Table 1.

Specific arguments that appeared in stories about SSB taxes in Berkeley, San Francisco, Albany, and Oakland, California, 2014-2018 (n=147)

Argument	Proportion of relevant articles (n=147)
Argument category 1: Taxes are needed
SSBs/sugar are to blame for health harms	31%
Diet-related diseases are a problem	37%
Beverage industry is behaving badly in this campaign	43%
Low-income, communities of color are most harmed by the product	12%
Beverage industry practices hurt communities	8%
Diet-related diseases are costly	9%
Argument category 1: Taxes are not needed
SSBs/sugar are not to blame for health harms	16%
Beverage industry is not behaving badly	5%
Diet-related diseases are not a problem	1%
Argument category 2: Taxes work
Tax will lower SSB consumption	29%
Tax will benefit economy	19%
Tax will set a precedent	10%
Argument category 2: Taxes don’t work
Tax won't lower SSB consumption	16%
Tax won't improve public health	8%
Tax only works in Berkeley	3%
Argument category 3: Taxes help
Tax will improve public health	22%
Low-income, communities of color will benefit most from this tax	3%
Tax will balance the budget	1%
Argument category 3: Taxes harm
Tax is regressive	14%
Tax will harm business	13%
Tax will harm consumers	12%
Tax will raise cost of groceries	12%
Tax is confusing and complicated	1%

Note: Specific arguments were not mutually exclusive. Some articles may have included more than one type of argument and more than one position on an argument(s).