UPDATE 1-US school drink deal cuts sugar; NY mulls soda tax
* Shipments of full-sugar drinks to schools down 95%
* Plan replaces sodas with milk, water, juice
* New York leaders push for a soda tax (Recasts, adds detail throughout, changes dateline, byline)
NEW YORK, March 8 (Reuters) - A deal to sell healthier drinks in U.S. schools has slashed the amount of fattening beverages offered to students, former President Bill Clinton said on Monday as New York leaders pushed for a soda tax to tackle obesity and budget shortfalls.
Many health experts say non-diet soft drinks are a key source of excess calories in the U.S. diet and likely helping to fuel the obesity epidemic. Two-thirds of Americans, including one in three children, are overweight or obese.
An initiative by The American Beverage Association --including The Coca-Cola Co (KO.N), Dr Pepper Snapple Group (DPS.N) and PepsiCo (PEP.N) -- the Clinton Foundation and the American Heart Association has helped cut shipments of full-sugar soft drinks to schools by 95 percent compared with 2004, Clinton said.
"There's been a dramatic shift toward lower calorie and more nutritious beverages in schools," Clinton told a news conference. "It could lay the foundation for broader changes in our society."
Although the American Beverage Association said school drink sales make up less than one percent of the total market, Clinton said companies were not asked to forgo revenue, instead "we asked them to make money in a different way."
The guidelines allow 100 percent juice drinks, low-fat milk and bottled water in elementary and middle schools, and diet beverages and calorie-capped sports drinks, flavored waters and teas in high schools.
A report prepared by Keybridge Research LLC said that while the agreement had only been in place since 2006, its progress had been measured against figures from 2004 because that was the most recent data available for comparison.
Keybridge Research president Dr. Robert Wescott said in a statement: "The reduction of calories in schools is real and meaningful. The data truly speaks for itself."
OBESITY PLAGUE
To tackle broader consumption of soft drinks, California and Philadelphia have introduced legislation to tax soda and now New York Governor David Paterson and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg are urging state lawmakers to do the same.
Referring to the large numbers of obese and overweight Americans, Paterson told reporters on Monday: "It's not going to be on my conscience, I think we need a sugar tax."
Bloomberg said in a radio address on Sunday that taxing soda would raise nearly $1 billion to help plug the state's shortfalls in health care and education funding.
"And, at the same time, it would help us fight a major problem plaguing our children: obesity," he said.
The U.S. Institute of Medicine says local governments should consider zoning laws to limit access to junk food near schools, and CDC director Dr. Thomas Frieden supports taxes on soft drinks, as does the American Heart Association.
Speaking at Clinton's news conference on Monday, Susan Neely, American Beverage Association chief executive, said a soda tax would not solve "a complex problem like obesity."
Clinton declined to comment, saying: "It's dumb for me to get involved in (the tax) debate when I can save God knows how many kids lives by making other agreements."
The report on the initiative to cut the amount of sugary drinks sold in schools was unable to show if the changes meant children actually consumed fewer calories from the drinks available to them. But it suggested they bought fewer drinks.
And it echoes findings from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which reported in October that a median of 63 percent of schools limited carbonated soft drinks in 2008, compared to 38 percent in 2006.
The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Center for Science in the Public Interest both praised the results of the initiative, which is part of the Alliance for a Healthier Generation, but said more needed to be done.
"Children drink and eat an estimated 35 percent to 50 percent of their daily calories during school hours," said the foundation's chief executive Risa Lavizzo-Mourey. "Given the central role school plays in our children's lives, we must strive to make every school in the country a healthy school." (Additional reporting by Maggie Fox, Phil Wahba and Basil Katz; editing by Todd Eastham)
I have a feeling one unexpected effect of this tax (which I support) will be increased consumption of diet soda (which should also be taxed). Do yourself a favor and google “diet soda weight gain” and see if you can find any real data supporting diet soda causing weight loss. Diet soda tricks your body into consuming more calories over time. Don’t believe beverage industry lies. Artificial sweeteners and the obesity epidemic interestingly both came about in the 1980’s hand in hand.
As the previous comment suggests, replacing sugar beverages with standard diet sodas is like replacing something unhealthy with a poison. We call aspartame “excitotoxin”. There are better alternatives. http://www.healingnews.com/Excitotoxins_endanger_Life.html http://www.healingnews.com/Healing_Diabetic_article101.html
Besides even the questionable safety of artificial sweeteners (a valid issue), think about this… Your body uses sweetness as an indicator of calorie content (left over from times past, sweet fruit = survival b/c its has high calories) Doesn’t it makes sense that suddenly causing your body to learn that sweet is now associated with low calories will cause your body to go haywire? Sweet foods will no longer be “satisfying” and food consumption will increase. Diet soda can become addicting can’t it? Diets for people using sweeteners will be harder to stick to due to decreased sweet taste satisfaction…. A vicious cycle is started leading to obesity. Do overweight people drink diet coke because they are overweight or are they overweight because they drink diet coke?
I support this measure actually all sources of carbohydrates should be taxed including flour, rice, corn, etc , and all products that can be made from these. The money from these taxes should be used to subsidize fresh produce, so that our society could enjoy more affordable sources of protein, vegetables and fruits instead of rice, sugar cane , oat meal or corn products, not to mention the impact of a more healthy diet in our public health and obesity epidemic with an outcome of less expensive healthcare in the long term. Unhealthy food is popular because is “cheap”, most people cannot afford 6 servings of fresh fruit and vegetables a day. The role of carbs in metabolism of fats has been well documented, as well as their impact on elevated cholesterol, obesity and diabetes. Some cereals are marketed as aids in lowering cholesterol , 6% in total cholesterol is insignificant, the impact in blood sugar increase is far worse than ”the benefit” of 6% reduction in total cholesterol. More nutritious food and less empty calorie products.
