Pro- and anti-tax framing in news articles about California sugar-sweetened beverage tax campaigns from 2014-2018
Friday, September 08, 2023Authors: Kim Garcia, Pamela Mejia, Sarah Perez-Sanz, Lori Dorfman, Kristine Madsen & Dean Schillinger
Abstract
Sugar-sweetened beverages (SSB) contribute to illness, especially among marginalized communities and children targeted by the beverage industry. SSB taxes can reduce consumption, illness burden, and health inequities, while generating revenue for health programs, and as one way to hold the industry responsible for their harmful products and marketing malpractices. Supporters and opponents have debated SSB tax proposals in news coverage — a key source of information that helps to shape public policy debates. To learn how four successful California-based SSB tax campaigns were covered in the news, we conducted a content analysis, comparing how SSB taxes were portrayed. We found that pro-tax arguments frequently reported data to expose the beverage industry’s outsized campaign spending and emphasize the health harms of SSBs, often from health professionals. However, pro-tax arguments rarely described the benefits of SSB taxes, or how they can act as a tool for industry accountability. By contrast, anti-tax arguments overtly appealed to values and promoted misinformation, often from representatives from industry-funded front groups. As experts recommend additional SSB tax proposals, and as the industry mounts legislative counter-tactics to prevent them, advocates should consider harnessing community representatives as messengers and values-based messages to highlight the benefits of SSB taxes.
Sugar-sweetened beverages are the largest source of added sugar in the American diet and contribute to higher risks of diet-related diseases such as diabetes (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2022). SSBs are affordable and more readily available in vending machines, fast food establishments, and supermarkets than healthier options (Rehm, Matte, Van Wye, Young, & Frieden, 2008). SSBs maintain their popularity through the beverage industry’s aggressive marketing, supported by enormous budgets (Wood et al., 2021). Evidence shows that the industry intentionally targets communities of color (Dowling, Roberts, Adjoian, Farley, & Dannefer, 2020) – including children and youth (Powell, Hearris, & Fox, 2013) – and profits from unregulated, racialized marketing practices (Barnhill et al., 2022). These unchecked practices worsen health outcomes, especially for lower-income communities and communities of color (Roesler, Rojas, & Falbe, 2021).
Several studies have established the link between added sugars and diet-related diseases, and many experts recommend the use of excise taxes on SSBs to reduce consumption and generate revenue for health programs (Brownell et al., 2009; Malik & Hu, 2022). Multiple states and localities across the U.S. have attempted — and failed — to pass SSB taxes between 2008 and 2014. These campaigns shed light on the beverage industry’s aggressive lobbying and tactics to oppose SSB taxes. The industry has protected its interests by using the media to undermine science (Du, Tugendhaft, Erzse, & Hofman, 2018) and to portray itself as an advocate for social and racial justice by funding front groups that create the appearance of community-based public opposition (Berkeley Media Studies Group, 2007; Nixon, Mejia, Cheyne, & Dorfman, 2015).
Between 2014 and 2018, four California cities (Berkeley, San Francisco, Oakland, and Albany) led successful campaigns to impose excise taxes on SSBs to improve public health and hold the beverage industry responsible for their contributions to health inequities (Madsen, 2020). These taxes, levied on SSB distributors, aim to reduce disease risk and raise revenue for local government programs that support the health of their population. We now know that the revenue generated from these taxes has been allocated for health and social initiatives, including universal pre-kindergarten, job training, healthy food access, and emergency response to the COVID-19 pandemic (Krieger, Magee, Hennings, Schoof, & Madsen, 2021; University of Washington, 2022). In addition, such taxes have been shown to reduce purchasing and consumption of SSBs (Petimar, Gibson, & Roberto, 2022; Roberto et al., 2019). To date, three other cities in the United States and the Diné (Navajo) Nation and more than 50 countries around the world have instituted SSB taxes, suggesting they are an increasingly important and accepted tool in the public health toolbox. In response, since 2017, the beverage industry has employed preemption as a legislative strategy to encourage state governments to prohibit local government tax initiatives (Crosbie, Pomeranz, Wright, Hoeper, & Schmidt, 2021).
Supporters and opponents have debated SSB tax proposals in news outlets, which are a key source of information for the public and registered voters. News coverage provides an important window into the public discourse because journalists’ decisions about whether to cover an issue can raise its profile, while issues that are not covered by the news are less visible and often remain outside public discourse and policy debates (McCombs & Reynolds, 2009). The framing of stories can also help shape policy debates (Dearing & Rogers, 1996; Scheufele & Tewksbury, 2007). “Framing” refers to how an issue is portrayed and understood; it involves emphasizing certain aspects of an issue to the exclusion of others (Entman, 1993). In the context of news, frames are “persistent patterns” (Gitlin, 1980) by which reporters, editors, and producers organize and present stories, and help news consumers construct meaning both consciously and unconsciously (Iyengar, 1991).
Prior analyses of the frames and language used in news about SSB tax campaigns before 2014 (all of which failed) found that news coverage was mostly in support of SSB taxes, while negative coverage was less prominent (Niederdeppe, Gollust, Jarlenski, Nathanson, & Barry, 2013). Tax supporters frequently quoted in the news included politicians who argued that taxes were needed, emphasizing the harms of SSBs and highlighting the beverage industry’s role in pouring significant funding into opposition campaigns (Berkeley Media Studies Group, 2014; Niederdeppe, Gollust, Jarlenski, Nathanson, & Barry, 2013). Conversely, the news often quoted spokespeople from anti-tax community groups funded by the beverage industry who questioned the effectiveness of SSB taxes, stressed the economic harms on business owners and consumers, and fueled racial and class divisions (Berkeley Media Studies Group, 2013; Niederdeppe, Gollust, Jarlenski, Nathanson, & Barry, 2013). The industry also invested heavily in public relations and lobbying to promote misinformation. In 2012, the sugary beverage industry spent over $4 million to defeat SSB tax proposals in the small cities of Richmond and El Monte, California (Berkeley Media Studies Group, 2013).
Prior research has focused on news about unsuccessful SSB tax campaigns. To learn how four successful California campaigns appeared in the news, and to identify overarching patterns across multiple campaigns, we evaluated news coverage in to compare how both supportive and oppositional messages characterized SSB taxes while communities were proposing, passing, and implementing their groundbreaking policies.