The Pro-Health, Anti-Soda Blog
Health
Hidden Soda Industry Subsidies – Food Stamps for Soda
Aug 9th
The federal food stamp program, or as it is now renamed the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) program, funds obesity causing products such as soda according to a research paper published in the American Journal of Public Health. The paper, written by Jonathan D. Shenkin DDS and Michael F. Jacobson PhD, estimates that $4 billion dollars is spent on carbonated soda each year via the SNAP program.
Not only is this a waste of taxpayer money since carbonated soda provides little nutritional value, it also promotes unhealthy eating habits. The paper, titled Using the Food Stamp Program and Other Methods to Promote Healthy Diets for Low-Income Consumers, aims to point out methods to assist low income consumers chose healthy eating habits.
Why subsidize soda when water is available for (near) free? This seems wrong on so many levels.
“The federal government should be doing everything it can to reduce the consumption of soda and other sugar-sweetened beverages, which promote tooth decay, weight gain, obesity, diabetes, and other diet-related diseases,” said Jacobson. “SNAP should be oriented toward increasing the consumption of good, healthy food. None of the $65 billion invested in nutrition assistance in 2010 should end up paying for Coke, Pepsi, or Mountain Dew.”
via FoodCEO.
Coca Cola Asserts “no consumer could reasonably be misled into thinking vitaminwater was a healthy beverage.”
Aug 5th
Coca cola recently responded in response to a lawsuit saying that they market products with unwarrented health claims with the statement of “no consumer could reasonably be misled into thinking vitaminwater was a healthy beverage.”
Does this mean that you’d have to be an unreasonable person to think that a product named “vitaminwater,” a product that has been heavily and aggressively marketed as a healthy beverage, actually had health benefits?
Or does it mean that it’s okay for a corporation to lie about its products, as long as they can then turn around and claim that no one actually believes their lies?
Read more at the Huffington Post.
San Francisco Bans Some Sodas from Vending Machines
Jul 28th
Soda vending machines, a thing of the past?
This move is a good one from the standpoint of the “war on soda.” Governments are coming to realize that soda, when consumed excessively, are along the lines of cigarettes in that they are very unhealthy and lead to a shortened lifespan and decreased standard of living.
We applaud San Francisco’s ban on regular soda and restrictions on diet soda and hope to see other municipalities follow suit.
Read more: Sugary-drink ban starts to affect S.F. sites
Diet Soda Shown to Cause Premature Births
Jul 22nd
If the normal health consequences of drinking diet soda weren’t bad enough, now pregnant mothers need to watch their intake in addition to all of the other foods and substances they are told to abstain from.
Researchers studied over 59,000 Danish pregnant women from 1996 to 2002. The women were evaluated during their pregnancy via a written exam, one of the questions gauging their diet soda intake. The expectant mothers who consumed at least one diet soft drink per day were found to have an increased likelihood, 38% more likely, of pre-term birth than the non-diet soda drinking mothers. If they drank four or more drinks per day they were 78% more likely. Those are some pretty scary numbers.
The study was authored by Halldorsson TI, Strøm M, Petersen SB and Olsen SF and is titled Intake of artificially sweetened soft drinks and preterm delivery: a prospective cohort study of 59,334 Danish pregnant women. It was published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition in 2010.
Read more: Midwives Magazine
Philadelphia Proposes 2-cent Per oz Sweetened Drink Tax
Mar 4th
We’ve covered Soda taxes before, but Philadelphia’s recently proposed sweetened drink tax puts it at the forefront of the ‘tax soda’ movement. Mayor Nutter is proposing a 2-cent per oz tax on sweetened beverages. For example a 20-oz bottle of soda would be 40 cents more and a 2-liter bottle would be $1.35 additional.
I am all for taxing unhealthy foods to help subsidize healthcare. But this appears to be a tax meant to help with the actual running of the city budget. What is to stop them from taxing any other type of food? What about a tax for every gram of fat content in a food source?
Although I am not completely against a soda/sugar tax, this does strike me as the wrong way to go about it. If this passes, expect similar ordinances to pass in other major metropolitan areas.
