Currently browsing posts about: Soft drinks

The Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement now counts 22 states as having passed laws eliminating sodas and sometimes other sweet foods from what SNAP recipients are allowed to buy with their electronic benefit cards.

I am often asked what I think about these laws.  I can argue them either way.

Pro: Even with these restrictions, SNAP recipients can continue to buy sugar-sweetened beverages with their own money; the government should not support purchases of demonstrably unhealthy drinks.

Con: These laws are not about improving the health of SNAP recipients; they are about punishing the poor for being poor, further stigmatizing them, and encouraging them to withdraw from benefits to which they are entitled.

I have long been a supporter of pilot research projects (USDA “waivers”) to see whether restrictions like these help SNAP recipients eat more healthfully.  But these laws are not designed that way.  I just hope their effects are being researched adequately.

Now, the laws are being challenged in court. The lawsuit calls for a halt to waivers in Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee and West Virginia – five of the 22 states to which USDA has granted them.

The suit comes from the National Center for Law and Economic Justice, an advocacy group focused on equity, and Shinder Cantor Lerner, an anti-trust law firm.

The suit alleges that USDA is:

• Trying to shrink SNAP by authorizing a patchwork of state laws.
• Changing the statutory definition of food without authority or notice.
• Preventing recipients from buying foods they need to maintain health.
• Confusing SNAP recipients about what they can buy.
• Increasing burdens on retailers, thereby adversely affecting SNAP recipients.

I can’t help wonder whether the food industry is behind all this.

Calley Means, who advises Robert F. Kennedy, Jr, says no.  He blames the Democrats.

What are we to make of all this?

I guess we wait to see what emerges during the discovery process and what the courts decide.

What a strange and complicated time this is.

I subscribe to Beverage Daily, an industry publication, to learn about current trends I might otherwise miss.

I hadn’t been paying much attention to the alchohol-free trend, other than to notice the astonishing rise in the number of flavored water options in supermarkets.

With the new dietary guidelines arguing for less alcohol, this is a trend worth watching.

Here is a good place to begin:

Five emerging trends in the alcohol-free category: January puts the spotlight on alcohol-free drinks. What has this month taught us about the direction of the category in 2026 ?… Read more

The discussion of the five trends is aimed at beverage companies trying to sell products.

• Sober-curious consumers are complicated, meaning they want to try lots of drinks.
• They “zebra-stripe” (a new term to me), meaning they alternate between alcoholic and non-alcoholic drinks in the same occasion.
• Beverage companies need to come up with innovate ways to attract customers.
• Non-alcoholic drinks should be functional (meaning containing something that can do something special) to attract customers.
• Companies need to find new ways to attract customers to their brands.

Judging from what I’m seeing at supermarkets, introducing a new beverage is not going to be easy.  There are already loads of options out there.

Here are a couple of additional items on the alcohol-free trend:

• The most popular alcohol-free brands in the US this month, according to search data: Tracking January’s search data reveals the rising stars in the US alcohol-free category…… Read more
• Drinking less but drinking better: Understanding the moderation movement: Consumers want to be healthier; so they’re cutting back on alcohol. But is it really that simple?… Read more
• Alcohol-free beverages become part of the wellness diet:  From Dry January to everyday routines, alcohol-free beverages are integrating into wellness diets with functional, mood-enhancing ingredients… Read more
• IFT’s Food Technology: That’s the (Zero-Proof) Spirit: The worldwide movement to reduce alcohol consumption is inspiring a creative and technological revolution in zero-proof spirits and mocktails with an expanding array of ingredients, from whiskey and gin alternatives to tropical fruits and botanicals.Read More
• How GLP-1 drugs are playing into the alcohol moderation trend: The last decade has seen a steady decline in alcohol consumption. GLP-1 drugs add a new dimension… Read more 
• Building the best alcohol-free brands: The next step in the category’s evolution:  Brand loyalty in the alcohol-free category is still low. That means its all to play for……
• 5 things we’ve learned about the alcohol-free category this January: January is the month when alcohol-free drinks really have the chance to shine. What have we learned about the direction of the category in 2026?… Read more
• Dry January is dead. Long live intentional drinking:  Elimination has evolved into moderation and it’s a preview of how changing consumer preferences affect year-round demand for alcohol and non-alcohol brands alike.

Alert to readers: Amazon.com displays listings for several more workbooks, study guides, and cookbooks purportedly based on my book, What to Eat Now (see previous post on this).  I did not write any of them.  Caveat emptor!

___________________________

Thanks to Lais Miachon Silva of the Micronutrient Forum for sending this item.

The study: A Systematic Review of Nonsugar Sweeteners and Cancer Epidemiology Studies. Advances in Nutrition Volume 16, Issue 12, December 2025, 100527.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advnut.2025.100527

Methods: systematic literature review

Results: “We found no consistent associations between any NSS or NSSs in aggregate and any cancer overall, and no evidence for dose–response.”

