Perhaps you’d use the money to pay down the budget deficit…

Build or repair the roads and bridges in your state…

Fund a food program for children in America who go hungry each night…

Send the money back to the states to pay for education…

Some folks think they have the answer on how to spend those dollars.  For example, Center for Science in the Public Interest Executive Director Michael Jacobson, who holds a Ph.D. in microbiology, just wrote an article proposing to spend a whopping $1.5 billion on “major mass-media campaigns to encourage people to eat less junk food and more healthful foods.” He also likes the idea of spending your money on cooking classes and bike trails (never mind that pothole you hit on the way to work today).

One and a half billion dollars is a lot of money to spend on a belief that people can’t possibly be capable of making decisions for what they eat – that they need the government to help them figure it out.

A recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll reports that only 13 percent of Americans approve of the job Congress is doing. So, do you trust them to make decisions about what you can and can’t eat?

There are many problems facing our country today. Obesity and proper health are problems we face as a nation. But we can make decisions for ourselves and our families each and every day without the help of lawmakers. What we can’t do without is their help is fill the pothole on the way to work, fund the music program at our local school or make a dent in the federal deficit. Priorities matter.

Our member companies are committed to being part of meaningful solutions to obesity. We’re making it easier for consumers to choose the beverage that’s right for them by placing calorie labels on the front of every bottle, can and pack we produce, putting information at their fingertips before making a purchase. Through initiatives such as Clear on Calories and our national School Beverage Guidelines, where we removed full-calorie beverages from schools and replaced them with more lower-calorie, smaller-portioned options, our industry is doing its part and providing real, practical help for consumers.

These are real efforts that will have a lasting impact, not a sound-bite solution with a fancy slogan and little substance.

We agree that obesity is a serious and complex problem requiring comprehensive solutions, but soft drinks are not the leading cause of obesity or uniquely contributing to the problem.

Here are the facts on sugar-sweetened beverages, including soft drinks, and their standing in the obesity equation.

• Sales of regular soft drinks have declined by 12 percent from 2000 to 2009, according to Beverage Digest.
• The total amount of beverage calories that our member companies have brought to market decreased by 21 percent from 1998 to 2008 due to innovation and production of more no-calorie and low-calorie beverages, as well as smaller-portion beverages.
• According to federal government data, all sugar-sweetened beverages (soft drinks, juice drinks, sports drinks, flavored waters, etc.) account for only 7 percent – soda is just 4 percent – of the calories in the average American’s diet. That means Americans get 93 percent of their calories from other foods and beverages.

Yet, adult and childhood obesity rates continue to rise across the country during that same period, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Look, we’re not looking to fool anyone here.  The calories in our products come from the sweeteners we use to make them.  And while our products make up such a small piece of the diet, some activists want to assign us 100 percent of the blame.

We have demonstrated leadership by:

• Cutting calories available from beverages in schools by 88 percent. Our companies removed full-calorie soft drinks from schools across America, replacing them with lower-calorie, smaller-portion beverage choices.
• Placing new calorie labels on the front of every can, bottle and pack we produce. We’re making it even easier to access calorie information and to help consumers make the decision that’s right for them.
• Providing more low- and no-calorie beverage options for consumers.  Just check out the beverage aisle in your local store for proof.

Obesity is too complex and difficult an issue to continue addressing with overly simplistic sound bites and mischaracterizations. We need to start creating the right context for this discussion. Otherwise, we as a nation won’t make a dent in reversing this serious problem.

The article runs down a path that is both deceptive and dangerous – and Reuters ignored nearly all of our important points and perspectives.  We’ll focus today on the points countering the most absurd claims in the story, as well as provide more context for why we’re seeking public records on this matter.

The Reuters story trumpeted sources who attempted to compare us to the tobacco industry for making these legitimate open records requests, saying that this activity would overwhelm public health departments.  If you believe that, we have a time machine we’d like to sell you.  States and cities have offices specifically dedicated to fulfilling open records requests. They can handle it.  Also, we’ve been quite patient in waiting for them to answer our requests.

