Here's why Santa Cruz just added a soda tax, in defiance of a statewide ban

Los Angeles Times - May 2nd, 2025

Santa Cruz has implemented a new 'soda tax,' marking the first such measure in California since a statewide ban in 2018. Voters approved the tax, which imposes a 2-cents-per-ounce levy on sugary drinks, in November. The tax affects beverages with caloric sweeteners and 40+ calories per 12 ounces, including sodas and energy drinks. This move positions Santa Cruz against the American Beverage Association, which has been a vocal opponent. Local leaders, like City Councilmember Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson, emphasize that the tax reflects a stand against big industry influence over local communities.

The introduction of this tax highlights ongoing tensions between public health initiatives and the beverage industry. While proponents argue it addresses health risks associated with sugary drinks, critics, including the American Beverage Association, view it as an unfair financial burden on working families amid economic challenges. The debate underscores broader issues of public health policy, industry lobbying, and economic equity. The measure's passage in Santa Cruz could encourage other municipalities to challenge the existing ban, potentially reshaping legislative approaches to health-related taxation in California.

Santa Cruz Legislation Public Health Economic Impact Soda Tax American Beverage Association Jerry Brown Shebreh Kalantari Johnson Nancy Brown

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

7.8

Fair Story

Consider it well-founded

The article provides a comprehensive overview of the new soda tax in Santa Cruz, offering a balanced perspective by including viewpoints from both proponents and opponents. It is factually accurate, with well-supported claims and relevant context. The article is timely and engages with public interest topics, such as public health and economic policy. However, it could benefit from additional transparency regarding the sources of some claims and a broader range of expert opinions to enhance source quality. Overall, the article is clear, readable, and effectively communicates the complexity of the issue, though it could further explore potential legal challenges and the broader impact of the tax.

Accuracy

The article's factual accuracy is high, as it correctly describes the implementation of a soda tax in Santa Cruz, the first since a 2018 statewide ban. The tax details, including the 2-cents-per-ounce rate and exemptions, are accurately reported. The article also correctly notes the existence of similar taxes in other California cities and the historical context of the statewide ban. The claims about support from the American Heart Association and opposition from the American Beverage Association are verifiable and supported by statements within the article. However, the potential legal challenges due to the statewide ban could have been elaborated further to enhance understanding.

Balance

The article presents a balanced view by including perspectives from both proponents and opponents of the soda tax. It quotes Santa Cruz City Councilmember Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson, who supports the tax, and Steve Maviglio of the American Beverage Association, who opposes it. This inclusion of diverse viewpoints helps provide a comprehensive understanding of the issue. However, the article leans slightly towards the proponents' perspective by framing the measure as a 'David vs. Goliath' battle, which might influence readers' perceptions.

Clarity

The article is well-structured and uses clear, accessible language, making it easy to understand. It logically presents the information, starting with the main event (the soda tax implementation) and then providing background and perspectives. The tone is neutral, although slightly leaning towards the proponents' narrative. The article could improve clarity by elaborating on the potential legal implications of the statewide ban and how Santa Cruz managed to implement the tax despite it.

Source quality

The article references credible sources, such as statements from the American Heart Association and the American Beverage Association. These organizations are authoritative in the context of health and industry perspectives, respectively. However, the article could benefit from additional independent sources or expert opinions to further substantiate its claims and provide a broader context. The reliance on statements from involved parties may introduce bias, but the article does well to present both sides.

Transparency

The article provides sufficient context about the soda tax, including its history and the motivations behind it. However, it lacks detailed disclosure of the methodology used to gather information or the specific sources of some claims. For instance, while it mentions the American Heart Association's support, it does not detail how this support was manifested. Greater transparency in these areas would enhance the reader's understanding of the basis for the claims made.