In 2016, the beverage industry, led by Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, and the American Beverage Association (ABA), launched an aggressive campaign to oppose soda tax measures across the United States, including Boulder, Colorado’s Ballot Measure 2H. This page explores the industry’s jaw-dropping spending and deceptive tactics to block the 2-cent per ounce tax on sugar-sweetened beverages, which Boulder voters approved on November 8, 2016, to fund health programs and combat obesity and diabetes.
Unprecedented Spending to Sway Voters
The beverage industry poured significant resources into fighting soda taxes in 2016, with Boulder’s campaign becoming the city’s most expensive ballot fight ever. According to reports, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, and the ABA spent over $20 million in California alone to oppose similar measures in San Francisco, Oakland, and Albany, outspending federal election PAC donations in the state. In Albany, a city of 19,000, the industry spent approximately $4 per resident to influence voters, highlighting the scale of their efforts.
In Boulder, the industry’s financial muscle was evident as they funded campaigns to defeat Ballot Measure 2H, which imposed a 2-cent per ounce excise tax on sugar-sweetened beverages like sodas, energy drinks, and sweetened teas. The tax aimed to reduce consumption and raise $3.8 million annually for health programs targeting low-income communities disproportionately affected by obesity and diabetes.
Deceptive Tactics and the “Grocery Tax” Lie
A key strategy in Big Soda’s playbook was spreading misinformation to confuse voters. The industry ran ads claiming the soda tax was a “grocery tax” that would broadly increase food prices, despite the tax being narrowly applied to distributors of sugar-sweetened beverages. As James Krieger, a public health advocate, noted in the San Francisco Chronicle, “It’s Big Soda using a time-honored tactic of taking a lie and saying it loud enough and enough times that people think it’s true. The wording is crystal clear. It’s a tax levied on distributors of sugary drinks, and not on grocers and not on groceries.”
Leaked internal documents from Coca-Cola revealed their awareness of this deception. A public affairs memo on Philadelphia’s soda tax stated, “TCCC [The Coca-Cola Company] opposes the Philadelphia tax proposal because it unfairly targets one product. … Many states impose sales taxes on foods and beverages, and our Company does not oppose these types of broad-based taxes.” This admission shows that Big Soda opposed targeted soda taxes while supporting broader sales taxes, contradicting their public “grocery tax” narrative.
Parallels to the Tobacco Industry
Critics, including health advocates and the San Francisco Medical Society, compared Big Soda’s tactics to those of the tobacco industry. The society’s president, Richard Podolin, M.D., condemned the deceptive campaign, stating, “The San Francisco Medical Society protests this deceptive campaign, which reminds us of similar efforts by the tobacco industry in the past. … We urge a ‘yes’ vote on Prop. V, for the health of all — especially children.” National Public Radio also highlighted Coca-Cola and PepsiCo’s use of philanthropy to influence policy, further drawing parallels to tobacco industry strategies.
From 2011 to 2015, Coca-Cola and PepsiCo funded 96 U.S. health organizations, including the American Diabetes Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics, while lobbying against 28 public health bills aimed at reducing soda consumption. This funding often silenced potential critics, with groups like Save the Children dropping soda tax advocacy after receiving millions from the industry.
Boulder’s Victory Despite Big Soda’s Efforts
Despite the beverage industry’s heavy spending and misinformation campaigns, Boulder voters approved Ballot Measure 2H, joining cities like San Francisco, Oakland, and Albany in passing soda taxes on November 8, 2016. The measure, championed by the Healthy Boulder Kids coalition, was a landmark public health victory, reflecting growing concern about the health impacts of sugar-sweetened beverages. As Angelique Espinoza of Healthy Boulder Kids stated, “Boulder stood up for our kids. We understand the health threats posed by unhealthy sugary drinks, especially on low-income families.”
In Colorado, Julissa Soto, Region Director for the American Diabetes Association, wrote, “Colorado cannot afford to wait to address the growing diabetes epidemic. … With your support Boulder can be in the forefront of American cities taking action to curb the epidemic of obesity and diabetes.”
The tax, effective July 1, 2017, raised funds for health programs targeting low-income communities, aligning with the World Health Organization’s call for soda taxes to curb obesity and diabetes. Boulder’s success was part of a broader movement, with international examples like Mexico’s 2013 soda tax showing a 6% drop in soda sales overall and a 9% reduction among low-income households.
Why It Matters
Big Soda’s opposition to Boulder’s soda tax highlights the lengths to which the beverage industry will go to protect profits, even at the expense of public health. By funding deceptive campaigns and leveraging philanthropy to influence policy, companies like Coca-Cola and PepsiCo sought to undermine measures like Ballot Measure 2H. Understanding these tactics is crucial for recognizing the challenges faced by public health advocates and the importance of community-driven initiatives like Healthy Boulder Kids.
For more details on Ballot Measure 2H and its impact, visit our Boulder’s 2016 Ballot Measure 2H page. To learn about the coalition behind this initiative, see our About the Initiative page.