The fact is that the beverage industry is nothing like tobacco.  And while some activists would like you to think otherwise, our products are not even in the same universe as tobacco. Smoking kills.  Soda doesn’t.  You can enjoy soda and be a healthy person.  And you certainly don’t hear about health problems from “second-hand soda.”  It’s just not accurate or remotely legitimate to go down the tobacco road when it comes to beverages.

The activists levying these attacks against our industry also need to stop their “tobacco playbook” non-sense.  If anything, with these Freedom of Information Act requests, we’re following a common media playbook.  Why shouldn’t our organization have the same rights as the media or any other citizen to seek public documents?

If anyone is using the “tobacco playbook” in their tactics it is some of these activists.  In fact, if you read a New York Times story from last October, one would think that playbook might be sitting on a desk in the health department.

Last year, The New York Times reported on a protracted conversation within the New York City health department about the legitimacy of the claims in its advertising campaign attacking our products. The story quoted high-ups in the department as asking “What can we get away with?” This is the standard public health officials were using in determining how far they could manipulate the data and messages in these over-the-top ads.

The New York Times garnered this information through an open records request – similar to the one our organization has made.

So yes, we want to know more about these campaigns about our products. We remain clear in our positions opposing discriminatory taxes on our products, and we continue to be transparent about our objection to grotesque, dishonest, taxpayer-funded advertising that attacks our industry.  And honestly, “What can we get away with?” sounds to us a lot like something the activists would accuse tobacco of saying.

The complaints by activists in the Reuters story elicit the common turn on a Shakespearean phrase: “methinks thou doth protest too much.” The louder and more extravagant their attacks on a straightforward, transparent request for public records, the more it begs the questions: What are they hiding? And what are they afraid of?

This is an unfortunate and grotesque misuse of taxpayer dollars that were intended to create jobs and stimulate the economy. How are these ads creating jobs? If anything, this money is going to activities that will stymie job creation and cost people good-paying jobs.

It’s disturbing that officials in Hawaii are choosing to intrude into the lives of people by telling them what they can drink or do with regards to safe, refreshing, non-alcoholic beverages. To single out one type of product is unwarranted and unproductive.  The people of Hawaii and its visitors are more than capable of deciding what to buy without government help.

At a time when budget deficits are at all-time highs – and families are still struggling financially – we have federal and state agencies wasting taxpayer money on advertising.

The non-alcoholic beverage industry has stepped up to do its part in helping to address obesity, by voluntarily removing full-calorie soft drinks from schools, replacing them with more lower-calorie, smaller-portion options.  As a result of this initiative, calories from beverages in schools have been cut by 88 percent.  The beverage industry is placing calorie labels on the front of every bottle, can and pack. This initiative is putting calorie information at the fingertips of every consumer so they can make the choice that’s right for them and their families.

To that end, one food and beverage ingredient that often ends up demonized in the world of blogs, tweets and the like is high fructose corn syrup. You probably know it better as HFCS – it’s that common liquid sweetener made from corn. Unfortunately, some like to spread the rumor that the obesity challenge in America directly parallels the introduction of HFCS into our food supply. The abundance of misinformation on HFCS on the Internet even made its way into the New York Times back in 2006. Yet, in that article, longtime industry critic Dr. Walter Willett stated that “There’s no substantial evidence to support the idea that high-fructose corn syrup is somehow responsible for obesity.” In fact, that article started what is now a frequent argument by some of the very scientists that proposed that HFCS was an “ingredient of concern” – sugars are sugars.

So when you’re trying to learn more about an ingredient in our food supply, don’t just take in the sensationalistic soundbites of a select few. Look to credible organizations that have read up on the science – they know that these characterizations of HFCS are invalid and share the science on why. When it comes to HFCS, there are many such organizations spreading the facts in the virtual world. In fact, in 2008, the American Medical Association concluded that HFCS “does not appear to contribute more to obesity than other caloric sweeteners.” That same year, the American Dietetic Association agreed that “no persuasive evidence supports the claim that high fructose corn syrup is a unique contributor to obesity.” And when it comes to weight management, for some, Weight Watchers is like the holy grail. In an online article earlier this year, Weight Watchers looked at the body of available science and found that “when it comes to added sugar, where the sugar comes from – HFCS, sucrose, honey, fruit juice concentrate – does not make a difference when it comes to weight.”

