UC Irvine

PURPOSE: Californias failed attempts to enact a statewide sugary beverage tax presents an opportunity to advance understanding of advocacy coalition behavior. We investigate the participation of advocacy coalitions in Californias statewide sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) tax policy debate. DESIGN: Document analysis of legislative bills and newspaper articles collected in 2019. SETTING: California. METHOD: A total of 11 SSB tax-related bills were introduced in Californias legislature between 2001-2018 according to the states legislative website. Data sources include legislative bill documents (n = 94) and newspaper articles (n = 138). Guided by the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF), we identify advocacy coalitions involved in Californias SSB tax debate and explore strategies and arguments used to advance each coalitions position. RESULTS: Two coalitions (public health, food/beverage industry) were involved in Californias statewide SSB tax policy debate. The public health coalition had higher member participation and referred to scientific research evidence while the industry coalition used preemption and financial resources as primary advocacy strategies. The public health coalition frequently presented messaging on the health consequences and financial benefits of SSB taxes. The industry coalition responded by focusing on the potential negative economic impact of a tax. CONCLUSION: Multiple attempts to enact a statewide SSB tax in California have failed. Our findings add insight into the challenges of enacting an SSB tax considering industry interference. Results can inform future efforts to pass evidence-based nutrition policies.