In Mexico, you can get most kinds of sodas in 3 liter bottles. At 17 pesos ($1.33) for 3 liters, Pepsi is cheaper than water.
Note the 3-peso penalty if you buy two 1.5-liter bottles.
It’s hardly a coincidence that Mexico has high soda consumption and high rates of obesity. Taxing sodas seems like a particularly good idea in this situation.
Michele Obama’s Let’s Move! campaign to end childhood obesity within a generation has taken on a new angle: Drink Up. It issued a press release yesterday urging Americans to drink more water.
The “Drink Up: You Are What You Drink” website explains:
Let me be absolutely clear: I am totally in favor of encouraging kids to drink water.
But:
The ABA’s congratulatory press release says:
Staying hydrated is important to staying in balance, and bottled water provides people with a convenient and popular choice. By supporting this new initiative, our industry is once again leading with meaningful ways to achieve a balanced lifestyle.”
Hydrated? Not an issue for most people (exceptions—elite athletes, people at high altitude, the elderly).
Bottled water? In places with decent municipal water supplies, tap water is a much better choice; it’s inexpensive, non-polluting, and generates political support for preserving the quality of municipal water supplies. See, for example, what Food and Water Watch has to say about bottled water.
James Hamblin’s critical account in The Atlantic indicates that the press conference must have been tough going. Sam Kass, White House chef and executive director of Let’s Move! took the questions.
Another reporter: “Why aren’t we talking about obesity?”
Another reporter: Are we talking about replacing sugary drinks and sodas with water?”
Lawrence Soler, president and CEO of Partnership for a Healthier America, fielded that one. “It’s less a public health campaign than a campaign to encourage drinking more water. To that end, we’re being completely positive. Only encouraging people to drink water; not being negative about other drinks. “
I consider Let’s Move! to be a public health campaign, and a very important one.
Hamblin concludes:
I know we’re just trying to “keep things positive,” but missing the opportunity to use this campaign’s massive platform to clearly talk down soda or do something otherwise more productive is lamentable. Public health campaigns of this magnitude don’t come around every day…Keeping things positive and making an important point are not mutually exclusive, you fools.
My interpretation
Let’s Move! staff have stated repeatedly that they must and will work with the food industry to make progress on childhood obesity. I’m guessing this is the best they can do. Messages to “drink less soda” (or even “drink tap water”) will not go over well with Coke, Pepsi, and the ABA; sales of sugary sodas are already declining in this country.
I’m thinking that the White House must have cut a deal with the soda industry along the lines of “we won’t say one word about soda if you will help us promote water, which you bottle under lots of brands.” A win-win.
Isn’t drinking water better than drinking soda? Of course it is.
But this campaign could have clarified the issues a bit better. Jeff Cronin, communications director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest circulated a poster created by Rudy Ruiz (of the communications firm Interlex) for a public health campaign in San Antonio:
Public health partnerships with food and beverage companies—especially soda companies—are fraught with peril. Let’s hope this one conveys the unstated message like the one in San Antonio: My balance is less soda and more tap water.
Other resources
As always, Eddie Gehman Kohan writing at ObamaFoodorama provides a clear, detailed summary of the relevant details along with transcripts of Michele Obama’s remarks at the launch in Watertown, Wisconsin (site of a Pepsi bottling plant, among other things).
Amanda Chin has a good piece in the Huffington Post (I’m quoted).
The NY State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, has turned down the Bloomberg administration’s appeal (New York Statewide Coalition of Hispanic Chambers of Commerce v New York City Dept. of Health & Mental Hygiene).
The court’s decision in this case begins on page 22:
Like Supreme Court, we conclude that in promulgating this regulation the Board of Health failed to act within the bounds of its lawfully delegated authority. Accordingly, we declare the regulation to be invalid, as violative of the principle of separation of powers.
…we find particularly probative the regulation’s exemptions, which evince a compromise of social and economic concerns, as well as private interests. As indicated, the regulatory scheme is not an all encompassing regulation. It does not apply to all FSEs [food service establishments]. Nor does it apply to all sugary beverages. The Board of Health’s explanations for these exemptions do not convince us that the limitations are based solely on health-related concerns (pages 17, 18 of the decision).
OK. So the city should have made the rule apply to all food service places and all sugary beverages. Live and learn.
Mayor Bloomberg says the city will appeal:
Since New York City’s ground-breaking limit on the portion size of sugary beverages was prevented from going into effect on March 12th, more than 2,000 New Yorkers have died from the effects of diabetes. Also during that time, the American Medical Association determined that obesity is a disease and the New England Journal of Medicine released a study showing the deadly, and irreversible, health impacts of obesity and Type 2 diabetes – both of which are disproportionately linked to sugary drink consumption. Today’s decision is a temporary setback, and we plan to appeal this decision as we continue the fight against the obesity epidemic.”
The American Beverage Association is pleased. It’s headline: “Hey New York – Your Beverage Is Still Your Choice!”
We are pleased that the lower court’s decision was upheld. With this ruling behind us, we look forward to collaborating with city leaders on solutions that will have a meaningful and lasting impact on the people of New York City.
Even if the city loses the final appeal, the 16-ounce soda cap is the writing on the wall for soda companies.