So remember, question what you read and do your research; the facts are out there waiting to be found.

Jacobson got the first word and starts by saying soft drinks are “the only food or beverage demonstrated to cause weight gain and obesity.” You may want to read that again because your eyes aren’t fooling you.

When Jacobson was challenged for essentially saying “soft drinks were the only cause of obesity,” he disputed that characterization of his comments. He again reiterated that what he said was “the only food or beverage demonstrated to cause weight gain or obesity.”

Wow that’s some serious spin. And that’s a pretty outrageous statement – largely because it is blatantly inaccurate. Common sense tells you that it’s not true. And science tells you that it’s not true.

A few points of fact for Mr. Jacobson and his gang:

• A recent NIH-funded study in the New England Journal of Medicine found that calories from all foods count when losing weight. This study reinforced a compendium of research showing that balancing calories consumed with calories burned is the key to weight maintenance.

• Common sense kicks in here as well. There are calories in nearly all foods. People know that and don’t necessarily need a Harvard study to figure that one out. And people understand that the vast majority of their calories come from other foods than soft drinks. There isn’t one demonstrated cause to weight gain. Silliness.

• As for soft drinks being a unique contributor to obesity – well, the data says otherwise. Soft drink sales have declined annually since 2000, while childhood and adult obesity have risen during this same period. Sorry, Michael, you’re argument just doesn’t add up.

Well, as the saying goes: It stinks when the facts get in the way of a good story.

What’s most disappointing is that Michael and his colleagues continue to mislead and spin the American public with phony data and inaccurate statements — simply to push their cause, get themselves more media attention, and use that attention to raise more money for their organization. So they have a financial stake in this debate, too. And they pursue their stake at the expense of consumers through higher taxes and greater government intervention into your personal decisions. We’re at least upfront about who we are: our industry makes beverages. Some have calories, some have fewer and some have zero. And we are upfront that we don’t want our products, or our loyal consumers, taxed. It’s bad for our consumers’ pocketbooks and it’s bad for our business and employees.

More importantly, though, taxes are just the wrong public policy for a complex problem like obesity. Taxes won’t make an ounce of difference. Taxes are just a money grab.

So it came as no surprise to us that a New England Journal of Medicine opinion piece advocating a soda tax is fraught with ulterior motives by the authors Kelly Brownell, of Yale University, and Thomas Frieden, the New York City Health Commissioner.

Let’s start with Kelly Brownell.

Fact 1: He makes his living by bashing food. It’s his profession. It’s the source of his income. It’s his bias. He’s published a book bashing food. He gives speeches bashing food. He operates the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity, which bashes food. He’s paid to bash food and bash it hard. Now, we’re sure Kelly is a nice guy, but he has a clear financial stake and motivation in bashing food.

Fact 2: He claims to be a scientist, yet science is supposed to objectively follow the facts where they lead. Kelly, however, picks-and-chooses particular data points and manipulates them to promote his agenda. Every single study he has published bashes food or industry in some fashion; just check out his own web site. No surprise here, though – see Fact 1. That he calls himself a scientist, however, is a stretch. Kelly is an activist. A well-paid activist. And that he has the gall to criticize any peer-reviewed, balanced science as “biased” due to industry funding is just plain hypocritical.

Fact 3: Kelly can’t make money or get books published or get support for his Rudd Center if he isn’t on TV or in the media or getting his buddies at science journals to provide a venue for his rants. So he attacks things and is provocative. The media, obviously, likes this – it’s conflict. And it’s much easier to get attention when you attack major brands, like soda, vs. the hundreds of other food items with calories or the sedentary lifestyle of children and adults.

Bottom line: It’s all about money. And Kelly wanting to make lots of it, along with a name for himself.

