Selected American Beverage Association Press Releases and Statements

Transcription

1 Selected American Beverage Association Press Releases and Statements October 31, 2011 Beverage Industry Responds to Latest Rudd Report In response to today's release of a Rudd Center report focused on our industry's products and practices, Susan K. Neely, president and chief executive officer of the American Beverage Association, issued the following statement: Statement: "The people at our member companies - many of whom are parents themselves - are delivering on their commitment to advertise only water, juice and milk on programming for children under 12. In fact, recent research supports that there has been a dramatic change in food and beverage advertising during children's programming, with advertisements for soft drinks decreasing by 96 percent between 2004 and 2010 alone. This report is another attack by known critics in an ongoing attempt to single out one product as the cause of obesity when both common sense and widely accepted science have shown that the reality is far more complicated." Additional Background Information: On Marketing: Under a Global Policy on Marketing to Children, our member companies do not advertise beverages other than juice, water or milk-based drinks to any audience that is comprised predominantly of children under 12. The policy covers a wide range of marketing outlets including paid media such as television, radio, print, Internet, phone messaging and cinema, including product placement. Recent research conducted in the United States by Georgetown Economic Services and sponsored by the Grocery Manufacturers Association and the Association of National Advertisers supports that there has been a dramatic change in food and beverage advertising during children's programming. In fact, between 2004 and 2010, advertisements for soft drinks decreased by 96 percent, while advertisements for fruit and vegetable juices increased by 199 percent. Our members also follow the guidelines of the Children's Advertising Review Unit (CARU) of the Council of Better Business Bureaus, the self-regulatory body for children's advertising, which apply to all of our beverages.

2 The authors of the Rudd Center report do not adequately differentiate between marketing to children, who are widely viewed as a special audience needing particular care, and marketing to teens and general audiences. Reinforcing this difference, David Vladeck, director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection of the Federal Trade Commission, recently announced that the guidelines on marketing to children being developed, in part, by the FTC will be directed only to children under 12. His testimony before a Congressional committee noted that: "... it is not necessary to encompass adolescents ages 12 to 17 within the scope of covered marketing. In fact, it is often difficult to distinguish marketing designed to appeal to this age group from marketing directed to a general or adult audience..." On Beverages in Schools: The beverage industry has stepped up to be part of the solution to childhood obesity. We have removed full-calorie soft drinks from all schools and replaced them with more lower-calorie, smaller-portion beverage options. Under our national School Beverage Guidelines, our member companies have reduced beverage calories shipped to schools by a dramatic 88 percent since On Calorie Labeling: With Clear on Calories, America's leading beverage companies came together through a voluntary commitment to put clear and consumer-friendly calorie information on the front of every bottle, can and pack they produce. By putting calorie information right up front on our packaging, our industry is making it easier for people to make informed choices about the beverages that are best for themselves and their families. On Caffeine: Caffeine is safe for all ages and is among the most studied ingredients in the food supply today. In fact, more than 140 countries have specifically considered the safety of caffeine and allow its use in beverages at varying levels. Though not required to do so, most beverage companies voluntarily display caffeine amounts on their packages and make this information readily available on their websites. On Low-Calorie Sweeteners: The suggestion that companies should remove low-calorie sweeteners from their products is not based in science. Low-calorie sweeteners have undergone extensive review by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and results have shown that they are safe for all age groups.