Conclusions: “Experimental animal and mechanistic evidence for NSSs does not support human-relevant carcinogenicity or any biologically plausible mechanisms by which NSSs could cause genotoxicity or cancer in humans. Overall, the epidemiology evidence does not support associations between any NSS and any cancer type.”

Funding: ABA [American Beverage Association] provided funding for this paper, which was written during the authors’ normal course of employment.

Conflict of interest: All authors are employed by Gradient, Geosyntec, or the American Beverage Association (ABA). Gradient and Geosyntec are environmental and risk sciences consulting firms. ABA is the trade association that represents America’s non-alcoholic beverage industry. ABA provided funding for this paper, which was written during the authors’ normal course of employment. This paper represents the professional opinions of the authors and not those of ABA.

Comment: This is a classic example of an industry-funded study conducted by industry employees producing results favorable to the sponsor’s commercial interests.  I am particularly amused by the last conflict of interest statement.  It too is a classic example, this time of Upton Sinclair’s famous quote: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” 

The USDA just announced the addition of six states to the list of waivers that allow them to restrict soft drinks and sometime other foods and drinks from what SNAP recipients can buy with their benefits (they can still buy these things with their own money),

Secretary Rollins Signs Six New State Waivers to Make America Healthy Again by Removing Unhealthy Foods from SNAP in Hawai‘i, Missouri, North Dakota, South Carolina, Virginia, and Tennessee

You can keep track of the waivers—now 18 states—at the USDA’s website, which provides a handy map.

The site also has a table that gives the implementation date in 2026, and describes the restrictions.  If you click on the state, you get the relevant documents.  You also can keep track on a site run by the National Grocers Association.

The state waivers vary a lot in what they restrict:

• Drinks: Soft drinks, energy drinks, sweetened beverages, soda, unhealthy beverages, fruit and/or vegetable juice drinks (with less than 50% natural juice)
• Foods: candy, prepared desserts, and/or taxable food items

Florida, for example, says

Starting in early 2026, soda, energy drinks, candy, and ultra-processed shelf-stable prepared desserts will no longer be available for purchase with SNAP benefits in Florida. Items excluded from SNAP purchases will include:

• Soda
• Energy Drinks
• Candy
• Ultra-Processed Prepared Desserts

Indiana, for another example, uses these definitions:

Candy: A preparation of sugar, honey, or other natural or artificial sweeteners in combination with chocolate, fruits, nuts, or other ingredients or flavorings in the form of bars, drops, or pieces. The term does not include any preparation requiring refrigeration.

Soft Drinks: Nonalcoholic beverages that contain natural or artificial sweeteners. The term does not include beverages that contain milk or milk products, soy, rice, or similar milk substitutes, or are exclusively naturally sweetened using natural vegetable and / or fruit juice.

And, just for fun, I looked up another one.

Oklahoma’s definitions

“Candy” means any solid, semi-solid, or molded preparation of sugar, sweeteners (natural or artificial), or chocolate, with or without added ingredients such as flavorings, fruit, nuts, or flour, that is commonly marketed, advertised, or recognized as candy, chocolate bar, chewing gum, or similar confectionery. For purposes of this section, candy includes but is not limited to chocolate bars (including products containing flour such as Kit Kat, Twix, or similar items), hard candies, gummies, caramels, taffy, licorice, mints, and chewing gum.

“Soft drink” means any nonalcoholic beverage that contains natural or artificial sweeteners, including soda, pop, cola, energy drinks, sports drinks, and flavored water, but excluding beverages that contain milk or milk substitutes, soy, rice, or similar dairy alternative ingredients, or that contain more than 50 percent, by volume, of fruit or vegetable juice…For purposes of this section, “soft drink” includes but is not limited to:

• Carbonated sodas
• Non-carbonated sweetened beverages
• Energy drinks, energy Supplements, and sports drinks (whether or not carbonated)
• Sweetened bottled or canned teas and lemonades
• Flavored waters with added sweeteners

“Soft drink” does NOT include:
• Coffee or unsweetened tea
• 100% fruit or vegetable juice, or beverages containing more than 50% juice by volume
• Milk, milk substitutes, dairy-based drinks, or similar beverages

Yikes!  It gives me a headache just thinking about what it’s going to be like for grocers to deal with this, let alone the manufacturers of restricted foods that differ from state to state.

All of the waivers are said to include evaluation plans.  These will be interesting and we should start seeing them by 2027.  Can’t wait.

From last week’s The Guardian: “Inside the Republican network behind big soda’s bid to pit Maga against Maha: A Guardian investigation finds the US soda and snack-food industries, threatened by RFK Jr’s movement to change Americans’ eating habits, have turned to a group of well-connected strategists, shadowy pollsters and ‘anti-woke’ influencers.”

