Recepti za koktele, žestoka pića i lokalni barovi

Kalifornija s obzirom na porez na sodu

Kalifornija s obzirom na porez na sodu



We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Porez će dodati jedan cent za svaku uncu šećerne sode

Nakon što porezi na sodu u dva kalifornijska grada nisu prošli u studenom prošle godine, porez na sodu mogao bi proći izravno u državu.

KTLA izvještava da je novi prijedlog poreza na sodu već prošao prvu prepreku u srijedu (očistivši porezni odbor), a sada se probija kroz državni senat.

Ako se usvoji, zakon SB-622 dodat će dodatni porez od 0,01 USD po unci svakom slatkom piću s više od 25 kalorija, Izvještava SFist. Red Bull i šećerna kola bez šećera neće se računati, ali Vitaminwater, sportska pića i zamišljamo da bi svi ti intenzivni Frappuccini bili podložni dodatnim 0,08 USD.

S druge strane, ti dodatni novci ići će u novi Fond za promicanje zdravlja djece, koji novac distribuira državnim i društvenim programima za prevenciju pretilosti, te programe javnog zdravstva u školama u Kaliforniji.

I dok je 76 posto birača u El Monteu u Kaliforniji i 67 posto u Richmondu u Kaliforniji glasovalo protiv poreza na sodu na gradskim izborima u studenom, nedavna anketa na terenu pokazala je da bi 68 posto glasača u Kaliforniji glasalo za porez na sodu, s obzirom na to da je novac plaćen za programe prehrane i tjelesnog odgoja.


Uvodnik: Porez na sodu poboljšat će zdravlje Kalifornijca i#8217 i smanjiti troškove

Podijeli ovo:

Kalifornijski zakonodavci moraju prekinuti nezdrav odnos s Big Soda.

Dok industrija gaziranih pića svake godine ulijeva milijune u zakonodavne kampanje#8217, državni porezni obveznici plaćaju milijarde zdravstvenih troškova vezanih za pretilost zbog konzumiranja slatkih pića.

Velika gazirana voda ponovno je bila u utorak, primoravši zakonodavce da odlože dva računa usmjerena na smanjenje potrošnje gazirane sode u Kaliforniji. No, prijedlog poreza na sodu zastupnika Richarda Blooma, AB 138, prošao je skupštinski Odbor za zdravstvo sa 8-5 glasova. Računom bi se dodala naknada od 2 centa po unci tekućine ili 24 centa za limenku od 12 unci sode. Porez bi prikupio oko 2 milijarde dolara godišnje za programe zdravstvene zaštite. Zakonodavno tijelo trebalo bi se usprotiviti Big Soda i proći porez na slatka pića, a guverner Gavin Newsom trebao bi to potpisati.

Industrija gaziranih pića tvrdi da su porezi na sodu regresivni i nepravedno opterećuju zaposlene obitelji i trgovine u susjedstvu. To bi bio dobitni argument da poguban utjecaj konzumiranja slatkih pića nije bio toliko uvjerljiv.

Veza između konzumiranja zaslađenih pića i pretilosti, dijabetesa i srčanih bolesti je ogromna. Američko udruženje za srce izvještava da odrasle osobe koje konzumiraju jednu sodu ili više dnevno imaju 27 posto veću vjerojatnost da će imati prekomjernu težinu ili pretilost, bez obzira na njihov ekonomski status, rasu ili etničku pripadnost.

Troškovi liječenja medicinskih problema povezanih s dijabetesom astronomski su. Američko udruženje za dijabetes kaže da ljudi s dijabetesom imaju medicinske troškove približno 2,3 puta veće od onih bez njih. Procjenjuje se da ukupni medicinski troškovi za Kalifornijce s dijabetesom prelaze 20 milijardi dolara godišnje.

Ti će se troškovi samo povećati s obzirom na rastući trend pretilosti djece u dječjoj dobi. Oko 60 posto kalifornijske djece u dobi od 12 do 17 godina svakodnevno pije sodu, a 40 posto te iste mladeži ima prekomjernu težinu ili je pretilo.

Zastrašujuće je što kalifornijski zakonodavci znaju ove brojke, ali se ne mogu suprotstaviti industriji gaziranih pića.

Velike sode ove godine neće biti lako pobijediti. Ovo je industrija koja je prošlog ljeta iskoristila pravila inicijative Kalifornije za osvajanje zakona kojima se većem broju gradova zabranjuje oporezivanje gaziranim napitkom. Četiri kalifornijska grada — Albany, Berkeley, Oakland i San Francisco — već su prošli porez na sodu.

Bojeći se da će više gradova slijediti primjer, industrija je potrošila 7 milijuna dolara na prikupljanje potpisa za inicijativu kojom bi se više lokalnih poreza podvrgnulo dvotrećinskom odobrenju birača, a ne običnoj većini. Shema je uplašila lokalne i državne zakonodavce da postignu dogovor: Industrija gaziranih pića povukla je inicijativu, a država je uvela moratorij na nove lokalne poreze na sodu do 2031. godine.

Sličan pritisak natjerao je poslanika Davida Chiua, D-San Francisco, u utorak da odustane od svojih napora da zabrani pića “Big Gulp ” u Kaliforniji. Mjera bi zabranila trgovine i restorane da prodaju nezapečaćena slatka pića u šalicama većim od 16 unci. Lobiranje je prisililo i zastupnicu Buffy Wicks, D-Oakland, da povuče svoj zakon o zabrani izlaganja slatkih pića u blizini blagajni supermarketa i drugih trgovina.

Srećom, račun o porezu na sodu do sada je preživio. Veza između rastućih troškova zdravstvene zaštite u Kaliforniji i potrošnje sode je neporeciva. Porez na sodu nije idealan, ali očito je u najboljem interesu zdravlja Kalifornije. I njihove džeparce.


Velika soda ulijeva velike novce u Kalifornijski glavni grad

(EyeEm/Getty Images)

O Insight -u

Insight pruža dubinski uvid u zdravstvena pitanja u Kaliforniji i na njihov utjecaj.

Večere u skupom restoranu u Mauiju - s pogledom na ocean. Ulaznice za profesionalne sportske igre. Besplatna projekcija filma "Crni panter" u kazalištu IMAX u Sacramentu. I donaciju od 250.000 dolara grupi koja financira guvernerova putovanja.

To je samo uzorak od 11,8 milijuna dolara koje su tvrtke za bezalkoholna pića i njihovi lobisti potrošili na državnoj i lokalnoj razini u posljednje dvije godine u Kaliforniji kako bi blokirali prijedloge poput oporezivanja slatkih pića i udaranja zdravstvenih upozorenja na njihova pića, pokazala je analiza California Healthline .

"Oni imaju izvanredan utjecaj u ovoj zgradi", rekao je državni senator Bill Monning (D-Carmel) o industriji. "Ne podcjenjujemo moć oporbe."

Monning ne prihvaća novac industrije gaziranih pića - i više je puta pokušao oporezivati ​​slatka pića u Kaliforniji i staviti naljepnice upozorenja na pakiranje. Bio je jedan od najglasnijih kritičara prošle godine kada je industrija blokirala gradove i županije od ubiranja poreza na sodu - manevar koji su neki zakonodavci opisali kao "iznudu".

Ljuti se taktikom industrije, Monning i drugi zakonodavci sada guraju paket računa za suzbijanje pića za koja kažu da doprinose povećanju stope pretilosti i dijabetesa. Nekoliko mjera predviđeno je za raspravu u utorak, uključujući i onu koja bi distributere šećernih pića oporezivala po 2 centa po unci.

Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island i Vermont također razmatraju poreze na cijelu državu na pića zaslađena šećerom. Najmanje četiri države, uključujući Arkansas i Zapadnu Virginiju, već nameću poreze na gazirana pića, bilo tekućom uncom ili bruto prihodima, prema Nacionalnoj konferenciji državnih zakonodavnih tijela.

