Analysis of Public Testimony About Philadelphia's Sweetened Beverage Tax

Although interest in beverage taxes has increased in recent years, industry opposition and other challenges have limited their spread in the U.S. Because beverage tax proposals are often unsuccessful, there is limited empirical evidence to inform advocacy efforts. Philadelphia's 1.5 cent-per-ounce tax on sweetened beverages provides an opportunity to understand how public testimony for and against the tax was framed in a city that ultimately passed the policy.

A content analysis of all public testimony about the beverage tax presented to the Philadelphia City Council in 2016 was conducted. Testimonies were coded for policy stance (protax or antitax), speaker type, and specific protax or antitax arguments. Quantitative data were analyzed in 2018-2019 using chi-square tests.

A total of 177 unique testimonies were identified, which included 40 protax arguments (grouped into 11 themes) and 31 antitax arguments (grouped into 10 themes). Most testimonies were delivered orally, and most speakers argued in favor of the tax (58%). Among tax supporters, funding early childhood education was the most common argument (71%), whereas tax opponents most frequently argued that sugar-sweetened beverages were the wrong target for the tax (50%).

This analysis of public testimony revealed that protax advocacy efforts highlighted the revenue benefits for early childhood education and community infrastructure rather than the tax's potential to reduce sweetened beverage consumption and improve health. By contrast, antitax arguments centered on the unfairness of targeting a single industry, potential negative economic impacts, and the perceived lack of evidence that the tax would influence consumer behavior.