The Ecology Center strongly supports the Berkeley Soda Tax, which will be on the ballot in November. We are part of a wide grassroots effort, fighting for the health of the next generation. August and September are prime times for canvassing and phone banking for the Berkeley vs. Big Soda campaign, so we urge our members and supporters to volunteer. Phone banking happens Sun-Thurs from 5:30 – 8pm, and door-to-door canvassing happens Sat 10 am – 1 pm. Contact Evelyn at email@example.com to sign up to help make this happen!
Your support matters now more than ever – “Big Soda” has arrived in Berkeley. They have filed a lawsuit and hired an expensive law firm, in a classic bullying move straight from their playbook. It’s a move to confuse and distract voters from the real issue: that sugary drinks cause diabetes. They have started rolling out push polls and promotion materials, paid for by $300,000 of their profits, which they got by marketing disease-causing sugary drinks to kids and communities of color. Measure D is a great first step toward addressing the diabetes epidemic, and the response from the community has been incredibly positive. We look forward to Berkeley being the first City to successfully pass a soda tax!
A volunteer from the “No on measure D” arrived at my door step today, trying to persuade me with all reasons to vote against it. A common theme of all reasons was emotional distractions
– costs will go up, retailers will pass the cost to consumers
– the ballot is poorly written. Look at SF, it is so much better
– its all dirty politics, look at other drinks which will not be taxed
and blah blah …
Fundamentally, rather than educating consumers, they take the approach of scare tactics and as is written in the post, fundamentally distracting from the basic idea – “sugary drinks” serve no basic purpose in human health other than disease. For anyone seeking to decide for themselves, here are on CDC links
It may be true that the ballot is poorly written and that a specific fund would be more appropriate for the tax revenue. However that does not change the fundamental issue of discouraging usage of sugary drinks. A possible reason for the lack of a specific fund is that to pass such a measure requires 2/3rds majority instead of 50% votes, the latter being an easier step.