Kalifornijski senator Bill Monning (D-Carmel) prikazuje količinu šećera u boci Coca-Cole od 20 unci. Monning gura zakone koji bi na zaslađena pića stavili oznake upozorenja o zdravlju. Opisuje industriju gaziranih pića kao velikog utjecaja u kalifornijskoj politici. (Samantha Young/California Healthline )

Premda se može pretpostaviti koliko će industrija ove godine potrošiti na utjecaj kalifornijskih zastupnika, njezina prethodna brojka ukazuje na to da će novac stići gotovo do svakog nositelja ureda u Kapitolu.

Analiza California Healthline otkrila je da je 9 od 10 državnih senatora i članova Skupštine ili člana njihovog osoblja prihvatilo doprinos kampanje, dar ili dobrotvornu donaciju 2017. i 2018. godine od Američkog udruženja za piće (ili njegovog odbora za političko djelovanje), Coca-Cola Co. ili PepsiCo-tri najveća davatelja u industriji.

Industrija pića, poput drugih interesnih skupina, troši novac kako bi utjecala na zakonodavce na nekoliko načina: daje financijske doprinose njihovim kampanjama i lobira za njih i njihovo osoblje, ponekad ih opskrbljujući obrocima, događajima i putovanjima. Također donira dobrotvornim organizacijama u ime zastupnika.

"Oni slijede knjigu duhanske industrije u zaštiti svojih proizvoda od kritika, bacaju sumnju na znanost, lobiraju, rade iza kulisa, financiraju front grupe, rade sve ono što rade industrije koje tjeraju potencijalne štetne proizvode", rekla je Marion Nestle , autor knjige “Soda Politics” i emeritus profesor prehrane na Sveučilištu New York.

Udruga za piće i Coca-Coca nisu odgovorili na konkretna pitanja o njihovom političkom davanju, a PepsiCo uopće nije odgovorio. William Dermody Jr., potpredsjednik ABA -e, ustvrdio je da bi "pretjerani" porezi na pića nanijeli štetu gospodarstvu.

"Važno je obavijestiti zakonodavce o doprinosima koje naši proizvodi daju lokalnom gospodarstvu, ne samo o milijunskim poreznim prihodima koje ostvarujemo za državu, već i o plaćama koje povećavamo za stotine tisuća radnika u Kaliforniji", rekao je Dermody u e -poruci.

Big Soda nije sam u pokušaju utjecati na zakonodavce po pitanju zašećerenih pića.

Kalifornijsko liječničko udruženje i Kalifornijsko stomatološko društvo, koje zastupaju liječnike i stomatologe, planiraju glasovanje za oporezivanje pića sa šećerom. Zajedno su potrošili oko 10,6 milijuna dolara na lobiranje i doprinose kampanjama kako bi utjecali na širok raspon zdravstvenog zakonodavstva u posljednje dvije godine.

Za industriju gaziranih pića 2017.-18. Je bila posebno skupa.

Zašto? Kako je sve više kalifornijskih gradova prolazilo i predlagalo lokalne poreze na slatka pića, tvrtke za proizvodnju gaziranih pića prošle su godine uložile 8,9 milijuna dolara u glasačku mjeru za cijelu državu koja bi gradovima otežala ubiranje bilo kojeg novog poreza, a ne samo onih na pića. Novac je došao iz Američkog udruženja za piće PAC, prvenstveno financiranog od Coca-Cole, Pepsija i Dr Pepper Snapple grupe.

Zabrinuti da će glasači u Kaliforniji odobriti viši prag glasovanja za sve lokalne poreze, zakonodavci su nevoljko zabranili lokalne poreze na sodu do 1. siječnja 2031., ako industrija odbaci svoj prijedlog za glasovanje.

"Mislim da nisu osvojili prijatelje u zakonodavnom tijelu", rekla je zastupnica Lorena Gonzalez (D-San Diego). U protekle dvije godine primila je 11.000 dolara doprinosa za kampanju od industrije, a glasala je na svojoj strani protiv računa za označavanje i oporezivanje slatkih pića, navodeći zabrinutost da je porez na sodu regresivan i da bi naštetio siromašnim, manjinskim zajednicama.

Zabava zakonodavaca i njihovo osoblje

U 2017. i 2018. godini Američko udruženje za piće potrošilo je nešto više od milijun dolara na lobiranje kod kalifornijskih kreatora politike, dok je PepsiCo potrošio 371.482 dolara, a Coca-Cola 352.469 dolara, prema obrascima podnesenim uredu državnog tajnika Kalifornije. To je gotovo 70 posto više nego što su potrošili u prethodne dvije godine.

Najveći dio novca otišao je u tvrtke za lobiranje u kojima rade bivši državni službenici - ljudi povezani sa Kapitolom koji znaju utjecati na zakonodavstvo.

ABA je u studenom 2017. potrošila 379 USD na hranu za osam zastupnika u sklopu večere od 813 USD u vrhunskom restoranu Kitchin Humble Market u Mauiju - gdje bi biftek mogao koštati 65 USD, a cijela pržena riba 57 USD. Zakonodavci su prisustvovali zakonodavnom povlačenju.

Udruga je dala 11 zakonodavnih službenika ulaznicama za košarkaške utakmice Sacramento Kingsa i platila njihovu hranu i piće, po cijeni od 163 do 326 USD po zaposleniku. Također je uložio najmanje 3.747 dolara za najmanje 92 zastupnika, zaposlenike i njihove goste koji su prisustvovali prikazivanju "Crne pantere" u ožujku 2018.

Na pitanje zašto je skupštinska zastupnica Sabrina Cervantes (D-Riverside) prisustvovala filmu, njezina je glasnogovornica odgovorila da "podržava umjetnost i slavi raznolikost u kinu".

Najveći trošak ABA -e za lobiranje bila je uplata od 250.000 dolara Fondaciji California State Protocol, koja je financirala putovanja Jerryja Browna dok je bio guverner.

U ime dobročinstva

Iako postoje ograničenja u pogledu toga koliko zakonodavci mogu prihvatiti darove, tvrtke također nastoje postići utjecaj dajući neograničene dobrotvorne donacije u ime zakonodavca. Ove su donacije poznate kao "plaćene uplate", a industrija ih je zaradila gotovo 100.000 dolara 2017. i 2018. godine.

Zastupnica Državne skupštine Lorena Gonzalez (D-San Diego) skeptična je prema porezima na sodu i njihovom utjecaju na zajednice s niskim prihodima i manjine. No, kaže da industrija gaziranih pića prošle godine nije stekla prijatelje kada je izglasala zabranu lokalnog poreza na sodu. (Samantha Young/California Healthline )

Prošle godine, distributer Coca-Cole u okrugu Gonzalez donirao je 10.000 dolara Banci hrane u San Diegu na njeno ime-doprinos za koji je rekla da nije svjestan dok mi se nije javila za ovaj članak.

Ponekad zakonodavci traže doprinose. Kad je državni zastupnik Adam Gray (D-Merced) zatražio od udruge pića da sponzorira godišnji sastanak Nacionalne konferencije državnih zakonodavnih tijela, udruga je na njegovo ime dala 25.000 dolara. Gray, koji je bio predstavnik Kalifornije na sastanku, rekao je da je njegova odgovornost osigurati sponzore te da je zamolio nekoliko korporacija da daju svoj doprinos.

Rekao je da ti doprinosi ne utječu na njegov glas. Na primjer, rekao je da je Google dao 100.000 dolara, ali je glasao za zakone o privatnosti kojima se tvrtka protivi.

