Today, we thought we’d share with you an editorial that appeared in the Los Angeles Times over the weekend about this new research, which did not show cause and effect.  According to the editorial board’s perspective, it showed “why singling out a particular food may not be such a good idea” when it comes to taxation as a means to combat obesity.

We agree.  Taxes don’t make people healthy.  We’ve blogged before to let our readers know that diet and exercise do that.  Obesity is a serious and complex problem that requires comprehensive solutions.  It cannot be solved by simplistic approaches that single out particular foods or beverages. Education about diet and exercise is the most effective way to help people lead a healthy, balanced and active lifestyle.

Science shows that singling out one food or beverage for taxation won’t make an impact on public health.  Uniquely linking obesity to soda consumption is nothing short of misinformation.  A study by Harvard researchers and published in the New England Journal of Medicine last year concluded that all calories count – regardless of the food source – when it comes to losing weight.

This tax is a poorly-masked money grab.  New York union workers quoted in the Troy Record said that it would severely impact the 160,000 well-paying jobs in the state, hitting consumers and businesses hard.

The current turbulent economic climate is even more reason for legislators in New York to walk away from the tax.  And many are, recognizing that this tax would hit hard-working, middle-class families in particular.  As Gov. Paterson and the legislators work to reach an agreement on the state budget, we urge them to shoulder the responsibility for the budget instead of placing the weight on the backs of already struggling New Yorkers.  Reject the beverage tax proposal again this year!

In her article, Dr. Peeke took on the concept of taxing beverages to solve obesity. In doing so, she also challenged the comparison of taxing cigarettes – which contain a known carcinogen – to curtail smoking to taxing soda to reduce obesity. Conclusion? “The health consequences of inhaling smoke into your lungs day after day were clear and indisputable.” But will a soda tax solve obesity? “Of course not, and worse still, such taxes may have the opposite effect.”

Dr. Peeke’s article is definitely worth the read. While it may be her viewpoint, that viewpoint is based on her medical experience, published literature on the topic of sugar-sweetened beverages and obesity, and economics. Importantly, Dr. Peeke stresses that if we want to solve obesity, taxes simply aren’t the solution. As she states, “One food or beverage never resulted in global obesity … to drop excess weight we must connect our brains to our bellies and take responsibility for how and what we eat.”

We couldn’t agree more. Thank you, Dr. Peeke, for bringing some common-sense to the ongoing debate on this issue.

So as Congress spends its final two weeks before the summer recess working on health care reform, we thought we’d provide some interesting data each day this week. We’ll share some information – all documented and verifiable on your own — that pretty resoundingly undermines the arguments of our critics who claim that juice drinks, soft drinks, sports drinks and other non-alcoholic beverages should be singled out for taxation to pay for reform. We’ll use data, science and good old common sense.

Today’s mythical argument: that soft drinks or sweetened beverages are a unique contributor to obesity.

The truth: The compendium of science has shown time and again that what impacts weight the most is calorie balance. How effectively does one balance the calories they consume with the calories they burn? In other words, if you consume more calories than you burn, you’ll gain weight. And vice versa. Science and common sense working together. Love it.

This fundamental fact of calorie balance as it relates to weight was reinforced in a recent study lead by a Harvard University researcher that was published in the New England Journal of Medicine. The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health.

The study demonstrated, once again, that calories count when it comes to losing weight – regardless of the food source. In other words, a calorie is a calorie, and whether the calorie comes from one food source matters no more or no less than if it comes from another food source.

Bottom line: On matters of weight, whenever you hear a researcher claim that calories from a beverage matter more than calories from any other food or beverage…well, let’s be kind and say they’re twisting the data a bit to support their point of view. The fact is the science and data don’t support their claims.

We like this point on calorie balance because it combines proven science (yet another study conducted by, funded by and published by renowned individuals and institutions), with solid data and a gigantic dose of common sense.

Again we see that government involvement in healthcare will lead inexorably to totalitarianism, as one product after another is targeted for allegedly being bad for us. After cigarettes are gone and soda follows, bureaucrats will turn to meat, alcohol, candy, pasta, et cetera, and not stop until we’re reduced to subsisting on bean curd and gruel. Then they’ll begin to mandate government supervised exercise regimens.

