Zoey Freedman: Proposed soda tax an ineffective solution

If Proposition E and Measure D – which would add a tax to sweetened beverages – pass, living in some parts of California will not be as sweet.

Both San Francisco and Berkeley will have measures on their ballots this fall proposing to add a tax of 2 cents and 1 cent per ounce, respectively, on most sweetened beverages, including sodas, iced teas and energy drinks, among others.

Although taxation on sweetened drinks may seem trivial, Proposition E is actually one of the most heavily backed and intensely debated propositions on San Francisco’s ballot. In San Francisco, the “Yes on E” campaign is made up of a coalition that includes nurses, teachers, unions and parent-teacher associations. The opposition to the measure comes from the American Beverage Association California PAC, which includes companies such as Coca-Cola, Pepsi and Dr Pepper. So far, $7.7 million has been donated in opposition to the measure.

The taxation on soda is meant to reduce sugar consumption and improve the public’s health. But taxation is a short-sighted tactic to curbing unhealthy sugar intake. Education is a more sustainable way to ensure that the public makes conscious choices about its nutritional intake and that it continues to do so in the future.

While education is of most importance in the early stages – at elementary schools, for example – it’s also crucial for students of all ages to have access to programs that teach them what to eat. At UCLA, there is no widespread education on nutrition available, which is particularly puzzling because the foods available in dining halls, including an array of carbonated soft drinks in every hall, don’t easily lend themselves to healthy dietary choices.

The Healthy Campus Initiative, a campus-wide movement that educates students about various aspects of health and wellness, does take steps to inform the student body about nutrition. But there are no mandatory programs – at New Student Orientation, for example – that help students make educated decisions about what they eat and drink in the dining halls and elsewhere.

But the lack of educational resources at our university is nothing compared to the lack of resources at primary and secondary schools, especially in underserved communities. Without creating greater resources, a tax ultimately won’t deter people from consuming the beverages they have grown used to.

Providing extra education in California public schools on healthier eating and on ways to lead a healthier lifestyle is key to making change to public health.

Ultimately, people should be trusted to make their own choices when it comes to purchasing and consuming food and beverages. If they are provided the tools to educate themselves about what they’re putting into their bodies, they can make more appropriate choices when it comes to preserving their own health.

Creating these resources will not necessarily require large changes for primary and secondary schools. If schools already provide health classes – and many do – a larger portion of the classes should be devoted to educating students on healthy eating, including adequate consumption of sugars. By targeting and educating younger generations, change will occur faster and be carried out further into the future.

Not only is the tax not going to educate consumers on why indulging in overly sweetened drinks affects personal health, but the small price increase won’t necessarily deter people craving their favorite sweet drinks either. A 40-cent increase in the cost of soda is most likely not significant enough to cause people to opt out of buying a Coke or Pepsi.

The immense amounts of money and time being spent in support of the measures would be better put toward developing educational nutrition programs or even city-wide health awareness programs. These programs could include public ads and posters and even talks about healthy consumption and healthy living.

If the measures in San Francisco and Berkeley pass this fall, it is likely that attempts to pass a soda tax will spread throughout other California cities, including Los Angeles. In that scenario, UCLA students should not waste resources in supporting the bill.

Instead, we should lobby for more comprehensive nutritional education both on our campus and elsewhere in Los Angeles.