Teach Every Child About Food
Feb 24th
We have a huge food problem here in America when the top several “killers” are food-related. The good news is that we can do something about it. Jamie Oliver gives a motivating talk at TED2010:
Surprising Numbers from a Survey of California Soda Habits
Sep 17th
Some really surprising information coming out of California. The UCLA Center for Health Policy and the California Center for Public Health Advocacy has released some statistics on the soda drinking habits of Californians. I suspect that these stats could widely be applied to the majority of the US population. Some interesting stats:
- 24% of California adults drink at least one soda or other sweetened beverage each day
- 41% of children between ages 2 and 11 drink at least a soda a day
- 62% of teens drink at least a soda a day
- 13% of 12-to-17-year-olds drink three or more sodas on a daily basis
These stats, from a 2005 California Health Interview Survey, show that soda consumption is widespread in the state. The survey finally found that adults who drink soda or sugary drinks daily are 27% more likely to be overweight.
(credit LA Times “Booster Shots” blog, Photo courtesy of ab4dd0n)
The Soda Tax, Obama’s Take, Round 2
Sep 9th
It looks like the idea of a soda tax is back again, but did it ever really go away? I would hate to tax something that should be regulated by the free market, but this time it looks like the economy and a want for new revenue streams may get the best of us. Hopefully, everyone will benefit by raising some money for the US Government, while reducing sugar consumption. Unfortunately this tax will also impact the largest consumers of soda, which may also be the same citizens who can afford a new tax the least.
Obama has made some comments about a soda tax in an upcoming issue of Men’s Health. In the article, he states that “There’s no doubt that our kids drink way too much soda. And every study that’s been done about obesity shows that there is as high a correlation between increased soda consumption and obesity as just about anything else“. To counter that, he also states “people’s attitude is that they don’t necessarily want Big Brother telling them what to eat or drink, and I understand that“.
They are also calling this a “sin tax” and putting it in the same category as the cigarette taxes. It should be interesting to see how this plays out in the news media.
(via)
First All Natural, Zero Calorie Soda Replacement
Jul 23rd
All natural soda replacements are on the way! Zevia, which uses stevia as a sugar replacement, uses 100% natural flavors. I doubt it will taste exactly like “real” or even diet soda, but it does pose a good alternative to those addicted to the can.
Zevia is being introduced in six flavors: ZEVIA Natural Cola, ZEVIA Natural Orange, ZEVIA Natural Twist, ZEVIA Natural Root Beer, ZEVIA Natural Black Cherry and ZEVIA Natural Ginger Ale.
The ingredient used to replace sugar, stevia, is an herb native to South and Central America. Stevia’s taste has a slower onset than sugar, which may put off some Zevia drinkers. Without actually trying some, it would be hard to say.
You can get Zevia at Whole Foods or many other locations.
Glad to see some soda alternatives out there made from natural substances!
Is Soda The New Tobacco?
Jun 23rd
Has pop gone flat?
Interesting article over at The Wichita Eagle.
“I believe soda is the next tobacco,” said Barry Popkin, director of the University of North Carolina’s Interdisciplinary Obesity Center and author of “The World Is Fat,” published this year.
Soda drinkers haven’t achieved pariah status like smokers before them, but proposed sugar taxes and social pressure to be healthy can put a damper on doing the Dew — and even some in the growing ranks of diet pop drinkers are feeling soda shame.
Although I am NOT a proponent of taxing beverages of any kind, the article does raise a good question. When consumers drink soda excessively, which leads to obesity and other health problems, and do not have health insurance coverage, can the rest of the taxpayers be expected to foot the healthcare bill? Would it be wise to target a main source of obesity and spread the tax burden over those who are consuming soda?
These are all good questions that I think, from a tax perspective, go back to whether you think the government should have a hand in healthcare and what kind of ‘distribution of wealth’ should occur.
I recently drove past the Pottstown Memorial Medical Center and saw a group of 5 or 6 staff members smoking across the street (so they could be off hospital property), looking like total outcasts. Part of me said “Good, they should quit smoking anyway and get the message” but the other part felt bad for them.
Since soda doesn’t have “second hand effects”, I do not think that soda drinkers will go the way of the tobacco smoker, but there will probably be an increasing social stigma to consumers of the sugary beverage (and the diet aspartame replacement).
