Anti-Obesity Soda Tax Fails as Lobbyists Spend Millions: Retail March 2012

[Paul Murphy]

Anti-Obesity Soda Tax Fails as Lobbyists Spend Millions: Retail

By Duane D. Stanford - Mar 13, 2012 9:04 AM ET

• LinkedIn
• Google +1
• 7 Comments
• Print
• QUEUE

Emile Wamsteker/Bloomberg

Soft drinks at a Dollar General Corp. store in Saddle Brook, New Jersey.

Last month, Hawaii lawmakers killed a proposed tax that would have added 17 cents to a single-serve bottle of soda. It was the second failed attempt, even though Governor Neil Abercrombie had pushed the proposed levy.

Like many advocates of a sugary beverage tax, Abercrombie faced a well-funded lobbying campaign from soda makers opposed to such efforts, which are designed to stem rising rates of obesity. Since the beginning of 2009, PepsiCo Inc. (PEP), Coca-Cola Co. (KO) and the American Beverage Association have spent as much as $70 million on lobbying and issue ads, according to the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a proponent of soda taxes.

Enlarge image

Anti-Obesity Soda Tax Fails as Lobbyists Spend Millions

Daniel Acker/Bloomberg

A customer looks over the soda selection in Kearny, New Jersey, U.S.

A customer looks over the soda selection in Kearny, New Jersey, U.S. Photographer: Daniel Acker/Bloomberg

Efforts to enact such levies have foundered in 30 states.

“Whoever is loudest tends to control the discussion and, generally speaking, you buy your microphone with money,” said Judith Phillips, a research analyst for Mississippi State University who studied the issue for lawmakers.

Health advocates agree soft drinks are an unhealthy source of sugar in Americans’ diets. More than 35 percent of U.S. adults and about 17 percent of youths -- or roughly 90 million people -- are considered obese, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Some say taxing soft drinks is one of the most effective ways to reverse the trend.

Following the presidential election, states and cities may restart a push on soda taxes. Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter hasn’t ruled out a third try for a tax on sugary beverages. In Baltimore, Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake wants to more than double a 2-cent per container tax adopted in 2010 to 5 cents. Richmond, California, a San Francisco suburb, will put a soda tax referendum to voters later this year.

Money Grab

Opponents of soft-drink taxes say they’re little more than a money grab. Blaming obesity on sugary soft drinks misses the real cause of the problem -- too many calories of any type going in, and not enough going out, they say. In a paper titled “Our Position on Obesity,” Coca-Cola cites 45 scientific studies, reviews, and reports to contradict claims that sugar-sweetened beverages are the primary cause of obesity.

Diana Garza Ciarlante, a Coca-Cola spokeswoman, declined to comment, as did Peter Land, a PepsiCo (PEP) spokesman. They referred questions to the ABA.

Obesity in the U.S. comes at a “staggering” financial cost, the CDC has said. Everything from treatments for diabetes to lost work by obese employees cost Americans about $147 billion in 2008, according to one estimate cited by the agency.

In 2009, President Barack Obama recommended exploring a federal tax on sugary drinks to help pay for health-care reform. The effect was like shaking a can of Coca-Cola and cracking the tab. Emboldened lawmakers in 30 states proposed levying their own soda taxes on the $74 billion U.S. soft drink industry.

Budget Gaps

The love affair with soda taxes wasn’t simply about improving citizens’ health; many states also aimed to close budget gaps.

If a soda tax makes sense anywhere, it makes sense in Mississippi, said Kelly Brownell, director of Yale University’s Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity in New Haven, Connecticut. The state has the highest obesity rates in the U.S. -- 34 percent of Mississippi’s adult population is considered obese -- and increasing numbers of children are heading in that direction.

“The fact that it got considered there at all is a testament to how powerful the idea is,” Brownell said. “A soft-drink tax is the only thing to address obesity that doesn’t cost money and in fact generates money that you can use for other important programs.”

In 2010, Mississippi state legislator John Mayo, a Democrat, filed a bill to levy a 2-cent per ounce excise tax on soft drinks. It would have added 24 cents to a 12-ounce can of pop, or $1.35 to a $1.47 2-liter bottle of Coca-Cola. The proposal included bottled tea and juices containing less than 100 percent fruit.

Long Odds

A legislator since 2000, Mayo had been around long enough to know the odds were long that his bill would pass, he said in an interview. He simply wanted a debate about whether sugary beverages were making Mississippians fat.

When a politician starts making noises about soda taxes, the state beverage association typically rolls into action. Found in every state and made up of local manufacturers and distributors, they work with the industry-funded ABA, creating a network that reaches from town hall to the U.S. Congress.

The soft drink companies are well represented at the state level, as well. Coca-Cola’s North American bottling operation, for example, has seven regional business units. Each has a public relations and government affairs team whose sole responsibility is to bore into local communities like moles.

Substantial Threat

Ron Aldridge, head lobbyist for the Mississippi Beverage Association, said Mayo’s bill didn’t stand a chance. Still, he was leaving nothing to chance.

“You take any threat as substantial in our world because you never know how the public might move,” Aldridge said in an interview. “You prepare for the worst.”

