating career and has made significant contributions to public health in Louisiana, New York, and in Pennsylvania. He says he learned the true value of public health investigating syphilis and legionnaire's disease outbreaks while working for the Center for Disease Control's epidemic intelligence service. He's worked on the front lines to prevent and control infectious diseases such as HIV and sexually transmitted diseases, and his research on obesity led him to see the obesity epidemic in our country as an outcome of an unhealthy environment. Dr. Thomas Farley is the health commissioner for the City of Philadelphia and he led work to pass a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages, seen widely as a significant success in health policy. About Thomas Farley Tom Farley's career includes serving as the Commissioner of Health for New York City under Mayor Michael Bloomberg. He's the coauthor of a book entitled Prescription for a Healthy Nation: Improving our Lives by Fixing our Everyday World, and a popular history of public health in New York City during the Bloomberg years called Saving Gotham: A Billionaire Mayor, Activist Doctors, and the Fight for 8 Million Lives. Interview Summary Taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages now exist in a number of cities in the US and more than 25 countries. But Philadelphia made history of bypassing the largest tax in the United States. Can you explain the rationale for taxing sugary beverages? Sure. We know that sugary beverages are a major source of added sugar in the diet. And there are now a large number of studies that show an association between consumption of sugary drinks and obesity weight. And there has been this very parallel major increase in consumption of sugary drinks in parallel with the rise in obesity in this country. A lot of reason to believe from all of that that sugary drinks play a major role in the obesity epidemic in the country. Not the entire problem, but a major role. So that therefore there are appropriate targets to really turn around this epidemic. So why think about using taxes to decrease consumption as opposed to other possibilities like education, let's say? Well we don't think that there's an either or decision there. We think that we should be educating people about the risks of sugary drink. We also think that taxation makes sense. We've run mass media campaigns to educate people about the risk of sugary drink in New York City and elsewhere. And when we started people didn't recognize how risky these were. We've made a lot of headway there. But we also know from our experience with smoking prevention that taxing a specific item could really make a big difference in terms of consumption. And so we think the tax is an appropriate companion with the education. How high is the tax in Philadelphia and what did you choose to tax? The tax is one and a half cents per ounce. So that means if you get a 20-ounce bottle of soda, that would be about 30 cents. Or if you get a two-liter bottle, which they tend to sell cheaper on a per ounce basis, it might add as much as one dollar to the overall price. The proposal from the mayor's office, when this tax was first proposed in Philadelphia, was they would tax beverages with added sugar or added regular sweeteners. But the City Council wanted to also include artificial sweeteners. So the tax includes any beverage that includes sugar or high fructose corn syrup or artificial sweeteners. Mayor Michael Nutter, Philadelphia's previous mayor, came close to getting into tax passed but was not successful. But when Philadelphia's current mayor, James Kenney took office, he used a different approach and the tax was passed. What did the two mayors do differently from one another? Mayor Nutter actually took two tries at this. One time he proposed that the purpose of the tax was for health benefits--for people's own health. Another time he tried to say that he had a major deficit and this would help with that deficit. Neither one of those really got a lot of public support. They didn't like the idea of having taxation just to fill a deficit or I think there was a lot of skepticism about the value of the tax for people's health. When Mayor Kenney came in on the third try, to a certain extent that groundwork had been laid--people understood the risks of sugary drink. But he tried a very different approach and he emphasized that the revenue would go towards things that people really cared about. Typically for expanded Pre-K for low income children and for rebuilding the city's parks and recreation centers and libraries, which really needed a lot of additional renovations. And the public really responded to that. I was with him in the community meetings and talked to folks and people continued to have skepticism that this would have a real impact on obesity. But they saw that it made sense if it funded those things that they cared about, and they care very much about these centers. You have been around this soda tax discussion for a long time and to say that the beverage companies are opposed would be an understatement. What have the company's done in Philadelphia to try to fight the taxes? Oh Gosh. Where to start? Every technique you can imagine. First they lobbied very, very hard. They mobilized the Teamsters, which are the people who drive the trucks that delivered beverage. They became their ground forces who held rallies. Teamsters took their trucks, and they did loops of city hall blaring their horn and shut down traffic there. They distributed flyers and mailings. Soda companies also brought in a variety of partners to do the speaking for them, particularly the grocery stores. Where