To help create a more fulsome discussion on obesity, we made a podcast featuring two health experts on the role non-alcoholic beverages play. Dr. Elizabeth Whelan of the American Council on Science and Health joins Dr. Karen Reznik Dolins, a nutritionist who is board certified in sports dietetics, in a discussion about beverages and the role of calories and exercise in maintaining a healthy weight.

Aside from the hyperlink to the podcast, it can also be found by linking through the call-out box on our homepage. It’s a quick watch and definitely worth a watch.

And this past week, we read pieces by writers from seemingly polar opposite perspectives come together in agreement that lawmakers should nix any thoughts of pursuing a discriminatory and regressive tax on sugar-sweetened beverages.

On Sunday, the Washington Post published an insightful piece titled: “Five Myths We Need to Can About Soda Taxes.” As the title suggests, author Katherine Mangu-Ward uses reason to shoot holes in many of the tax advocates arguments. Ms. Mangu-Ward is senior editor at Reason magazine.

But earlier this week, the left-of-center digital site Slate actually ran two separate posts by their writers taking the tax to task. The first is by Daniel Engber, a senior editor, and takes an interesting turn on the “redistributing wealth” argument to make a point that a regressive soda tax would “redistribute pleasure” in a not-so-fair way.

A second piece in Slate was written the next day by national correspondent William Saletan. Mr. Saletan takes on the growing ambitions of the food police and the dangers of a slippery slope with these kinds of taxes. (Not to mention a defense of his editor’s fondness for Fresca.)

For those who read and follow the perspectives written by those on the left and the right, you know that it’s not every day that writers from Slate and Reason get to the same place. But if leading writers from these two outlets are able to drive Mack trucks through the arguments of the tax advocates (and their “science”) and converge on the notion that a soda tax is just plain wrong-headed…maybe it’s time for lawmakers to give up on the idea. It’s time to move on.

Well, even our critics are finally conceding these points. Wednesday, the same old gang of scientists and activists released yet another piece advocating for taxing the beverages of hard-working Americans.

This portion of The New York Times article today captured similar sentiments expressed in various media outlets.

The New York Times wrote:

The soft drink industry has adamantly resisted the notion that its products are responsible for a national increase in obesity or that a tax would help curb the problem.

And even a supporter of a beverage tax said it was not clear if it would have a direct effect on the waistlines of Americans. (Highlighting added by Sip & Savor)

“I think we should be satisfied that soda taxes would be having a modest effect on consumption but would generate billions of dollars that could be used to mount public health campaigns,” said Michael Jacobson, executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, an advocacy group that favors such a tax.

In other words:

1. That tax won’t directly impact obesity.
2. The tax is a money grab. For more government programs.

(And I hate to pop the gentleman’s balloon, but if government raises billions of dollars off a tax—it’s not going to go for public health campaigns. That money is going to the general fund to pay for all kinds of bigger government spending. The track record underscoring this reality is clear, whether it’s the federal government or state governments.)

There are better ways to reduce obesity and improve health care. Let’s stop wasting our time on money grabs—as these grabs only end up wasting taxpayers’ money.

The television ad features a mom and her family expressing concern about a tax during tough times. A second print ad, which appeared in the Washington Post this past Sunday and will make future appearances, shows the breadth and depth of this coalition. The coalition includes ethnic organizations like chapters of the NAACP, LULAC and other minority groups. It includes local unions, including Teamsters’ locals. It includes the Illinois chapter of AARP. It includes health organizations, including the Hispanic Medical Association. And it includes numerous businesses and industry groups. (For full disclosure, the American Beverage Association is spearheading the AAFT coalition.)

All members of the coalition are concerned about the direct impact of a discriminatory and regressive tax on juice drinks and soda. But they’re also worried about the slippery slope this tax would create.

Folks don’t like government telling them what to eat or drink to begin with. But when government uses the tax code to start reaching into the grocery cart, there won’t be any stopping them. First beverages, next snacks, desserts, cereals, red meat or chicken that’s not free-range. Basically, whatever some activist determines you shouldn’t be consuming.

For government, the issue isn’t necessarily about public health. It’s about money. The public health advocates just give them the cover to grab it.

And for skeptics who think the slippery slope argument is overblown? Well, the activists started their vendetta by just calling for a tax on soft drinks. That didn’t get them enough money or enough attention. Because guess what? Soft drink sales have been declining over the past years while obesity rates have risen – that kind of undermines their argument that soft drinks are a unique contributor to obesity.

So they started broadening their target list to all beverages with even a smidgen of sugar. It gets them more money – and, it starts the slippery slope. First soft drinks, then teas, then juice drinks, then sports drinks, then waters, etc., etc., etc. They just keep grabbing for more.

