Exploring Advocacy Coalitions involved in California's Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Tax Debate

Since 1982, California has attempted to pass a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages (SSB). To date, none have been successful. This study describes the advocacy groups and the strategies and policy arguments used by stakeholders to support or oppose statewide SSB tax legislation in California. The article uses the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) to identify coalition groups and their members as well as examine the strategies and arguments used in California’s statewide SSB tax policy debates between 1999 and 2018. We use a mixed methods analysis with a predominantly qualitative approach to identify stakeholders involved in the SSB tax policymaking process and explore their policy arguments and advocacy strategies to advance their policy positions. Data consist of 11 California legislative bills (94 documents) and 138 newspaper articles. SSB tax policy debate did receive media attention. We identified two advocacy coalitions involved in the debate: a public health coalition and an industry coalition. The public health coalition focused on arguments about the health consequences and financial benefits of SSB taxes. The industry coalition responded with arguments that focused on how SSB taxes would harm the economy. Both coalitions used various strategies to advance desired outcomes. The public health coalition used advocacy strategies such as media and research evidence. The industry coalition used advocacy strategies such as preemption, alliances, and financial resources. Although SSB taxation has faced substantial challenges at the state level in California, advocacy coalitions can gain insight from policymaker’s experiences involved in previous legislation to inform future efforts to pass obesity prevention-related policies