Many of you already have spotted the new labels.  More of you will in the coming days, weeks and months.  We hope you’ll tweet us a picture of the labels when you spot them and share your thoughts with us on Facebook and Twitter.

The new labeling initiative, which will be completed in 2012, drew immediate kudos.  First Lady Michelle Obama, who launched her “Let’s Move!” campaign the same day, saluted our initiative in her remarks. “This is exactly the kind of vital information parents need to make good choices for their kids,” she said.

We even got thumbs-up from some unexpected quarters:

“I don’t find myself in the position of applauding them very often, but in this case I do,” Kelly Brownell, director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale University, said in The Hartford Courant.

With calorie labels on the front of beverages, it will be even easier for consumers to make informed choices for themselves and for their families.

Our industry recognizes that it will take all of us—government, school administrators, the public health community, health professionals, parents and industry – working together to address the complex obesity challenge facing our nation. Through a series of concrete, meaningful actions, the non-alcoholic beverage industry is doing its part to help reduce childhood obesity.

In addition to Clear on Calories, we’ve changed the beverage landscape in America’s schools by removing full-calorie soft drinks and replacing them with more lower-calorie and smaller-portion options.  That action has slashed beverage calories shipped to schools by 88 percent since 2004.

America’s leading beverage companies follow responsible practices regarding marketing to children that recognize the central role that parents and other caregivers should play in making choices for their children. Under guidelines applied globally, companies do not advertise any beverages other than 100 percent juice, water or dairy-based drinks on programming predominantly aimed at children under 12.

And the industry has cut the overall beverage calories produced for the marketplace by 21 percent from1998 to 2008.  Our industry, through product innovation, continues to meet the evolving tastes of the American consumer.

These bold actions will have a meaningful and lasting impact for generations to come.

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.