Federal preemption of taxes on sugar-sweetened drinks not necessary

Aug. 29 (UPI) -- A study by Tufts University has found federal and state preemption of taxes on state and local sugar-sweetened beverages is not warranted.

Federal, state and local governments play a part in protecting public health, but the study found that federal and state governments can alter or hinder state and local actions through a legal process called preemption, which occurs when a higher government blocks the action of lower governments.

This comes to play specifically as there is an increase nationwide effort to tax sugar-sweetened beverages to reduce obesity rates throughout the country.

Sugar-sweetened beverages, or SSBs, are associated with increased risk for obesity, type 2 diabetes, stroke and heart disease.

The study, published today in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, came after researchers saw an increase in state preemption of local food policies related to sugar-sweetened beverages.

As of June 2017, eight U.S. cities have enacted SSB taxes with a goal of reducing consumption with several other states considering implementing SSB taxes. These types of excise taxes can reduce consumption, improve health and raise revenue for governments.

"Preemption of public health policies, and specifically SSB taxes, undermines local control, challenges the financial stability of local governments, and extinguishes grassroots movements. SSB taxes do not interfere with federally-funded national programs or put efficient interstate activity at risk; thus, there is a dearth of legal or historic precedent to justify Congress preempting them," Jennifer L. Pomeranz, assistant professor and interim chair of Public Health Policy and Management at NYU CGPH, said in a press release.

"Advocates and state and local policymakers should be vigilant to preserve their powers to tax and safeguard the population's health," she said.

Researchers found that Congress historically preempted state taxes to ensure they did not interfere with goals of national programs, but this justification does not apply to SSB excise taxes.

"In recent work, we have identified sugar-sweetened beverage consumption as one of the leading dietary priorities for reducing diabetes, stroke and heart disease deaths among Americans. There are individual health burdens and healthcare costs associated with SSB consumption, with mounting related health burdens and healthcare costs for the nation. SSB taxes should be used as a powerful tool to save lives, raise revenue and reduce healthcare costs," said Renata Micha, research associate professor at the Friedman School.