HR0148LRB100 11518 MST 22034 r


2    WHEREAS, A proposed tax on sugar-sweetened beverages to
3generate revenue to balance the State's budget has been
4contemplated by some policymakers; and
5    WHEREAS, Adding an additional tax on sugar-sweetened
6beverages will raise grocery costs for Illinois hardworking
7families and kill Illinois jobs; and
8    WHEREAS, Studies have concluded that any obesity-related
9benefit of decreased sugar-sweetened beverage consumption that
10comes from a tax is negligible or offset by individual
11circumstances and environments; for instance, West Virginia
12has had a sugar-sweetened beverage tax since 1951 and has the
13second highest obesity rate in the United States at 35.6%;
14since 1990, the diabetes rate in West Virginia has more than
15doubled from 6.7% to 14.5%; Arkansas has had a sugar-sweetened
16beverage tax since 1992; during this time, obesity rates have
17doubled from 17% to 34.5%, ranking it the sixth-highest rate in
18the United States; additionally, the diabetes rate has doubled
19from 5.8% to 12.6%; and
20    WHEREAS, If the sugar-sweetened beverage tax will reduce
21consumption as the advocates claim, then it will in turn
22negatively impact bottlers, manufacturers, agricultural



HR0148- 2 -LRB100 11518 MST 22034 r

1suppliers, distributors, retailers, and labor; with more than
2100,000 Illinois residents directly and indirectly employed by
3the beverage industry, the vast beverage industry could face
4layoffs if the sugar-sweetened beverage tax is signed into law;
6    WHEREAS, Beverage-related jobs create $654 million in
7wages in Illinois, with an additional $702 million in wages for
8occupations that rely on beverage sales; passing this soda
9beverage tax would decrease sales resulting in a decrease in
10local and State revenue at a time when governments across
11Illinois are facing declining revenue; and
12    WHEREAS, A soda tax will provide additional incentive to
13the two-thirds of Illinois residents who live within a
1440-minute drive of a neighboring state to shop in that
15neighboring state and therefore further weaken tax receipts and
16cripple local businesses; specifically, Illinois retailers
17which border other states will be put at an even greater
18competitive disadvantage with out-of-state retailers; and
19    WHEREAS, A recent proposal would impose an unreasonable new
20State penny-per-ounce tax that would result in 68 cents in new
21taxes on a typical 99-cent, two-liter bottle of soda; and
22    WHEREAS, An additional tax on sugar-sweetened beverages



HR0148- 3 -LRB100 11518 MST 22034 r

1goes against the pro-business, pro-jobs, pro-growth policies
2that should be under careful consideration as Illinois seeks to
3regain sound financial footing; therefore, be it
6fully support our hardworking citizens and oppose all efforts,
7on the State or local level, to impose new taxes on beverages
8and food; and be it further
9    RESOLVED, That we state our firm opposition to any
10additional taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages.