Future Now
The IFTF Blog
Would you like a lemon wedge or some nutritional advice to go with your Coke? Or a penny per ounce sales tax?
I love a good twist, lemon, lime, or otherwise. Today's twist is that a company well-known for producing very popular sweetened beverages that are thought to contribute to this country's obesity problem is now going to be offering nutritional advice under the auspices of the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP).
Lemon: A good source of Vitamin C
Soda: A good source of sugar
You might think that AAFP is a group that would be concerned about the health effects sugary drinks have on us, and particularly on our kids. It's hard to tell, though, given that the organization has just announced that The Coca-Cola Company is the first corporate partner to join its new Consumer Alliance. The company is, of course, "in a unique position to educate consumers about the role their products can play in a healthy, active lifestyle." In a press release, the president-elect of the AAFP, noting "the significant influence that consumer companies have on consumer health," explained how the Alliance will work with Coke and other companies to develop educational materials that will teach people "how to make the right choices and incorporate the products they love into a balanced diet and a healthy lifestyle."
This announcement comes just weeks after a flurry of activity calling for a soda tax. The New England Journal of Medicine issued a report, "Public Health and Economic Benefits of Taxing Sugar-Sweetened Beverages," in which it declared,
The consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages has been linked to risks for obesity, diabetes, and heart disease1,2,3; therefore, a compelling case can be made for the need for reduced consumption of these beverages.
The proposed solution calls for a meaningful taxation on these beverages. I use the word "meaningful" because the report observes that 33 states already have a soda tax, but argues that these taxes are too low to affect consumption. (It also takes issue with the fact that revenues generated are not earmarked for health programs.)
Taxation has been proposed as a means of reducing the intake of these beverages and thereby lowering health care costs, as well as a means of generating revenue that governments can use for health programs.4,5,6,7 . . . This article examines trends in the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages, evidence linking these beverages to adverse health outcomes, and approaches to designing a tax system that could promote good nutrition and help the nation recover health care costs associated with the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages.
![]()
At about the same time as the release of the NEJM report, President Obama voiced support for the idea of a soda tax, saying "it is an idea worth exploring." He told Men's Health,
There's no doubt that our kids drink way too much soda. And every study that's been done about obesity shows that there is as high a correlation between increased soda consumption and obesity as just about anything else. Obviously it's not the only factor, but it is a major factor.
The New York Times ran an article about the debate, and quoted Muhtar Kent, the chief executive officer of Coca-Cola as saying, “I have never seen it work where a government tells people what to eat and what to drink. ... It if worked, the Soviet Union would still be around.”
And therein lies yet another ironic twist. it is not okay for the government—which has primary responsibility for our public health and represents all of us who ultimately bear the burden of the costs associated with obesity and related health problems—to try to restrict a contributing factor to these problems?? That's downright Communism!! (That a much more serious indictment than the PR company-created concept of "socialized medicine," right?) But it is okay for one of the companies that dominates the sweetened beverage market to provide nutritional advice??
I think I'll stick to my lemon twist, thank you very much.
