As San Francisco braces itself for the possibility of spending a quarter extra just for the privilege of enjoying an ice cold can of bubbly corn syrup, the lobbyists from Big Soda would like to make sure that San Francisco's carbonated libertarians hear the other side of the story.
According to the soda lobby, our small report on the proposed legislation "lacks industry perspective." So we have reprinted below email we received from the VP of Communications and Media for community organization and public affairs firm BMWL, on behalf of their client: an organization called "Californians For Food And Beverage Choice," which is a front for the American Beverage Association:
Statement on Proposed San Francisco Beverage Sugar Tax
Californians have rejected beverage taxes like the one San Francisco Supervisor Scott Wiener proposes because such measures are unnecessary, wasteful distractions from serious policymaking. Providing people with education, opportunities for physical activity and diverse beverage choices to fit their lifestyles are proven strategies for maintaining health. Just last November, voters in the California cities of El Monte and Richmond said as much by soundly defeating proposed taxes on the sale of sugar-sweetened beverages—with 76 percent and 67 percent, respectively, voting “no.”
OK, so there you go, folks. The Soda lobby would like you, dear consumer to kindly pick the beverage choice that appropriately fits your lifestyle. For this SFist editor, that happens to be a decent glass of Bourbon, which the city already taxes to death anyway.