Viewpoints and values in the debate over taxing sugar-sweetened beverages

Per capita consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSB) in the U.S. has increased dramatically in recent decades, and evidence suggests that intake of these beverages has increased risk for obesity, diabetes, and heart disease. In recent years, proposals to increase the cost of SSB through excise taxes have generated significant attention. However, such measures are controversial and voters recently opposed such initiatives on the ballots in Richmond and El Monte, CA. New proposals (such as those in San Francisco and Berkeley) continue to attract attention from those with different perspectives. Common objections to these initiatives are that such taxes are regressive (they disproportionately impact the poor), unfair (increasing costs for everyone), and indicators of an overly controlling ‘nanny’ state. This presentation uses data from a content analysis of public comments in online forums where readers can comment on articles and news topics. Searches using relevant keywords were conducted using databases such as ProQuest Newsstand and LexisNexis Academic to find U.S. news media related to the taxation of SSB during the period 2009-2013. Internet searches were conducted to verify that no media had been missed. Only those articles with interactive options for reader comments were included. A codebook was developed and reader comments and interactions were organized, coded, and analyzed using NVIVO. Findings highlight important differences in values related to individual vs. governmental responsibility and the social and health impacts of SSB tax initiatives. Understanding the values on different sides of this debate is critical to the success of campaigns to tax sugar-sweetened beverages. Strategies to increase support for such initiatives are suggested.