Community
Taxes on Sugar-Sweetened Drinks Drive Decline in Consumption
A new study by researchers at UC Berkeley—including those at UC Berkeley School of Public Health and the Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics—and elsewhere shows that after excise taxes were placed on sugary beverages, purchases declined dramatically and steadily across five American cities.

By Elise Proulx
UC Berkeley News
A new study by researchers at UC Berkeley—including those at UC Berkeley School of Public Health and the Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics—and elsewhere shows that after excise taxes were placed on sugary beverages, purchases declined dramatically and steadily across five American cities.
Although other studies have evaluated the impact of beverage excise taxes—taxes on a per ounce basis–in a single city, this is one of the first that estimates the impact of local excise taxes on purchases and prices of sugar-sweetened beverages across multiple large cities.
The cities included Boulder, Philadelphia, Oakland, Seattle, and San Francisco, all of which implemented taxes between Jan. 1, 2017, and Jan. 1, 2018.
Sugar-sweetened beverages—such as sodas, fruit drinks, sports drinks, energy drinks, and sweetened coffee drinks—are the leading source of added sugars in the American diet, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
They are associated with serious negative health outcomes, including type 2 diabetes, obesity, heart disease, kidney disease, non-alcoholic liver disease, gum disease, tooth decay, and other conditions.
Taxes on these types of beverages are promoted as a key policy to hold beverage companies accountable for and reduce the health harms associated with their products, but comprehensive analyses of such taxes have been difficult due to the absence of sufficiently large samples of data and methodological limitations.
“Estimating a more general, more accurate impact of local sugar-sweetened beverage taxes in the U.S. provides greater insight into the overall effectiveness of these taxes,” said study lead author, Scott Kaplan, who is an economics professor at the United States Naval Academy.
Kaplan received his PhD from the UC Berkeley Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics in 2021. “This study may better inform the potential effectiveness of SSB taxes at the state or federal level.”
This new study builds on an earlier study that looked only at data from the city of Oakland.
The new study found that retail prices of sugar-sweetened beverages increased by 33.1% over the two years following tax implementation in each city studied, and that there was a corresponding decrease in purchases of 33% over the same timeframe.
The price increase and purchase decreases appeared immediately after the taxes were implemented and continued to be sustained months later. At the same time, there was no evidence that consumers were traveling to bordering areas without sweetened beverage taxes to make purchases there.
This study’s findings suggest that “these taxes are quite effective in terms of health outcomes and societal cost-savings,” said Kaplan. He hopes this may lead to similar policy action in other locations across the country, and at the state and national levels, as was done with tobacco taxes.
A previous study co-authored by Dr. Kristine A. Madsen of UC Berkeley School of Public Health showed that tax revenue from sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) excise in seven cities were used to support initiatives to improve community health, develop human and community capital, and advance equity.
Authors include: Scott Kaplan, US Naval Academy; Justin S. White, Boston University School of Public Health, Kristine A. Madsen and Sofia B. Villas-Boas, UC Berkeley; Sanjay Basu, University of Toronto; Dean Schillinger, UCSF
This work was supported by grants from the National Institute on Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (R01 DK116852 and 2P30 DK092924), The California Endowment, the UCSF Diabetes Family Fund, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (U18DP006526).
#NNPA BlackPress
UPDATE: PepsiCo Meets with Sharpton Over DEI Rollbacks, Future Action Pending
BLACKPRESSUSA NEWSWIRE — The more than hour-long meeting included PepsiCo Chairman Ramon Laguarta and Steven Williams, CEO of PepsiCo North America, and was held within the 21-day window Sharpton had given the company to respond.

By Stacy M. Brown
BlackPressUSA.com Senior National Correspondent
Rev. Al Sharpton met Tuesday morning with PepsiCo leadership at the company’s global headquarters in Purchase, New York, following sharp criticism of the food and beverage giant’s decision to scale back nearly $500 million in diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. The more than hour-long meeting included PepsiCo Chairman Ramon Laguarta and Steven Williams, CEO of PepsiCo North America, and was held within the 21-day window Sharpton had given the company to respond. Sharpton was joined by members of the National Action Network (NAN), the civil rights organization he founded and leads. “It was a constructive conversation,” Sharpton said after the meeting. “We agreed to follow up meetings within the next few days. After that continued dialogue, NAN Chairman Dr. W. Franklyn Richardson and I, both former members of the company’s African American Advisory Board, will make a final determination and recommendation to the organization on what we will do around PepsiCo moving forward, as we continue to deal with a broader swath of corporations with whom we will either boycott or buy-cott.”
