Talk:Sugary drink tax/Archive 1

Possible sources
This web site might provide some useful references on the topic.


 * CSPI: Liquid Candy - list of resources on Soda tax

Zodon (talk) 08:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

June edits
Added information for the Richmond, CA ballot measure and a health effects of soda section, as it seems necessary to provide unambiguous reasoning for these measures.Zachomis (talk) 21:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Please cite sources when you add factual information! I looked up the city ordinance and added it. There is no reason to quote sections of each ordinance or tax proposal when they are properly referenced so I am removing the quote.

Health Effects
Wikipedia can't have articles stating 'The latest science, Researchers have shown, Studies find" without specifically referencing what science, which researchers, and what studies. I am removing this section for now. Please reference the source and I have no objection to it in the article. Sully343 (talk) 04:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Rewrites
There were several lines copied verbatim from the NYT source which is a violation of copyright. I am rewriting the ones I found and some sentences that are not encyclopedic or biased. I am also removing unreferenced assertions, and redundant information. I am adding a sub header to #Lobbying for New York campaigning from 2009. I would suggest any new information specifically for the Richmond, CA ordinance to be added in the same fashion.Sully343 (talk) 04:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Possible Deletion of "Purposes of the Tax" Section
The purposes of the soda taxes that have been proposed around the country seem to directly relate to the background of the issue to begin with. The information in the "purposes of the tax" section could be folded into the "Background" section. The material in the "purposes of the tax" section could also be expanded to include socioeconomic consequences as well as the benefits of the various taxes that have been proposed. CDJNRR (talk) 23:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree and have rewritten this into the background while discarding the unreferenced material.Sully343 (talk) 04:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Fair use candidate from Commons: File:Soft Drink.svg
The file File:Soft Drink.svg, used on this page, has been deleted from Wikimedia Commons and re-uploaded at File:Soft Drink.svg. It should be reviewed to determine if it is compliant with this project's non-free content policy, or else should be deleted and removed from this page. If no action is taken, it will be deleted after 7 days. Commons fair use upload bot (talk) 21:21, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Fair use candidate from Commons: File:Soft Drink.svg
The file File:Soft Drink.svg, used on this page, has been deleted from Wikimedia Commons and re-uploaded at File:Soft Drink.svg. It should be reviewed to determine if it is compliant with this project's non-free content policy, or else should be deleted and removed from this page. If no action is taken, it will be deleted after 7 days. Commons fair use upload bot (talk) 21:34, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Deletion discussion
This page is pure POV, apparently written to promote a particular political view with strong commercial overtones. Further, the view promoted meets the criteria of Fringe. The article is on a minor point, which should appear, if at all, in another article (on excise taxes, as a bullet point in a list of proposals, maximum), under the undue weight standard. I recommend deletion.Sfcardwell (talk) 05:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Think should keep. Clearly notability has been established by references in the article.  There are enough proposals along these lines that it seems reasonable to keep the article.  Since this relates to many topics (Pigovian taxation, public health, soft drinks, etc.) it doesn't make sense to try to fold the content into all the places that would refer to it.
 * Undue weight relates to coverage within an article, not clear that applies as a deletion criterion. I am not sure what you consider Fringe here, but expansion of the article to cover other viewpoints and examples would probably handle that.  Zodon (talk) 07:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, I think the Pigovian bit may be a bit mistaken, or at least misleading. It's not a standard externality at all -- the cost of obesity is in normal circumstances borne by the individual.  That healthcare is subsidized or publicly provided doesn't really change the basic usage of the term; it's not a Pigovian tax (a tax designed to correct an inherent market failure) -- at most you could say it's a tax designed to unwind some of the unintended consequences of another government policy.  Austinecon (talk) 16:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Good lord, this entry is a joke. The phrase "a name calculated to make the blood boil" was actually used to describe the NY coalition opposing the soda tax.  I am used to seeing bias in Wikipedia entries, but the author of this entry doesn't even try to hide his amazingly blatant biases.  Only research that is favorable to a soda tax is presented, and those in opposition are portrayed solely as deep-pocketed lobbyists attempting to buy the NY legislature.