Yes, our industry is in the business of making money too. But we’re honest about it. And we won’t stay in business if we don’t provide quality products at fair prices, or deal honestly with our consumers.

Now, our friend Dr. Frieden:

Fact 1: He’s the NYC Health Commissioner and likes to get attention for himself too. He’s made a nice name by establishing himself as NYC’s self-declared chief of the food police. It gets him attention for reasons we elaborate on in the next fact.

Fact 2: He’s a politician with an agenda. Now we certainly don’t believe this is an inherently negative thing. In fact, we’re confident that Dr. Frieden is a well-intentioned public servant and good person. But political agendas are something that deserve due scrutiny by the public. On the flip side, politicians need attention for their agenda to remain relevant, not to mention themselves. By attacking food or industry, he gets attention for his agenda. Remember, the media loves conflict (especially in that big market of the Big Apple).

Fact 3: He needs money for his agenda. Taxpayer money. That’s how politicians finance their agendas. And like most governments, New York is facing a budget deficit and ongoing fiscal challenges that pinch the agendas of all government leaders in NYC (especially with a Mayor who pays great attention to fiscal prudence.) So their solution is often to tax something to get money for their agenda. The people of NY, and America for that matter, see an obesity tax proposal for what it is – a money grab. It’s one reason why they reject these taxes passionately. It’s one reason New Yorkers rebelled against their Governor’s proposed soda tax, forcing him to retract it. And it’s one reason why poll-after-poll of the public shows they don’t like taxes on soda — or any food or consumer good for that matter.

Bottom line: It’s all about money for government, too. They want more of yours because they keep spending what they’ve already taken from you at alarming rates. And the economy has finally caught up with them. So now some want consumers to bail them out by taxing their everyday goods and products. Thankfully, Mayor Bloomberg has rejected Dr. Frieden’s notion of a soda tax, according to the New York Times.

Now that you know more about Kelly Brownell and Thomas Frieden and what motivates them; here’s some closing thoughts:

• We don’t need government or self-indulgent activists telling folks what to eat or drink. That’s one of the ultimate invasions into personal choice and freedom.

• We don’t need government taking more of people’s hard-earned money and putting jobs at risk – especially in the middle of this economy.

• And we certainly don’t need activists making money for themselves by advocating the taking of more money from consumers through higher taxes.
Just a few facts to keep in mind the next time you hear or read something from Kelly or Thomas.

(Oh yeah – per this blog’s opening paragraph — our ulterior motives with this post are setting the record straight about our two critics and to defeat soft drink taxes. We believe they’re bad public policy, bad for consumers and bad for business. We lay out that case in this morning’s blog and previous Sip & Savor blog posts.)

Today, there is yet another attack from career activists who once again want to tax soft drinks – thus growing the Nanny State, raising costs for families and threatening good-paying jobs, all during a time of the worst recession since the Depression. Brilliant people, these folks are. At least this time, they’re showing some honor by portraying their attacks for what they really are: personal opinion. Usually they try to shill their ideas as legitimate science.

In a New England Journal of Medicine opinion piece, Thomas Frieden and Kelly Brownell argue that soft drinks should be taxed because they are a unique contributor to the obesity problem. Kelly Brownell, who does not drink regular soda, argues that by taxing these products, Americans will become less obese. Hmmm, interesting notions coming from Kelly of all people.

In this post, we’ll address the facts of a soda tax; later today we’ll address some facts about Kelly and Tom.

On taxing soda: it’s just bad public policy. Period. These taxes don’t work and cause far more harm to people than good.

Obesity is indeed a serious and complex problem. So it is irritating that activists who portray themselves as scientists repeatedly revert to simplistic and phony solutions that both science and common sense show won’t make a difference. These tactics just distract from the hard work needed to implement meaningful solutions.

For starters, singling out one product for taxation as a unique contributor to obesity won’t make a dent in the problem. Even the same New England Journal of Medicine published an NIH-funded, peer-reviewed study in February that showed all calories count, regardless of the food source. In other words, the study reaffirmed the long-standing science that balancing calories consumed from all foods and beverages with calories burned through physical activity are what really matters.

