Centering Community in Soda Taxes - Christina Goette
Christina Goette, co-founder of Shape Up San Francisco Coalition, discusses the wide range of efforts to reduce sugary drink consumption in the Bay Area and situates SSB work along the spectrum of prevention. From education initiatives, to organizational culture change, to policy advocacy, the spectrum of prevention provides multiple avenues for decreasing sugar sweetened beverage consumption. Reflecting on the journey of passing San Francisco's SSB tax, which was unsuccessful when it was first proposed in 2014, Christina emphasizes the importance of centering the voices of communities who are disproportionately burdened by beverage industry's predatory marketing as well as ensuring tax revenues are reinvested directly back into these communities. She shares how building authentic partnerships with community-based organizations who are grounded in their communities and have community trust was central to the passing of the tax in 2016.
This episode of In Praxis is a part of Season 2: Sugar Sweetened Beverage Taxes. Learn more about Praxis’ work around SSB taxes on our Centering Community & Equity Through Sugary Drink Tax Investments page.
The information, opinions, views, and conclusions proposed in this episode are those of our podcast guests.
You can also tune into this episode on Anchor, Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, and Stitcher. Below is a transcript of the episode, edited for readability. You can also watch this episode on YouTube with subtitles for accessibility.
Centering Community in Soda Taxes - Christina Goette
Podcast Transcript
Coming from the health department we might not have the trust of the populations we really want to reach, but community-based organizations do have that trust. It really was a strategy that was important to honor and recognize the importance of community organizations and the ties and the esteem with which community members hold them in. Partner with them to get the message out there.
[Podcast intro tunes]
[In Praxis Intro] You are listening to In Praxis, a podcast by The Praxis Project created to support, hear from, and uplift the stories coming out of the ecosystem of basebuilding organizing. An ecosystem that includes frontline basebuilding groups and the folks who help support their important work. In this season of In Praxis, our hosts, Julian Johnson and Kourtney Nham, focus on sugar sweetened beverage taxes. We have compiled interviews from advocates working on issues surrounding the reduction of sweet and sugary beverages as well as the taxation of these products. Participants of this podcast are community members, public health practitioners, health department representatives, and concerned parents that span across the country. In each episode, you will hear about their phenomenal work as well as their perspective on the health effects of sugary consumption, and in what ways policy can be used to combat this and lead to reinvestment in our communities.
Julian Johnson: Hi everyone, today I’m here with Christina Goette. Christina would you mind telling us a little bit about who you are and what you do.
Christina Goette: Sure! So, my name is Christina, and I work for the San Francisco public health department. I’ve been there for… oh, a good 20 years now which is kind of crazy to think it's been that long. I also live in San Francisco, and I’m excited to get to live and work in the same [community] because I get to see the impact of my work in my own community. I’ve been working in public health for about… uh, almost three decades, and all of that has been in the San Francisco bay area. I work in the health department to address the inequities to physical activity and nutrition. In the 20 years that I’ve been there about 17 or 18 of those have been focused in that area, and we've always done this work focusing on what people can do not necessarily on the negative things that they shouldn't be doing, but how can we promote and make it easier for healthy eating and active living.
Julian Johnson: So, this is more so a broad question, but I’d love to hear how you first got involved in working on issues of health in general.
Christina Goette: Sure. Well, I out of college gotten a degree in English with no intention of teaching. I landed a job with a high-tech company, and I worked there for three years. And [got] laid off and ended up on a whim going to Prague with a good friend of mine who was doing research on condom manufacturing in Eastern Europe as part of her business school. So, I ended up interviewing people about their perspectives on HIV and AIDS, and I had happened at the same time pick up the book And the Band Played On by Randy Shilts about the AIDS epidemic. So, all of that just sparked this absolute new fascination with health and this whole new field of public health that I had honestly never heard of. I was so upset to understand and learn how politics was playing into and very negatively impacting people's health. So, when I got back I researched how what kind of work could I do and how could I get into that work. And I decided that my best shot at doing something would be to go into grad school and get a Master in Public Health, which is what I did. I went to San Jose State um to earn that Master's in Public Health and to kick start a new career.