Aldridge, a lawyer and former state legislator in Jackson, Mississippi, is state director for the National Federation of Independent Business, which he asked to speak out against Mayo’s bill. His son was personal assistant to then Governor Haley Barbour, who announced he’d veto Mayo’s proposal days after it became public.

Meanwhile, Bill Brown, a Pepsi (PEP) distributor, said Mayo’s bill could cost jobs in an already tenuous economy. Brown held meetings to “educate” his workers about the threat and urged them to call their local legislators in opposition. Flyers in employee’s paychecks framed the message: “This is our livelihood.”

Mayo’s bill died in committee.

The soft drink companies didn’t declare victory. Nor did they in the 30 states where similar bills also foundered.

That’s because they know a growing stigma against sugary drinks, fueled by findings that sugar can be addictive and triggers cancer, may shift public sentiment, said Bonnie Herzog, an analyst with Wells Fargo & Co.

“It’s an ongoing risk,” said Herzog, who is based in New York. “And over time that risk has increased.”

To contact the reporter on this story: Duane D. Stanford in Atlanta at [e-mail]

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Robin Ajello at [e-mail]

Please share.

[Paul Murphy]

Tooth decay “epidemic” in Canada could be linked to too much fruit juice: study
Carmen Chai, Global News : Tuesday, March 13, 2012 3:00 PM
While Canadian pediatric dentists wage a war against tooth decay in kids’ teeth;British officials are pointing a finger at sugary fruit juices as the culprit.
While Canadian pediatric dentists wage a war against tooth decay in kids’ teeth;British officials are pointing a finger at sugary fruit juices as the culprit.
Photo Credit: Rex Features , Rex Features
RELATED

* Kids who don’t see a cheeseburger Happy Meal when they watch TV are less likely to bug their parents to have one;according to a Canadian study. Ad bans lead to less fast food eating in Quebec, study says
* The youngest kids in the classroom are more likely to be diagnosed with attention deficit disorder compared to their peers;a new large-scale Canadian study suggests. Younger kids in the class may be overdiagnosed with ADHD
* Spanking your kids to teach them a lesson could affect a child’s long-term development;Canadian researches warned parents Monday. Physical discipline could be harmful to kids: study

TORONTO – While Canadian pediatric dentists wage a war against tooth decay in kids’ teeth, British officials are pointing a finger at sugary fruit juices as the culprit.

On Monday, the Royal College of Surgeons in the United Kingdom warned parents that feeding children large amounts of juice, in an attempt to make kids eat more fruits, is damaging teeth.

The effects could even be long-lasting – in the U.K., half of five-year-olds already had signs of wear to their tooth enamel.

The situation isn’t any better in Canada, according to Toronto-based pediatric dentist, Dr. Elliott Schwartz, who has worked on kids’ teeth since 1977.

“There are so many kids that need dental treatment – and they’re young kids about 2 ½ to three years old with just rotten teeth. It’s skyrocketing. It’s an epidemic in North America,” he told Global News.

British advice suggests parents should only give their kids one glass of juice a day and warns that blending or juicing releases sugars and is worse for teeth if consumed regularly.

Schools, daycares and parents should stick to milk and water for kids, the Royal College notes.

Schwartz says that bacteria on teeth, paired with sugar can lead to cavities.
“Fruit juice is acid to begin with. If you’re willing to give your child a soft drink, then you can give them fruit juice. It’s the same stuff – one’s got natural sugar in it and one’s got manufactured sugar but it’s the same thing on the teeth,” he said.

His days are booked with performing surgery on kids’ teeth to repair damage. Babies’ teeth can grow in as early as six months, and he has treated infants as young as nine months old.

Under Canadian Paediatric Society guidelines, which are the same as its U.S. counterpart association, parents should bring their kids into the dentist’s office for the first visit when an infant turns one.

This measure could stop potential cavities in their tracks, Schwartz said, noting that the initial visit isn’t about scanning for cavities but teaching parents about oral care for toddlers.

“I have seen children with all 20 of their teeth decayed and it’s so sad. Tooth decay is a disease, it’s preventable,” he said.

While there aren’t concrete numbers to illustrate how quickly the tooth decay in children is growing, The Canadian Dental Association says that Early Childhood Caries – also known as tooth decay – is the most common childhood disease.

Dental surgery for rotting teeth is the most common surgery procedure in pediatric hospitals across Canada and in 2009, more than 17,000 kids waited longer for surgery than medical experts recommended.

Tooth decay can lead to chronic pain, interfering with how kids eat, sleep and grow, tooth loss and compromising general health, the CDA says.

The Canadian Paediatric Society and Schwartz offered these tips for parents:

- From birth to 12 months, wipe your baby’s gums with a soft, clean, damp cloth twice a day

- Once teeth appear, clean them at least once daily (usually at bedtime) with a soft bristle toothbrush designed for babies

- After six months, introduce a sippy cup for water and formula. Try to avoid juice or limit it to no more than 60 to 120 mL a day in a cup instead of a bottle

- Once your child is a toddler, encourage “2 for 2” which means brushing twice a day for two minutes each time

- Use adult toothpaste with fluoride and use an amount the size of a grain of rice if your child can’t spit

- Visits to the dentist should be about six months apart

Please share.