3 Low-calorie sweeteners have obtained approval from regulatory agencies around the world, including the World Health Organization, FDA and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), as safe for use in foods and beverages. Furthermore, a 2007 literature review of the low-calorie sweetener aspartame by an expert panel including some of the world's leading toxicologists also evaluated the ingredient's safety at current levels of consumption and once again confirmed that it is safe. In addition, low-calorie sweeteners have been shown to be useful for weight loss and weight maintenance. On Energy Drinks: This report confuses energy drinks and sports drinks. Sports drinks typically contain electrolytes and are formulated for optimal fluid replacement. Sports drinks are not advertised as energy drinks and are not formulated in the same way. Sports drinks are an appropriate beverage for youth athletes. Our member companies do not market energy drinks to children under 12 and do not offer energy drinks to K-12 schools. ABA and its member companies recognize public discussions about the marketing of energy drinks and their appropriate consumption and recognize their responsibility to play a positive role in addressing these discussions. As an association, we have adopted a number of voluntary policies pertaining to energy drinks over the last several years: voluntary quantitative caffeine labeling, a global policy on marketing to children, guidelines on what can and cannot be sold in schools. All of these demonstrate that our members are responsible companies that do care about their consumers, especially children and young adults. In fact, to move beyond existing policies, earlier this year the ABA Board of Directors approved the ABA Guidance for the Responsible Labeling and Marketing of Energy Drinks. # # # The American Beverage Association is the trade association representing the broad spectrum of companies that manufacture and distribute non-alcoholic beverages in the United States. For more information on ABA, please visit the association's Web site at or call the ABA communications team at (202) January 22, 2010 American Beverage Association Statement on New York State Senate Hearing on Soft Drink Tax

4 NEWS RELEASE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: ABA Press Office (202) AMERICAN BEVERAGE ASSOCIATION STATEMENT ON NEW YORK STATE SENATE HEARING ON SOFT DRINK TAX In response to a hearing being held by the New York State Senate Standing Committee on Health today, the American Beverage Association issued the following statement: "Obesity is a complex issue that will not be resolved by placing a tax on beverages. If New York legislators want to make a dent in the waistlines of New Yorkers, they should seek comprehensive approaches that will have a meaningful and lasting impact, rather than sound bite solutions. National Cancer Institute data show that sugar-sweetened beverages account for only 5.5 percent of the average person's diet, so 94.5 percent of calories come from other foods and beverages. Thus, uniquely taxing beverages that account for such a small portion of the daily diet looks more like a money grab at the expense of hard-working families than sound public policy. Science shows that, when it comes to tackling obesity, what matters most is balancing the calories from all the foods and beverages we eat and drink with those we burn through regular physical activity. These are the keys to living a balanced lifestyle - something the beverage industry supports and encourages by helping consumers make appropriate choices by providing easy access to calorie and nutrition information, promoting physical activity and product innovation. The beverage industry is producing more good-tasting, lower-calorie choices. And consumers are availing themselves of them. In fact, since 1998, there has been a 21 percent reduction in calories in beverages in the marketplace. The beverage industry is committed to doing its part to help reduce childhood obesity. Beginning in 2006, America's leading beverage companies have worked to voluntarily remove full-calorie soft drinks from all schools, replacing them with lower-calorie, nutritious and smaller-portion beverages.

5 Through these efforts, beverage calories shipped to schools have been reduced by nearly 60 percent. Further, the beverage industry is concerned about the recent proposal from the Governor of New York to implement a tax on soft drinks - similar to what was overwhelmingly rejected just last year - to make up for the state's budget shortfall. We appreciate the budget challenges facing the state and are willing to pay our fair share, but there should be ways to address the budget deficit without reaching into the grocery carts of already struggling families or putting thousands of well-paying, New York jobs at risk." Singling Out One Product For Taxation To Solve Obesity is An Ineffective Approach April 1, 2010 NEWS RELEASE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: ABA Press Office (202) WASHINGTON, D.C. - A study published today in the journal Health Affairs provides further evidence that, when it comes to reducing obesity, excise taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages will have no noticeable impact. Although the authors speculate that substantial taxes may reduce consumption and weight gain among select groups, even their own findings undermine that hypothesis and counter the fallacy that singling out one set of products will make a significant impact on a challenge as complex as childhood obesity. The fact remains that taxes don't make people healthier - a balanced diet and exercise do that. A report by researchers from the Mercatus Center at George Mason University showed that even a 20 percent tax hike on a soft drink would decrease Body Mass Index (BMI) for an obese person by just 0.02, an amount not even measurable on a bathroom scale. It is also worth noting that the RAND analysis found no significant link between the consumption of soda or weight gain among children and differential taxes on sodas compared with other foods, further showing that soda taxes would be ineffective. "We understand that governments are facing tough budget challenges," Susan K. Neely, president and CEO of the American Beverage Association (ABA), said. "But singling out one item for taxation completely misses the mark in having an effect on the national challenge of obesity."