the grocery stores were calling it a grocery tax and they were claiming that it was going to reduce the employment in the grocery industry. Soda companies also produced a series of a pseudo-scientific studies, and pseudo-economic studies about how ineffective and damaging this would be for the city. They wrote op-eds in the paper. They sued the city over the tax. They are now funding an effort to preempt the tax at the state level in Pennsylvania. And in the upcoming election, they're funding opposition candidates to challenge the mayor and city council members. All this is costing them certainly in the millions, maybe tens of millions of dollars. It's hard to reconcile their arguments that the tax won't work with how much money they're spending the fight it. Yeah, and it's hard to reconcile their argument that this is somehow bad for the economy. If they took that, whatever it is: 10, 20, $30,000,000, and just employed people, Philadelphia would have a huge employment boom in the city. With tobacco and also soda taxes elsewhere, it's been common for the industry to create front groups with wholesome sounding names to be the spokespeople for these efforts to challenge the taxes. Does that happen in Philadelphia as well? Yeah, absolutely. You don't hear it being spoken on from the beverage company themselves--not from Coke and Pepsi. They created a group that I've forgotten its name, it's something like that People For No Grocery Taxes or something like that. But it's the beverage companies that are doing this. And they're the ones coordinating all the efforts of all the other groups that are most prominent. But the voices that you hear the most from are the grocery stores. And that has gotten some success in persuading people in Philadelphia that the tax has been damaging to the grocery industry. Which it has not been. They managed to make some headway with that. You mentioned one of the challenges the industry has filed is to stop the tax by challenging it in the courts. On what grounds did they challenge the tax and what was the outcome? Well, the central claim was that this was effectively a sales tax. And the City of Philadelphia does not have the legal authority to pass a sales tax. But it's not a sales tax. It's a tax on the distributors of sugary drinks, and those distributors can choose to do what they want with it. They could pass the tax on in the prices that they charge their retailers. The retailers can choose, or not, to pass the tax on to the price to their customer. A sales tax is something that you apply right at the retail store and a customer says hey, this is different. But that was their claim, that this was effectively a sales tax. They also argued that this tax was not uniform, and it's a principle in Pennsylvania and probably other laws that any tax has to be fair. You can't say, well, I'm going to tax your house, but not the house next door. And you know, uniformity is in the eye of the beholder, but this was a tax on all sugary drinks in the city. They did not make any headway on the uniformity argument. And the sales tax argument went all the way to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and the Supreme Court ruled in the city's favor. This was not a sales tax. The city had the authority. So is it too early to know what the impact of the tax has been on consumption of these beverages? Now we're getting a number of studies that are coming out that are giving a very consistent picture. First, in the work that we've been collaborators on, we see that sales of sugary drinks in the large grocery stores--the ones that have electronic scanners--have fallen by about 50 percent. Then in surveys that have been done with people on the street and through telephone surveys, self-reported consumption is down 35-45 percent. There is no question that this caused a big reduction in sales and consumption. So what about the industry predictions that people would lose jobs and that consumers would flee across the Philadelphia border to buy their soda elsewhere? Philadelphia has a long border and geographically it's not a very large city. So it is easy for people to travel a few blocks to get into the suburbs. And the studies of grocery store sales suggest there are a small number of people that are making a small increase in grocery stores sales right at the border. But the overall grocery sector in the city has shown no loss of jobs and the overall food and beverage sector in the city has had continued job growth during this period. So again, there are many false claims that this has hurt the grocery store industry, but stores are doing just fine. So what do you think the future of taxes will be? I expect that this is something that other cities are going to see the success of Philadelphia and want to do. Now, the beverage companies clearly are fighting this not just for Philadelphia's sake, but also to scare off other places. So there will be continued conflict. But, there's no question that you can get through the conflict and it achieves at least the short term goal of reducing sugary drink consumption. And I'm very optimistic that it's going to achieve a long term goal of helping to slow if not turn around the epidemic of obesity. So I believe you're going hear a lot more about this. You've been a real public health pioneer, not only was sugar beverage taxes, but in other areas as well. So it's very nice of you to share the history of this story. And it'll be interesting to see how it gets written as time goes forward. And I know that you're going to be a central figure in those efforts, so thank you so much for joining us today.     Produced by Deborah Hill at the World Food Policy Center