"Ako želite podržati moj dnevni red, moje glasovanje i stvari za koje se zalažem, rado ću prihvatiti tu podršku", rekao je Grey. "Ali nema nultu ulogu u tome kako predstavljam svoj okrug ili kako donosim odluke o javnim politikama."

Financiranje kampanja zastupnika

Najizravnija metoda koju interesne skupine koriste za utjecaj na političke procese jest davanje novca kampanjama, političkim strankama i zastupničkim klubovima.

Uz potrošnju od 8,9 milijuna dolara na glasovanje u cijeloj državi, Američko udruženje pića PAC, PepsiCo i Coca-Cola uložili su oko 1,1 milijun dolara drugim državnim i lokalnim političkim naporima u posljednje dvije godine.

Većina je zakonodavaca primila gotovinu u kampanji od udruge pića, Coca -Cole ili Pepsija - ako ne i sve tri.

Glasnogovornik Coca-Cole rekao je da tvrtka bira primatelje na temelju dodjele odbora, članstva u klubu, vodećih pozicija i predstavljaju li regije s objektima Coca-Cole.

"Ne postoji pristup koji odgovara svima", rekao je glasnogovornik tvrtke Max Davis. "Povremeno se pojedinačni stavovi kandidata koje podržavamo mogu razlikovati od naših."

Monning je rekao da je industrija bezalkoholnih pića strašan protivnik. Mnogi kolege kažu mu da ne mogu glasovati za zakone koji bi smanjili prodaju jer imaju distributera u svom okrugu.

Uz porez na sodu u cijeloj državi, računi koji se razmatraju ove godine zahtijevali bi oznake upozorenja o šećeru i spriječili bi proizvođače gaziranih pića da trgovcima nude poticaje za prodaju pića. Također bi zabranili trgovcima na malo prodaju gazirana pića velikih razmjera i zabranili prodaju na blagajnama.

Dok zakonodavci razmatraju ove prijedloge zakona, rekao je Monning, njegovo pitanje kolegama bit će jednostavno:

"Predstavljate li industriju sode?" On je rekao. "Ili predstavljate onu djecu u vašem okrugu koja pokazuju stalni porast lošeg zdravlja?"

Digitalna reporterka California Healthline Harriet Blair Rowan dala je svoj doprinos ovom izvješću.

Kako je California Healthline prikupljao podatke o političkoj potrošnji soda -kompanija

Među načinima na koje tvrtke za gaziranje pića pokušavaju utjecati na političke procese jest doprinoseći novčanim sredstvima kampanjama za zapošljavanje lobista i snabdijevanjem izabranih dužnosnika pićem, obrocima i ulaznicama za događaje te davanjem dobrotvornih priloga u ime zakonodavaca.

Koristeći web stranicu kalifornijskog državnog tajnika, California Healthline je preuzela doprinose za kampanju koje su dali Američka udruga za pića PAC, Coca-Cola Co., PepsiCo i Dr Pepper Snapple Group u razdoblju 2017.-18. To uključuje neke nenovčane doprinose.

Kako bismo pratili lobiranje, izradili smo tablicu troškova koju su prijavili američki udruženje za piće, Coca-Cola i Pepsi na obrascima za otkrivanje lobiranja, koji su također dostupni na web stranici državnog tajnika. Pronašli smo detalje o tome koliko je industrija platila lobističkim tvrtkama i koji su zakonodavci ili članovi njihovog osoblja prihvatili darove.

Kako bi saznali koliko su ti entiteti dali u dobrotvorne priloge, California Healthline je sa web stranice Povjerenstva za političku praksu Kalifornijskog sajma povukao podatke koji su opisani kao "plaćanje". To su plaćanja koja posebni interesi mogu uplatiti dobrotvornoj organizaciji ili organizaciji u ime zakonodavca. Ponekad se neka od tih plaćanja pojavljuju i na obrascima za lobiranje. Usporedili smo plaćene uplate s izvješćima o lobiranju kako bismo bili sigurni da nismo dvostruko brojali novac.


Poreska nezdrava hrana: Borite se protiv pretilosti po jedan peni

Kalifornijski zakonodavac cilja epidemiju pretilosti porezom koji bi za piće zaslađen šećerom ili kukuruznim sirupom platio porez od jedne kune.

Prehrambena industrija, ne iznenađuje, suprotstavila se toj ideji, tvrdeći da je porezni račun kazneni napad na osobni izbor.

"Vlada nema pravo na društvenog inženjera", rekao je J. Justin Wilson, viši istraživački analitičar u Centru za slobodu potrošača koji podržava industrija. "Nema nas pravo štititi od nas samih."

Ne? Ljudi koji se bave hranom u pravu su da je ovo način kažnjavanja ljudi zbog nezdravog ponašanja. No, griješe kada kažu da vlada nema nikakvu ulogu u poticanju ljudi da rade bolje.

Drugi istaknuti porezi na grijeh, za duhan i alkohol, prikupljaju novac za zdravstvene i obrazovne programe, i to je dobra stvar. No, njihova je glavna svrha učiniti ove proizvode skupljim i time manje privlačnim potencijalnim korisnicima.

S obzirom na to da oko dvije trećine odraslih Amerikanaca i trećina naše djece sada imaju prekomjernu težinu ili su pretili, čini se više nego razumnim proširiti isto razmišljanje na slatka pića, za koja istraživači kažu da su ključni doprinos epidemiji pretilosti.

Međutim, soda nije jedini krivac. Ako ozbiljno mislimo skinuti sve te višak kilograma, trebat će više od samo poskupljenja Coca -Cole i Pepsija. Više o tome za koji trenutak.

Prvo, pogledajmo pobliže AB 669, zakonodavstvo koje je prošlog tjedna uveo zastupnik William Monning (D-Carmel). On je predsjednik Skupštinskog odbora za zdravstvo.

Račun bi nametnuo trošarinu od 1 cent po unci na bilo koji napitak s kaloričnim zaslađivačima, poput šećera i kukuruznog sirupa s visokim sadržajem fruktoze. Ta pića uključuju gazirana pića, energetska pića i sportska pića.

Procijenjenih 1,7 milijardi dolara godišnje prikupljenih porezom namijenilo bi se isključivo financiranju programa tjelesne kondicije i pretilosti djece u cijeloj državi koji se sada suočavaju s smanjenjem zbog tekućih proračunskih problema u Kaliforniji.

Novac bi odlazio na aktivnosti i opremu u školama i neprofitnim organizacijama koje namjeravaju osloboditi djecu od kestera - sporta, igara, opreme za igru. Išlo bi se prema pružanju zdravijeg izbora ručka i naporima da se djeca educiraju o pravilnoj prehrani.

To naravno neće odraditi cijeli posao. Roditelji također moraju obaviti neke teške poslove donoseći pametnije odluke u trgovini mješovitom robom i kroz prozor. No, bolje je nego ne raditi ništa dok djeca šalima stavljaju nezdravu hranu i lupaju ispred televizora.

"Ovi napitci nemaju nultu hranjivu vrijednost, a oglašavanje koje cilja djecu je ogromno", rekao mi je Monning.

Odbacio je tvrdnju prehrambene industrije da vlada nema nikakvu ulogu u utjecaju na ponašanje ljudi.

"Ono na što pokušavamo odgovoriti je društveni inženjering koji korporativno oglašavanje radi svaki dan", rekao je Monning. "To je pravi društveni inženjering."

Rekao je da je utjecaj marketinga pića najizraženiji u zajednicama s nižim prihodima i manjinama, gdje studije pokazuju da se soda često konzumira svakodnevno i kao rutinski dio obroka.

Jedno nedavno istraživanje pokazalo je da je stopa pretilosti odraslih osoba kod crnaca i Latinoamerikanca veća nego kod bijelaca u gotovo svim državama.

