This move to take soda out of the schools isn’t as promising as one might initially think.
Three consumer groups weighed in on the announcement.
The first group, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, applauded the announcement in its release, entitled "CSPI Applauds Agreement to Get High-Calorie Drinks Out of Schools; Drops Planned Litigation" although it noted the deal wasn’t perfect.
But then two more advocates had a totally different take and highlighted major flaws with this plan to voluntarily remove soda out of most schools.
For instance, Gary Ruskin of Commercial Alert found the new soda deal weak on marketing and enforcement.
And Michele Simon of the Center for Informed Food Choices was even more skeptical of the agreement, calling it a "publicity stunt by an industry desperate to avoid government regulation."
Michele — who, I was able to chat with briefly this evening — was over in Oakland, California, adding some last-minute changes to her upcoming book, Appetite for Profit, because of this soda announcement. (Likewise, I was in New York also making updates to my upcoming book, SUGAR SHOCK!)
In her alert that went out to a special list, Michele explained a number of behind-the-scenes goings-on that were noticeably absent from all media accounts. Since there’s no URL yet, I’ll include most of her very eloquent remarks. She writes:
"Since December, a team of ten attorneys (including myself) and public health groups have been in private negotiation with lawyers from the American Beverage Association, Coca-Coca, and PepsiCo. From these meetings-operating under the threat of litigation being planned in Massachusett, we got close to an agreement that is eerily similar to the one announced on Wednesday.
"Apparently, Coke and Pepsi were shopping around for the best PR opportunity; it looks much better to have former president Bill Clinton at your side than a bunch of lawyers. What a brilliant move by industry, telling us they were bargaining in good faith while all the while planning another deal. Do we really need any more evidence that food and beverage companies cannot be trusted?
"While it’s true that the outcome–most sugary beverages out of all schools–might be similar to what we could have gained through litigation settlement, the critical difference is enforceability. The main purpose of bringing a lawsuit is to ensure that the companies would be held accountable to the outcome, whether by court decision or settlement agreement."
"Similarly, the current effort in state legislatures all over the nation to pass bills to rid schools of unhealthy drinks (which Coke and Pepsi continue to lobby against vociferously) would require actual policy change. But industry prefers voluntary ‘self-regulation,’ a non-enforceable system that has already proven to be a dismal failure.
"We have seen this dance from the soda companies before. Last August, the American Beverage Association announced another bogus "policy" that amounted to no more than words on paper. Since that PR stunt didn’t make their problems go away, now Coke and Pepsi have just come up with a better idea./"
Thank you, Michele and Gary, for opening our eyes to the reality of this much-ballyhooed soda announcement.
People, please to think for yourselves and draw your own conclusions when news of this sort comes out from major companies and organizations. Bummer.
But we — those of us who are what I call "Sugar Kickers" — can speak up. We have power simply by what foods and beverages we buy.
FYI, I, for one, never ever buy or drink soda — other than the still-as-yet-undrinken (and never-to-be consumed) 20-ounce bottle that I bought three years ago to use in my speaking engagements and the one I bought a few months ago to show my audiences just how much sugar it contains. It contains 16.87 teaspoons of sugar.
Attendum from Connie: Michele just posted her remarks on the group’s website, which you can see here.