 * This entry can certainly be salvaged and deserves a page of its own. If someone feels that this page is mere POV, then they should feel welcome to make any changes they feel necessary to achieve an entry of appropriate balance.  The title of the page could be changed to "Soda Taxes" to denote that the page refers to a category of tax proposals that have popped up in the US over the past several years, rather than an exclusive nation-wide or singular tax.CDJNRR (talk) 23:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I am attempting to improve it. While still needing work, it should not be deleted.Sully343 (talk) 04:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Two years on and this article is still a purely one sided (Pro-soda tax) affair, apparently written by someone with a political agenda, as mentioned by the OP above. There's an ENTIRE section dedicated to "scientific studies" that attempt to justify the tax, a section about potential economic benefits of the tax, but not a SINGLE mention of the other side of the argument. This article is a funny joke & should be deleted since no one attempts to fix it. I'm not going to bother, as the ENTIRE article needs to be re-written from scratch/ It's easier to simply delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.51.159.247 (talk) 12:17, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Soda tax. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090828151637/http://americanheart.mediaroom.com:80/index.php?s=43&item=800 to http://americanheart.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=800
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100404132722/http://www.google.com:80/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iH4SZwbKI9PYhye5kJT_WLhm4B4AD9EQ1LN01 to http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iH4SZwbKI9PYhye5kJT_WLhm4B4AD9EQ1LN01
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130507100406/http://www.yaleruddcenter.org/sodatax.aspx to http://www.yaleruddcenter.org/sodatax.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Soda tax. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141107012218/http://www.berkeleyside.com:80/2014/11/04/berkeley-2014-elections-tune-in-here-for-live-coverage/ to http://www.berkeleyside.com/2014/11/04/berkeley-2014-elections-tune-in-here-for-live-coverage

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:29, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 18 April 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Moved to Sugary drinks tax - also justified by commonname Mike Cline (talk) 13:12, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Soda tax → Sugar tax – The tax relates to the sugar, not the soda. These taxes were called Soda taxes when first introduced in the USA, but they are now being introduced in many other countries, where they are more commonly called Sugar taxes, and in some cases may apply to other products, so the article title is now misleading. Rathfelder (talk) 11:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Support In terms of both recognizability and precision under the Article Title guidelines this would be a positive move. Agree that Soda tax has likely been the default media term in common use in the US for some time, but as tax initiatives are now targeting food and drink products with added sugar beyond just carbonated beverages this title change seems overdue.Aw1805 (talk) 23:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The article currently deals with "a tax or surcharge on soft drinks" according to the intro and this is reflected in the text. "Sugar tax" is a much wider topic and should be created as a new article.  —  AjaxSmack   02:50, 22 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Support per nomination, and WP:WORLDWIDE. "Soda tax" is a US specific term, yet the article discusses a variety of countries. "Sugar tax" is both WP:PRECISE and WP:RECOGNIZABLE, in all countries including the US. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:28, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * PS - since the target is currently a dab page, that can be moved to Sugar tax (disambiguation), or else have the two linked articles Sugar Act and Sugar Tax (album) in a hatnote. This is primary topic, either way. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:31, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Support, "soda" for carbonated soft drink is a peculiarly American term, technically weird, and not well recognised outside America. Technically weird, because "soda" comes from "sodium", from sodium bicarbonate, a chemical used to make carbonated water with minimal pressure equipment, at the price of salty tasting carbonation.  It has nothing to do with sugar content. The only common true "soda"-rich drink is "soda water" which is not sugared.  Most of the sugary drinks covered by this tax are not high in sodium (sodium bicarbonate). Further, many sugary drinks taxed by this taxed are not carbonated at all.  Per User:AjaxSmack's, I suggest Sugary drinks tax, if it is true that the tax is overwhelmingly directed at sugary drinks, and only incidentally at most affecting non-drink sugary foods.  I am not sure about that, I suspect that while the taxes are directed primarily at drinks, the taxation of other sugary foods based on sugar content is not a separate topic.  I see that the tax is usually targeted at beverages, but with various exclusions such as for milk, juice and alcohol.  These exclusions are probably as or more significant than the exclusion of sugared non-beverages, and so I think exclusions should be covered within this article on a case-by-case basis.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:02, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sugary drinks tax or anything else is fine as long as the title limits the article to drinks/beverages. Otherwise, it would include topics like the Sugar Act. —  AjaxSmack   02:22, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. Best not to split the article at this stage IMO, and best to keep the history with the more general article even if we do. Andrewa (talk) 16:29, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Seems to be broadly the same concept. For example, the sugar tax in the United Kingdom is to be imposed on drinks with high sugar content AusLondonder (talk) 22:29, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

American English or British English?
The Background section mentions "high street retailers such as Starbucks." High street is an Ireland and UK term. If this article is to be in British English, it should be tagged as such, or else it should be tagged as American English with British and Commonwealth terms removed. --DThomsen8 (talk) 23:05, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of proposals and scientific studies sections
Proposals: There are hundreds of failed proposals and none are as relevant as the roughly two-dozen examples of soda taxes that are in place and should be removed to make room for discussion of the actual taxes.

