As Hawaii joins the growing number of jurisdictions considering a fee on sugary beverages, it is no surprise to hear the dissenting voices of businesses, who are predictably concerned about increased prices causing flagging sales.

One tried-and-true industry strategy is to appear altruistic while still protecting their own interests. Case in point: recent media pushing the message that sugary drink fees are regressive, meaning they take money from the poor, exacerbating income inequality.

Whether sugary drink fees help or hurt low-income communities is actually the topic of a robust national debate. The argument that these taxes are regressive does not take into account the fact that these fees raise revenue specifically for community reinvestment programs. It also distracts from deeper systemic inequities faced by communities — biases that are actually perpetuated by many industry practices.

We have ample evidence to show that low-income neighborhoods are caught in an unfortunate set of circumstances: less access to healthy food and drink options, decreased opportunities for physical activity, and limited access to health care.

What’s worse, residents of these same neighborhoods are explicitly targeted by companies that produce sugary drinks through a practice known as “predatory marketing.” This targeting takes many forms, from pandering to certain ethnic and age groups to increases in ad frequency on the early days of the month when food stamps are distributed.

These industry tactics are nothing new. We saw it with tobacco, and now we see it with soda, alcohol retailers, and oil companies. Again and again, these groups try to sow doubt in the minds of the public with disingenuous arguments, issue after issue.

People are not buying it anymore. In fact, recent polling (conducted in 2020 by Ward Research) shows that 81% of Hawaii registered voters support a 1-cent per ounce fee on sugary drinks when revenues go toward children’s health programs. And among households with incomes under $50,000, that number jumps to a whopping 84%.

Sasha Viniegas, a Pearl City parent, puts it like this: “People will get used to it — just like they did with the tobacco tax. There’s always a huge uproar in the beginning.”

Understanding the deeper context and the growing community support, more and more racial and health equity groups are coming out in favor of these taxes, with an important caveat: that revenues generated get reinvested in the communities most impacted. This means that the fees would directly fund programs that address community health disparities, like DA BUX (which makes local produce more affordable for low income households), or the expansion of pre-K programs (as seen in Philadelphia). Hawaii’s current proposal does exactly that.

When viewed with this lens, the regressivity argument loses some of its luster. Yes, the fee will be paid by people who consume sugary drinks. But that fee will be collected statewide, and the projected $65.8 million in revenues it raises will be reinvested specifically into the communities that need it most.

“[These fees are] an effective measure to help reduce sugar intake,” says Joe Walker, a Mililani resident and supporter of the fee. “Another positive of this tax is the possible revenue it brings to our state to fund new initiatives for our families.”

Hawaii’s proposal has not yet been scheduled for a hearing, but we believe that the community should have an opportunity to weigh in. Call your legislator today to ask them to hear Senate Bill 541.

The bottom line is that companies will use the regressivity argument to divert attention from their real concern: lost revenue. But we know that when funds are reinvested back into the most impacted communities, they help prevent future harm, and can give people from those communities a better shot at succeeding and thriving.

Daniela Spoto is director of anti-hunger initiatives at Hawaii Appleseed Center.