Currently browsing posts about: Soft drinks

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.

Sugar has long been thought to increase risks for type 2 diabetes, but whether it really does has not been easy to prove and is still a matter of debate.

A new study suggests one reason why.  It distinguishes between the effects of sugar in beverages (increased risk) and foods (no increased risk).

The study: Dietary Sugar Intake and Incident Type 2 Diabetes Risk: A Systematic Review and Dose-Response Meta-Analysis of Prospective Cohort Studies.

Method: The study analyed prospective cohort studies reporting relative measures of incident T2D [type 2 diabetes] risk by categories of dietary sugar (total, free, added, fructose, sucrose) or 2 beverage sources (non-diet sugar-sweetened beverages [SSBs], fruit juice) in healthy adults.

Results: 

• Each additional serving of SSB and fruit juice was associated with a higher risk of T2D.
• In contrast, 20 g/d intakes of total sugar and sucrose were inversely associated with T2D.
• No associations were found for added sugar…or fructose.

The figure shows the effect of 20 g/d sugar intake on T2D risk, in comparison to typical doses of SSB and fruit juice.

A) shows the bar plot illustrating the summary effect of a 20 g/d intake for different sugar types on risk of T2D.

B) compares these doses to typical servings sizes per day of SSBs (39 g/d) and fruit juice (23.3 g/d).

Conclusion: These findings suggest that dietary sugar consumed as a beverage (SSB and fruit juice) is associated with incident T2D risk. The results do not support the common assumption that dietary sugar (i.e., total sugar and sucrose), irrespective of type and amount, is consistently associated with increased T2D risk.

Comment: Sugar is still nutritionally empty, causes tooth decay(especially if water is unfluoridated), and is best consumed in small amounts.  But if this finding holds up, the moral is clear:  Don’t drink your calories.

A few months ago, Santa Cruz, a small town on California’s coast south of San Francisco, and the home of the University of California Santa Cruz, passed a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages.

It did this, even though the soda industry had gotten the state legislature to ban such taxes until 2031 by passing the “Keep Groceries Affordable Act in 2018.”

But further legislation and court rulings allowed charter cities to pass local taxes to raise revenues.

But now, the soda industry and its allies are suing Santa Cruz on the basis that the law passed because its purpose was not just revenue, but to discourage soda consumption.  The text of the lawsuit is here.

Santa Cruz is engaging in an act of local rebellion: “on matters of soda, city residents and leaders are standing up to the state and to beverage companies. Come and get us if you like, they say. We won’t compromise on democracy and local sovereignty.”

If you want to understand what is at stake, take a look at the plaintiffs in this case.  They include the American Beverage Association, of course but also the

• California Grocers Association
• California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce
• California Alliance of Family-Owned Businesses
• California Chamber of Commerce
• California Fuels and Convenience Alliance

A representatve of the California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce explained why it was joining the suit.

“Through representing the interests of over 950,000 Hispanic-owned businesses in California, we see first-hand the challenges faced by small, community-based businesses that are up against inflation, labor shortages and the extraordinary high cost of doing business in California,” said Julian Cañete, president of the California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce. “Santa Cruz illegally sidestepped the state legislature’s popular and much-needed preemption of grocery taxes to impose new costs on working families and local Hispanic-owned businesses. It must be overturned.”

As is evident from the soda industry’s attempts to spare no expense in fighting soda taxes, the taxes must be highly effective in reducing sales.

Never mind public health.  Selling sodas is what counts.

Addition

Thanks to Jim Krieger of Healthy Food America, for sending this one.

According to the Daily Beast: MAGA Influencers Caught Red-Handed Shilling for Big Soda

A string of MAGA influencers appear to have been caught taking money from Big Soda to undermine the government’s attempts to ban people from buying soda with food stamps.  Last week, a host of influential online pro-Trump personalities…raised eyebrows on X when they all appeared to abruptly change their views on Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s push to pass legislation which would ban food-stamp recipients from spending their money on soft drinks and junk food….conservative journalist Nick Sortor posted an expose of the offending posts side-by-side on X, alongside claims they had been paid to adopt a pro-soda stance by a social media PR company named Influenceable….“Not a SINGLE ONE of them disclosed they were paid for these posts, which led readers to believe a general SODA BAN was in the works.”

