Sugary drink taxes can dismantle systemic inequities by giving back to communities

As Hawaiʻi joins the growing number of jurisdictions considering a fee on sugary beverages, it is no surprise to hear the dissenting voices of businesses, who are predictably concerned about increased prices causing flagging sales.

One tried-and-true industry strategy is to appear altruistic while still protecting their own interests. Case in point: recent media pushing the message that sugary drink fees are regressive, meaning they take money from the poor, exacerbating income inequality.

Whether sugary drink fees help or hurt low-income communities is actually the topic of a robust national debate. The argument that these taxes are regressive does not take into account the fact that these fees raise revenue specifically for community reinvestment programs. It also distracts from deeper systemic inequities faced by communities—biases that are actually perpetuated by many industry practices.

We have ample evidence to show that low-income neighborhoods are caught in an unfortunate set of circumstances: less access to healthy food and drink options, decreased opportunities for physical activity, and limited access to healthcare.

What’s worse, residents of these same neighborhoods are explicitly targeted by companies that produce sugary drinks through a practice known as “predatory marketing.” This targeting takes many forms, from pandering to certain ethnic and age groups to increases in ad frequency on the early days of the month when food stamps are distributed.

These industry tactics are nothing new. We saw it with tobacco, and now we see it with soda, alcohol retailers, and oil companies. Again and again, these groups try to sow doubt in the minds of the public with disingenuous arguments, issue after issue.