Sharpton initially raised concerns in an April 4 letter to Laguarta, accusing the company of abandoning its equity commitments and threatening a boycott if PepsiCo did not meet within three weeks. PepsiCo announced in February that it would no longer maintain specific goals for minority representation in its management or among its suppliers — a move that drew criticism from civil rights advocates. “You have walked away from equity,” Sharpton wrote at the time, pointing to the dismantling of hiring goals and community partnerships as clear signs that “political pressure has outweighed principle.” PepsiCo did not issue a statement following Tuesday’s meeting. The company joins a growing list of major corporations — including Walmart and Target — that have scaled back internal DEI efforts since President Donald Trump returned to office. Trump has eliminated DEI programs from the federal government and warned public schools to do the same or risk losing federal funding. Sharpton has vowed to hold companies accountable. In January, he led a “buy-cott” at Costco to applaud the retailer’s ongoing DEI efforts and announced that NAN would identify two corporations to boycott within 90 days if they failed to uphold equity commitments. “That is the only viable tool that I see at this time, which is why we’ve rewarded those that stood with us,” Sharpton said.
#NNPA BlackPress
Target Reels from Boycotts, Employee Revolt, and Massive Losses as Activists Plot Next Moves
BLACKPRESSUSA NEWSWIRE — Target is spiraling as consumer boycotts intensify, workers push to unionize, and the company faces mounting financial losses following its rollback of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives.

By Stacy M. Brown
BlackPressUSA.com Senior National Correspondent
Target is spiraling as consumer boycotts intensify, workers push to unionize, and the company faces mounting financial losses following its rollback of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. With foot traffic plummeting, stock prices at a five-year low, and employee discontent boiling over, national civil rights leaders and grassroots organizers are vowing to escalate pressure in the weeks ahead. Led by Georgia pastor Rev. Jamal Bryant, a 40-day “Targetfast” aligned with the Lenten season continues to gain traction. “This is about holding companies accountable for abandoning progress,” Bryant said, as the campaign encourages consumers to shop elsewhere. Groups like the NAACP, the National Newspaper Publishers Association, and The People’s Union USA are amplifying the effort, organizing mass boycotts and strategic buying initiatives to target what they call corporate surrender to bigotry.
Meanwhile, Target’s workforce is in an open revolt. On Reddit, self-identified employees described mass resignations, frustration with meager pay raises, and growing calls to unionize. “We’ve had six people give their two-week notices,” one worker wrote. “A rogue team member gathered us in the back room and started talking about forming a union.” Others echoed the sentiment, with users posting messages like, “We’ve been talking about forming a union at my store too,” and “Good on them for trying to organize—it needs to happen.” Target’s problems aren’t just anecdotal. The numbers reflect a company in crisis. The retail giant has logged 10 straight weeks of falling in-store traffic. In February, foot traffic dropped 9% year-over-year, including a 9.5% plunge on February 28 during the 24-hour “economic blackout” boycott organized by The People’s Union USA. March saw a 6.5% decline compared to the previous year. Operating income fell 21% in the most recent quarter, and the company’s stock (TGT) opened at just $94 on April 14, down from $142 in January before the DEI cuts and subsequent backlash. The economic backlash is growing louder online, too.
“We are still boycotting Target due to them bending to bigotry by eroding their DEI programs,” posted the activist group We Are Somebody on April 14. “Target stock has gone down, and their projections remain flat. DEI was good for business. Do the right thing.” Former congresswoman Nina Turner, a senior fellow at The New School’s Institute on Race, Power and Political Economy, wrote, “Boycotts are effective. Boycotts must have a demand. We will continue to boycott until our demands are met.” More action is on the horizon. Another Target boycott is scheduled for June 3–9, part of a broader campaign targeting corporations that have abandoned DEI initiatives under pressure from right-wing politics and recent executive orders by President Donald Trump. The People’s Union USA, which led the February 28 boycott, has already launched similar weeklong actions against Walmart and announced upcoming boycotts of Amazon (May 6–12), Walmart again (May 20–26), and McDonald’s (June 24–30). The organization’s founder, John Schwarz, said the goal is nothing short of shifting the economic power balance.
“We are going to remind them who has the power,” Schwarz said. “For one day, we turn it off. For one day, we shut it down. For one day, we remind them that this country does not belong to the elite, it belongs to the people.” As for Target, its top executives continue to downplay the damage. During a recent earnings call, Chief Financial Officer Jim Lee described the outlook for 2025 as uncertain, citing the “ripple” effects of tariffs and a wide range of possible outcomes. “We’re going to be focusing on controlling what we can control,” Lee said. But discontent is spreading internally. A Reddit post from a worker claimed, “The HR rep is doing his best to stop the bleeding, but all he did was put a Bluey band-aid on what is essentially a severed limb.”
Several employees criticized the company’s internal rewards system, “Bullseye Bucks,” for offering what amounts to play money. “Can’t pay rent or buy food with Bullseye Bucks,” one wrote. Others urged their colleagues to join unionizing efforts. “Imagine how much Target would lose their mind if they were under a union contract,” one team leader wrote. “It needs to happen at this point.” One former manager said they left the company after an insulting raise. “Quit last year when they gave me a 28-cent raise. Best decision I’ve ever made.” From store floors to boardrooms, the pressure is growing on Target. And as calls for justice, equity, and worker rights get louder, one worker put it plainly: “We’re all screwed—unless we fight back.”
