This is Michael Bloomberg's Pet Project.
Former mayor of NYC tried to ban sodas over 16 ounces in 2010. The ban got thrown out. I think it's weaknesses were targeting specific brands and limiting consumer choices or some such $hit. The goal was moderation. He decries the link between diabetes and sugary drinks and how big soda aggressively targets lower income brackets which are over-represented by people of color and have disproportionately more poor health outcomes as related to diabetes and the like.
The Philadelphia Beverage Ban was largely funded by Bloomberg and allies. It's a tougher rule than Berkeley's law or San Francisco's Proposition V (1 cent per and doesn't affect Diet Sodas, etc.). All three target the "distributors" of sugary drinks rather than the drinks themselves. That's some legalese tai-kwon-do that they learned from the failed attempt in NYC. In my layman's opinion, I think it's like an immigration ban that's not on Muslims but rather 7 countries that are predominantly Muslim. It's a sleight-of-hand that has stronger legal footing.
The Philly beverage tax affects all of nBEV's products except Aspen Pure and their is a small chance that Kombucha is exempted, too. It hurts Xing the most since they have the 23.5 ounce cans. It isn't a killer though. We don't sell 2-litre bottles. The idea is moderation and this tax is more punitive toward larger receptacles. This tax explains why beverage sizes are trending smaller.
Another bugaboo of the Philly tax is the distributor is liable for the taxes. The breakdown is if the distributor is licensed in Philly, they are liable for the taxes; if not, the grocery store / restaurant is liable to pay them.
Tax will probably affect mom-and-pop stores and restaurants rather than the national chains. Probably not too helpful for our distribution business either.
In short, I think this tax is gonna be a problem. This tax (and ones like it) probably will hurt nBEV more than help it. Silver lining is that it probably effects Big Soda more.
