‘For Our Kids Act’ draws wide testimony as lawmakers consider statewide sweetened‑beverage excise to fund school meals and childcare

Delegate Emily Shetty, sponsor of House Bill 14‑69 known as the For Our Kids Act, told the House Ways and Means Committee that the bill is “a public health bill. It will decrease consumption of sweetened beverages while investing in universal school meals for children, boosting our childcare scholarship program, and making a sizable dent in our structural budget deficit.”

Shetty framed the bill as an excise on distributors of beverages sweetened with sugar or non‑nutritive sweeteners, and described proposed revenue uses: an estimated $189 million to expand Healthy School Meals for All; $50 million to the Child Care Scholarship program; and the balance to the general fund (the fiscal estimate cited $500 million in annual revenue). She also referenced an amendment proposed by advocates to dedicate $15 million to the Health Equity Resource Community fund.

Evidence and expert witnesses: Public‑health representatives and academics presented evidence from other jurisdictions. Marissa Waxman, who worked on Philadelphia’s beverage tax, said the city’s 2017 tax generated roughly $70–78 million annually after initial shifts in consumption and funded pre‑K and community investments. Dr. Jim Krieger, who advised Seattle’s tax, described a 22% drop in sweetened beverage sales after Seattle’s tax and said revenue supported nutrition vouchers and early‑learning initiatives. Multiple health organizations — the American Heart Association, the Maryland chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics and local health foundations — urged a favorable report, citing links between sugary drinks and obesity, type‑2 diabetes and dental decay.

Policy design and exclusions: Sponsors said the bill includes artificially sweetened beverages to prevent shifts from sugar‑sweetened to diet drinks; the measure would exempt natural fruit and vegetable juices, milk, infant formula, and beverages for medical use. The tax is structured as an excise on distributors (testimony referred to a 2¢ per ounce rate in the sponsor's presentation), which proponents said gives wholesalers/retailers discretion about passing costs to consumers.

Supporters’ arguments: Advocates said the tax is progressive in practice because higher‑income households pay more of the tax collected, while revenues would finance programs that disproportionately benefit low‑income families. Ricar Jones of the Maryland NAACP and multiple labor and public‑health groups argued the beverage industry targets communities of color and that revenues should be reinvested in those communities. School‑nutrition officials and local school‑district representatives testified that improved, universal school‑meal funding reduces meal debt, removes application barriers, and supports families near eligibility cutoffs.

Opponents’ arguments and economic concerns: Retailers, convenience stores, and beverage distributors warned of cross‑border purchases, substantial declines in local beverage sales and threats to jobs. The Maryland Retailers Alliance and local grocers cited Philadelphia data showing large declines in beverage sales within city limits and warned of transfers of grocery dollars out of state. Pepsi and distributor representatives, Teamsters and convenience‑store associations warned of potential workforce reductions; individual employees testified they could face cuts to income and job security.

Committee questions: Lawmakers asked about regressivity, pass‑through to consumers, application to fountain/syrup products, and impacts on small retailers in food‑insecure areas. Sponsor and witnesses said retailers and distributors choose pass‑through levels in practice and noted Philadelphia and Seattle studies that did not find net employment losses in the jurisdictions studied; opponents countered with store‑level sales declines and cited Cook County’s 2017 repeal as a cautionary example.

What the bill would and would not do: As described in testimony, HB 14‑69 would tax beverages sweetened with caloric and non‑caloric sweeteners and syrups used in fountain drinks; it would exempt declared nutritional and medical beverages. The bill’s revenue allocations would be statutory and sizable if the fiscal estimate holds, but the transcript includes competing interpretations and no committee action was recorded in the hearing segment.

Ending: The hearing drew dozens of witnesses for and against the bill, extensive committee questioning, and a split record on economic impacts versus public‑health benefits. No committee vote appears in the transcript; supporters asked for a favorable report, opponents requested an unfavorable one. Further hearings or amendments were indicated by sponsors and some committee members.