The issue is getting more attention lately.  Yesterday, the Heritage Foundation posted a column on their website about the attack ads in an article titled “Obama Administration Uses Stimulus Money to Support Ads Attacking Soda.” An excerpt from the column reads as follows:

“The 2009 economic stimulus, of course, was sold to Congress as a $787 billion package to revive the economy by creating or saving millions of jobs. And while some of the money for these anti-obesity efforts could arguably create temporary jobs — such as construction of a bike path or walking trail — there’s growing concern about the use of the money for advertisements.”

And recently others, including Members of Congress, have picked up on the issue, too.

Last week, we read an Op-Ed by U.S. Representative Dr. Scott DesJarlais (R-Tenn) that ran in The Chattanoogan (“Why the Rush to Waste Taxpayer Dollars”).  We blogged about this a few days ago, but if you still haven’t had a moment to read the piece, check it out by clicking here.

For more information on the stimulus funded anti-soda ad campaigns check in with Smart Taxpayers Exposing Waste (STEW) on Facebook and Twitter.  And remember to keep checking in with us here at Sip & Savor for the latest beverage industry news.

That’s right; hundreds of millions of dollars in federal job stimulus money – taxpayer dollars intended to create or save jobs – is going to run ads attacking American companies that actually provide jobs.  Government is wasting taxpayer money that was intended to promote economic growth by telling people what to eat and drink and potentially damaging an industry that provides hundreds of thousands of jobs across the country.  Talk about a case of misplaced priorities.

As U.S. Representative Dr. Scott DesJarlais, R-Tenn., recently wrote in an op-ed (“Why the Rush to Waste Taxpayer Dollars?”) which ran in The Chattanoogan:

“Recently, a group called Smart Taxpayers Exposing Waste (STEW) exposed $230 million of stimulus grant money being used to run ads attacking America’s soft drink companies. These hard earned taxpayer dollars that were intended to stimulate the economy and create jobs are instead funding scare campaigns against perfectly safe and legal products, and the companies that make them. At a time when our nation faces an unemployment rate of more than 9 percent, I find it outrageous that federal and city agencies would aggressively advertise against American products made by American workers.”

The fact of the matter is that these federal funds could have gone to local communities to stimulate job growth and promote healthy lifestyles simultaneously by maintaining the operation of public parks, bike trails, pools, physical education and after-school programs.  Efforts such as these would not only achieve an admirable public health goal, but also accomplish the original intent of the stimulus package – to add jobs to a lagging economy.

Be sure to read through the rest of Dr. DesJarlais’ op-ed and then check in with Smart Taxpayers Exposing Waste (STEW) on Facebook and Twitter – and share with your colleagues, friends and family.

That’s right; Portland is using some of the $1.8 million in federal stimulus grant money – taxpayer dollars intended to create or save jobs – it received to run ads attacking the beverage industry.  At a time when unemployment is high and families are still struggling in the economy, this city government is wasting taxpayer money that was intended to promote economic growth by telling people what to eat and drink and potentially damaging an industry that provides thousands of jobs in Maine.  This is a remarkable statement of misplaced priorities.  Mainers can decide what groceries to buy for their families without government help.

This campaign portrays the consumption of beverages in the most over-the-top, outrageous manner.  It in no way reflects how people drink soda or any other beverages.  These ads are an unfortunate and grotesque misuse of taxpayer dollars intended to stimulate the economy.

Funding scare campaigns that target one industry does not create jobs.  In fact, it could actually cost people jobs and impede economic growth. Why is the city of Portland using these grants to run ads assaulting American companies, instead of using the money to create jobs and effectively address obesity?

In fact, these federal funds could have gone to local communities to stimulate job growth and promote healthy lifestyles simultaneously by maintaining the operation of public parks, bike trails, pools, physical education and after-school programs.  Efforts such as these would not only achieve an admirable public health goal, but also accomplish the original intent of the stimulus package – to add jobs to a lagging economy.

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.

On the one hand, President Obama was promising a stimulus package that would give a tax cut to 95 percent of Americans and help protect jobs and create new ones. But on the other hand, Gov. Paterson was proposing 137 new tax hikes totaling more than $4 billion – a move that threatened to cost New Yorkers more money at the store and thousands of them their jobs.