Anyway, the AAFT has a nice new television ad with a message from a mom about the impact of a soda tax on families during a recession. And a coalition ad shows that there’s a whole lot of people and groups backing her up.

— U.S. Rep. Jeb Hensarling of Texas

Amen.

He and his team have reiterated that campaign promise easily more than a half dozen times in the past six months or so. And that’s great. Yet, the prospect of raising taxes still seems to linger out there.

We just want to give a friendly reminder that a tax on soft drinks is a tax on the middle class. And it’s a tax on lower-income workers. It’s a discriminatory and highly regressive tax, as the Congressional Research Service pointed out in a study it conducted. And this discriminatory, regressive tax would be placed on hard-working individuals already struggling through a recession. Not good timing. Not that there’s ever a good time for a tax hike on families.

We encourage lawmakers to keep the President’s pledge and these facts in mind as they move forward with the admittedly difficult challenge of passing a meaningful health care reform package.

A message worth heeding as the Congress comes back to work today. And the President is ready to give a big speech on health reform tonight.

If our leaders learned anything over the August recess we hope it’s that taxpayers are leery of any reform that costs them more money without giving them something they don’t already have or need or want. Regular, hard-working folks aren’t in a position to pay more for much right now – especially if there’s no value, benefit or priority in it for them.

Well, while there are some good, sound ideas for improving health care out there by lawmakers in both parties (ideas that get to lowering costs, for example), the activists have been busy with a singular focus on pushing for a tax on soft drinks and other beverages to pay for health care reform. So, heading into the next phase of this important debate, it might behoove lawmakers to keep a few facts in mind when it comes to this idea.

1.) A soft drink tax simply won’t work. There’s a book of evidence supporting this point. Just a few highlights. A.) West Virginia and Arkansas are two states with excise taxes on soda like the one being talked about in Washington. Those states have the fifth- and sixth-highest obesity rates in America, according to the CDC. B.) This week, University of Chicago researchers concluded: “Current state-level tax rates are not found to be significantly associated with adolescent weight outcomes.” C.) A George Mason University study showed that a 15-cent tax per can of soda would reduce a person’s Body Mass Index by just .02 (40 to 39.98). That’s not even measurable on a bathroom scale! D.) Even the leader of an American Heart Association panel that issued a study last week on childhood obesity conceded that there is “limited evidence” that a soft drink tax would work. We appreciate that piece of candor, which many activists lack, but as one can see, there’s actually a great deal of real-world evidence showing that a soft drink tax won’t work. Bottom line: We can’t tax our way to better health. These taxes are just a façade for a money grab, pure and simple.

2.) A soft drink tax further squeezes the middle class struggling through a recession. The tax is discriminatory and regressive. The Congressional Research Service did a study showing that the tax burden would by far be borne most by those who can least afford to pay it. Furthermore, 96 percent of the tax would be paid by low-income and middle-class families – in all, those earning less than $250,000 a year. It doesn’t seem wise to be taxing people’s groceries in the middle of a recession. Bottom line: Didn’t leaders promise not to tax the middle class in this last election?

3.) Government shouldn’t tell people what to eat. The strong majority of Americans believe it is an over-reach by government to use the tax code to tell them what to eat or drink. They don’t view it as government’s role. It’s an uninvited intrusion into basic elements of people’s lives. Bottom line: Lawmakers cross this line at their own risk. Just ask leaders in New York and Maine, whose beverage tax ideas were overwhelmingly rejected by the public.

4.) A complex health system needs comprehensive solutions. You’re not going to solve the complexities of health reform with a tax on soda pop. In fact, you’re not even going to make a dent in the problem. Bottom line: This country’s got much bigger problems if its leaders are building a new health system on such a shaky foundation as a tax on food. Seriously!

5.) It’s soda pop, for Pete’s sake. Like most foods, regular soft drinks have calories. Soda pop is a fun, refreshing beverage meant to be enjoyed. It’s nothing more, nothing less. So the money-seeking, agenda-toting, self-proclaimed we-know-what’s-best-for-everyone-busybodies should stop making soda out to be more than what it is. Our industry certainly doesn’t. The compendium of science says all calories count, regardless of the food source, when it comes to maintaining one’s weight. That’s irrefutable. And it drives the advocates crazy. Bottom line: You can be a healthy person and drink regular soda. Tens of millions of Americans are proof.

In summary, it’s not hard to let your imagination go if Congress and the President pursue a tax on soda, juice drinks, sports drinks and other beverages as some propose. (That’s right – this tax isn’t just on soda but on any beverage with even a little bit of sugar in it, including teas and juices.)

