ENVIRONMENT  
comments_image -

Big Soda's Publicity Stunt

The trade group responsible for pushing sugary drinks to children of all ages has just trumpeted another set of useless new guidelines.
 
 
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:

Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Environment headlines via email.

 
 
 
 

Move over Big Tobacco, you've got competition in the Shameless PR award category: With much fanfare, the American Beverage Association (the trade group formerly known as the National Soft Drink Association) has announced a new school-based policy "aimed at providing lower calorie and/or nutritious beverages to schools and limiting the availability of soft drinks."

The specifics of the policy matter less than the enormous amount of positive press that resulted. Newspaper accounts included such headlines as "Soft drink industry takes high road" and "Schools get ally in soda issue: Drink makers."

Unfortunately, the real impact of this move is far different. To begin with, the ABA is the soda makers' lobbying arm and doesn't directly contract with schools. Soda is sold through local distributors controlled by the parent companies. Next, there is no enforcement or oversight mechanism for the voluntary rules. Coca-Cola and Pepsi-Cola boasted that the new policy mirrored their own, and that should raise plenty of red flags. Coca-Cola's 2003 voluntary "model guidelines" to not sell sodas in elementary schools are already routinely violated. Documented examples include schools in Kentucky and Texas.

In addition, the policy only applies to vending machines, ignoring other ways that soda is sold in schools, such as in stores, from soda fountains, and at sporting events. And conveniently enough for industry, many schools are locked into lengthy contracts, sometimes for as long as thirteen years. The rules would only apply to new contracts. If ABA members really cared about children's health, why not call for renegotiation of all school contracts right now?

What Nutrition Standards?

Even if the policy could actually be implemented, from a nutrition standpoint, the guidelines are a joke. Many schools have much stronger policies already in place. The ABA policy says no soda in elementary schools; why do they only care about young children's health? Also, because sports and juice drinks are also high in sugar and calories, nutritionists advise against them. Yet, the ABA says they're ok for middle and high schools.

Numerous school districts around the nation, including in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Boston, Seattle and Chicago, have banned all soda and other highly sweetened beverages in all grades. Philadelphia's school beverage policy is simple: water, 100% juice, and milk, K-12, period. Why doesn't ABA's simply policy call for only healthy beverages in all schools? As New York attorney Ross Getman told Bloomberg News, "The announcement represents a calculation that they can just as easily hook a kid on caffeinated soda in four years instead of six." In other words, it's all about brand loyalty, and high schools kids make decisions that last a lifetime.

Deflecting State Legislation

That the ABA made their big announcement at the annual meeting of the National Conference of State Legislatures was both calculated and ironic, since the group's members have been lobbying against state bills to improve school nutrition for years. In recent months, bills have been either killed or significantly gutted, thanks to heavy lobbying from Coca-Cola and friends, in such states as Connecticut, Arizona, New Mexico and Oregon. While the ABA said their policy would not supercede any existing policies (how nice, since their policy couldn't supercede a state law), no pledges have been made by the ABA or its members to halt their lobbying activities.

The ABA got quotes for its press release from three politicians: North Carolina Lt. Governor Beverly Perdue, California Assemblywoman Gloria Negrete McLeod, and Georgia Senator Renee Unterman. North Carolina passed a bill last month that closely mirrors the new ABA policy, so there would be no impact in that state anyway. In California, a stronger law is already on the books and another bill (backed by Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger) to get sodas out of high schools, is pending. So the policy is moot there as well. And with Coca-Cola headquarters based in Georgia, lawmakers in that state are loath to pass any school vending bill.

submit to reddit

-
Email
Print
Share
LIKED THIS ARTICLE? JOIN OUR EMAIL LIST
Stay up to date with the latest Environment headlines via email
Advertisement
Most Read
Most Emailed
Most Discussed
On REDDIT
On DIGG
 
loading most read content ..
Advertisement
Fox, Breitbart, and Ricketts Try to Bring Back D'Souza's Pseudo-Birtherism

By Steve M | No More Mister Nice Blog

 
 
Activists Speak Out Against Lack of Access to Bradley Manning

By Agence France Presse

 
 
NYPD Catches Sexual Assailant, Then Lets Him Go Free Because He Didn't Feel Like Being Questioned

By Jill F | Feministe

 
 
Gov. Scott Orders Purging of Florida’s Voter Rolls - Just in Time For Prez Election

By Adele Stan | Washington Monthly

 
 
Abortion Clinics Across Country Put On Alert In Wake of Georgia Clinic Arson Cases

By Robin Marty | RH Reality Check

 
 
Former GOP Congresswoman Blasts New GOP Women’s Caucus: ‘They’re Not Voting In Best Interest Of All Women’

By Josh Israel | ThinkProgress

 
 
Debbie Wasserman Schulz is Wrong on Wisconsin

By LaFeminista | DailyKos

 
 
Pro-Coal Group Pays People to Wear Its Shirts at EPA Hearing

By Heather Moyer | Sierra Club

 
 
Kids Inundate NY Governor With Concerns About Fracking

By Seth Gladstone | Food and Water Watch

 
 
Shareholders, Top Doctors Demand McDonald's Assess its Health Impacts

By Sara Deon | Civil Eats

 
 
 
 
 
loading ...
POWERED BY DIGG'S USERS
 
[ page served from web 1 ]