The bottom line for New Yorkers looked bleak: no matter what relief President Obama might have provided at the time, it would be overwhelmed by Gov. Paterson’s tax hikes. But now the governor seems to be teaming up his plan with the President’s plan – namely by using stimulus money to scrap numerous tax hikes to the benefit of New Yorkers and their jobs.

Since it is baseball season, we’ll use a stretched baseball analogy. If Gov. Paterson is the set-up man who walked the bases loaded, then President Obama emerged as Mariano Rivera (or, we should say Bobby Jenks as the president is a devoted White Sox fan) to provide the governor with a potentially big save.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act – better known as the “stimulus package” – delivered to states billions of dollars to directly help their citizens weather the recession. Putting aside for the moment the merits of the stimulus’ sizeable use of taxpayer dollars — the top priority set out by President Obama for use of the money was to create or save 3.5 million jobs in America in the next two years. Well, just by scrapping the proposed 18 percent tax on regular soft drinks and juice drinks, Gov. Paterson protected more than 6,000 jobs in his state alone.

The next priority was to provide direct relief to working and middle-class families. According to the Obama administration, this includes money to states for use in fiscal relief and investments that benefit working families. Thus, by eliminating $1.3 billion of his proposed taxes on everyday products such as clothes, shoes, soda, haircuts, cable and satellite service, movie and theater tickets, home improvements and music downloads, Gov. Paterson used the stimulus money to provide important financial relief for hard-working families.

In an economy like this, the last thing government should be doing is raising taxes on the middle-class: especially on their everyday goods and services.

So kudos to Gov. Paterson for listening to New Yorkers and for using the stimulus package the way it was intended: to protect jobs and keep costs low for people so they can begin climbing out of this recession.

Now, there’s still $2.8 billion in new taxes on consumer goods and services remaining in the governor’s budget, but Newsday said he’s open to eliminating those as well. This will certainly help ensure that the modest tax cuts President Obama is providing Americans end up as a net positive in New Yorkers wallets.

To stick with our baseball analogy: Gov. Paterson and New York government got into a jam. President Obama got them out of it, for now. Next, we’ll see if leaders can finish the job and save a total victory. If so, New Yorkers – from its hard-working families to its job providers – will truly be on the road to economic recovery and brighter days ahead.

There’s a crucial lesson in New York for policy-makers across America; we’ll get into that next week.

Well, the beverage industry is taking an opposite tact. Sure, we’re having our tough times too in this economy. Our companies have had to make some tough layoffs. They’ve had to cut back their spending; alter some of their business strategies.

But through it all, they’ve positioned themselves for more prosperity in the future.

By contrast to the auto, financial and insurance industries who constantly have their hands out, our companies come to government offering a hand up.

We’re doing that with our School Beverage Guidelines – a calorie-based initiative that is adjusting the beverage mix available to children in schools.

We’re doing that with our Full Circle environmental initiatives – helping government figure out a modern, more efficient way to improve recycling and protect the environment. We’re helping to develop a “better way” so to speak.

And we’re extending our hand of help to government in creating those green jobs of the future that the President and so many other lawmakers talk about. Our companies are expanding their delivery trucks to hybrid fleets – creating green jobs in Detroit and other places that make these vehicles. Our companies are building new recycling facilities and providing new jobs. They’re building green facilities – LEED certified buildings – providing the green jobs for the construction industry. And their new manufacturing processes are saving energy and creating a market for manufacturing companies that can develop these resource-efficient processes.

There’s much, much more.

Understandably, our government leaders are trying to find a way out of this economic slump. They keep trying idea after idea, program after program, stimulus after stimulus. But it just seems that every time government touches something, things get worse not better.

Perhaps it’s worth trying, well, nothing. Or at least not so much interfering. Let the free market and capitalism work. Certainly our companies are out there doing their part to help our country build a stronger economy, new jobs and vibrant communities – even as they face their own economic struggles. Maybe there’s a model for success in industries like ours and others who don’t have their hands out?