Best of Program | 1/14/19 - Partying in Puerto Rico? - Who Wants to Be President?  - Who Is The Democrat Party 2020?  - Soda Tax, 2 Years Later = Fail? - Beating the guy at the end of the bar? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Philadelphia's sweetened beverage tax has funded the first round of 2000 pre-K slots with the planned roll out of 1000 more next fall and over 5000 the year after. This tax hasn't been without controversy and Loraine Ballard Morrill speaks with Jeff Brown, President and CEO of Brown Superstores who lays out his argument on why he's opposes it.

School Board Member Raaheela Ahmed joins us this week to discuss "Soda Tax." Elected to the Prince George's County Board of Education in 2016, Raaheela talks with us about her experiences running for office, what it's like to be one of six Millennials on the county's school board, and why Leslie's experiences grappling with complex policy issues as a new City Councilor resonated with her. We also add the newly sworn-in U.S. Representative Lauren Underwood, the youngest black woman to ever serve in Congress, to our Wall of Inspirational Women.

Host and KYW Newsradio Community Affairs reporter Cherri Gregg asks the burning questions in the aftermath of false Blackface allegations against the Mummers. We walk through the flames of this discussion with Charles Gallagher, a LaSalle sociology professor who is a nationally recognized expert on race and ethnicity, Mikhel Harrison, State Director of Indivisible who organized a protest against the Mummer's New Year's Day performance and Michael Inemer, longtime Mummer and Captain of the Finnegan NYB. The Flashpoint newsmaker of the week is Jeff Brown, President and CEO of Brown Superstores. He made headlines when he announced he has no choice but to close his Shoprite in Overbrook because of the soda tax. Our changemaker of the week is Footprints to Recovery. Bridgette Vail, executive director of the Wayne Facility provided details about their "Socks of Love," initiative. Flashpoint airs every Saturday at 9:30pm and Sunday at 8:30am on KYW Newsradio. Subscribe to the Flashpoint Podcast on the Apple Podcast, Radio.com or others apps where you get your podcast by searching "Flashpoint KYW." See omnystudio.com/policies/listener for privacy information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Seattle implemented a “soda tax” at the beginning of the year and so far it’s brought in $10 million in revenue. Kyle shares his thoughts on how that might affect people's buying habits and even your own financial life.

The Army wants to recruit more Generation Z citizens, the US military adds units to Europe to counter the Russians and the liberal favorite soda tax has extremely negative consequences on the economy.

Show Notes: Industry Conflicts: https://www.eater.com/2017/6/6/15745226/restaurant-industry-challenges Portland Burritos Disaster: https://nextshark.com/kooks-burritos-heroes-publically-expose-white-owned-restaurants-guilty-of-cultural-appropriation-all-over-portland/ Dave Beran's Dialogue: https://www.eater.com/2017/6/8/15759486/dave-beran-dialogue-santa-monica-opening-gallery-food-hall Barr in Copenhagen: http://www.grubstreet.com/2017/06/barr-restaurant-taking-over-noma-space.html Olmsted Bistro?: https://ny.eater.com/2017/6/12/15783108/olmsteds-greg-baxtrom-second-restaurant-prospect-heights Seattle's Soda Tax: http://www.grubstreet.com/2017/06/seattle-latest-city-to-tax-sugary-soda.html Chefs & Instagram: http://www.grubstreet.com/2017/06/how-high-end-chefs-have-embraced-instagram.html Cooking for Critics: http://www.grubstreet.com/2017/06/cooking-for-restaurant-critics.html WWDC '17: https://techcrunch.com/2017/06/05/crunch-report-everything-wwdc-2017/ Black Panther Trailer: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/black-panther-teaser-trailer-racks-up-89m-views-first-24-hours-1012811 Toothache Magazine: https://sf.eater.com/2017/6/5/15743022/toothache-magazine-nick-muncy-coi-pastry-chef-sf

Seattle Mayor Ed Murray has proposed a 1.75 cent per ounce tax on the distribution of sweetened beverages, and the City Council is considering it. Lindsay Hovind of the American Heart Association and Ryan Hopkins of West Seattle's Boss Drive-In debate the proposal.

NPR reports that “The World Health Organization has called on nations around the globe toenact taxes on sugary beverages. AndBloomberg Philanthropies says raising taxes on sugary beverages can be part of the strategy to ‘reduce consumer demand for unhealthy foods and beverages, improve the food environment, and make healthier choices easier for everyone.'”

