Philadelphia’s seven-year-old soda tax has increased health in the city, but maybe not, according to a story in the Inquirer that omits some important information.
The Inquirer favored the targeted tax (I did not) and this piece by writer Aubrey Whelan reflects this bias.
Let’s start at the top, with a headline that reads, “Philly’s soda tax had an impact on health in the city, new research finds.”
In my reading of the story, the headline should have read, “Philly’s soda tax may have had a small impact ….” Emphasis on may.
Whelan cited the study’s authors, but named only one, who apparently studied the effect of the tax on people three years after its implantation, which was in 2017.
It is 2024. It took four years to analyze the study?
The study focuses on BMI [Body Mass Index], a measure of a person’s body fat. I credit Whelan for full disclosure, because she reports that the American Medical Association does not regard BMI a good predictor of an individual’s health. Despite that caveat, the story cites BMI.
In the third paragraph of her story, Whelan writes that average BMI “is still increasing in Philadelphia,” but “at a slower rate” than control groups outside the city.
“The study found ‘limited evidence’ that BMIs and the prevalence of obesity decreased in the city three years after the implementation of the tax.”
I’ve read that passage until I am cross-eyed and what is says is there is “limited evidence” that people did not get fatter despite the tax.
That contradicts the headline.
The story correctly notes that drinking sugary drinks is associated with weight gain and other conditions such as diabetes. No one ever argued that sugary drinks are good for you, but the story neglected to mention that in addition to sugary drinks, the 1.5-cent per ounce tax also fell on diet soda, which contains no sugar.
The story repeatedly quotes researcher Christina Roberto, without ever reporting an opposing point of view. This is an example of Inquirer blindness I have also found in reporting in immigration and bicycle issues.
Receipts from the tax were to pay for pre-K education, and improvements to parks and community centers.
The last reporting I saw showed that the receipts fell short of cheerful predictions.
The story reports that sales of the affected beverages dropped by half in the years after the tax was instituted.
But consumption was down only a little.
What do those two stats mean?
Many Philadelphians predictably are buying the heavily-taxed beverages outside the city limits.
Duh!
“To me, this policy is a clear no-brainer,” Whelan allows researcher Roberto to say, without contradiction. I agree it is a no-brainer, but not the way she thinks.
Did not this entire story scream for an opposing point of view, from, say, Jeff Brown, owner of the ShopRite, who opposed the tax, and later ran for mayor?
He had predicted loss of sales, loss of revenue, and possibly loss of employees, due to the onerous tax.
Did any of that happen? Inquiring minds are waiting to find out.
Excellent questions! I wonder how many people have their hands on stories like this, from conceiving the idea, researching, interviewing, writing, and editing.
That the tax is also on diet soda reveals its true nature; it was always a monet grab and was never about health.
Time and again, Council acts as though Philadelphia were an island where there were no feasible alternatives to its policies. I encourage a trip west on Market Street to the city line. You’ll find a number of small establishments in Delco that owe their existence to Philadelphia tax policy. They sell cigarettes and soda. Whodda thunk it?
To me, it was always about the Benjamins and went after a soft target, following taxes on cigarettes, and across the bar drinks. Who gets targeted next?
I don’t know. The Inquirer staff has been greatly reduced in recent years. At the Daily News, a writers paper and pretty informal, it might be 2 or 3, back then. Inquirer might have been 4-6, then. Now? My guess is 2-4.
As a soda drinker, I simply shop out of the City. It’s easy for me. Sadly, some people who enjoy soda don’t have the means to drive to a suburban store and are forced to pay the insanely high tax. Many of these people are seniors on a limnited budget or others with very low income, so they’re getting hurt financially for simply wanting a little “spice” (if you can call sugar that) in their lives. And given the fact that the added revenue fell short of the rosy projections, and the overall inefficiency of government to manage most programs efficiently, I’d call this another failed effort.
I it may sound very “un-Democrat” of me to say, but legislation ain’t ever gonna make people healthier. That ain’t how it works.
What’s that old expression? “Half a story is worse than none!” It’s something that the Inquirer seems to excel at anymore. I often wondered how this program would go. You really don’t need any more than a half a brain to figure it out – and it’s something the City Council seems to excel at as well: Half-brains-manship.
Keep after this story, Stu!
Yes. Freeze is 100% correct. In fact mandating “healthy” choices leads to backlash. I remember when Tara was working for the Health Dept. and Farley got rid of all of the soda and “junk” food in the vending machines. The employees would bring in soda, chips, M&Ms — all sorts of processed sugary, sodium packed snacks and elaborately display these lunches on their desks and in the break rooms as a deliberate “F*ck you” to him. I never liked the guy so I thought it was a real hoot. That he didn’t think that his mandate would fail, astounded me.
BTW, we always went across the bridge for soda AND for groceries. We’d shopped in town until that stupid tax.
Per the workplace…. Years ago Inquirer got rid of cigarette vending machines. Replaced them with soda and fattening, high-calorie snacks. Great health choice.
Inquirer headline should be “Philly: getting fatter slower.”
About your question as to what will be taxed next, is it true beginning in 2026 all Philadelphia residents will have to wear an electronic nostril plug to measure the amount of oxygen consumed, with excessive users taxed, to help the environment?
Your headline is perfect. Philadelphians already are taxed in rainfall, so air isn’t out of the question.
Wanda, the only 4 words we need to understand economics are, “people respond to incentives”. You are proof of that as are the many retailers just outside the city limits who are benefitting from Philadelphia’s tax policies.
Back when we lived in Philly, we used to buy our booze in Jersey or Delaware. It was not only cheaper, but the retailers acted like they valued our business because they knew we had choices. Those were the incentives to shop out of state instead of patronizing the state stores whose employees didn’t care.
“F” the former mayor for his proposal of the tax and “F” anybody on City Council who voted for this tax. And the biggest “F” comes from me to all of them because this city resident travels outside the city to avoid paying this ridiculous money-grab of a tax set forth by the USUALS (for anybody smart enough to know what I’m talking about. Don’t get me wrong. Taxes are a necessary evil. But money-grab taxes are just plain evil just like the political party that USUALLY passes them on to us.