And at the Say Anything Blog they make an interesting(?) Demolition Man reference…(p.s. Sip & Savor are long-time fans of Sandra Bullock.)

You live how the government tells you to live. Again, there’s no illness or crime or anything, but there’s no joi de vive for lack of a better term.

A scene in the movie that sticks with me is Stallone’s character discovering the underworld of dissenters who don’t want to live as the social architects in the mainstream culture tell them too. He’s walking through their slum and spots a burger stand. He immediately purchases a burger and a beer and tears into it.

How about that for Sunday dinner?

Anyway, these guys agree with the 70 percent of Americans (and 100 percent of us at Sip & Savor ) who oppose the government taxing soft drinks.

What do you think?

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.

A study published yesterday in the New England Journal of Medicine provided a definitive defense of that equation. The study showed that it doesn’t matter what foods you eat, rather how many calories you consume in all that you eat during the day which makes a difference.

As Wall Street Journal reporter Jennifer Levitz wrote: “You aren’t what you eat. You’re how much.”

The study was conducted by researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health with funding support from the National Institutes of Health.

Harvard’s principal investigator for this study, Dr. Frank Sacks, told the Wall Street Journal that the study “really goes against the idea that certain foods are the key to weight loss. This is a pretty positive message. It gives people a lot of choices to find a diet they can stick with.”

Amen!

We’ve long made this same science-supported and common-sense-backed argument when it comes to our caloric beverages. You can be a healthy person and still drink regular sodas, so long as it’s done in moderation and as part of a balanced diet. Portion control was a major theme that emerged from the Harvard study.

It’s more about how you eat – and exercise – not what you eat. Trying to demonize and eliminate people’s access to certain foods is just foolishness. It’s not going to make a difference in addressing obesity or overweight issues. One food or one beverage does not make the difference in determining a person’s weight.

Dr. Maureen Storey, our senior vice president for science policy, summed it up well.

“This study reaffirms the importance of energy balance in losing weight and maintaining a healthy weight, that is, counting calories in and calories out, not focusing on specific foods and beverages. There is no miracle diet for weight loss. Calories matter when it comes to losing weight, not the latest fad that encourages certain foods while eliminating others from a diet plan.”

Thank you to the Harvard researchers for providing more scientific support for energy balance with calories. It’s good to see some balance in the research on weight and food.

The study showed that the drop in pollution in 51 metro areas from 1980 to 2000 helped add five more months to people’s lives.

Certainly, there are many factors contributing to our successful reduction of air pollution. But the beverage industry is proud to be doing its part for a cause that clearly is making a difference in the form of more time alive in this beautiful country. And we know there is much more work to do on this front.

There are many ways our companies are taking proactive steps to reduce air pollution and establish state-of-the-art environmental sustainability practices.

One of the more prominent and recent steps toward reducing air pollution is the conversion to hybrid delivery trucks. Our major companies and their bottlers, such as Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Dr Pepper and Nestle Waters North America , are all transforming their fleets to more hybrid vehicles. In fact, the largest Coca-Cola bottler announced just this week a major expansion of their hybrid fleet.

Companies are pursuing the use of other alternative energy sources as well; for example, Pepsi has been recognized by the EPA as the largest purchaser of Green Power. And our companies are making sure their manufacturing and product delivery processes operate more efficiently. A case in point, Dr Pepper Snapple Group is replacing its coolers and vending machines with new Energy Star-rated equipment – an effort that will have the impact of removing the CO2 emissions of 11,000 cars from the road each year.

Of course, our companies are aggressively involved in making environmentally friendly packaging and improving recycling in America. Our products come in fully recyclable containers that can be made into new consumer products. And our Full Circle plan is working to revitalize recycling in communities across America. We need people to “think inside the bin” and bring that recyclable container full circle by putting it in the recycle bin. To further boost recycling efforts, our industry just joined forces with The Climate Group as a founding member of its Recycle Together initiative.

We’re proud to be doing our part to reduce air pollution and improve the quality of our environment. Together, we can all make a difference for the environment. And that difference just may be more years on your life.