6 Science shows that singling out a food or beverage won't make a dent in obesity. The RAND analysis itself highlights the fallacy that targeting one product for taxation will reduce obesity. In fact, the analysis confirms that many factors impact the complex issues of overweight and obesity, including things such as sedentary lifestyles and genetics. It's also important to keep in perspective the relatively small percentage of calories that come from beverages. Sugar-sweetened beverages, including soda, contribute only 5.5 percent of the calories in the American diet, according to a National Cancer Institute analysis of government data presented to the U.S. Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee just last year. That means that more than 94 percent of calories come from other sources. "The effectiveness of a soft drink tax, if anything, would be trivial," Neely said. "A tax doesn't even qualify as a good start to addressing the rising rates of obesity. We need to move beyond these simplistic ideas and pursue comprehensive, meaningful solutions from all aspects of society if we're really going to reverse childhood obesity. Our industry is certainly stepping up to do its part." With its School Beverage Guidelines, the beverage industry has removed full-calorie soft drinks from all schools and provided for more lower-calorie, nutritious, smaller-portion beverage choices. As a result of the guidelines, there has been an 88 percent reduction in calories in beverages shipped to schools since The beverage industry's commitment to provide its consumers with nutrition information extends beyond the school environment. In fact, in support of First Lady Michelle Obama's "Let's Move" campaign, the beverage industry recently announced it will make the calories in its products even more clear and consumer-friendly. Beginning this summer, America's leading beverage companies will put the information on the front of all their packages, as well as company-controlled vending machines and fountain machines. ### FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE May 12, 2009 Contacts: ABA Press Office (202) Beverage Industry Fighting Childhood Obesity by Helping Children Balance Calories

7 Cutting calories in schools reinforces skills for a lifetime; discriminatory taxes just raise revenue WASHINGTON - Childhood obesity is a serious issue that requires comprehensive and thoughtful solutions, but discriminatory taxes on soft drinks and other beverages are the wrong public policy for such a complex problem, said Susan Neely, president and CEO of the American Beverage Association. As Washington leaders begin discussing ways to improve health care in America, the beverage industry believes they need to focus on solutions that work when it comes to reducing childhood obesity. Solutions like the successful national School Beverage Guidelines, which cut calories in schools and help reinforce with children the importance of balancing calories. "Together as a society, we need to focus on the hard work of teaching our children how to balance calories consumed with calories burned and, by doing so, give them the skills to maintain a healthy weight throughout their lives," Neely said today. "A tax won't teach children these skills or have a lasting, meaningful impact on reducing childhood obesity." In May 2006, the beverage industry developed national School Beverage Guidelines with the Alliance for a Healthier Generation, a joint initiative of the William J. Clinton Foundation and the American Heart Association. The industry committed to changing the beverage mix in schools across America by removing full-calorie soft drinks, as well as capping calories and reducing portion sizes on other beverages and providing nutritious beverage options by the beginning of the school year. The beverage companies not only committed to a tough policy, but they are delivering results and exceeding their goals. At the start of the current school year, nearly 80 percent of America's schools under contract were in compliance with the School Beverage Guidelines - beating the agreedupon goal of 75 percent after two years. And calories from beverages in schools have been cut by 58 percent during that time. "America's beverage industry stepped up years ago to cut calories in schools because we recognize the important need to address childhood obesity in a meaningful way," Neely said. "Our school beverage guidelines contribute to children developing lifetime skills on balancing calories." Another benefit of the Alliance for a Healthier Generation program is its focus on the calories burned side of the equation - the need for more physical education in schools. Beverage companies have long supported programs that promote physical activity in addition to the Alliance effort. "Soft drinks are a fun, refreshing beverage meant to be enjoyed. You can be a healthy person and enjoy soft drinks, as millions of Americans, including parents and their