Julian Johnson: Awesome. So, when looking at the issue of sugary drinks, when did you first realize that they were related to health problems?
Christina Goette: Yeah that's a good question… I remember very clearly. We had started this Shape Up San Francisco Coalition in 2006, and I was serving on the Bay Area Nutrition and Physical Activity Coalition on their steering committee. One of the partners there, Alameda County, um in 2007, shared their new campaign called soda free summer. We had just written a whole strategic plan, and honestly it's probably the worst strategic plan I’ve ever led. Really wasn't strategic it just had everything in there that everybody wanted to do, but it had nothing in there about sugary drinks. Since it wasn't really the kind of strategic plan that allowed you to say no to new projects, we just added that and started focusing on sugary drinks. The next version of the strategic plan, I might add, was quite a bit more focused um it did not have the kitchen sink in there. So, it was in 2007 where we heard about the soda free summer campaign that Alameda County had come up with, and they had come up with it because their director Tony Iton had noticed—um he was in Costco and just seeing people haul out cases and cases of soda, and they sort of investigated it a little bit more and really sparking the work on around sugary drinks. At that time, I understood sugary drinks to be a contributor to overweight obesity, and therefore a contributor to chronic diseases that we were trying to prevent like diabetes and heart disease, and so forth.
Julian Johnson: And so, as you were learning more, when did you decide that this is going to be something I’m going to invest my energy in, I’m going to put my time into reducing the consumption of sugary drinks. Was there was it just as you were gradually learning more? Or was there like a switch or a moment you said I’m gonna invest my time in this more.
Christina Goette: I think that the beginning of Soda Free Summer Campaign where we, as part of the Bay Area Nutrition Physical Activity Council—BANPAC, that is really what opened my eyes and made me realize that it's a significant contributor. Doing this work around chronic disease prevention especially related to nutrition and eating, we all need food and so that becomes a trickier discussion. It's trickier than, for example, tobacco. You don't need tobacco. You need liquids, and you need drinks. But the fact that sugary drinks generally have no nutritional value, became a really clear focus on why are we drinking it then? You know, what value does it add to our health? At the same time, I feel like the science was really starting to grow, and become more prevalent on the negative impacts of liquid sugar. As I learned, it's quite distinct in both how our body processes it, and how it works in our system in terms of signaling the brain—changing our chemistry and our brain not recognizing that we're full anymore. It just made me realize that it's much deeper, and it is not an innocuous product. The industry played a role also in making it so cheap, and available, and just constantly increasing the quantity, so that people were drinking amounts that were getting to that point of being really dangerous to them.
Julian Johnson: Yeah.
Christina Goette: It wasn't just a one-time treat, it was a drink this for breakfast, lunch, and dinner kind of a thing.
Julian Johnson: Um hmm, exactly.
Christina Goette: So, I feel like pretty quickly after I was introduced to this convention of sugary drinks as a contributor to poor health… once we jumped on the bandwagon, we haven't gotten off
Julian Johnson: And so, in your current work, what are some strategies you've seen that help in the reducing the consumption of sugary drinks?