The ongoing influence campaign is being spearheaded by the American Beverage Association with help from the Consumer Brands Association, two prominent trade groups in the food industry. Coca-Cola, PepsiCo and Keurig Dr Pepper, the three largest soft-drink corporations in the United States, as well as packaged-food conglomerates like General Mills, Kraft Heinz, Mondelēz and Nestlé, are among those that pay dues for the right to have a say in either or both of the trade groups’ strategies.

All three soda-makers identified the Maha efforts as significant threats to their bottom lines in their most recent annual reports, delivered to investors after Trump nominated Kennedy to be secretary of US Health and Human Services. Coke and Dr Pepper went as far as to suggest such risks would be compounded if unnamed “government officials” were to voice health concerns about their products.The three soda makers did not respond to questions about the lobbying effort.

The article goes on to explain the lobbying methods and paid influencer campaigns, at the federal level but also in states considering legislation on food dyes (which take care of many ultra-processed foods) and restrictions on sodas in SNAP.

Whether the MAHA food agenda is real or a smokescreen (see yesterday’s post), anything useful it tries to do will come up against this kind of concerted, well-funded effort, which may be why the second MAHA report backed off on so many issues.

I am indebted to Melissa Fuster at Tulane University (congratulations on achieving tenure!) and Megan Knapp of Xavier University of Louisiana for telling me about this one.

The USDA has just approved a waiver for the State of Louisiana to exclude soft drinks, energy drinks, and candy from allowable purchases with SNAP benefits.

Check the definition of  excluded soft drinks [my emphasis]:

“Soft drinks” are defined as any carbonated nonalcoholic beverage containing high fructose corn syrup or artificial sweeteners.

By this definition, soft drinks made with cane or beet sugar are fully allowed to be purchased using SNAP benefits.

What is the difference between high fructose corn syrup and cane or beet sugar?  Not much.  All are mixtures of glucose and fructose and have the same number of calories.

So why the distinction?

Guess which state is the #2 producer of cane sugar.

As I said, nutritionally hilarious (see my clip in John Oliver’s Last Week Tonight on this point).

Here is yet another industry-funded study with a predictably favorable outcome, this one about a drink containing 6 grams of dietary fiber shown in this study to reduce blood glucose levels after consumption.

The study: Prebiotic soda lowers postprandial glucose compared to traditional soda pop: a randomized controlled trial.

Conclusion: a prebiotic soda is a favorable alternative to traditional soda formulations for managing postprandial blood glucose levels and maximal glucose excursion in generally healthy adults with overweight or obesity.

Competing interest statement: This study was funded by the manufacturer of the prebiotic soda beverage, OLIPOP, Inc. CFM, TB, EM, VK, and CC were employees of Biofortis, Inc., a Contract Research Organization that received funding from OLIPOP, Inc. to conduct the study. NV, MJM, and CM were employees of OLIPOP, Inc., the study sponsor company. AMV was a consultant of OLIPOP, Inc. for research support at the sponsor’s request.

Funding Statement: This study was funded by OLIPOP, Inc.

Comment: I particularly wanted to include this one because it is so blatantly done for commercial purposes, funded by the maker of the soda and conducted by employees or consultants. It belongs in the Journal of Industry-Funded Research, if such a thing existed.  Adding fiber to sodas to feed your microbiome?  I’d rather get mine from vegetables, grains, beans, nuts, and fruits.

I thought I should say something about the new state bans on using SNAP benefit cards to buy sodas and other kinds of junk foods.

More states ban soda and ‘junk food’ purchases from SNAP benefits: Varying restrictions add more confusion for food companies already struggling with slowing sales.

This article, from Food Dive, says

• Twelve states have now received approval to restrict benefits, with bans set to commence next year. The Department of Health and Human Services said the waivers aim to end the “subsidization of popular types of junk food.”

It points out that the bans vary in what they cover, and define candy and soft drinks in different ways.

Iowa, which has one of the most restrictive set of SNAP rules, is banning sugar-sweetened beverages that contain less than 50% juice, including sodas, energy drinks and flavored waters. The state is also restricting drink concentrates and powdered mix-ins.

The USDA has a web page devoted to SNAP Waivers (of existing rules governing what SNAP participants are allowed to buy).

Comment: I have long been in favor of pilot projects for banning sugar-sweetened beverages on SNAP (I was a member of the SNAP to Health Commission which issued a report in 2012.

Sodas are composed of sugars and water and have calories but no other redeeming nutritional value.

Even though we sympathized with the arguments that restrictions on purchases are condescending, we recommended pilot projects—along with research to evaluate them.  Would the bans change purchasing habits?  How would SNAP recipients feel about them?

It’s pretty clear how retailers feel about them.  Ouch.  Reduced sales.

The USDA turned down all requests for researchable pilot projects, ostensibly for logistical reasons.  Whatever.

Times have changed.

USDA’s SNAP waivers do not require research, unfortunately. I hope somebody in those states does some before-and-after data collection.

I worry that the waivers will be used as wedges to further cut SNAP benefits.

This one is a wait-and-see.  Stay tuned.