8 children, prove every day," Neely said. "As we've seen in countless studies, the right formula is about calories in and calories out, not about added taxes." Neely said the School Beverage Guidelines provide an encouraging model for effective public policy development to address a complex social challenge. Through the Alliance for a Healthier Generation and its partners, the non-profit sector came together with the private sector to forge a solution with real, measurable impact for our children. "The School Beverage Guidelines are the right policy that strikes the right balance," Neely said. "It's why the guidelines have drawn strong support from parents, educators, doctors and nutritionists." Furthermore, the data simply doesn't support singling out products like soft drinks as a unique contributor to obesity. The data shows soft drinks have declined annually since 2000 (an overall 9.6 percent decline from , according to Beverage Digest), while childhood and adult obesity rates have risen throughout the decade. Neely said the beverage industry applauds President Obama and the Congress for seeking effective ways to prevent childhood obesity and other diseases by improving the health care system in America. She encourages the leaders to keep seeking the best ideas, not the most convenient. "If we're going to truly make an impact on childhood obesity, our leaders need to pursue more of these smart, common-sense solutions that work, rather than simply imposing regressive taxes and hoping for the best," Neely said. "Taxes distract from meaningful solutions. People view government as over-reaching when it uses the tax code to tell them how to eat or feed their children. Taxes are just the wrong public policy for a complex problem like childhood obesity." ### FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE September 30, 2009 Contact: ABA Press Office (202)

9 CENTER FOR SCIENCE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST CHANGING ITS TUNE: PUSHES TAX HIKE AS A MONEY GRAB TO FILL STATE BUDGET DEFICITS In response to a paper issued today by the Center for Science in the Public Interest, the American Beverage Association (ABA) issued the following statement: "A tax on soda simply won't make people healthier - and it seems that our critics are starting to get it. The Center for Science in the Public Interest is now proposing regressive taxes on juice drinks and soda as a primary revenue raiser to "trim state deficits" - a clear shift in motivation away from the obesity issue.. In a paper released today, CSPI advises 48 state governments facing budget deficits to impose a discriminatory tax on sugar-sweetened beverages in order to fill their general fund coffers. This kind of thinking is exactly why Americans don't want government using the tax code to tell them what to eat or drink. Furthermore, there couldn't be a worse time to raise taxes on people. In an economy like this, the last thing government should be doing is raising taxes on the middle-class. The bottom line remains that a soda tax simply won't work, particularly as a means to address obesity. A study by Harvard researchers and published in the New England Journal of Medicine earlier this year concluded that all calories count - regardless of the food source - when it comes to losing weight. This is just the latest study in the compendium of science shows that balancing calories consumed from all sources with calories burned through exercise is the key equation to weight maintenance. Only West Virginia and Arkansas have excise taxes on soda in place like the one being proposed by CSPI. Yet, according to the CDC, West Virginia and Arkansas also have among the ten highest rates of obesity in the nation. (CSPI is being disingenuous in alleging that 25 states impose special taxes on soda and sugar-sweetened beverages; in these states, taxes on soda are part of broad-based state sales taxes that are imposed on an array of consumer products from groceries to automobiles.) George Mason University researchers showed that a 15-cent tax added to a 75-cent can of soda would decrease the Body Mass Index of an obese person from 40 to This miniscule reduction is not even measurable on a bathroom scale. # # #