Stopa pretilosti odraslih za crnce je najmanje 30% u 43 države i Distriktu Columbia, prema Trust for America's Health i Zakladi Robert Wood Johnson. Stopa pretilosti odraslih osoba za Latinoamerikanke iznosi najmanje 30% u 19 država. Samo jedna država, Zapadna Virginija, ima stopu pretilosti odraslih za bijelce veću od 30%.

"Ovo je odgovor javnog zdravlja na epidemiju javnog zdravlja", rekao je Monning o svom prijedlogu zakona.

Wilson iz Centra za slobodu potrošača, koji prvenstveno financira prehrambena industrija, usprotivio se tome da ljudi imaju pravo piti nezdrava pića ako je to njihov izbor. "Soda nije problem", rekao je. "Jednostavno zadovoljstvo."

Pravi problem, rekao je Wilson, "pretjerana potrošnja kalorija", a soda čini manje od 10% dnevnog unosa kalorija prosječne osobe.

To je možda istina, odgovorio je Harold Goldstein, izvršni direktor Kalifornijskog centra za javno zagovaranje javnog zdravlja, ali kalorije iz sode predstavljaju značajan dio dodatne, nepotrebne količine koja čini ljude debelim.

Izvješće Centra za težinu i zdravlje UC Berkeley iz 2009. otkrilo je da se od 1970 -ih do 2000. dnevna potrošnja hrane prosječne osobe povećala za 300 kalorija. Od tog iznosa, "povećanje potrošnje kalorija od zaslađenih napitaka ekvivalentno je 43% ukupnog povećanja potrošnje kalorija", pokazalo je izvješće.

"To je ekvivalent pijenju komada čokoladne torte kad god ste žedni", rekao je Goldstein.

Dakle, poskupljivanje sode i dodatni prihod za napore u borbi protiv pretilosti ima puno smisla i u društvenom i u ekonomskom smislu-baš kao što smo vidjeli za duhan i alkohol. Ali to nije cijeli odgovor.

Prehrambena industrija i zagovornici zdravlja slažu se da je potrebna značajna promjena u ponašanju ljudi. Jednostavno rečeno, moramo jesti manje i više vježbati.

Osobna odgovornost je važna. Ali da je samo to dovoljno da nas održi u formi i da se ošišamo, ne bismo bili nacija svinjara i svinjara na čekanju.

Zato bih uzeo Monningov porez na sodu i proširio ga na brzu hranu - recimo, novčić na svakih 500 unesenih kalorija.

Big Mac s 540 kalorija u McDonald’su zaradio bi dodatni novčić. Tako bi i 500 kalorija velike narudžbe pomfrita. Čokoladni trostruki gusti šejk od 32 unce, sa 1.160 kalorija, donio bi dva centa.

Uzmite u obzir sve ostale stvari koje se svakodnevno kupuju u svim lancima brze hrane i vidite da bismo govorili o ozbiljnom novcu. Taj bi se novac zauzvrat koristio za stvaranje biciklističkih staza, košarkaških terena i drugih resursa povezanih s fitnesom.

Također bi se mogao koristiti za subvencioniranje članstva u teretani (što bi zdravstveno osiguranje također trebalo učiniti, ako doista žele smanjiti svoje dugoročne troškove).

Prehrambena industrija ima pravo: porez na sodu neće riješiti epidemiju pretilosti. Općenito, porezi na grijeh neće ukloniti probleme.


Dok Kalifornija vaga oznake upozorenja za sodu, porez u Berkeleyu prikazan je kako bi se umanjila prodaja

Elizabeth Bautista, zdravstvena pedagoginja u zdravstvenom centru La Clinica u Oaklandu, drži znak koji pokazuje koliko šećera ide u zaslađena pića. (Ana B. Ibarra/California Healthline)

Novo istraživanje poreza na sodu u Berkeleyu u Kaliforniji pokazuje da stanovnici čine ono što su se stručnjaci za javno zdravlje nadali - odbacuju slatka pića i odlučuju se za zdravija pića.

Studija, najveća do sada o porezu na sodu Berkeley, proizašla je iz razloga što su kalifornijski zakonodavci ovog tjedna ponovno razmotrili zakonodavstvo koje bi stavilo oznaku upozorenja na zaslađena pića - račun koji je u odboru odumro tri puta u tri godine.

Studija, objavljena u utorak u časopisu PLOS Medicine, pokazuje da je godinu dana nakon što je 2015. godine Berkeleyjev porez na sodu stupio na snagu, u gradu zabilježen pad od 10 posto u kupnji slatkih pića i gotovo 16 posto porast prodaje vode u bocama.

Studija je analizirala 15,5 milijuna prodajnih mjesta u supermarketima u gradu, ocijenila cijene u 26 trgovina i telefonski ispitala 957 odraslih stanovnika.

Dr. Lynn Silver, vodeća autorica studije i viši savjetnik Instituta za javno zdravstvo u Oaklandu u Kaliforniji, rekla je da su istraživači bili ugodno iznenađeni kada su vidjeli značajno povećanje prodaje vode.

Silver je rekao kako prije nego što su glasači 2014. godine prešli porez od 1 centa po unci, istraživači nisu bili sigurni hoće li mali dodatni troškovi za kupovinu sode biti dovoljni da naprave razliku u prosperitetnom gradu poput Berkeleyja. No, rezultati studije pokazuju da je to "bio home run", rekla je.

Međutim, iako je u Berkeleyu opala kupnja slatkih pića, u okolnim gradovima zaljeva porasla je za 6 posto - što je dovelo do pitanja jesu li stanovnici jednostavno prebacili kupovinu sode u druge gradove bez poreza na sodu. Silver je rekao da anketirani stanovnici nisu prijavili značajne promjene u mjestima gdje su kupili svoja pića nakon što je porez stupio na snagu.

Studija je, rekao je Silver, također pokazala da je ukupna prodaja pića porasla u Berkeleyu. Da su ljudi pića kupovali negdje drugdje, taj bi ukupni broj najvjerojatnije pao, objasnila je.

Prošle su godine glasači odobrili sličan porez na sodu u San Franciscu, Oaklandu i Albanyju u Kaliforniji, kao i u Boulderu, Colo., Cook County, Ill., I Philadelphiji. Santa Fe, N.M. i Seattle razmatraju porez na sodu.

Istraživači vjeruju da bi porez na sodu u tim zajednicama mogao imati veći utjecaj nego u Berkeleyu jer je potrošnja zaslađenih pića po glavi stanovnika oko tri puta niža u Berkeleyu nego u cijeloj zemlji, rekao je Silver.

U međuvremenu, u zakonodavnom tijelu Kalifornije, prijedlog zakona koji je ponovno uveo senator Bill Monning (D-Carmel) zahtijevao bi da pića zaslađena šećerom od 75 kalorija ili više na 12 unci budu označena sljedećom porukom:

SIGURNOSNO STANJE U KALIFORNIJI UPOZORENJE: Konzumiranje pića s dodanim šećerom doprinosi pretilosti, dijabetesu tipa 2 i karijesu.

"Potrošači imaju pravo znati o tim potencijalnim štetnim utjecajima na zdravlje, a [ovaj prijedlog zakona] će osnažiti Kalifornijce da donose zdrave napitke", rekao je Monning u izjavi za medije.

Zakon bi također zahtijevao od vlasnika automata za prodaju slatkih napitaka da postave sigurnosno upozorenje na vanjsku stranu strojeva.

Glasnogovornica Američke udruge pića, industrijske grupe, u izjavi poslanoj e -poštom rekla je da potrošači imaju više informacija nego ikad prije za donošenje informiranih odluka o hrani i piću.

"Izdvajanje jedne uobičajene namirnice za zavaravajuću oznaku upozorenja neće učiniti ništa za stvarne javnozdravstvene izazove poput pretilosti i dijabetesa koji imaju više čimbenika rizika", napisala je glasnogovornica.

Ako zakon usvoji, označavanje će biti potrebno od 1. srpnja 2018. Zakon bi trebao biti saslušan u srijedu u Odboru za zdravstvo Senata.

Ovu je priču producirao Kaiser Health News, koji izdaje California Healthline, urednički neovisnu službu Kalifornijske zdravstvene zaklade.


CILJ OBRAZOVANJA

Pristalice zakona uvedenog u četvrtak rekli su da će oznake upozorenja potrošačima samo pružiti informacije koje bi im trebale za zdrav, informiran izbor.

"Moj je muž morao gledati kako je ocu amputirana noga, a zatim noga od dijabetesa", rekao je Darcel Lee, liječnik koji je izvršni direktor California Black Health Network, koja podržava prijedlog zakona zajedno s Kalifornijskim liječničkim udruženjem , Kalifornijski centar za javno zagovaranje javnog zdravlja i druge skupine.

Prema zakonu, svi spremnici za piće s dodanim zaslađivačima koji imaju 75 kalorija ili više po 12 unci morali bi nositi oznaku koja glasi: Upozorenje o sigurnosti države Kalifornija: Konzumiranje pića s dodatkom šećera doprinosi pretilosti, dijabetesu i zubima propadanje. ”

Tekst oznake razvio je nacionalni panel stručnjaka za prehranu i javno zdravlje.

Pristaše su rekle da će se zahtjev učinkovito primijeniti na sve gazirane gazirane napitke, energetska pića, sportska pića, vitaminsku vodu i ledene čajeve, za koje je rekao da su ih proizvođači pića posljednjih godina agresivnije plasirali na tržište.

Potrošnja sode u SAD -u naglo je porasla posljednjih desetljeća, čak i kada se zdravstveni rizici slatkih pića bolje razumjeli.

Pijenje samo jedne sode dnevno povećava vjerojatnost da će odrasla osoba imati prekomjernu težinu za 27 posto, a dijete za 55 posto, dok soda ili dvije dnevno povećava rizik od dijabetesa za 26 posto, pokazuju studije.

Ako se trenutni trendovi ne preokrenu, kažu zdravstveni zagovornici, jedno od troje djece u SAD-u rođeno nakon 2000. godine, te gotovo polovica latinoameričke i afroameričke djece razvit će dijabetes tipa 2 tijekom svog života.

Ostali zdravstveni rizici povezani s pretilošću uključuju bolesti srca, rak i astmu.

S obzirom na veličinu kalifornijskog gospodarstva, zahtijevanje sigurnosnih oznaka na gaziranim pićima vjerojatno bi utjecalo na druge države ili saveznu vladu da to slijede.

Pretilost čini gotovo 200 milijardi dolara godišnje u američkoj medicinskoj potrošnji, više od 20 posto nacionalnih zdravstvenih troškova, prema izvješću iz 2012. u Journal of Health Economics. Također je povezano s nižom produktivnošću radnika i smanjenom kvalitetom života.

Izvješće Sharon Bernstein Dodatno izvješće Steve Gorman i Lisa Baertlein Uređivanje Sophie Hares i Andre Grenon


JUDY WOODRUFF:

Sada: kampanja protiv gaziranih pića i slatkih pića u ime javnog zdravlja, najistaknutiji primjer u posljednje vrijeme, gradonačelnik New Yorka Michael Bloomberg predložio je zabranu prodaje zaslađenih pića većih od 16 unci na mnogim mjestima. Danas se zdravstveni dužnosnici i istraživači iz cijele zemlje sastaju ovdje u Washingtonu kako bi usporedili strategije.

Jedan grad u Kaliforniji mogao bi krenuti dalje od bilo koga do sada, s novim porezom.

Izvještava dopisnik NewsHoura Spencer Michels.

SPENCER MICHELS:

Na obiteljskoj tržnici u radničkom gradu Richmondu u Kaliforniji, u blizini San Francisca, vlasnik Mohammed Elzofri duboko je zabrinut zbog nove mjere koju podržava Gradsko vijeće i koja bi nametnula peni po unci na pića zaslađena šećerom.

Kontroverzni plan osmišljen za smanjenje potrošnje šećera pred glasače je u studenom. Elzofri kaže da oko 80 posto njegovih kupaca kupuje neku vrstu slatkog pića, a porez bi, kaže, popularnom napitku od dvije litre dodao oko 68 centi.

MOHAMMED ELZOFRI, vlasnik trgovine: Ovo će samo povrijediti siromašne ljude i povrijediti ove vlasnike tvrtki poput mene. Ljudi koji žele piti gazirana pića, piju. Palm Springs i Beverly Hills svi piju gazirana pića. Mislim, nije stvar samo u Richmondu koji je to shvatio. Mislim, svi će vam posvuda znati, udebljati se.

SPENCER MICHELS:

Zapravo, rastuće stope dijabetesa i drugih bolesti povezanih s težinom u središtu su rasprave koja se sada vodi u Richmondu oko predloženog poreza.

DR. JEFF RITTERMAN, Richmond, Kalifornija, gradsko vijeće: Kao što vjerojatno znate, imamo veliki problem s pretilošću u djetinjstvu u Richmondu. I to je za nas problem zdravstvenog dispariteta. Potpuno trećina naših latino učenika petih i sedmih razreda i trećina naših afroameričkih učenika petih i sedmih razreda pretilo je.

SPENCER MICHELS:

City Councilman Jeff Ritterman, a cardiologist, proposed the tax, which would be the first of its kind in the country. He wants people to reduce their consumption of sodas, what he calls the biggest culprit of the obesity epidemic.

DR. JEFF RITTERMAN:

If you look at where most of our added sugar is coming, it's coming from the sugar-sweetened beverages. And they're different from solid foods. Solid foods produce satiety. You get full. You get full when you eat a piece of cake. You don't get full when you drink the soda, even though they have the same amount of calories.

It's actually a poison for you, because your liver can't handle that huge amount of fructose.

SPENCER MICHELS:

Ritterman says money from the tax, which exempts diet drinks and fruit juices, would raise an estimated $3 million for local sports fields, diabetes treatment for low-income children, and school-based nutrition classes.

That's what Richmond needs, says Doria Robinson, a third-generation Richmond resident who runs a program that supports school and community gardens.

DORIA ROBINSON, community activist: Richmond isn't so much a food desert. It's actually a cornucopia of junk food. It basically translates into pretty much everyone knowing somebody with diabetes, whether they're a child or an adult, and really struggling with it.

SPENCER MICHELS:

The tax, she says, could break the addiction to soda so common in Richmond.

DORIA ROBINSON:

At least half the kids start their day with a Coke and a pack of hot fries. Like, that's breakfast, and then throughout the day drinking soda like it's water. Those empty calories have an enormous cumulative effect on our society. We are paying the price in the medical bills and all of the kind of health outcomes in the community.

SPENCER MICHELS:

Richmond is the latest in a recent string of cities and states considering special taxes on sugary beverages. So far, all have been defeated.

City Councilman Corky Booze, a former auto racer, took us for a drive around his community to show why he opposes the tax.

CORKY BOOZE, Richmond, Calif., city council: Richmond is a real diverse city. I would say it's a working, low, economically suppressed community. Most of the people don't have cars. Kids can't get out of here. The kids are basically stuck purchasing from this corner store. And the tax is definitely going to affect them.

SPENCER MICHELS:

Booze says some residents will shop elsewhere to avoid the tax, but poor people won't be able to.

CORKY BOOZE:

It's unfair to people who basically don't have the means of getting out of their neighborhood store to go into the neighboring communities to be able to avoid that tax.

If we were going to spend our time worrying about something within the city of Richmond that we can fix, we should be working on our streets and we should be working on our job situation.