Scientific Studies: If some studies appear in less reputable journals, should we try to focus only on studies from the top journals? sfcityzen (talk) 19:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I removed the proposals that are now active laws. It is important to know the failed proposals, so other can learn from them. For the scientific studies, while it has primary sources and secondary ones are preferred, there may not be an alternative source for those studies. --Frmorrison (talk) 20:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * When reading about tobacco taxes, there are very few words dedicated to taxes that did not pass when compared to taxes that did (Tobacco wars). We have limited space and I wonder if focusing on the significant taxes that are law would be more valuable to the reader. We could use the Proposals section for currently proposed and debated taxes vs. non-active proposals. 02:26, 7 December 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheffieldhale (talk • contribs)
 * Wikipedia does not have limited space, there is room for having a section on proposals even though they failed, because there are more failures and actual successful taxes. In 5 years if there are many sugar taxes, then perhaps the proposals could be trimmed or removed. --Frmorrison (talk) 14:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Regarding the scientific studies published in peer-reviewed journals, those are "the most reliable sources" per Wikipedia guidelines, so your complaints about them are completely invalid. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:04, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I just want to note that user Sheffieldhale (sfcityzen) edited his comment. I was responding to a comment saying that scientific studies were primary sources and should therefore be excluded. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:24, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help clarifying this - I am new to Wikipedia and still learning. Any thoughts on what type of journals should be reflected in this section? Does Wikipedia prefer citing articles from highly-rated journals or is there no difference? Sheffieldhale (talk) 02:30, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not familiar with the reputation of various journals that are cited, so when you said "studies appear in less reputable journals", what journals are less reputable? Since these are peer reviewed, it should be solid information. --Frmorrison (talk) 14:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Industry-funded studies are 34 times more likely to show soda has no conclusive negative impacts on health. . It's hard to find the conflicts of interest as a lay-person, but theoretically the more reputable journals are better able to do that than volunteers. For example, Contemporary Economic Policy ranks 234/332 of economics journals and as a result is more likely to publish industry-funded studies that are unable to get published in more reputable journals.Sheffieldhale (talk) 16:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Agree it should be deleted. Academics who live off of tax dollars are as biased towards higher taxes creating more tax dollars as the soft drink companies are biased the other way. There is a reason well over 50% of academic studies lack reproducibility. Furthermore, the notion that speculative academic studies should take precedent over actual results on what is supposed to be a NPOV encyclopedic is nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.251.239 (talk) 23:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Reverting encyclopedic information not once but twice to hide the negative effects of the Philadelphia soda tax
Why are certain editors trying to hide the negative effects of the Philadelphia soda tax? There has been a plunge in sales and numerous layoffs.


 * The IP editor that added some language twice about the negative effects mostly copy/pasted text from another source so that is a copyright violation. The article already mentions a drop in sales and the reports says layoffs are planned, so they have not happened yet, and this plan is included as well.

What is missing about the negative effects? --Frmorrison (talk) 14:53, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

There was no copyright violations. What exactly is not encyclopedic about the material that you saw fit to remove it twice? The article cites drop in sales of 50%-this page says 30%. The article says layoffs of 20% of workforces coming. This page mentions future layoffs. There are 12 academic studies saying the same thing. The entire page is promoting the tax but exactly one sentence. What is it that is lacking that the Wikipedia project is first and foremost supposed to be presented NPOV?

The lede says this is a matter of public debate, where is the other side of the debate? The higher taxes costs jobs and unjustly punishes the poor who can't go outside the city to avoid the taxes? or if consumer's behavior changes one bit. The properly sourced material that I cited that you removed twice quoted a distributor as saying NO, consumer's are not consuming less they are just buying it tax less elsewhere and further buying other groceries elsewhere creating a negative ripple effect? It exists because most of it was in the properly sourced material that I now posted twice only to have you remove it.


 * Only one store had a 50% drop, but to support that fact the paragraph says "30 to 50 percent" now. The word "future" and "coming" are quite similar in meaning in the context of layoffs. No layoffs have happened yet.

Neutrality may be an issue in this article so if you believe that is the case, refer to the exact text.--Frmorrison (talk) 14:41, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Philadelphia soda and juice tax
The mayor has proposed a tax of 3 cents per ounce on soda and juice, touching off a controversy in Philadelphia City Council and far beyond in the US and the world. An article on this controversy is sorely needed, with a brief mention here.--DThomsen8 (talk) 15:10, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

