The chair of the California Senate’s Select Committee on Obesity and Diabetes has reportedly announced a November 2009 hearing to discuss the purported link between sweetened beverage consumption and obesity. An author of the state’s menu labeling laws, California Senator Alex Padilla (D-San Fernando Valley) issued the September 17, 2009, press release in response to a report published by the California Center for Public Health Advocacy (CCPHA) and UCLA Center for Health Policy Research. Titled Bubbling Over: Soda Consumption and its Link to Obesity in California, the study used data from the 2005 California Health Interview Survey to conclude that “41 percent of children (ages 2-11), 62 percent of adolescents (ages 12-17) and 24 percent of adults drink at least one soda or other sugar-sweetened beverage every day.” It also apparently found that “adults who drink one or more sodas or other sugar-sweetened beverages every day are 27 percent more likely…
Tag Archives SSBs
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) hosted a “Weight of the Nation” conference July 27-29, 2009, in Washington, D.C., to explore ways of tackling the nation’s escalating rates of obesity. Treating obesity-related conditions such as diabetes, heart disease and arthritis reportedly costs some $147 billion annually. Speakers at the inaugural event included CDC Director Thomas Frieden, who was quoted as saying that taxing sugary drinks at $.01 per ounce could produce $100 billion to $200 billion over the next decade. “Anything that decreases the availability and increases the cost is likely to be effective. The challenge, I think, is a political one of getting that approved,” he said. Frieden further asserted that average American adults are 23 pounds overweight, consume 250 more calories daily than 10 years ago and that about 120 of those calories are from sugary beverages. In a related development, CDC issued a report on…
The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) has called on Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack to reverse a policy adopted during the Bush administration that precludes states from using federal nutrition education funds to discourage the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages. In a June 12, 2009, letter, CSPI Executive Director Michael Jacobson, Director of Legal Affairs Bruce Silverglade and Senior Staff Attorney Ilene Ringel Heller take issue with a 2003 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) memorandum telling state officials that they could not use Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) funds to disparage or criticize any food. It was apparently issued after Maine launched an ad campaign encouraging residents to reduce their soda consumption. According to CSPI, this policy has been continued under the new administration, appearing in recent SNAP education guidance materials that state, “SNAP-Ed funds may not be used to convey negative written, visual, or verbal expressions about specific foods,…
A recent study has reportedly claimed that consumption of fructose-sweetened beverages raised blood lipid levels in overweight subjects, whereas glucose-sweetened beverages did not incur analogous effects. Kimber L. Stanhope, et al., “Consuming Fructose-Sweetened, Not Glucose-Sweetened, Beverages Increases Visceral Adiposity and Lipids and Decreases Insulin Sensitivity in Overweight/Obese Humans,” Journal of Clinical Investigation, April 20, 2009. University of California, Davis, researchers created two groups from 32 overweight men and women matched for age, weight, fasting triglyceride levels, insulin concentrations, total cholesterol, and other factors. Each group then consumed either fructose-sweetened or glucose-sweetened beverages for 10 weeks while living at a research center and while eating a normal diet as outpatients. The results indicated that although both groups experienced similar amounts of weight gain, the group assigned to fructose-sweetened beverages had larger gains in abdomen fat and increased blood levels of triglycerides and low-density lipoproteins when compared to their counterparts in the…
“Because excess consumption of unhealthful foods underlies many leading causes of death, food taxes at the local, state and national levels are likely to remain part of political and public discourse,” claims this editorial co-authored by Yale University’s Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity Director Kelly Brownell and New York City Health Commissioner Thomas Freiden, who write in favor of a penny-per-ounce excise tax on sugar-sweetened beverages. Describing these products as “the single largest driver of the obesity epidemic,” the article compares a soft drink tax to similar taxes on tobacco “that have been highly effective in reducing consumption.” The authors specifically argue that an excise tax would help (i) reduce health care and other societal costs for obesity and diet-related diseases; (ii) correct an “informational asymmetry” between marketers and younger audiences, “who often cannot distinguish a television program from an advertisement”; and (iii) generate revenue, “which can further…
Researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health have reportedly found that “liquid calorie intake had a stronger impact on weight than solid calorie intake.” Liwei Chen, et al, “Reduction in consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages is associated with weight loss: the PREMIER trial,” American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, April 2009. According to an April 2, 2009, press release, the study focused on 810 adults ages 25 to 79 enrolled in the PREMIER trial, an 18-month, randomized, controlled, behavioral intervention. Using unannounced phone interviews to track dietary habits, researchers found that sugar-sweetened beverage accounted for 37 percent of all liquid calories consumed by participants. The authors apparently speculated that although the body can regulate its intake of solid food, it is unable to similarly manage liquid calories. “Among beverages, sugar-sweetened beverages was the only beverage type significantly associated with weight change at both the 6- and 18-month follow up,” lead…
New York Governor David Paterson (D) has reportedly proposed an 18 percent tax on soft drinks and other non-diet sweetened beverages as part of his plan to lessen a $1.5 billion shortfall in the state’s annual budget. The tax would purportedly raise $404 million, but industry leaders have called the maneuver a “money grab” that would hurt union jobs at major bottlers located in the state. “We think that everybody has to keep in mind that we’re in a recession, and in an economy like this, the last thing we should be doing is raising taxes on everyday needs like clothing and groceries. That doesn’t wash with the consumer,” an American Beverage Association spokesperson was quoted as saying. See Times Union, December 14, 2008; Advertising Age, December 15, 2008. Meanwhile, a recent New York Times op-ed column hails the proposal as a “landmark effort that, if other states follow, could help…