SPENCER MICHELS:

And Booze says he doesn't think the government should be in the business of dictating what people should drink or eat.

CORKY BOOZE:

I think that when we get into the point of being a dictator to people, I think it's wrong. People are heavy for all kinds of reasons. It could be health. It could be the style of food that they eat at home. I just don't think the sodas are going to change that.

SPENCER MICHELS:

That's also the position of the American Beverage Association, the industry trade group representing companies like Coke, Pepsi, Red Bull, and Gatorade. It has lobbied hard against similar efforts around the country.

An affiliate group, Americans Against Food Taxes, ran this TV spot during the Super Bowl last year.

They want to put new taxes on a lot of groceries I buy, like soft drinks, juice drinks, sports drinks, even flavored waters. Give me a break. I can decide what to buy without government help.

SPENCER MICHELS:

In a statement provided to the NewsHour, the Beverage Association called the proposed Richmond tax regressive, and added: "It disproportionately hurts the most those who can least afford it. People don't support soda taxes, don't believe they will reduce obesity, and don't trust these taxes will go to pay for childhood obesity programs. They see these new taxes for what they are, a money grab to help pay for more government."

But for many in the medical community, sugary beverages are a health issue.

Dr. Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo, an internist at the University of California, San Francisco, co-authored a recent study which found a nationwide penny-per-ounce soda tax would reduce consumption by 15 percent and would, over a 10-year period, prevent several million diabetes cases and nearly 100,000 heart disease cases, as well as saving $17 billion in medical costs.

Dr. Bibbins-Domingo says similar taxes on cigarettes have had a dramatic affect on public health.

DR. KIRSTEN BIBBINS-DOMINGO, University of California, San Francisco: It was a few decades ago when we had high rates of tobacco and we had high rates of tobacco-related illnesses. Those measures really turned the tide and really led to lower rates of tobacco across the country.

I think the same has the potential to happen in this case. Richmond in isolation is unlikely to achieve a big effect, and Richmond has taken bold measures to really be at the forefront of this. But many other &mdash many other communities are talking about this very issue.

SPENCER MICHELS:

The campaign to oppose Richmond's soda tax is already under way. A local group with encouragement from the American Beverage Association and the local Teamsters union is going door to door to fight the tax.

For his part, Councilman Ritterman says he'd prefer to have a national or even a state tax passed. But, for now, he's trying to encourage Bay Area governments, including Oakland, Berkeley, and San Francisco, to join him in the fight against sugary beverages.

JUDY WOODRUFF:

In Europe, the French are already paying higher taxes on Cokes and Pepsis, and the Danes are paying a tax on butter. You can find that on our website.

And our next broadcast report looks at American junk food as the source of tooth decay among children in El Salvador.


Sugary beverages are the leading source of added sugar consumption in America according to the CDC, and consuming sugar in excess can lead to obesity, chronic diseases, and tooth decay, among other issues. Though the bill does not specify the amount of the tax, the Chronicle reported that previous proposals of a similar bill had advocated taxing two cents per fluid ounce. This would override the current ban by being a statewide, versus a citywide tax.

Berkeley was the first US city to tax soda, and saw a 10 percent decrease in consumption in the first year. Three other cities in California also have a soda tax, and were protected from last year’s ban on local soda taxes because the taxes had already been instituted.

Cities in other states have also enacted soda taxes, and a study of Philadelphia’s efforts in particular, found a 40 percent decrease in soda consumption in the first two months. While soda taxes only span eight cities in the US, others may follow suit if California finds success with one or more of these bills.


Regulation 1602.5. Reporting Methods for Grocers.

Reference: Sections 6359 and 6373, Revenue and Taxation Code.

(a) Food Products Exemption—In General. Tax does not apply to sales of food products for human consumption. Accurate and complete records of all purchases and sales of tangible personal property must be kept to verify all exemptions claimed as sales of exempt food products.

In preparing returns, grocers may use any method of determining the amount of their sales of exempt food products which does not result in an overstatement of the exemption. Grocers must be prepared to demonstrate by records which can be verified by audit that the method used properly reflects their sales of exempt food products.

(1) Purchase-ratio Method. One method which may be used is the purchase-ratio method sometimes referred to as the "grocer's formula". Under this method, grocers may claim as sales of exempt food products that proportion of their total gross receipts from the sale of "grocery items" that the amount of their purchases of exempt food products bears to their total purchases of grocery items.

If the grocer elects to use the purchase-ratio method of reporting, the following criteria should be followed:

(A) The purchase-ratio method may be used only by grocers and only with respect to sales of "grocery items".

(B) Grocers selling clothes, furniture, hardware, farm implements, distilled spirits, drug sundries, cosmetics, body deodorants, sporting goods, auto parts, cameras, electrical supplies, appliances, books, pottery, dishes, film, flower and garden seeds, nursery stock, fertilizers, flowers, fuel and lubricants, glassware, stationery supplies, pet supplies (other than pet food), school supplies, silverware, sun glasses, toys and other similar property should not include the purchases and sales of such items in the purchase-ratio method. These items are referred to as "nongrocery taxable" items.

When the purchase-ratio method is used for reporting purchases and sales of nongrocery taxable items are computed by the retail extension or markup method, the computation of nongrocery taxable sales should include adjustments for beginning and ending inventories of these items and may include adjustments for shrinkage as specified in (d) below.

(C) Grocers selling gasoline, feed for farm animals, farm fertilizers or who operate a snack bar or restaurant, or sell hot prepared food should not include the purchases and sales of such items or operations in the purchase-ratio method.

(D) The purchases and sales of meat, fruit, produce, delicatessen (except hot prepared food or food sold for immediate consumption at facilities provided by the grocer), beverage (except distilled spirits in the liquor department) and bakery departments must be included in the purchase-ratio method if these departments are operated by the grocer.

(E) The records should be complete and adequate and all sales and purchases should be properly accounted for in the records. All purchases of exempt food products, grocery taxable items and nongrocery taxable items should be segregated into their respective classifications.

(F) The following definitions apply to the purchase-ratio method:

1. "Exempt food products" means those items generally described as food products in Section 6359 and Regulation 1602. If grocers are uncertain as to the classification of any product, they should contact the nearest board office.

2. "Total gross receipts from the sale of grocery items" means the total amount of the sales price of all exempt food products and taxable grocery items, including sales tax reimbursement, amounts receivable from manufacturers, or others, for coupons (excluding any handling allowances) redeemed by customers, and the face value of federal food stamps. The term does not include receipts from sales of those items described in (b)(1)(B), above, which are commonly referred to as "nongrocery taxable items", or from those sales described in (b)(1)(C), above (gasoline, snack bar, etc.). It does not include amounts which represent "deposits", as defined in Regulation 1589, e.g., bottle deposits. When deposits are not segregated, it will be presumed, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the total deposits received are equal to the deposits refunded.

3. "Grocery items" means exempt food products and taxable items other than those generally classified under (b)(1)(B) and (b)(1)(C), above.

4. "Purchases" means the actual amount which a grocer is required to pay to the suppliers of merchandise, net of any cash discounts, volume rebates or quantity discounts and promotional allowances. The term does not include the cost of transportation, processing, manufacturing, warehousing, and other costs, if these operations are self-performed. It does not include the cost of operating supplies such as wrapping materials, paper bags, string, or similar items. It does not include amounts which represent "deposits", as defined in Regulation 1589, e.g., bottle deposits (see (b)(1)(F)2., above). If deposits are not segregated, it will be presumed, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the amount deposited with the supplier is equal to the credit received for bottles returned by the grocer.

A. As used herein, the term "cash discount" means a reduction from the invoice price which is allowed the grocer for prompt payment.