Harvard professor Frank Sacks, the lead author, said his study “really goes against the idea that certain foods are the key to weight loss. This is a pretty positive message.” Yes, portion control and moderation for all foods and beverages are positive messages.

Secondly, Kelly feebly argues that soda taxes will lead to a decrease in soda consumption and a correlated decrease in overweight and obesity. Nice try. The facts, however, are that obesity rates in America continue rising while soft drink sales are declining. It stinks when the logic gets in the way of a good fable.

Third, pardon the pun, but soda taxes won’t provide an ounce of prevention on obesity, but they will cause a ton of pain to families struggling through a horrible recession. Taxes will raise costs on their groceries. And it will put at risk tens of thousands of jobs in communities large and small. These are good-paying, often union, jobs with health benefits. Ask the 2 million Americans who have lost their jobs this year alone if taxing products at the cost of jobs is good public policy.

Finally, soda taxes simply expand the Nanny State and its food police. This is America, where personal choice and personal responsibility still reign. Americans don’t want government – especially when prodded by entrepreneurs like Kelly Brownell whose livelihood literally depends on bashing food – telling them what they should eat or drink.

What people would welcome is some education about the need to balance calories consumed with calories burned, as well as some help on how to go about that for their families.

But it’s much harder work for activists and government to give people the lifelong skills to know how to fit all foods and beverages into a balanced diet by helping them understand how to make the principle of calories in and calories out work for them. This approach involves implementing real science. It’s not a sound-bite solution, which so many activists prefer because it gets them media attention and sells books.

What Kelly Brownell and Thomas Frieden are doing by pushing a soda tax is just plain lazy. And laziness is a far bigger part of the obesity problem than a soda pop.

In our industry, the food police like to go after soft drinks, energy drinks and bottled water. They insist these products are wrong for teens, should be banned from high schools and their sale restricted for teens in other venues. Now, a full-calorie soda has about 150 calories, a small portion in the 2,000+ calorie diet recommended for an average person; active teens can most certainly handle and need more than that as they’re burning off calories. Bottled water has zero calories, yet that gets demonized by the Nannies because it’s not tap water.

A question for the intelligentsia: What are teenagers, or even preteens for that matter, supposed to drink when they get together to socialize? Milk or juice or tap water? This trio is actually the limited, recommended beverage choices for teens by the Institute of Medicine – whose ideas are then peddled by the food police.

Get out of your science labs and ivory towers, folks. And get serious. If you really believe that’s what teens will drink when they get together, you’re living in another world. And naively contributing to a dangerous world.

An unfortunate but age-old lure for teens at social gatherings is alcohol — beer or the harder stuff. Spring tends to be a time of year when teens get together more, especially when the warmer weather draws them outdoors. It’s also one of those disappointing times when stories like this one from a Northern Virginia high school become more the norm than the exception. A group of students, in this case female athletes, go to a party, drink alcohol and get suspended. Thankfully, none of them wrapped a car around a tree afterwards.

Maybe it would be a bit easier to resist the temptations of alcohol if teens had some legitimate and realistic options. Non-alcoholic products conducive to teen socializing because they taste good (soft drinks), have some carbonation (energy drinks) or are hip (a word from our generation) to carry around.

But this becomes harder when the food police demonize these perfectly fine refreshments and co-opt parents into believing their teens shouldn’t be drinking them. Would you rather they drink the beer? Because we’re quite confident they’re not going to drink the milk.

Look, we’re not Pollyanish either. Alcohol is always going to be a temptation for teens. Our products aren’t going to eliminate that problem. But teen drinking won’t have any chance of diminishing if, after receiving the good talks from their parents, our children don’t have viable options to turn to in social settings. Then it becomes just that much harder to resist the peer pressure.

To those geniuses in academia, step outside into the real world. Stop demonizing safe, refreshing products that taste good like soda, energy drinks and bottled waters. You’re contributing to more problems than you’re solving. Have an energy drink and wake up to the real world.