If government starts taxing simple pleasures like soda, where does its long arm stop once it realizes that didn’t work? Tax cheeseburgers? Fries? Shakes? All products with sugar? Any products with any taste? Evidence shows it still won’t change people’s behaviors; just burden them with more taxes.

Let’s focus on improving the health care system with meaningful and sustainable solutions — not with distracting one-offs like taxing people’s food. People have enough burdens right now. Leave them alone.

As the wise man said: “In an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle class.”

Our industry appreciates AHA’s efforts to help educate Americans about overall health. In fact, that’s why we developed School Beverage Guidelines. These calorie-based guidelines are part of a broader effort to teach our children about the importance of living a balanced lifestyle. We recognize that schools are unique environments where parents want a little more control over the food and beverage options available to their kids. That’s why the guidelines remove full-calorie soft drinks from all schools and provide more lower-calorie, nutritious, smaller-portion options.

After all, what it all comes down to is calorie balance – that is, balancing the calories you eat with the calories you burn off. So as we think about ways to encourage Americans to live balanced lifestyles, the focus needs to come back to calories.

Now, there is no doubt that regular soft drinks, like most foods, are a source of calories. But, despite the suggestion of some critics, they are not the #1 source of calories in the American diet. In fact, according to an analysis of the food supply by the National Cancer Institute, the combined category of sodas, energy drinks, sports drinks and sweetened waters contribute only about 5.5 percent of the calories in the American diet. What does that mean? That 95 percent of total calories come from other foods and beverages.

We also know that soft drinks and other sugar-sweetened beverages are not a unique risk factor for obesity or other negative health outcomes. So, at the end of the day, you can be a healthy person and enjoy soft drinks and other sugar-sweetened beverages in moderation. What matters most is balancing the calories from the foods and beverages we eat and drink with regular physical activity. These are the keys to living a balanced, healthy lifestyle – something our industry fully supports. We encourage consumers to make appropriate choices by providing easy access to calorie and nutrition information; we promote –and – support physical activity initiatives; and we’re constantly innovating to meet consumer demand. So whatever your preference – from full-calorie to no- and low-calorie – we’ve got something to keep you hydrated.

• Did you know that leftover food is, by weight, the largest component in the nation’s waste stream, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency? Americans throw away more than 25 percent of the food prepared in the country each year. That’s 96 million pounds of food! The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that just 5 percent of that food could feed 4 million people for one day. Try to buy only as much food as your family needs, or make arrangements with a local shelter before your next big event.

• The energy saved by recycling a plastic bottle can power a computer for half an hour. To determine exactly how much energy you’re saving by recycling, use the National Recycling Coalition’s “Conversionator!” It lets you drop items into a virtual recycling machine and does the math for you. And on that note – about half of the polyester carpet made in the U.S. today comes from recycled PET soda bottles. Keep it up!

• Finally, and this is one of our favorites — According to the EPA, in 1987, only one curbside recycling program existed in the U.S. As of 2007 there were almost 9,000.

Our industry, too, is constantly working to further reduce its environmental footprint. And with its Full Circle plan, the beverage industry has furthered its commitment by working to reinvigorate recycling across the country. Together we can continue making a difference, and having a positive impact on our environment – one bottle and can at a time.

Today, one of the hallmarks of a successful festival is an efficient recycling system. A great example of this occurred in June, when a new generation of concert-goers filled the town of Manchester, Tenn., for the Bonnaroo Music & Arts Festival. The grounds became, as with Woodstock, a city within itself. Through the cooperation of attendees and the hard work of the “Clean Vibes” crew, more than 65 percent of all waste, by volume, was diverted from landfills. Virgin Festival is yet another great example of how the environment is considered when planning a multi-day, multi-stage event for such a tremendous crowd. In fact, earlier this month at the Virgin Festival in Alberta, Canada, attendees were encouraged to pick up recyclables around the festival grounds and trade them in for “awesome stuff.”

Another great beverage industry innovation that helps concert-goers stay hydrated is bottled water – something that wasn’t around in the days of Woodstock. Hydration is extremely important – especially for people out in the hot sun for three days.

But our industry also recognizes the importance of sustainability. Our industry is constantly innovating to further reduce its environmental footprint. In fact, the beverage industry uses fully recyclable packaging and is constantly working to reduce the amount of plastic used to make that packaging. Our members are building energy-efficient bottling plants and also support comprehensive curbside recycling programs. They are expanding their delivery trucks to include more hybrid fleets, which stimulates local economies and creates green jobs for American workers.

Of course we’re always looking at the beverage angle here at Sip & Savor. So when we look back at this anniversary, we think of how the beverage industry has contributed, in its own small way, to the safety and sustainability of some of America’s most exciting moments in history. The times, they may be a changin’. But you can count on the beverage industry to be there with great tasting non-alcoholic beverages for everyone.