B. As used herein, the term "volume rebate or quantity discount" means an allowance or reduction of the price for volume purchases based on the number of units purchased or sold. Such rebates or discounts normally are obtained without any specific contractual obligation upon the part of the grocer to advertise or otherwise promote sales of the products purchased. The term does not include patronage dividends distributed to members by nonprofit cooperatives pursuant to Section 12805 of the Corporations Code, or rebates which constitute a distribution of profits to members or stockholders.

C. As used herein, the term "promotional allowance" means an allowance in the nature of a reduction of the price to the grocer, based on the number of units sold or purchased during a promotional period. The allowance is directly related to units sold or purchased although some additional promotional expense may be incurred by the grocer. Normally, grocers would feature the product in their advertising, although they may or may not be contractually obligated to do so. The retail price of the product may or may not be lowered during a promotional period.

The term does not include display or other merchandising plan allowances or payments which are based on agreements to provide shelf space for a price not related to volume of purchases, or cooperative advertising allowances which are based on a national line rate for advertising and are not directly related to volume of purchases and sales. Cooperative advertising allowances are intended to reimburse grocers for a portion of their advertising costs for a particular product or products.

(G) Sales tax reimbursement collected in accordance with Regulation 1700 which is included in total sales is an allowable deduction. An example of the computation of the purchase-ratio method which provides for an adjustment for sales tax included follows:

1. Taxable grocery purchases

2. Add sales tax adjustment (8.25%* × Item 1)

3. Adjusted taxable grocery purchases (Item 1 + Item 2)

4. Exempt food products purchases

5. Total grocery purchases including sales tax (Item 3 + Item 4)

6. Exempt food products ratio (Item 4 divided by Item 5)

7. Total sales including sales tax

8. Nongrocery taxable sales including sales tax (if such sales are not accurately segregated, mark up nongrocery taxable cost of goods sold

to compute sales—add 8.25% * sales tax to total)**

9. Grocery sales including sales tax (Item 7 – Item 8)

10. Exempt food products sales (Item 6 × Item 9)

11. Sales of taxable items including sales tax (Item 7 – Item 10)

12. Less taxable items purchased with food stamps (2% of total

food stamps redeemed for period, e.g., 2% × $100,000)

13. Taxable measure including sales tax (Item 11 – Item 12)

14. Sales tax included (8.25/108.25 × Item 13)

15. Measure of tax (Item 13 – Item 14)

16. Sales tax payable (8.25% * × Item 15)

* Use applicable tax rate—tax rate of 8.25% used for illustration purposes.

** Adjust for shrinkage if applicable—see paragraph (d).

(2) Modified Purchase-Ratio Method. Any grocer who does not follow the procedure outlined in (b)(1), above, but reports on a purchase-ratio basis of some type is using a modified version of the purchase-ratio method. For example, grocers who include self-performed processing, manufacturing, warehousing or transportation costs in the purchase-ratio formula are using a modified version. Grocers using such a modified version must establish that their modified version does not result in an overstatement of their food products exemption. They may demonstrate the adequacy of their modified method by extending taxable purchases, adjusted for inventories, to retail for a representative period or computing taxable sales by marking up taxable purchases, adjusted for inventories, for a representative period. Grocers must retain adequate records which may be verified by audit, documenting the modified purchase-ratio method used.

(3) Retail Inventory Method and Markup Method. Grocers who engage in manufacturing, processing, warehousing or transporting their own products may prefer to use a retail or markup method of reporting. These methods are described below:

(A) Retail Inventory Method.

1. The opening inventory is extended to retail and segregated as to exempt food products and taxable merchandise.

2. As invoices for merchandise are received, they are extended to retail and segregated as to exempt food products and taxable merchandise.

3. The ending inventory at retail is segregated as to exempt food products and taxable merchandise.

4. The total of segregated amounts determined in 1 and 2 less 3 represent anticipated exempt and taxable sales.

5. The segregated amounts determined in 4 are adjusted for net markons, net markdowns, and shrinkage to determine realized exempt and taxable sales.

6. Physical inventories are taken periodically to adjust book inventories.

(B) Cost Plus Markup Method—Taxable Merchandise.

1. The cost of all taxable merchandise is marked up to anticipated selling prices at the time of purchase. Records are kept of net markons, net markdowns, and shrinkage for all taxable merchandise. Such records are used to adjust the anticipated selling price to the realized price. Inventory adjustments are required unless the inventory of taxable merchandise at the beginning and ending of reporting periods is substantially constant. Returns should reflect as taxable sales the realized selling price of all taxable merchandise during a reporting period (anticipated sales price on purchases adjusted for inventory changes and other adjustments of the types mentioned).

2. If the grocer elects to use the cost plus markup method of reporting, the following criteria should be followed:

A. Markup factor percentages*** applicable to taxable merchandise should be determined by a shelf test sample of representative purchases, covering a minimum purchasing cycle of one month within a three-year period, segregated by commodity groupings, i.e., beer, wine, carbonated beverages, tobacco and related products, paper products, pet food, soap, detergents, etc. The markup factor percentages determined for commodity groupings should be applied to the cost of sales of the respective commodities for the reporting period to determine taxable sales.

In order to insure that markup factor percentages typical of the total business are determined, grocers who conduct multistore operations should include purchases from several representative stores in the shelf test sample of markup factor percentages.

*** Markup factor percentage is the markup + 100%. When applied to cost, it computes the selling price. For example, an item costing $1.00 and selling at a 25% markup will have a markup factor of 125%. The markup factor (125%) when applied to $1.00 cost results in a $1.25 selling price.

B. As an alternate procedure to A., above, the overall average markup factor percentage for all taxable commodity groupings may be used to determine taxable sales for the reporting period. This markup factor percentage is applied to the overall cost of taxable sales for the reporting period.

The overall average markup factor percentage should be determined as follows:

a. Determine markup factor percentages by commodity groupings based on shelf tests covering a minimum purchasing cycle of one month within a three-year period.

b. Determine cost of sales, segregated by commodity groupings, for a representative one-year period.

c. Apply markup factor percentages (Step a) to the cost of sales of the respective commodity groupings (Step b) to determine anticipated sales by commodity groupings and in total.

d. Divide total anticipated sales (Step c) by the respective total cost of sales to determine the overall average markup factor percentage.

C. In calculating markup factor percentages, appropriate consideration should be given to markon and markdown price adjustments, quantity price adjustments such as on cigarettes sold by the carton, liquor sold by the case and other selling price adjustments. Quantity and other price adjustments may be determined by a limited test of sales of a representative period or by sales experience of a representative store within the operating entity.

D. The computation of taxable sales for the reporting period should be based on cost of sales for the period. If for any particular reporting period or periods, cost of sales is not determinable because actual physical inventories are unknown and inventories remain substantially constant, the computation of taxable sales may be based on purchases for the period. However, if inventories are not substantially constant, adjustments for physical inventories should be taken into consideration in one of the reporting periods occurring within the accounting year.

E. Shrinkage should be adjusted as specified in (d) below.

F. Taxable markup factor percentages based on shelf test samples will generally be considered valid for reporting purposes for a period of three years, provided business operations remain substantially the same. A substantial change in business operations will be considered as having occurred when there is a significant change in pricing practices, commodities handled, commodity mix, locations operated, sources of supply, or other circumstances affecting the nature of the business.

(4) Electronic Scanning Systems. The use of a scanning system is another acceptable reporting method for grocers. Electronic scanning systems utilize electronic scanners and central computers to automatically compile and record taxable and nontaxable sales, sales tax, and related data from scanning of products imprinted with the Universal Product Code. It is the grocer's responsibility to establish the propriety of reported amounts. Grocers must ensure that proper controls are maintained for monitoring and verifying the accuracy of the scanning results and tax returns. Adequate documentation must be retained which may be verified by audit, including all scanning programs relating to product identity, price, sales tax code, program changes and corrections to the programs. Records which clearly show a segregation of taxable and nontaxable merchandise purchases would provide an additional source from which the scanning accuracy may be monitored or verified.

