Mark Bittman, “Soda: A Sin We Sip Instead of Smoke?,” The New York Times, February 12, 2010

“In their critics’ eyes, producers of sugar-sweetened drinks are acting a lot like the tobacco industry of old: marketing heavily to children, claiming their products are healthy or at worst benign, and lobbying to prevent change,” begins New York Times columnist Mark Bittman in this article questioning whether aggressive public health initiatives, like those deployed to discourage smoking, could similarly curb soda
consumption. Noting that Americans drink “roughly 50 gallons per person per year,” Bittman contests the value of industry claims that “in moderate quantities soda isn’t harmful, nor is it addictive.” His article goes on to summarize the arguments made by policy makers and advocates in favor of “a special tax on soda, similar to those on tobacco, gasoline and alcoholic beverages.” In particular, he cites the Rudd Center’s director, Kelly Brownell, who maintains that, “Unless food marketing changes, it’s hard to believe that anything else can work.”

“In the case of tobacco, the health risks of smoking were clear,” opines Bittman. “But the beverage industry contends that science does not back up the assertion that childhood obesity is even partly caused by soda consumption, and has sought to make the discussion about personal choice and freedom.” As one research analyst with the Center for Consumer Freedom was quoted as saying, “[There] is no unique link between soda and obesity.”

Although Bittman ultimately calls for governments to be more “forceful” in their plans to combat obesity, he concedes that some regulators believe these efforts need not be so contentious. “There are parts of industry that want to be constructive,” said Thomas Friedan, the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Big Food doesn’t have to become the next tobacco.”