While Boulder voters may be focused on larger issues of the elections cycle, Ballot Measure 2H has made it on to the Boulder ballot relatively under the radar. Ballot measure 2H proposes a two-cent-per-ounce tax on many drinks that consumers enjoy. Drinks that have more than five grams of sugar added per 12 ounces and are not arbitrarily exempt from the measure would be subject to a tax increase under 2H.
Although Boulder is routinely named one the healthiest cities in the nation, the backers of 2H are attempting to exert control over the citizens of Boulder who are already living healthy lifestyles. On top of that, there is no evidence that a beverage tax would make the citizens of Boulder healthier. 2H is the perfect example of a law that Boulder citizens should not want controlling our communities.
Obesity is a very complex issue that goes far beyond sugary drinks, which is why addressing sugary drinks misses the point. Being healthy is not just about whether a person consumes sugary drinks or not; it is about what they eat and how active of a lifestyle they have. When evaluating a diet, fat is an important factor. For reducing obesity among children, Stanford Health Care recommends giving kids low- or no-fat milk. One main goal of 2H is to reduce childhood obesity yet milk, including high-fat content milk, would be exempt from the tax.
Similarly, Stanford Health Care recommends avoiding high "energy density" foods or foods that have large amounts of calories in small portions. Alcohol is an example of a high energy density food, yet would be exempt from the 2H tax. Looking at these two examples shows 2H is flawed in the items that are subject to additional tax because these items are arbitrarily picked and do not align with what leading experts recommend to prevent obesity. According to the Stanford University School of Medicine analysis of a health studies between 1998 and 2010, inactivity is the driving factor behind obesity, not diet. 2H's attempt to change diets will likely have little to no effect on obesity rates in Boulder as it aims for small dietary changes and lacks an incentive to encourage an active lifestyle.
Another aspect to examine of 2H is the economic effect on the community. 2H is a regressive tax. A regressive tax means that the tax will hurt low-income earners more than high earners as the tax makes up a higher percent of income for those who make less. A regressive tax would hurt low-income residents who already have tight budgets even on basic needs like groceries.
Besides hurting low-income citizens, the tax has the potential to hurt local restaurants. Non-alcoholic beverages including soda and other sugary drinks are the highest-margin products that restaurants sell and contribute to the profitably of those restaurants. The tax could cause restaurant patrons to stop buying these drinks which would hurt restaurants profits and local business. Not to mention that an additional tax would only add to ever more complicated and changing tax law that businesses already have to spend time and money to understand and follow. From an economic standpoint 2H hurts both consumers and local businesses.
Finally, 2H represents the trend of increasing government power. The Boulder City Counsel already has done enough to control citizens with laws like the plastic bag fee, dog leash laws and recently a proposal to ban indoor tables from being used outside. The citizens of Boulder do not need to give the government more power to control our lives. If we give them the power to tax sugary drinks, where does it stop? Should we tax other foods, restaurants and business that are deemed to be part of an unhealthy life style? Is it better to have the government decide how you should live your life than to be able to make your own decisions?
Voting for 2H leads down a road that citizens do not want to go down. 2H is not measure that makes sense for the Boulder community as it imposes government control over consumers and business and lacks the ability to change obesity rates in Boulder.
Sean Ahearn lives in Boulder.