An Op-ed by Coca Cola’s CEO, Muhtar Kent, in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, paints a picture perfect portrait of corporate citizenship, and little if any connection to the obesity epidemic in the US:

Our industry has become an easy target in this debate. Sugar-sweetened beverages have been singled out in spite of the fact that soft drinks, energy drinks, sports drinks and sweetened bottled water combined contribute 5.5% of the calories in the average American diet, according to the National Cancer Institute. It’s difficult to understand why the beverages we and others provide are being targeted as the primary cause of weight gain when 94.5% of caloric intake comes from other foods and beverages. more…

Mr. Kent continues to claim that the problem of America is not too many calories in, it’s not enough calories out (exercise). What a convenient solution for junk food and liquid candy manufacturers – lay the blame on lazy consumers.

What you need to know:

The average daily caloric intake of Americans today is 3800 calories. If 5.5% of people’s calories come from soft drinks, that works out to 200 calories a day. That’s 200 empty calories: water+sugar+artificial flavorings and colors. This amounts to an added pound in body weight every 17 days, or 21 extra pounds put on every year. Still believe Coca Cola has nothing to do with Obesity?

As for lack of exercise, the World Health Organization recently published a report showing that, contrary to popular belief, people are working out pretty much the same as they did in the 1970’s. So it is about “calories in” after all.

Mr. Kent presents Coke as a socially responsible company, but fails to mention the huge marketing budgets aimed at youngsters, promoting more and more consumption of soft drinks. And by placing vending machines in schools, colleges, libraries, and pretty much every corner people turn, Coca Cola and other beverage manufacturers are literally putting soft drinks in people’s hands.

The stats presented by Mr Kent fail to mention the progressive growth of single serve Coke bottles over the last century, from a reasonable 8 fl oz. to the 20 fl oz. bottles today. Not to mention larger serving sizes at fast food establishments.

While the beverage industry is not the only reason Americans are getting fat, it is certainly a major contributor.

No doubt this Op-ed was written in response to growing pressures to levy a tax on soft drinks. Here we agree with Coke’s CEO. We’ve written before that a sales tax is not the way to go. A better solution is to set up “calorie offsets”, similar to carbon offsets. Learn more here.

What to do at the supermarket:

Folks, a soft drink may be a nice treat here and there, but for daily consumption, stick to water. Tap water. A family of four can save $500 a year by skipping the drink aisles in the supermarket.

Get Fooducated: RSS Subscription or Email Subscription

Follow us on twitter: twitter.com/fooducate

Help us test our new food comparison tool: alpha.fooducate.com

Taxing soda pop, which seemed like a crazy idea just 12 months ago, is gaining traction with academics and politicians.

Recently, President Obama said a soda tax is “an idea that we should be exploring.” And in a research paper published yesterday by the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), a team of 7 scientists recommend taxing every fluid ounce of sugary soft drink by one penny. Those pennies add up to $15 billion annually that the federal government can spend on consumer education and healthcare.

The recommendations are based on research that shows:

1. consumption of sugary drinks has directly contributed to obesity in the US.

2. raising the price of soft drinks will reduce its consumption.

Of course the beverage industry is all over this, and in it multimillion dollar campaign, including a website nofoodtaxes.com, states:

Discriminatory and punitive taxes on soda and juice drinks do not teach our children to have a healthy lifestyle and have no meaningful impact on child obesity or public health. They just further burden working families already struggling in this trying economy.

Muhtar Kent, CEO of the Coca Cola Company calls a soda tax “outrageous” and likens the very thought of it to a communist conspiracy:

“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.”

Mr Kent is right, the government shouldn’t decide for consumers what to eat or drink.

But it should protect consumers from unscrupulous corporations who are literally shoving junk food and drinks down our throats. Everywhere we turn, soft drink machines, snack dispensers, candies, chocolate bars, more soda, more snacks. Not to mention the endless commercials, advertisements, and other branding brainwashing activities all aimed to increase our consumption and their profit.

However, as we have suggested in the past, taxing the consumer is not the way to go.

What the government should do is to tax these corporations, big time. This, through mechanisms similar to carbon offsets in the industrial sector. Let’s call these calorie offsets for now.

Here’s how calorie offsets would work:

for every ton of added sweetener (sugar or corn syrup), a company would contribute $3000 to government programs aimed at obesity reduction. Three thousand dollars is equivalent to the penny per ounce tax suggested by the NEJM.

This suggestion will likely infuriate Mr. Kent and his friends at the ABA even more than taxing consumers. So what. Coca Cola and PepsiCo are among the most profitable companies in the food industry. The Coca Cola company, worth $120 Billion, had a net profit of $6 billion last year on sales of $30 billion. Not bad for a company that sells water and fizz mixed with high fructose corn syrup and artificial colors.

What are the advantages of Calorie Offsets?

1. They reduce the profitability of sugary drinks and encourage manufacturers to shift to healthier products.

2. If a company chooses to raise prices of soft drinks to maintain margins, that’s perfectly fine. Market forces will work for the benefit of the consumer. Shoppers will now revolt against said company by buying from its competitor. The government won’t be the scapegoat. We’ll see then who’s accused of discriminatory and punitive taxes.

3. The offset money will be marked and used, of course, to undo the the damage to the public health and to educate the public.

To summarize, as their customers are getting fatter and sicker, beverage industry shareholders are getting richer and richer. The government should require these companies to directly foot the bill for the damage that they are causing to the public.

What to do at the supermarket:

A suggestion for those of you concerned about a potential soda tax – A family of 4 can save $500 a year just by switching from soft drinks to tap water.

Get Fooducated: RSS Subscription or Email Subscription

Follow us on twitter: twitter.com/fooducate

Help us test our new food comparison tool: alpha.fooducate.com