Christina Goette: There's a spectrum of work that needs to happen. Prevention Institute’s Spectrum of Prevention is something that I’ve lived my professional life by for many, many years. Certainly back in 2008, it was clear to us that we needed to purely educate people [on] why this is an issue. Even in 2020, we might still need to educate people about why this is… this remains an issue. So, we started with that. We just started with that very basic Soda Free Summer Campaign to educate people, um educate the community, and we started to engage other coalitions and organizations as partners and educators, different providers getting them to help us figure out how to decrease consumption of sugary drinks. Part of that education was going to our city family, if you will, and we presented to the leadership at Recreation and Parks Department. They were with us right there, next to us, and um after we presented to them they did two very important things: they pulled the vending machines out of their community centers and they created a policy for their summer camps. Their summer camps would be soda free. They changed the snacks and the drinks that they served to children so that it was basically spa water—fruit or herb infused water—and healthier snacks. They were really one of the ones to get us thinking about organizational wellness policies, and so that was sort of the next level. It's all about shifting the culture, the norms—changing the conversation around it, because we did have a big policy goal. The coalition was always operating on something of a shoe string. While they had staffing provided by the health department, we didn't really have much of a budget, um unless we got a grant or two. We were really clear that we needed a sustainable funding stream to really do the work around chronic disease prevention. The idea of taxing sugary drinks became something that the coalition made a priority. As we worked with policy makers to write legislation that was grounded in public health, that was grounded in data, and to make a case for why sugary—why, what's special and unique about those. So, we sort of moved up that spectrum of prevention from awareness and education to building coalitions and doing organizational change to finally the one at the top that really looks at policy change. So, San Francisco is one of four jurisdictions in the Bay Area that now has a soda tax. It took San Francisco two tries to pass a soda attacks: one in 2014, which did receive a majority of votes but required a super majority, so it technically didn't pass; this second attempt was successful that just required a simple majority to pass, and so that that passed in 2016. We do look at soda tax as a way to decrease consumption in a couple of ways, because some populations are more price sensitive. We hope that that reduces consumption, and then importantly, to take the revenue and put that money right back into the communities that are both targeted by industry, and therefore drink more sugary drinks, and have higher rates of chronic diseases. That is really the way that um we hope and expect the soda tax to have impact in the community.
Julian Johnson: And you mentioned that you had to go through two rounds and kind of pass the legislation, but I’m wondering in the stages of awareness education and coalition building and organizational changes, was there any pushback you saw on the community level in response to the different initiatives you guys were trying to roll out?
Christina Goette: Certainly with respect to the tax there was definitely pushback from the community. I think some of that was just acknowledging that it might—it might and it could hit poor people harder, and that they had more important things to worry about. I mean, San Francisco is a really expensive city, and housing was really far more important or violence. So, it was sort of at both-and in terms of just the issue of sugary drinks—like why should we be bothered with that, it doesn't seem to land fairly. And one way we address that is after the 2014 tax didn't quite make the mark, we worked closely with UCSF, and the heart association, the bigger picture—which is great resource for those that want to use videos developed by young people about sugary drinks—partnered with them to work with a number of different community organizations to put funding into the community. It wasn't a lot of money, it's just a little bit of money, but to engage community-based organizations and to do that education. Because coming from a health department or an organization like UCSF or Heart Association, we might not have the trust of the populations we really want to reach. But community-based organizations do have that trust. It really was a strategy that was important to honor and recognize the importance of community organizations and the ties and the esteem with which community members hold them in, and partner with them to get the message out there. And once we did that we had some other natural allies that had developed as a result of that that became just absolutely key constituencies in the 2016 campaign.
Julian Johnson: And so I think when looking at different health initiatives across soda tax work or other policy areas, there is this, I would say, desire or consideration to also make sure that health equity is centered in that work. So, when looking at the area of soda tax policy what are some ways that we can center health equity in the conversations that you've been a part of, and being a part of that legislation, what ways are better than others in making sure that health equity is centered in soda tax policy?
Christina Goette: We as a health department, and me as a white person, we really need to make sure that the people that are going to be most impacted are sitting at the table with you every step of the way. That they're sitting at the table with you when you're talking about legislation, and what does that legislation look like, and how can it be tweaked, how can it be changed, how can it be created to ensure that the voice of Black and brown folks is central to the work. And both in 2014 and 2016 campaigns, funding organizations CBO's to help us with the awareness and education, I think that's also another way to keep equity at the center. It does have to do with not just asking them to do one other thing, but paying them to do one other thing. The way the rationale was written for the legislation, that showed with data, that it was impacting African Americans and Latinos, in particular, the most. That the resources should then in turn go right back into those communities to help with impact of sugar drink consumption and work on prevention as well.
