Big soda’s campaign against S.F., Berkeley measures may fall flat

Co-owner Taylor Peck stocks sodas at the Fizzary shop in the Mission District. San Francisco voters are considering an unprecedented 2-cents-per-ounce tax on sugary drinks. Co-owner Taylor Peck stocks sodas at the Fizzary shop in the Mission District. San Francisco voters are considering an unprecedented 2-cents-per-ounce tax on sugary drinks. Photo: Peter Earl McCollough / Special To The Chronicle Photo: Peter Earl McCollough / Special To The Chronicle Image 1 of / 12 Caption Close Big soda’s campaign against S.F., Berkeley measures may fall flat 1 / 12 Back to Gallery

The only visible opponents of the soda tax measures in Berkeley and San Francisco are none other than the soda-pop makers themselves.

There’s no groundswell of opposition from soda drinkers, no libertarians or Tea Party members rushing to lend support to the super-size-me crowd.

The makers of soda and other sugar-sweetened drinks are trying to defy the odds and take on every city or government entity that tries to place a tax on their products — and so far it has worked. Since 2009, the American Beverage Association has helped defeat at least 30 tax proposals from Washington state to Maine. In 2012, it helped defeat a soda tax proposal in Richmond.

But San Francisco and Berkeley are different animals. They are activist cities filled with thousands of people who make it a point to eat healthy and avoid foods without nutritional value.

And because of that, the industry has pumped in $7.7 million to defeat the effort in San Francisco and about $1.7 million to fight the Berkeley measure.

“They believe if they can defeat these measures in Berkeley and San Francisco, no community in the country will be willing to take them on,” said Larry Tramutola, the political consultant to Berkeley’s Yes on Measure D campaign.

Berkeley is proposing a 1-cent-per-ounce soda tax and San Francisco a 2-cents-per-ounce tax. San Francisco would use the tax revenue, estimated at more than $30 million annually, to fund children’s nutrition and physical education programs. Berkeley proposed the measure as a general tax to avoid the two-thirds majority required to approve a special tax. It would provide up to $1.5 million to the city’s general fund.

Big soda has blanketed Berkeley with advertisements on bus shelters, at BART stations and on billboards. It has hired actors, bought radio and TV advertisements, hired street canvassers, and conducted at least five different survey polls, Tramutola said. “Anything that can be bought, they have bought.”

Supporters of the Berkeley measure, who are being outspent 10 to 1, include former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who as mayor tried unsuccessfully to ban oversize soda drinks. He has contributed $85,000 and the American Heart Association gave $23,000 to the Berkeley effort, Tramutola said.

What’s so sad is that the soda industry’s actions are a prime example of what’s wrong with the nation’s electoral system.

It’s government’s job to make smart policy decisions that help promote people’s chances of living healthy, fruitful and prosperous lives — and taxing soda to offset the potential health risks caused by long-term use is a legitimate proposal.

On the other side of the ledger sits the soda industry, whose argument is solely driven by its long-term revenue goals — and very little else.

Their arguments — that taxes don’t make people healthier and that they’re a financial burden on consumers and merchants — are downright ridiculous.

In a country where the average resident consumes nearly 45 gallons of soda every year, where we drive around in cars with expandable drink holders and where our kids suffer from weight issues more than ever, responding to the issue is the appropriate government action.

I have nothing against the soda industry, and I enjoy its products in moderation. I’m good for a can of Coca-Cola a week, and if I have to pay a few cents more for the product, I don’t think it’s going to throw my finances into arrears.

But if there are people out there who will be strapped for cash because of a 20-cent or 40-cent tax on a 20-ounce bottle of soda — depending on which city you live in — you may want to review your dietary choices.

It’s true that passing a tax won’t make people any healthier, but the revenue it generates can pay for expanded healthy choices, from exercising to eating right — and that’s a good government proposal.

Chip Johnson is a San Francisco Chronicle columnist. His column runs on Tuesday and Friday. E-mail: chjohnson@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @chjohnson