#NNPA BlackPress
Confederates Whistle Dixie Tunes and Black MAGA Applauds
BLACKPRESSUSA NEWSWIRE — They include Black MAGA supporters who’ve chosen silence—even solidarity—as racism escalates from campaign rhetoric to federal policy.

By Stacy M. Brown
BlackPressUSA.com Senior National Correspondent
In Donald Trump’s second term, the faces of compliance are no longer just white. They include Black MAGA supporters who’ve chosen silence—even solidarity—as racism escalates from campaign rhetoric to federal policy. When Trump returned to the White House, he did so with a platform not just soaked in bigotry but engineered to roll back civil rights and diversity efforts on every front. And while his white base cheered, many of his Black allies—those donning MAGA hats and taking up seats on the frontlines of his rallies—chose loyalty over principle, muting themselves as a wave of white nationalist policymaking targets their communities.
Their silence began long before Inauguration Day. During the 2024 campaign, Trump’s Madison Square Garden rally drew fire after a comedian on the lineup referred to Puerto Rico as “garbage.” But that wasn’t the only racist moment. As Florida Rep. Byron Donalds, one of Trump’s most visible Black surrogates, walked onto the stage, the campaign blasted “Dixie”—a song revered by the Confederacy and white nationalists. Donalds said nothing. And neither did the rest of Black MAGA. That same silence echoed in Springfield, Ohio, when Trump and his running mate, J.D. Vance, spread a false and racist claim that Haitian immigrants were “eating cats and dogs.” The fabrication was met with horror from civil rights advocates and journalists. But Trump’s Black supporters? Not a word.
Black MAGA loyalists, many of whom cite values, religion, and personal ambition as their rationale, have essentially normalized the very racism that their grandparents fought to dismantle. Pew Research shows that while only 4% of Black Americans identify as Republicans, those who do often express a belief that the GOP better represents their values—even as those values are trampled by the very administration they support. One study published in Sociological Inquiry found that Black Republicans often “reframe racism in a way that makes their alignment with white conservatives more palatable,” even when it involves rationalizing policies that harm Black communities. And harm is precisely what Trump’s policies are doing. Since taking office, Trump has issued a barrage of executive orders aimed at eliminating diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives across the federal government. Agencies that serve minority communities have faced massive defunding, DEI offices have been shuttered, and civil rights enforcement has all but disappeared. As noted in The Hill, the goal is not just the destruction of policy—it’s the erasure of progress itself.
“Every act of Trump’s second term has been a white-nationalist signal,” wrote one analyst in The American Prospect, calling MAGA an “identity movement” that champions white grievance over democratic principle. There is little space for Blackness, except as a prop. And yet, some Black Trump supporters defend the administration with defiance. One such supporter, who canvassed for Trump in 2024, told The Independent he was called the N-word by fellow conservatives. Rather than walking away, he doubled down on his allegiance. The consequences of this allegiance are becoming deadly clear. As TIME reported, nearly 20% of Trump supporters said freeing the slaves was a mistake. According to The Washington Post, support for Trump has long been fueled more by racial resentment than economic concerns, and that resentment has now translated into policy.
A report from Press Watch concluded that Trump’s base continues to be driven by a desire to protect white dominance and suppress nonwhite progress, particularly through culture war battles over schools, immigration, and federal hiring. Even academic journals have noted that wearing a MAGA hat has become “a proxy for racialized identity”—an affirmation of white supremacy, no matter who’s wearing it. Meanwhile, The Conversation documented how MAGA’s rise has coincided with increased armed intimidation at polling places, violent rhetoric against journalists, and calls to monitor so-called “urban” neighborhoods—all with Trump’s encouragement. The Black MAGA base has not only failed to object—they’ve offered Trump moral cover. Whether out of personal ambition, political opportunity, or delusion, they’ve made peace with racists, while the administration they uphold works tirelessly to erase the freedoms won through generations of Black struggle. As The American Prospect put it: “Trump’s MAGA identity is a movement rooted in white identity politics. That some Black Americans have chosen to stand inside of it doesn’t make it less racist—it makes it more dangerous”
-
Activism4 weeks ago
We Fought on Opposite Sides of the Sheng Thao Recall. Here’s Why We’re Uniting Behind Barbara Lee for Oakland Mayor
-
Activism4 weeks ago
Faith Leaders Back Barbara Lee for Mayor, Criticize Candidate Loren Taylor for Dishonest Campaigning
-
Activism3 weeks ago
Oakland’s Most Vulnerable Neighborhoods Are Struggling to Eat and Stay Healthy
-
#NNPA BlackPress4 weeks ago
Rev. Dr. Jamal Bryant’s Black Church Target Boycott Mobilizes 150,000
-
#NNPA BlackPress4 weeks ago
Recently Approved Budget Plan Favors Wealthy, Slashes Aid to Low-Income Americans
-
Activism2 weeks ago
Oakland Post Endorses Barbara Lee
-
Activism4 weeks ago
Group Takes First Steps to Recall District Attorney Diana Becton
-
Activism4 weeks ago
Oakland Post: Week of March 19 – 25, 2025