Tax Sugary Drinks? Let’s Start the Conversation in Boston!

A Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Tax in Boston could be the key to improving public health, reducing health disparities, and funding Boston’s future.

Boston needs to look at additional revenue sources, and with rising rates of chronic diseases, the time has come to explore innovative ways to address these challenges. That’s why this Wednesday, I’m filing a hearing order to explore the idea of a sugar-sweetened beverage tax (SSBT) in Boston, and I’d love to hear your thoughts.

Growing up in Georgia—home to Coca-Cola—sugar-filled beverages were a part of everyday life. Even back then, some people understood the risks. My track coach had a strict no-soda rule for our team. At the time, it felt unnecessary—why single out soda when so many other unhealthy options were everywhere? But with mounting evidence linking sugary drinks to type 2 diabetes, heart disease, and obesity, the reasoning now seems obvious. Sugary drinks are particularly harmful because of their high sugar content, lack of satiety, and pervasive marketing, making them a major contributor to diet-related health problems.

Now, as District 8’s City Councilor, I see similar patterns in our communities, compounded by pronounced health disparities. District 8 includes institutions like Mass General Brigham, Dana Farber, Beth Israel, and Boston Children's Hospital who work deeply within our communities in partnership with the Boston Public Health Commission to deliver a Boston where everyone has equal opportunity to live a healthier life.

We've all heard the horrific statistic that life expectancy among residents is over 20 years shorter in the short distance between Roxbury and Back Bay. The burden of diet-related diseases like diabetes and heart disease falls disproportionately on low-income communities underscoring the urgent need for action.

To implement such a tax, the state must grant Boston the authority to enact the Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Tax (SSBT) at the municipal level. It’s not a quick or simple process, but it’s an important one. A well-crafted home rule petition, developed in collaboration with community health centers, lawmakers, and academic leaders, would demonstrate Boston’s commitment to tackling health disparities, while generating revenue to address critical community needs.

Boston is known as a healthcare hub — home to some of the best hospitals and leading intellectual and academic research institutions in the world. We have the tools and the expertise to address these health inequities, yet the disparities persist. It’s time to turn that expertise into action and explore solutions, like a sugar-sweetened beverage tax, that can address these pressing public health challenges head-on.

This isn’t just about cutting back on sugary drinks—it’s about creating a healthier, more equitable city and generating revenue for programs that meet our greatest public health needs. A SSBT of $0.02 per ounce could generate $20 - $30 million annually for Boston. Imagine how our communities could benefit from those funds. We could invest in food literacy programs that teach families how to cook nutritious meals, and support recreational spaces and youth sports for our families to thrive. We could also allocate a portion of the revenue to the general fund, helping to address citywide priorities like infrastructure, housing, and education.

This is about linking Boston’s health goals with its economy. Evidence from other cities shows that these taxes work. A recent study of five U.S. cities—Boulder, Oakland, Philadelphia, Seattle, and San Francisco— found that for every 1% increase in price, consumption dropped by 1%. These changes were immediate and sustained over three years. If Boston achieved similar results, it could lead to significant reductions in diet-related diseases while generating meaningful revenue to reinvest in our communities.

Of course, this isn’t a simple topic, and it’s not something we can rush. Critics of SSBTs argue that they are regressive, disproportionately impacting low-income families. But the evidence suggests that these are the same communities that bear the greatest burden of chronic diseases and would benefit the most from the health initiatives funded by the tax. Cities like Philadelphia, which uses its SSBT revenue for pre-K programs and community centers, show how these funds can be reinvested equitably to uplift neighborhoods.

This conversation is about more than just a tax. It’s about ensuring Boston is a city where every resident, regardless of zip code, has the opportunity and tools to lead a healthy life. Are you open to the City exploring this kind of tax? Do you think additional resources for public health and community programs could make a difference?

I know there will be debates, and I welcome them. This process will require time to socialize the idea with the State House, engage stakeholders, and design a policy that’s fair, effective, and sustainable. But I believe it’s worth having the conversation. Let’s think about the opportunities and how we can invest in food literacy and healthier neighborhoods. Let me know your thoughts—I’m here to listen. Health is wealth, so let's start a conversation about how we can invest in the health of our communities!