Julian Johnson: And I think that also ties into having a counter message to when the beverage industry claims that these taxes are regressive, that they will hurt low-income communities—communities of color, I think really emphasizing that this money's going back into those same communities to improve health outcomes as a way to not only counter message the beverages claims but also make sure that health equities address in those counter messages.
Christina Goette: Absolutely. I mean, that was definitely a big message. They were spewing all kinds of nonsense in the two campaigns, and by “they,” I mean industry. And yeah, as a public health department person, as a reasonable human being, I can see the surface it looks like soda taxes are regressive, but diabetes is regressive, and the tactics that the industry uses—I would offer—are regressive and racist. So, that's really the way that we try to counter those messages, because it's not a level playing field in any way. I’ve learned a little bit about how the economics of small corner stores works, and the corner store owners don't have a level playing field either, and they're they're somewhat at the mercy of the industry as well. So, money… money is often the driver in everything, and the industry has the money to create demand for their products, to make sure that their products are placed in exactly the right place, to make sure that their products are priced in such a way that they're extremely affordable—when a sugary drink is less expensive than a bottle of water that's just, I still can't wrap my head around it. All that is feasible when you think about the ingredients and all the marketing. I mean the amount of money that the industry spends on marketing is insane, so how is it that a soda is less expensive than a bottle of water.
Julian Johnson: Exactly.
Christina Goette: And that shows their market power.
Julian Johnson: No, yes, their market power and the unlimited amount of money and funds they can throw at health departments and advocates trying to make change. I think for me, I have definitely become more familiar with soda tax policy and the work that people like yourself are doing over my time at Praxis. I’ve seen a lot of parallels of how it draws to tactics of the tobacco industry in terms of really trying to create these narratives that are ingrained in a community member's mind, so that way when people try to show that soda and sugary drinks aren't causing harm, it's met with either denial or just hesitant to try to make changes. So, I think a lot of people will say well the next best thing to do is to continue to pump out more research, to continue to do research, and refute these industry claims. So, my question for you is do you feel like that is the right way to go? Is the strategy to continue to pump out more research to refute industry claims? And if that is the case what are the most pressing research needs in order to advance that fight against the industry?
Christina Goette: I mean, I just—I can't help but roll my eyes and laugh because on one hand during the campaign for the soda tax, and in their case against the set attacks the industry claimed they need more education. You know “they,” the consumers, just once they know, they can make the right decision. And you know, you all can educate people, and we can help educate people too, which I would never trust in industry because we've seen with tobacco what that looks like. So, on one hand, they're saying don't tax people, it's regressive—or whatever they're going to say—all your groceries are going to go up in cost because of this tax on sugary drinks, and really when all you really need is people need to be educated and they need to exercise more… so they're going to deflect it. When San Francisco decided to take them up on this notion of more education, and recommended, and wrote legislation to put a warning label on ads promoting sugary drinks, they suddenly said, you can't do that, and that's not going to work—education doesn't work. So, I’ve seen both sides of it from them, and I mean if education doesn't work, why do they spend so much money on marketing? I just think that no matter what public health says or anyone that is going against what they're saying and against their stance, they're always going to come up with something else. So, do we need research to counter their messages? I don't know… maybe? I know as a public health person there are a couple pieces of data that remain elusive. This relates very directly and specifically to sugary drinks; it's ‘what is consumption really like?’ And that's the hardest piece of data to get that is reliable and stable. We can get sales data. Sales data isn't quite the same as consumption data, and I think if we wanted to spend any time on research, that's where I would put my money. I’ve seen some of this research already, but we haven't seen an increase in grocery costs as a result of soda taxes. We have seen, rather, that the taxes have been, for the most part, put to use the way the legislation intended. I mean, it's not always perfect but generally certainly in San Francisco, the funding is going to Black African-American populations, it's going to Latinx populations, and other Asian and Pacific Islander populations, because they're the ones that are most impacted. But we can have all the data in the world, and we're not really allowed to lie. Not that we do. It's not how we do our work, but it's not illegal to lie. The industry has no qualms putting forward whatever argument is in their interest in that moment.
