Connecticut hearing weighs 2¢-per-ounce sweetened beverage tax to fund universal school meals

A Connecticut legislative hearing held by the Finance, Revenue and Bonding Committee focused on a proposed excise tax on certain sweetened beverages and the proposal to dedicate revenue to universal school meals. Proponents across public health, nutrition and community groups urged lawmakers to approve the measure as a way to both improve children’s diets and provide a stable funding stream for free school breakfast and lunch.

Supporters described the bill as a two‑part public‑health strategy: a price signal to discourage purchase of beverages linked to obesity and dental disease, and a revenue stream to expand school meal programs. ‘‘Taxing sugary drinks to fund healthy school meals is a win‑win for Connecticut,’’ said Alla Hill, senior science policy associate at the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

Nut graf: Proponents argued the levy would lower consumption of products with little nutritional value while providing a dedicated funding source for school meals that, they said, increase participation, improve diet quality and reduce stigma for students who otherwise must apply for free or reduced‑price meals. Opponents — including restaurant owners, beverage distributors and bottlers — warned the tax would significantly raise operating costs and retail prices, could accelerate out‑of‑state shopping and risk job losses in food service and distribution.

Most of the public testimony centered on HB 7273, the proposal that would place a 2¢ per ounce excise on a broad range of sweetened beverages, syrups and powders and dedicate proceeds to a statewide free school meals program. Public health witnesses cited experience from U.S. cities and foreign jurisdictions and peer‑reviewed studies showing declines in taxed beverage purchases after levies were enacted. Marlene Schwartz, director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Health at the University of Connecticut, told the committee that school meals are already the most nutritious food many students receive, and that higher participation after universal access improves food‑service budgets and can reduce stigma.

‘‘School food is tightly regulated for nutrition,’’ Schwartz said. ‘‘When participation rises, school meal programs have more stable funding and more opportunity to invest in fresh food and in programs that get kids to try healthier meals.’’

Public health organizations urged lawmakers to direct revenue to meal funding and related community nutrition programs rather than to the general fund. Several witnesses highlighted equity: families with low incomes both consume taxed beverages at higher rates and stand to benefit most from free school meals and other nutrition investments.

Industry and small business witnesses urged the committee to reject the tax. Scott Dolch, president and CEO of the Connecticut Restaurant Association, said the impact on restaurants would be substantial because the tax applies at the ounce produced level for syrups and concentrates used in fountain drinks. ‘‘A 3‑gallon bag‑in‑a‑box for fountain drinks could cost an additional $46.08,’’ Dolch said, arguing that the cost would be passed to businesses and consumers and would hit independent restaurateurs with thin margins.

Representatives of beverage manufacturers and distributors made a similar point. Mike DeFeo, general manager of Hartford Coca‑Cola, warned the committee that the tax would magnify recent cost pressures including the recently increased container deposit. ‘‘Two cents per ounce might not sound like a lot, but it does add up quickly,’’ he said, and said the proposal would be regressive in practice because lower‑income households spend a larger share of income on grocery purchases.

Workers in distribution and bottling told the committee they feared the measure would reduce volumes and lead to daily layoffs in operations with staffing tied to shipment volumes. Teamsters members described existing bottle‑deposit declines and said lower sales volumes have already reduced work days in some locations.

Committee members pressed both sides on cross‑border shopping and on how dedicated revenues would be protected. Some public‑health witnesses pointed to studies showing limited cross‑border purchase effects for city taxes and emphasized that a statewide tax would reduce the advantage of neighboring towns. Opponents pointed to Philadelphia and other local examples they said show significant border effects and initial business disruption.

Several witnesses also discussed program design details: whether revenues should fully replace federal pandemic‑era funding that lapsed in 2022, whether funds should cover summer feeding programs, and whether districts participating in the Community Eligibility Provision (CEP) — which currently provides free meals where enough students qualify through other public programs — would still receive state reimbursements to ‘‘make CEP districts whole’’ where federal reimbursement leaves a gap.

What’s next: The committee did not vote on the measure at the hearing. Lawmakers acknowledged the policy trade‑offs: public‑health and anti‑hunger advocates emphasized reduced consumption and improved access to nutritious meals, while the restaurant and beverage sectors urged alternatives to a sector‑specific excise that would avoid burdening local small businesses. Several lawmakers requested fiscal detail on the revenue estimate and on how state reimbursements would treat CEP districts and summer feeding.

Ending: If advanced, the proposal would be one of the first statewide measures in the nation tying a beverage excise directly to universal school meals. Committee staff and proponents agreed to continue technical work on dedicated‑fund protections, program eligibilities and cost estimates before the bill is considered for committee action.