(c) Food Stamps. Tangible personal property eligible to be purchased with federal food stamps and so purchased is exempt from the tax. Grocers who receive gross receipts in the form of federal food stamp coupons in payment for such tangible personal property which normally is subject to the tax, e.g., nonalcoholic carbonated beverages, may deduct on each sales tax return an amount equal to two percent (2%) of the total amount of food stamps redeemed during the period for which the return is filed. Effective January 1, 1993, grocers may claim amounts in excess of two percent whenever the following computation results in a greater percentage: total purchases of taxable items eligible to be purchased with federal food stamps divided by an amount equal to the total of the exempt food product purchases as defined in subdivision (b)(1)(F)1 plus the purchase of taxable items eligible to be purchased with federal food stamps. For example, for a reporting period, if the total purchases of carbonated beverages equals $5,000 and the total purchases of exempt food products equals $130,000, a percentage of 3.7% ($5,000 ÷ $135,000) may be used in computing the allowable food stamp deduction for that period. This deduction may be taken in lieu of accounting separately for such sales.

(d) Shrinkage. As used herein, the term "shrinkage" means unaccounted for losses due to spoilage, breakage, pilferage, etc. Grocers who incur such losses, may, for reporting purposes, adjust for such losses as follows:

(1) An adjustment of up to 1 percent of the cost of taxable merchandise may be taken into consideration when the retail inventory or markup method is used for reporting purposes.

(2) An adjustment of up to 3 percent of the cost of nongrocery taxable items may be taken into consideration when the purchase-ratio method is used for reporting purposes and sales of nongrocery taxable items are computed by the retail extension or markup method. The adjustment is limited to an overall 1 percent of taxable purchases when other than the purchase-ratio method is used for reporting purposes.

Losses in excess of the above are allowable when supported by records which show that a greater loss is sustained.

(e) List of Methods Not Exhaustive. The methods by which grocers may determine their sales of exempt food products are not limited to the methods described above. Grocers may use any method which they can support as properly reflecting their exempt food sales. As is the case for all exemptions, it is the grocer's responsibility to establish the propriety of the amount of the claimed exemption.

(f) Audits. Taxpayers using one of the approved methods of reporting described in this regulation will normally be audited by application of the same approved procedure in the audit to verify the accuracy of claimed deductions. However, determinations may be imposed or refunds granted if the board, upon audit of the retailer's accounts and records, determines that the returns did not accurately disclose the amount of tax due.

History—Adopted May 10, 1973, effective June 23, 1973. Amended August 24, 1988, effective, November 17, 1988. In subdivision (c) amended to provide that certain items purchased with food stamps coupons are exempt from sales and use taxes.

Amended July 28, 1993, effective October 21, 1993.

Amended subdivision (c) to provide an alternative method which grocers may use to compute the allowance deduction for the total amount of food stamp coupons redeemed during the return period.

Amended February 8, 1995, effective July 19, 1995. Added subparagraph (b)(4) to recognize electronic scanning systems as an acceptable means of reporting and to specify documentation to be retained for audit verification amended subparagraphs (a), (b)(1)(F)1. and 4.C., (b)(2), and (e) to delete gender-based language.

Amended October 1, 2008, effective December 31, 2008. Deleted second paragraph in subdivision (b)(4) to eliminate the obsolete requirement that grocers get Board approval before using an electronic scanning method to determine the amount of their sales of exempt food products. Also deleted last two sentences in subdivision (b)(2) and deleted subdivision (b)(3)(B)2.G. to remove language urging grocers to seek Board approval prior to using the modified purchase-ratio and the cost plus markup methods for reporting tax.

Amended March 25, 2010, effective May 13, 2010. Amended subdivision (b)(1)(G) and corresponding footnote to utilize current tax rate of 8.25 percent in purchase ratio method calculation with tax included deduction.


California bill would require warning labels on sugary drinks

Sodas and most other sugar-sweetened drinks sold in California would be required to carry warning labels for obesity, diabetes and tooth decay under a bill introduced in Sacramento on Thursday and backed by several public-health advocacy groups.

California would be the first state to require such warning labels if SB1000 is approved. It would require the warning to be on the front of all beverage containers with added sweeteners that have 75 or more calories in a 12-ounce serving.

The label would read: "State of California safety warning: Drinking beverages with added sugar(s) contributes to obesity, diabetes and tooth decay."

Sen. William Monning, D-Carmel, who proposed the bill, said that there is significant research indicating a link between sugary drinks and those health problems, adding that the wording was developed by a national panel of nutrition and public-health experts. The bill has the backing of the California Medical Association and the California Center for Public Health Advocacy.

"The goal of the warning quite simply is to give consumers the right to know what are well-established medical impacts from consuming these beverages," Monning told The Associated Press in a telephone interview. "We're talking about a public-health epidemic that will take more lives than gun violence."

The Latino Coalition for a Healthy California and the California Black Health Network also are sponsoring the legislation, citing the heavy consumption of sugary drinks and associated health problems among minorities.

A bill similar to Monning's was introduced last year in Vermont, but it has been held in the Committee on Human Services since April. The Vermont bill would require manufacturers to put warning labels on beverages that "contain sugar or other artificial additives."

A growing body of research has identified sugary drinks as the biggest contributors to added empty calories in the American diet and as a major culprit in a range of costly health problems associated with being overweight.

More than a third of U.S. adults and nearly 17 percent of children ages 2 to 19 are obese, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Efforts to curtail consumption of sugary drinks through taxes and other efforts have met fierce resistance from the U.S. food and beverage industry, which came out against the California labeling bill on Thursday.

CalBev, the California arm of the American Beverage Association, released a statement Thursday outlining its opposition to the measure.

"We agree that obesity is a serious and complex issue," the statement read, adding that most calories are consumed in the form of fats, oils and starches in food. "It is misleading to suggest that soft drink consumption is uniquely responsible for weight gain. In fact, only 4.0 percent of calories in the average American diet are derived directly from soda.”

The group would not put a price tag on complying with the proposed legislation but said the measure would increase the cost of doing business in California.

The medical groups backing Monning's bill countered with their own data, saying sugary drinks have been the largest source of added calories in the average American's diet in the past three decades. They also said one soda a day boosts an adult's chances of being overweight by 27 percent and a child's by 55 percent and can increase the risk of diabetes by 26 percent.

Monning equated the warning labels to similar efforts to control alcohol and tobacco and dismissed suggestions that the labeling would be another example of nanny-state government.

"It is not the responsibility of industry to protect the public health. It is the responsibility of government," he said, adding that consumers could still choose to drink the beverages. "We believe it's an appropriate role for government to play."

The warning labels would mesh, he said, with health campaigns and proposed ordinances in several California cities and elsewhere to discourage sugar consumption. San Francisco, for instance, is considering asking voters to approve a tax on soda and other sweetened drinks.

In New York City in 2012, then-Mayor Michael Bloomberg spearheaded a ban on sales of large sugary drinks, but the move was declared illegal by a state judge after a legal challenge by soft drink makers and a restaurant group.

New York's highest court has agreed to hear an appeal.

Strong industry opposition helped kill soda tax proposals in two other California cities, as well as in the ski resort town of Telluride, Colo. The cities of San Francisco and Berkeley are both considering soda tax measures this year.

Monning said warning labels can make a difference in consumers' choices, particularly when paired with other public-health campaigns warning of the dangers of obesity.

"We don't underestimate what we're up against," he said. "We're up against $100 million advertising campaigns."


Gledaj video: To The Next Level: Marijuana Regulation in the US Sub: Eng, Bul, Hun, Spa, Ser, Rom, Pol, Por, Rus (Kolovoz 2022).