Study makes push to handle energy drinks like tobacco products
March 27, 2015
By Nina Criscuolo
INDIANAPOLIS (WISH) — A new study recommends energy drinks be treated the same as tobacco products.
The authors of the study pointed to negative health effects highly caffeinated drinks can have on children 12 to 17 years old. The study, which will appear the April issue of “Nutrition Reviews,” states energy drinks can cause social, emotional and behavioral issues in kids and lead to about 1,500 hospital visits each year.
The authors want energy drinks to be moved away from other beverages in stores and put behind the counter, side-by-side with cigarettes. They also say they should not be sold to anyone under 18.
Globally, energy drinks are a $27.5 billion industry. The American Beverage Association is strongly opposing the proposed changes from the study. The group said energy drink makers voluntarily go far beyond all federal requirements when it comes to labeling their products and education. They’ve also voluntarily pledged not to market to teens or sell their drinks in K through 12 schools.
Still researchers back up their argument by citing the American Academy of Pediatrics’ recommendation that children and teens should not consume energy drinks and that there should be an under 18 ban.
Parents Must Sign Permission Slip Before Kids Can Eat Oreos
They are double stuff, after all.
Mar. 26, 2015
Lenore Skenazy
There are 18-wheelers with brake problems, hungry bears just stumbling out of hibernation, and lawnmowers that suddenly shift into reverse. And then there’s the unparalleled danger of Double Stuf Oreos. Thank goodness this teacher requires parents to sign off on cookie consumption—if they dare.
A screenshot of the permission slip comes from Twitter mom Main Line Housewife in Pennsylvania. Check it out below:
Read and see the permission slip.
Bill would tax sugary drinks, candy in Connecticut
February 18, 2015
Ken Dixon
HARTFORD – Connecticut would become the first state to create a special tax on sugary drinks and candy under a bill aimed at cutting childhood obesity, Type II diabetes, hypertension and other health problems.
But the beverage industry and state grocers opposed the proposal during a public hearing Tuesday, calling it social engineering that is unfounded in science and economics while threatening Connecticut businesses.
Roberta R. Friedman, director of public policy at the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity, formerly part of Yale but now at the University of Connecticut, said a typical 20-ounce soda has 16 teaspoons of sugar.
“We’re not just talking about soda, but sports drinks, energy drinks, vitamin waters, sweetened teas, sometimes sweetened coffees and fruit drinks, which has grown in the past 50 years by about 500 percent,” she told the legislative Children’s Committee. “We are drinking these things to no end, and they are nothing but empty calories. You would never sit down and ask your child to eat 16 teaspoons of sugar. Our kids today are packing themselves with these beverages, and the health implications are very serious.”
The bill, similar to a tax on soda in Mexico and one that failed in New York City under then-Mayor Michael Bloomberg, would add a 1-cent-per-ounce tax. A 20-ounce soda that costs $1.50 would then cost $1.70.
Friedman said many studies have been done to show the connection between sugary beverages and weight gain in both adults and children.
“There’s a 26 percent increase risk for Type II diabetes from drinking two servings of sugar-sweetened beverages a day, compared to drinking one serving per month,” she said.
Friedman said a tax on sugary drinks may do something to offset the $800 million that manufacturers spend annually marketing them. She said the Rudd Center’s analysis has found that a 10 percent increase in price may yield an 8 to 10 percent reduction in consumption.
Stan Sorkin, president of the Connecticut Food Association, representing grocers and supermarkets, said the tax proposal is unacceptable.
“We have some major concerns with this nanny-state legislation,” Sorkin said. “With 20,000 new products introduced to the market each year, who is going to figure out what is candy? Who will be responsible for managing the database? Where will the tax be collected? What’s next on the list of items to be taxed based on the agendas of interest groups?”
He said increased retail sales will result in the loss of sales to out-of-state stores and even a black market in soda sales.
“Whatever happened to the no-new-tax pledge?” he said. “We believe that education is the key to fighting obesity. This is not the time to raise the cost of living in Connecticut.”
Kevin Dietly, an economist and consultant to the American Beverage Association, said such an excise tax would be levied at the manufacturer or wholesale level and would be hidden from consumers in store prices, so it would strictly be a revenue-raiser.
“There is, however, no scientific or economic evidence that a tax of this sort is going to have a beneficial impact on health outcomes or the body-mass index,” Dietly said to the committee. “They are there to raise money.”
Sugar taxes affect lower- and middle-income families the most and are therefore regressive, and the tax would threaten the 14,000 people who work in the beverage industry in the state, he said.
Dietly said there are no studies of what happens to consumers when they switch to other, less-expensive beverages or foods not subject to such taxes, such as high-fat products.
While 35 states including Connecticut have sales taxes on soda, none have excise taxes. Friedman said states discussing added taxes include Vermont, California, Hawaii and Illinois. If the law passes both the state House and Senate and is signed into law, revenue from the tax would be used for the general budget and to fund anti-obesity efforts.
John M. Bailey, state director for government relations for the American Heart Association, said the bill needs refinement regarding the definition of sugary soft drinks. But he said cutting the consumption of such drinks by children would contribute to better public health.
“Research is clear that sugary drinks are the No. 1 source of added sugar in kids’ diets today, and that a tax of at least a penny an ounce may effectively reduce consumption,” Bailey said. “Connecticut is facing an obesity crisis that impacts citizens of all ages.”
One-quarter of Connecticut adults and high school students are overweight, he said.
“Do you really think that children are going to recognize the tax?” said Rep. Mike Bocchino, R-Greenwich, a member of the committee.
Bailey said a child of his has a weekly allowance and understands what a price increase means.
“Their choices will have to be thought out more clearly,” Bailey said.
Nation’s First Soda Tax Is Passed. Berkeley, CA, became the first U.S. city to pass a law taxing sugary drinks including sodas. Proponents of the Berkeley tax say the fee will help curb consumption of sodas, energy drinks and sweetened iced teas, beverages they say are contributing to the nation’s obesity epidemic.
How to beat Big Soda. Lessons from the war on tobacco. By: Holly Scheider is Outreach Coordinator for the Berkeley Healthy Child Coalition and a former Tobacco Policy Coordinator for Contra Costa County. Remember when people could smoke in restaurants, on airplanes, and at work? This changed, thanks to tireless efforts by health advocates like me. So how do we beat Big Soda? Learn from tobacco control’s success.
Why Tax Just Soda? Why Not Tax Sugar? While the intake of sugar/high fructose and sweetened beverages is certainly detrimental to health (see links below), it seems taxing sodas is more a topical excuse for skimming a new revenue stream than a meaningful way to reduce obesity/diabesity.
