“Taxing sugar-sweetened beverages will not reduce obesity, nor will it have a truly meaningful impact on obesity-related health conditions.  There is a vast body of available science to support this.  For instance, a review by George Mason University researchers showed that even a 20 percent tax on soda would reduce an obese person’s Body Mass Index from 40 to 39.98 – an amount not even measurable on a bathroom scale.

Singling out one set of products in such an overly simplistic manner only undermines efforts to combat this complex issue.  Consumers do not support these taxes and recognize them for what they truly are – a money grab to raise revenue.”

We’ll continue to oppose these discriminatory proposals – and suspect that our readers will, too.

Childhood obesity has increased at a staggering rate in America. Pediatricians report never before seen levels of high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes and high levels of triglycerides in young people.  Sedentary lifestyles in front of the computer, television or video games are contributing factors, as is the lack of physical education in schools across the country.  Kids just don’t move as much as they once did.

But should small businesses and restaurants be responsible for the cost of building playgrounds and gardens? Should the person who purchases cranberry juice or chocolate milk in the city of Richmond bare the cost that gets passed along to them at the point of sale? Can businesses and consumers afford to pay more?

As of March 2012, the unemployment rate in Richmond sits at a whopping 15.9 percent – nearly double the national rate. Inflation in California is forecast to increase to between 3 percent and 4 percent, from a rate of 2.6 percent in 2011. Despite the financial hardships in the city, the council is considering adding an even greater burden to small grocers and restaurants in their jurisdiction.

A tax on soda is bad public policy for many reasons we’ve discussed before.  We encourage city council to stand with the hard-working families of Richmond, instead of adding to their burden by increasing the cost of their groceries.

Many of the diners, drive-ins and dives featured on the show are family-owned – often passed down from one generation to the next. The show is about more than food, it’s about family, culture and a way of life.

No doubt there are health activists who see the meals served at these restaurants as bad – something to be regulated, whether it’s the salt, sugar or fat content.

A more practical perspective was offered by Sam Kass last week at the CDC’s Weight of the Nation conference. Kass is the White House assistant chef and senior policy advisor on healthy food initiatives. He articulated the relationship most Americans have with food:

“Food is about far more than mere sustenance. Food is our very identity. It is how we honor family – it is how we remember home. It is how we understand each other, and it is how we show love.  Efforts to demonize food, or reduce the problem to one issue, miss the underlying truth about food and diminish our ability to produce permanent comprehensive change.”

Prohibiting certain foods or beverages from the American diet is not realistic. Rather than say no to personal choice, the beverage industry supports providing more choice to consumers. Visit our website Delivering Choices to see the variety of beverages available today. More choice, smaller portions, fewer calories is what we’re delivering.

We hope you take some time to do something special for your mom.  If you’re here in the Washington area, perhaps a fun way to spend the day is by participating in Bike DC.    Not only will you be able to spend some quality time together, you’ll also get some outdoor exercise in this fun ride “through the heart of our community and the heart of our nation,” according to the Bike DC website.

Whatever you decide to do – have a great weekend, and a fantastic Mother’s Day!

However, there is one proposal floating around out there that does not add to this collaborative spirit: taxing, singling-out and demonizing sugar-sweetened beverages.  As we’ve explained in the past, imposing a regressive tax on a small percent of calories in the diet is an overly simplistic and ineffective way to combat the complex issue of obesity.

But don’t just take our word for it – a number of letters to the editors have appeared in newspapers across the country calling for more common sense approaches. We hope you take a moment to read some opinions in the Chicago Sun-Times, USA Today and the Kentucky Courier-Journal and share yours with us on Facebook and Twitter.

We know you’ve read a lot on this topic if you frequent Sip & Savor.  But we wanted to take the opportunity to remind you once again that taxes are not the answer. That’s supported by scientific and economic studies. Never mind that people just don’t support soda taxes . We hope you will take a few minutes to read our full response to the IOM report to learn not only why taxes won’t work, but to find out more about what the beverage industry is already doing to be part of meaningful solutions to obesity.

We’ve often blogged about the fact that our industry plays an important role in our nation’s economy – this is simply further proof.  Our industry has a direct economic impact of $118.9 billion, provides more than 227,000 jobs and helps to support hundreds of thousands more that depend, in part, on beverage sales for their livelihoods.  We’re proud of our industry – and the many great companies we have the honor of representing each and every day.  We are American companies, making American products, with American workers, in America’s hometowns – and we’re having an impact on the American economy.

We agree.  Beverage taxes are discriminatory, regressive and, importantly, will not solve the complex issue of obesity that some in the public health community allege they will.  As the editorial explains:

“That’s a nanny-state solution, one that says government must protect us from ourselves, one that doesn’t harness the power of everyday Americans to solve this problem for themselves.”

In today’s marketplace, our industry offers an ever-increasing number of low- and no-calorie choices. From 1998 to 2010, the average calories per serving decreased by 23 percent. And with the Clear on Calories initiative, we’re placing calorie information right on the front of every bottle, can and pack we produce to help consumers make the choice that’s best for themselves and their families.  These are meaningful solutions that we hope the Chicago-Sun Times would agree will have a lasting impact.