Sales of full-sugar sodas have been falling for years and getting worse for both Coca-Cola and Pepsi.
Cutting down on the portion sizes of sugary drinks is still a really good idea.
Here’s what the news media say about it:
I attended the brief appeals hearing yesterday at which lawyers for the New York City Department of Health (DOH) and the American Beverage Association (ABA) presented final arguments for and against the DOH 16-ounce soda cap initiative (for recap, see previous post).
The judges challenged the DOH lawyer on jurisdiction, judicial precedents, scientific basis, efficacy, rationality, and triviality. One said “Do you need a PhD in public health to know that sugary drinks aren’t good for you?”
Another kept referring to the initiative as a ban: “It would mean sodas cannot be sold…”
The big issues raised by ABA:
DOH argues that it does have jurisdiction and that there is plenty of precedent.
DOH also argues that the proposed 16-ounce cap is well supported by research and makes good sense.
I find DOH Commissioner Tom Farley entirely rational—and persuasive—when he talks about these issues.
Reporters from the Associated Press and the New York Times must have been there too. Both noted that the judges were much tougher on the DOH attorney than on the one from the ABA. The DOH attorney seemed to have trouble responding to questions about precedents. Did she not read the DOH’s impressive “plenty of precedent” piece?
Obesity—and its type 2 diabetes consequences—are problems requiring action. I’d like to see the soda cap tried.
But despite Commissioner Farley’s optimistic statements to reporters, this hearing didn’t make the possibility sound hopeful.
And here’s CDC’s reminder of what this is all about:
The NYC Health Department goes to court at noon today for a hearing on the 16-ounce soda cap (I’ll be there).
Yesterday, it released alarming data on diabetes deaths, now at an all-time high.
The press release notes that although NYC’s overall deaths are going down, diabetes-related deaths are going up.
The deaths are highest in low-income communities.
In April, the Health Department reported that nearly 650,000 New York adults have diabetes, an increase of 200,000 in a decade. Most of these are due to type 2 diabetes, the “adult” kind.
Why? Obesity.
Although a small percentage of overweight people develop type 2 diabetes, most people with type 2 diabetes are overweight.
Losing weight is the first thing to do to prevent or treat type 2 diabetes.
Reducing intake of sugary sodas is the first thing to do to lose weight.
That is why the health department wants to reduce the portion sizes of sugary drinks at food service establishments.
Today’s court hearing should be interesting. Stay tuned.
A reader writes that she rode by this ad on her way to work yesterday. It’s on Chicago’s beautiful lakefront walking-and-bike path.
It’s for a Big Gulp 32-ounce drink, and a bargain at 69 cents.
The Chicago Park District explains that it:
partnered with Chicago-based AdTraction Media to develop a temporary outdoor advertising solution that adheres to concrete areas and will be displayed April through October. The additional revenue from this agreement will help the Chicago Park District enhance the programs, projects and events offered to Chicagoans and visitors.
Did nobody in the Park District consider the irony?
Better get moving! It takes at least 4 miles of running and 8 to 10 of biking to work off the 400 calories in that 32-ounce soda.
FoodNavigator.com reports two new studies on artificial sweeteners.
The first report says that artificially sweetened sodas do not lead to increased sugar or calorie consumption.
Our study study does not provide evidence to suggest that a short-term consumption of DBs [diet beverages], compared with water, increases preferences for sweet foods and beverages.
So how come diet sodas don’t seem to help people maintain weight, on average? We still don’t know.
The second report is about a study that links diet sodas to type 2 diabetes. In a study following 66,000 women for 14 years, it found both sugar-sweetened beverage consumption and artificially sweetened beverage consumption to be associated with increased type-2 diabetes risk.
How come? We still don’t know.
One thing seems pretty clear from such studies: diet drinks don’t appear to do much good for most people and aren’t any better for health than regular sodas.
Water, anyone?
A reader sent me an e-mail received from Coca-Cola:
As you know, obesity is an issue that affects all of us. At Coca-Cola, we believe we can help solve it by working together. As you heard back in January, we are committed to doing our part – by offering more low- and no-calorie choices, more portion controlled packages, and useful calorie information in more places than ever before.
As part of our ongoing commitment to provide more information about calories, we want to share a new “Calorie Balance” infographic that we created. This is posted on our Company website here.
Our infographic is a simple, easy tool that informs people about where Americans’ calories are coming from and what we can all do to maintain a healthy, active lifestyle.
It communicates government data and third-party published studies in a compelling way, showing that too many calories consumed as compared to those expended can lead to weight gain.
OK. I can’t resist. Here’ just one piece of Coke’s infographic:
Guess what #4 is. And what food is responsible for more than one-third of calories from sugars in U.S. diets?
The infographic gives no guidance about food choices or amounts best for health, but it is quite specific about physical activity. Do lots!
Overall, I read the infographic as saying “Hey, it’s not our sugar-water that’s making you put on weight. It’s up to you to choose what you drink and work it off with physical activity.”
Getting active is always good advice, but doesn’t Coke’s phenomenally comprehensive and astronomically expensive marketing offensive have anything to do with food choices? Coke must think all that is irrelevant.
I think it’s quite relevant. And so does the research.
This session is on Practicing Food Studies. It will be at 5;00 p.m. Details to come.
