Big Soda's Publicity Stunt

[Guest guest]

http://www.alternet.org/envirohealth/24647/

 

Big Soda's Publicity Stunt

 

By Michele Simon, AlterNet. Posted August 29, 2005.

 

The trade group responsible for pushing sugary drinks to children ofall ages has just trumpeted another set of useless new guidelines.

 

Move over Big Tobacco, you've got competition in the Shameless PRaward category: With much fanfare, the American Beverage Association(the trade group formerly known as the National Soft DrinkAssociation) has announced a new school-based policy "aimed atproviding lower calorie and/or nutritious beverages to schools andlimiting the availability of soft drinks."

 

The specifics of the policy matter less than the enormous amount ofpositive press that resulted. Newspaper accounts included suchheadlines as "Soft drink industry takes high road" and "Schools getally in soda issue: Drink makers."

 

Unfortunately, the real impact of this move is far different. To beginwith, the ABA is the soda makers' lobbying arm and doesn't directlycontract with schools. Soda is sold through local distributorscontrolled by the parent companies. Next, there is no enforcement oroversight mechanism for the voluntary rules. Coca-Cola and Pepsi-Colaboasted that the new policy mirrored their own, and that should raiseplenty of red flags. Coca-Cola's 2003 voluntary "model guidelines" tonot sell sodas in elementary schools are already routinely violated.Documented examples include schools in Kentucky and Texas.

 

In addition, the policy only applies to vending machines, ignoringother ways that soda is sold in schools, such as in stores, from sodafountains, and at sporting events. And conveniently enough forindustry, many schools are locked into lengthy contracts, sometimesfor as long as thirteen years. The rules would only apply to newcontracts. If ABA members really cared about children's health, whynot call for renegotiation of all school contracts right now?

 

What Nutrition Standards?

 

Even if the policy could actually be implemented, from a nutritionstandpoint, the guidelines are a joke. Many schools have much strongerpolicies already in place. The ABA policy says no soda in elementaryschools; why do they only care about young children's health? Also,because sports and juice drinks are also high in sugar and calories,nutritionists advise against them. Yet, the ABA says they're ok formiddle and high schools.

 

Numerous school districts around the nation, including in Los Angeles,San Francisco, Boston, Seattle and Chicago, have banned all soda andother highly sweetened beverages in all grades. Philadelphia's schoolbeverage policy is simple: water, 100% juice, and milk, K-12, period.Why doesn't ABA's simply policy call for only healthy beverages in allschools? As New York attorney Ross Getman told Bloomberg News, "Theannouncement represents a calculation that they can just as easilyhook a kid on caffeinated soda in four years instead of six." In otherwords, it's all about brand loyalty, and high schools kids makedecisions that last a lifetime.

 

Deflecting State Legislation

 

That the ABA made their big announcement at the annual meeting of theNational Conference of State Legislatures was both calculated andironic, since the group's members have been lobbying against statebills to improve school nutrition for years. In recent months, billshave been either killed or significantly gutted, thanks to heavylobbying from Coca-Cola and friends, in such states as Connecticut,Arizona, New Mexico and Oregon. While the ABA said their policy wouldnot supercede any existing policies (how nice, since their policycouldn't supercede a state law), no pledges have been made by the ABAor its members to halt their lobbying activities.

 

The ABA got quotes for its press release from three politicians: NorthCarolina Lt. Governor Beverly Perdue, California Assemblywoman GloriaNegrete McLeod, and Georgia Senator Renee Unterman. North Carolinapassed a bill last month that closely mirrors the new ABA policy, sothere would be no impact in that state anyway. In California, astronger law is already on the books and another bill (backed byRepublican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger) to get sodas out of highschools, is pending. So the policy is moot there as well. And withCoca-Cola headquarters based in Georgia, lawmakers in that state areloath to pass any school vending bill.

 

ABA's real purpose is to ward off future efforts to enact strongerlaws. Every time the local news covers another attempt by a statelegislature to pass a bill to limit soda in school, this creates apublic relations problem. But if industry is perceived as "being partof the solution" (as the ABA press release professes) then lawmakersjust might take the issue off the table.

 

Money Can Buy Love

 

There is no better evidence of this announcement being a publicitystunt than the ABA's multi-million dollar plan "to run print andbroadcast advertising to educate the public about the new policy." Ifthe motivation is truly children's health, why does the ABA need toadvertise? Why not spend that money ensuring that local bottlers makethe changes instead? What possible purpose could an ad campaign serve,other than to promote soda companies as caring, responsible corporatecitizens?

 

If this sounds eerily familiar, it should. The ABA is taking a pageright out of the tobacco industry's playbook: Spend more moneymarketing a new responsible image than it costs actually beingresponsible.

 

Michele Simon, a public-health attorney who teaches health policy atthe UC Hastings College of the Law, is director of the Center forInformed Food Choices, a nonprofit in Oakland, Calif.