"Philadelphia Democratic Philadelphia mayor Jim Kenney proposed a citywide soda tax that would raise the price of soda at three cents per ounce. At the time," When was that? Skillabstinenz (talk) 01:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposed Edits
Research on how the tax has already made a difference in cities where it has been passed Edit more information between link of Type II diabetes and sugary drinks Perhaps add a section comparing costs of the drugs for diabetes and burden on hospitals vs. costs of sodas (Risk and benefits) Research more into the legislation since it seems to be lacking on the page Research what other cities may propose this tax — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klwymer (talk • contribs) 01:39, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Edit Review
I think the edits made in the last couple months are very effective and address the proposed goals posted on the talk page by a user. The page seemed fairly developed to begin with, but the minor edits and evidence/facts improved the quality of the article. I really like the edits where scientific evidence/studies evaluating the effects of a sugary drink tax on health, economy, and consumer choice are used. I think they add more substance to the article than the other portions, which just state the tax value and date of initiation. The researched edits are of high quality and I wish the article had more overall, but there is only so much one can do. This article presents sugary drink tax from a very well done neutral point of view. Only facts, not opinions are presented. Though unfortunately the evidence points to implementing and maintaining a sugary drink tax. I do, however, almost wish the “Arguments Against a Sugary Drink Tax” section was longer and more developed to provide a more well rounded point of view on the matter. Ntandnak (talk) 08:47, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Manual of Style
From "The reason for implementing a sugar tax in microeconomic terms" Section: Woofwoof92 (talk) 01:36, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "This could be seen as not fair and hence creates an argument for different solutions." Avoid inserting your own opinion when editing and support with medical sources.
 * " As the consumption of sugar causes health problems (external costs) such as obesity, type 2 diabetes and other diseases, the third party impacted by this is the ‘public health system’ that will need to deal with those issues." What are external costs? Use tertiary literature or guidelines to support the statements. No citation was indicated either.
 * "However, it should be noted that this argument is an unconventional use of the term 'externality'. The same argument could be used to justify compulsory daily exercise as laziness also impacts on the 'public health system'." Consider using language that is understandable by the general audience.

Plagiarism/Copyright Assessment
The edits made by the group members do not appear to be plagiarized. Each member has sufficiently rephrased or summarized the salient points from their respective sources, and the sources have been cited appropriately. However, as my colleague mentioned above, not all of the sources are freely accessible--many are found in academic journals which require a paid subscription. This may have negative implications for readers who wish to learn more about a particular statement. Dfasani (talk) 06:45, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

WHO source
I suggest the source Fiscal Policies for Diet and Prevention of Noncommunicable Diseases from the World Health Organization; it might be useful in this article. HLHJ (talk) 02:55, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

soda tax increasing liquor drinking
This is kind of interesting, claiming Philadelphia's soda tax has led people to drink more liquor. It is likely to be bogus though, so I decided not to put it into the article. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 07:05, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Is it a "sugary drink tax", or just a tax?
When I looked past the headlines about 'sugary drink taxes', I often saw that contrary to the implication, they were also trying to tax drinks that had no sugar in them at all. Diet drinks, Coke Zero, etc. We shouldn't accept the assertions of the pro-'sugary drink tax' crowd, especially when it appears that they are misrepresenting what they actually want to tax. If the tax is applied regardless of the presence of 'sugar', then we shouldn't call it a "sugary drink tax". Hal9009az (talk) 21:15, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Off topic
Yes, the AHA link explains the health risks of drinking sugary drinks. However, this article is about taxes levied on sugary drinks.

The content added and the source cited do not discuss sugary drink taxes, the topic of this article. The inclusion here supports the idea that sugary drink taxes are related to the specific health concerns discussed, something the cited source does not discuss. It is therefore synthesis.

Similarly, we cannot include sources discussing the impact of taxes on luxury cars on sales of cars or employees of car manufacturers. We also cannot include sources discussing sugar cane production, government uses of sin taxes, innovative revenue streams, etc. if those sources and that material is not discussed by the source in relation to sugery drink taxes. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 03:26, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Moved around a few sections
Hi, I made a few adjustments to the article and moved around a few sections. It does not follow the Manual of style, however, I did my best to improve flow and readability for the time being. If you have any further suggestions please do feel free to change what I have done. I also added background information in from a 2020 Cochrane Review. Thanks. JenOttawa (talk) 02:01, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Poland
Poland recently entered this list, might be worth adding: https://www.polishnews.co.uk/sugar-tax-2021-additional-fee-sweetened-drinks-alcohol-monkeys/ Deetah (talk) 17:12, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Hungary
I've changed '4-cent' to '4 per cent' as this is the correct rate. Hungary would have had difficulties taxing at a flat rate of 4 cents, especially as they do not use cents there. I have tried adding a reference backing this up. I found the template thing quite good, but have ended up with a red message telling me that a title is missing. As I don't know what it is talking about, I've left it alone. If someone who does know what they are talking about could look at it, I'd be pleased. Sarandone2 (talk) 14:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Djb375.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Klwymer, G.hernandez1991, A139053, Samdrews.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

summary : is it neutral?
The present version of the summary reads : "This policy intervention is an effort to decrease obesity and the health impacts related to being overweight, however the medical evidence supporting the benefits of a sugar tax on health is of very low certainty." The last part of the sentenced is relate to a unique study. I suggest 1/ splitting this long sentence into two sentences 2/reformulating the second part in "the the benefits of a sugar tax on health are disputed, and of low certainty according to some studies".Reneza (talk) 16:15, 2 January 2023 (UTC)