Julian Johnson: No you're exactly right this question is a little bit more open-ended, but people that may listen to this conversation may wonder what is the end goal? What's the end game here? Is it that we have soda tax policy that's nationally adopted? Is it that we continue to kind of create watchdog apparatuses against the beverage industry? Is it that we want to eliminate consumption of sugary drinks and its totality? So my question for you would then be, what will it look like when advocates like yourself win against the beverage industry?
Christina Goette: I do think that having minimally a statewide policy. Ideally, yeah, we have national taxes on sugary drinks, and that it could go toward in part healthcare. The early version of the healthcare legislation, they were proposing using soda taxes to help fund the ACA, and that obviously did not happen. But yes, I think we'd need national policy. Are we going to fully eliminate sugary drinks? I don't think so, and I don't think we need to. They're fine as a treat every so often. I mean, my child has a soda every so often. She doesn't get it every day, and she certainly doesn't get the super size. But until the industry takes a responsible approach, I don't trust them. They haven't shown that they're trustworthy, because their bottom line is making money for their shareholders. We know that the industry isn't going to protect our children, and so we need to protect our children. That can mean all kinds of things. While in San Francisco, we've required that there are no sugary drinks in our schools and vending machines every so often you come across a vending machine with sugar drinks in our schools. It's hard to make that work uniformly, at least at this moment in time. So, I think that we as adults, that's our job is to protect children. Maybe it looks something like you can't just go up to a soda machine and buy sugary drinks. I mean, I remember when I was a kid and you could go get yourself a pack of cigarettes. Maybe that changes too for sugary drinks. Maybe we start looking at that you need ID to buy sugary drinks. Those ideas are certainly out there. If the industry isn't going to ensure that children are safe, then we need to. It's always going to be easier if we have national legislation. It's more fair to all merchants, and everything it's just easier. We might get there, but it'll be a while. I don't think we need to worry about whether the beverage industry is going to make it, or that they're too big to fail, if you will, because have you seen the explosion of flavored waters out there? I mean, they're constantly reinventing themselves, and they create a demand for these sugary syrupy sweet drinks that are really bad for us, and very… to the point where sometimes it can be poisonous if you drink enough of it every day. They can reinvent themselves to create delicious, refreshing product, if we're worried about the business end of it. Honestly, I really would rather people drink water out of their taps, assuming that their taps are safe. But that for me, that's really what I’d like to see is that people are drinking water from their taps and spending their money on other things for their families.
Julian Johnson: I think that's a great way to end it. Thank you so much Christina for taking the time to speak with me. Before we close out is there anything else you'd like to add?
Christina Goette: I think what I would add is this work around sugary drinks has been an incredible effort among public health advocates, community advocates, scientists, politicians, researchers, parents banded together to create a healthier and safer place for our children—for all of us. We're all building on the work of other people and others. And our movement is building on the movement of tobacco—tobacco-free advocates. So, I think what I would just say is I’m grateful to all the community advocates out there that stood with public health and really helped us move the needle on sugary drinks.
Julian Johnson: I could not agree more. Thank you so much again, Christina.
Christina Goette: All right, well thank you. I really appreciate this opportunity.
[Podcast outro tunes]
[In Praxis outro] Thank you for listening to this episode of In Praxis. We hope you all enjoyed it. Make sure to visit our website, www.thepraxisproject.org, where you can check out additional episodes of other guests as well as learn more about our work.
[End]