This morning we sadly learned that Fox News political commentator and former Hannity and Colmes co-host, Alan Colmes, has passed away. He was 66 years old. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family and friends.-Stu brings up Ellen Degeneres' statement on the latest White House statement on transgender bathroom rules and explains how he would like it to be a state matter rather than a federal issue. Pat wonders why only the feelings of the transgender individual matter during this time and how everyone else is practically excluded from the debate.-Stu reports that the 100 protesters who refused to leave the Dakota Access Pipeline area destroyed the land they camped in. Is the protest really about the pipeline or just a chance to protest for no reason? The guys wonder how big are the spills from these pipelines? Surprisingly the statistics show that they're not really that big of a deal with a few rare exceptions.-We have an update on the balloon currently floating on the high ceiling in Stu's house. Having floated upward during last month's baby shower for Stu's sister-in-law, it has now been up there for 34 days straight. Simply put, it doesn't look like it's coming down anytime soon.-The guys talk about how astronomers have discovered seven new planets orbiting a distant star. These planets range in size from that of Mercury to that of Earth. Pat makes a mistake on which telescopes are used for such findings, and as you guess, Stu steps in to save him. -Stu likes the new Philadelphia soda and sugary drinks tax because he thinks that it will convince other cities not to do it. Pat talks about a time when he lived in Montana and how people would drive to the Native American reservations to buy cigarettes because a new tax that was driving up prices.-Stu mentions that people will go to other places to get the items that they want using the city of Irving, Texas and local liquor stores as an example. -The guys talk about how the Mets are paying former player Bobby Bonilla, $6 million dollars because they were caught up in Bernie Madoff's infamous ponzi scheme.-The guys talk about how Huffington Post Lifestyle journalist Jane Seo was disqualified from a half marathon because her timing chip was showing unusually fast times in the latter half of the race. It was revealed that she had indeed cheated and she has since apologized. It turns out that a man who is paid to ensure fairness in running, Jarred Rudder, was shown a photo of her at the finish line with the odd times showing on her watch.-HOVERBIKE!!! Yes, a Russian company has built a prototype flying machine ridden by a human like a motorcycle. But is it too good to be true? Are its rotors too dangerous? Why doesn't it look like a speeder from 'Return of the Jedi'?-Glenn Beck joins the program with his round table discussion about the signers the Declaration of Independence whom you may not have heard of.Examples include Stephen Hopkins, who struggled with writing his name because he had either a stroke or Parkinson's disease, which was not known during that time. Another is George Wythe, the man who taught Thomas Jefferson law, later met an untimely end and inadvertently exonerated his own killer.-The guys talk about actors and actresses who misplaced their Oscars and wonder why they should even care given their circumstances. Stu is puzzled that Whoopi Goldberg got an Oscar and she is also an E.G.O.T. (Emmy, Grammy, Oscar, Tony winner). In this bit it is also reveled that Jeffy wants to be a bathroom attendant...-The guys eat new Blueberry Pancake Crunch cereal in the latest edition of SPOONS! Pat and Stu give it extremely high ratings while Jeffy is still unsure.Listen to Pat & Stu for FREE on TheBlaze Radio Network from 5p-7p ET, Mon. through Fri. www.theblaze.com/radioTwitter: @PatandStuFacebook: PatandStu Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Philadelphia has taken the lead among big cities in levying a soda tax to raise revenue and promote healthier diets for residents. But the impact on beverage consumption and consumer health is uncertain. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Help support the show! - www.patreon.com/dailyinternet   #10 - Ubisoft is giving 1 free pc game a month until the end of 2016 to everyone   #9 - Samurai Jack!   #8 - #SodaTax   #7 - Muslim-Americans have repeatedly informed authorities of fellow Muslims they fear might be turning to extremism, law enforcement officials say, contrary to a claim by presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump this week.   #6 - The first big company to say it's serving the legal marijuana trade? Microsoft ... Microsoft is breaking the corporate taboo on pot this week by announcing a partnership to begin offering software that tracks marijuana plants from “seed to sale,” as the pot industry puts it.   #5 - TIL that the company who made Settlers of Catan made a real 'Cones of Dunshire' game, after the fictional game Ben Wyatt made up in Parks and Recreation.   #4 - Decriminalisation Call As 'War On Drugs' Fails. Top public health experts say illicit drug use should be treated as a health issue rather than punishing those who need treatment.   #3 - open-source materials in place of textbooks, an initiative that could save students as much as $1,300 a year. Such open educational resources—created using open licenses that let students download or print materials for free—have gained popularity as the price of print textbooks have skyrocketed   #2 - MP Jo Cox dead after shooting attack   #1 - TIL a pig named Lulu saved her owner's life while the woman was having a heart attack. The pig heard the cries of pain, forced her way out of the yard, ran into the road and ‘played dead' to stop the traffic. A driver stopped, the pig led him to the trailer, he heard the woman and called 911.   Thanks Show contact E-mail: feedback.ireadit@gmail.com Twitter: @ireaditcast Phone: (508)-738-2278   Michael Schwahn: @schwahnmichael Nathan Wood: @bimmenstein "Music" Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/

The soda tax leaves Dave flat