10 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE September 17, 2009 Contact: ABA Press Office (202) AMERICAN BEVERAGE ASSOCIATION RESPONSE TO UCLA STUDY ON SODA CONSUMPTION In response to "Bubbling Over: Soda Consumption and Its Link to Obesity in California," a health policy research brief issued by the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research, Dr. Maureen L. Storey, senior vice president of science policy for the American Beverage Association, said: "This study does not demonstrate cause and effect because, like all epidemiological studies, it looks at correlations. In fact, the compendium of science shows that soft drinks do not uniquely contribute to obesity or any other chronic disease. A review published in Nutrition Research Reviews concludes that there is little evidence from epidemiological studies that sugar-sweetened drinks are more likely than any other source of calories to lead to obesity. Furthermore, a study funded by the Canadian government that looked at more than 137,000 school-aged children in 34 countries found no association between soft drink intake and body mass index. And, a study by Harvard researchers published this year in the New England Journal of Medicine confirmed that all calories count - regardless of food source - when it comes to losing weight. If our goal is to address obesity, then educating consumers about the importance of balancing calories consumed from all foods and beverages with the calories expended through physical activity is what matters - not demonizing any one particular food. The beverage industry is doing its part to educate consumers about the importance of living an active, healthy and balanced lifestyle. We provide myriad beverage choices, from zero calories to a varying range of calories. In fact, since 1998, our industry has decreased the calories per ounce produced by more than 24 percent. And, according to data recently presented at Experimental Biology 2009, the American public is taking advantage of the many beverage innovations being developed by the beverage industry, including the introduction of new no- and low-calorie beverages. Consumers of all ages are drinking more no- and lower-calorie beverages than they did just several years ago. The fact remains you can be a healthy person and enjoy a soft drink. What is important is consuming a variety of foods and beverages in moderation and getting regular physical activity. These are the irrefutable facts - the keys - to maintaining a healthy weight." # # #

11 Industry Critics Continue to Push Ineffective Approaches to Combating Obesity with Latest Paper FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE September 16, 2009 Contact: ABA Press Office (202) Industry Critics Continue to Push Ineffective Approaches to Combating Obesity with Latest Paper In response to "The Public Health and Economic Benefits of Taxing Sugar-Sweetened Beverages," a Health Policy Report published today in the New England Journal of Medicine, Susan Neely, president and CEO for the American Beverage Association (ABA), issued the following statement: "We agree that obesity is a serious public health issue, but the solution put forth by these researchers simply won't work. Reducing obesity will only be addressed through comprehensive solutions. The fact is that the compendium of science, regardless of funding source, does not show that soft drinks or other sweetened beverages uniquely contribute to obesity - nor, for that matter, that they are uniquely linked to any negative health consequences. In fact, the authors fail to cite a study funded by the Canadian government that examined a sample size of more than 137,000 school-aged children in 34 countries - a sample size larger than the combined total of the studies that were cited by these researchers - and found no association between soft drink intake and body mass index. Furthermore, a study funded by the National Institutes of Health and published earlier this year in the New England Journal of Medicine supported that all calories count - and that balancing calories consumed from all foods and beverages with the calories burned through physical activity is what matters. While the authors suggest a 1 cent per ounce tax for any beverage with caloric sweeteners, there is no science to support that this would have a measurable impact on our nation's waist line. Importantly, taxes will not teach our children how to live a healthy lifestyle. In fact, excise taxes on soft drinks simply do not reduce obesity rates. West Virginia and Arkansas are two prime examples - both have excise taxes on soft drinks, yet rank fifth and sixth highest in the nation for obesity rates. Furthermore, a study out of George Mason University's Mercatus Center shows that even a 15-cent per can tax would result in only a.02 change in body mass index. This amount isn't even measurable on a

12 bathroom scale. And, importantly, our industry has reduced calories per ounce produced by more than 24 percent since 1998, yet obesity rates continued to climb during that same time period. While science, data and common-sense show that a tax won't work, a tax will cause real harm to hard-working American families at a time when they are already struggling to stay afloat during a recession. The American public views it as an over-reach when the government tries to tell them what to eat and drink. Taxing soda and other sugar-sweetened beverages to reduce obesity is simply the wrong public policy for such a complex problem. Rather than demonizing any one particular food or beverage, what we must do is focus on nutrition education that underscores the importance of balancing all calories consumed with calories burned through physical activity. By doing so, we give our children the tools to maintain a healthy weight throughout their life." # # # SOURCE NOTE: These Press Releases and Statements were accessed January 26, 2012, May 2011 and August 2010 from