Just another tax raising bill

ATLANTA — By invitation of Coke Bottlers Philippines, we flew here to join this year’s centennial of the now distinctively contoured bottle of the popular soft drink. How the iconic Coke bottle evolved through 100 years since it got its patent is presented in a brief historical background presented to us in a tour at its home base in the capital city of the state of Georgia.

From the traditional soda fountain when Coke was first served, the fledgling company decided in 1899 to offer Coca-Cola in bottles. At first, Coke bottlers used straight-sided bottles but later shifted to various shapes, sizes and colors after their soda drink competitors followed suit.

 Inspired by the shape and lines of the cocoa bean, the Root Glass Company in Terre Haute, Indiana developed a bottle concept that would become the official identity of Coca-Cola bottle starting Nov. 16, 1915 when it was patented to protect its distinct bottle.

Coke Bottlers Phl, along with other Coca-Cola bottlers all around the world, will celebrate this centennial anniversary of its unique bottle that has kept Coke among the biggest selling soda products in the global market. In the US, the Coke’s patented glass container was at one time baptized as the “Mae West bottle,” after the late Hollywood actress’ curves. But actually the Coca-Cola bottle has been dubbed the “hobbleskirt bottle,” after the popular fashion trend during the 1920s.

The distinctly shaped Coke bottle in 6 1/2 ounce was granted trademark status in 1951. It was in 1955 when 10 and 12 ounce Coke introduced the king size and 26-ounce family size contour bottles in the US market.    

But whatever size of Coke bottles, Filipino menfolk playfully describe their ideal sexy woman as having a “Coca-Cola” body.

As I gathered, at least 80 percent of Coca-Cola products being sold in the Philippines are in bottles, still the preferred containers even with the advent of Coke in can in the 1960s and the introduction of the 20-ounce PET (recyclable plastic) version of the contour bottle for Coca-Cola in 1993.

Thus, to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the Coca-Cola bottle, the company is unveiling the global marketing campaign “Kissed By,” which features world-renowned American pop icons including Marilyn Monroe being “kissed by” the Coca-Cola bottle. The campaign’s message is that anyone can be “kissed by” by Coca-Cola by simply drinking from the bottle.

It will be aired in 13 individual television commercials, each of which highlights the Coke bottle’s rich history. Coke will also have a new jingle commercial titled “Nobody Like You” as an anthem celebrating the Coca-Cola’s bottle’s transformation through the years since 1915.

The centennial celebration of the iconic Coke bottle is also taking place in the Philippines in challenging times of a looming imposition of the so-called “sweet” tax.

A proposed legislation dubbed as “sweet tax” was initiated last year at the 16th Congress that wants the State “to curb the consumption of soft drinks and carbonated beverages” in the Philippines.

Nueva Ecija Rep. Estrellita “Ging” B. Suansing filed House Bill 3365 which will impose a 10 percent valorem tax on soft drinks which are currently subjected to value added tax. Suansing justified the new tax on the soft drinks industry as urgent and necessary, saying that amounts to be collected will be earmarked as rehabilitation fund and disbursed to calamity-stricken areas for livelihood development, mass housing, road construction and other infrastructure projects.

The author of this proposed new tax cited “scientific studies have confirmed that soft drinks increase a human being’s risk of developing health problems such as obesity, diabetes, tooth decay and even health ailment.” The neophyte legislator, however, did not say in her bill the sources of purported “scientific studies” and where she got such medical conclusions.

HB 3365 merely revives the so-called “obesity and diabetes tax” first proposed in two previous Congress sessions to raise at least P5 billion in annual revenues to promote healthy living among Filipinos. Early this year, the Department of Finance aired its support for such proposal but stressed that it is not a priority of the Aquino administration.

Sugar industry leaders in the Philippines, however, fear the proposed tax will trigger an increase in prices of soft drinks and carbonated drinks and will result in the “contraction of the market of refined sugar” and could result in reduction of purchases of refined sugar. They explained that sugar farmers will be placed in an adverse position of absorbing the tax.

The industry leaders explained their situation in a position paper they submitted to the House committee on ways and means where the proposed sweet tax is now undergoing public hearings. The various sugar industry producers groups cited the Philippine sugar industry has been contributing its share of value added taxes that reached over P2.52 billion.

Under existing laws, sugar planters also claim they contribute at least P10 of every 50 kilogram bag of raw sugar to the Sugar Amelioration Fund which is allocated as cash bonuses to farm and mill workers, death benefit or maternity fund.

In their position paper submitted to Marikina City Rep. Romero Quimbo, chairman of the ways and means committee, the sugar industry leaders argued there remains no conclusive scientific nor medical findings in the Philippines pointing to sugar as the cause of diabetes and obesity among Filipinos.

Neither is there any official report from the Department of Health of purported high incidence of diabetes or obesity due to carbonated drinks. Of course, consuming abnormally high amount of carbonated drinks or anything in excess is detrimental to anyone’s health.

But the proposed “sweet” tax bill is nothing but another tax-raising measure to squeeze more government revenues under the guise of a remedial legislation to cure a perceived national health problem but proceeds of which would not go to provide greater access of indigent patients to public medical services.