According to The Daily Wire: Soda Lobby Group American Beverage Denies Paying Influencers To Fight SNAP Restrictions

In a statement sent to The Daily Wire on Tuesday, ABA President and CEO Kevin Keane further echoed the denial, saying it had conducted a “thorough vetting” and is “confident” that it was not involved in the effort.

Whew.  What is this about?

The issue of adding sugar-sweetened beverages to the short list of food items that cannot be bought with SNAP benefits (Alcohol, Cigarettes, prepared foods, medicines, supplements) is a difficult one, splitting some public health advocates from some anti-hunger advocates and forging unexpected political alliances.

RFK Jr’s MAHA movement wants sodas out of SNAP.  The MAHA arguments:

• Sodas contain sugars (lots) but no other nutrients.
• Drinking a lot of them correlates with poor health.
• SNAP recipients buy a lot of soda.
• SNAP benefit are not taxed, making the cost of sodas cheaper for them in some states.
• SNAP recipients could still buy sodas with their own (non-SNAP) money.
• The WIC program specifies which foods (all of them healthy) recipients can buy with their benefits; it works fine.

Arguments against:

• Poor people should be able to eat just as unhealthfully as everyone else.
• Blocking them from buying sodas is condescending.
• Doing this removes choice and is unfair.
• A ban will hurt the profits of the soda industry and retailers who sell sodas.

For years, public health advocates and some states have called for pilot projects (“waivers”) to see how removing sodas might work.  The USDA has always rejected such petitions.

I favor pilot projects, in part because of what I learned as a member of the SNAP to Health Commission, and also because of the letters I received after publication of Soda Politics.  SNAP recipients wrote me that they viewed their benefits as a license to buy junk food and would welcome restrictions.  They would not buy as much soda if they had to pay for it with non-SNAP funds.

The new USDA Secretary says she will agree to waivers.  Good.  Let’s try this and see how it works.

Several groups under the auspices of Healthy Eating Research got together to produce this guide for kids ages 5-18.

To summarize:

• • Drink: water or milk
  • Limit: 100% juice (too much sugar), plant-based milk alternatives (except for medical reasons), flavored milk (too much sugar)
  • Avoid: beverages with caffeine and other stimulants, sugar-sweetened beverages, beverages with non-sugar sweeteners

Resources

• Press Release
• Consensus Statement  [(Spanish) (Vietnamese) (Tagalog)]
• Technical Report
• Summary
• Tips for Families
• Provider Toolkit

Translated Materials

• Consensus Statement  [(Spanish) (Vietnamese) (Tagalog)]
• Recommendations Graphic  [(Spanish) (Vietnamese) (Tagalog)]
• Added Sugars  [(Spanish) (Vietnamese) (Tagalog)]
• Caffeine Facts  [(Spanish) (Vietnamese) (Tagalog)]

I don’t get it really.  These commercials don’t look any different to me.  Maybe you can tell the difference.

Coca Cola’s annual Christmas commercial has been created with AI this time. pic.twitter.com/xO72akwoBh

— DiscussingFilm (@DiscussingFilm) November 15, 2024

According to news reports, Coca-Cola is getting a big backlash.

Instead of recognizing it was a mistake and apologizing, as many expected, the brand justified its use of AI, stating that it “remains dedicated to creating the highest level of work at the intersection of human creativity and technology.”

This is all about marketing, and marketing to kids at that.  The Center for Science in the Public Interest did a big report on that some years ago.  It’s still worth reading.

Addition: my distant but dearly loved cousin, Michael Kravit, who is in this business, writes:

Well, since we’re talking advertising, this zevia commercial is their cheeky response to coke’s ad. And they are getting a lot of attention for it.