A Weightloss and diet forum. WeightLossBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » WeightLossBanter forum » alt.support.diet newsgroups » Low Carbohydrate Diets
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Soda vs. the Jelly Bean Rule



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 21st, 2004, 03:43 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Soda vs. the Jelly Bean Rule



Soda vs. the Jelly Bean Rule

By Jeff Stier, Esq.



Cadbury Schweppes' new calcium-enriched 7 Up Plus has really shaken up
the soda market.


Until now, soda companies have been under pressure not to add nutrients
to sodas because of the FDA's so-called "Jelly Bean Rule," which
forbids health claims on low-nutrient foods and drinks. The rule
doesn't forbid fortification, but it has had that effect.


The new 7 Up, which seems to get around the rule by not making any
specific health claims, as well as by adding a bit of fruit juice to
the soda, may open a whole new market. 7 Up Plus shatters the "good
food/bad food" false dichotomy buttressed by the Jelly Bean Rule and
preached by "food police" activists. Before 7 Up Plus, activists such
as Michael Jacobson at the Center for Science in the Public Interest
railed against soda pop as "liquid candy." Calls for bans on soda in
school have gained in popularity. And in New York City schools, as
part of an effort to fight obesity, even Diet Coke was banned from
schools (only to be replaced with high sugar fruit juices.) But
adding nutrients to soda takes the fizz out of the "liquid candy"
argument.


Those who argue against fortifying fun but non-nutrient-rich foods with
important nutrients have it all wrong. They won't tolerate less than
"perfect" choices for consumers who don't get adequate amounts of
calcium in their diets -- especially teenagers. This is a
counterproductive attitude.


Certainly, we should redouble our efforts to educate consumers about
overall good dietary habits, but until those efforts are fully
effective, fortified sodas -- and yes, even candies, if marketed under
a reasonable regulatory framework -- can be a positive development.


As long as large sections of society (teenage girls, for instance) are
not getting enough calcium, and as long as those very same consumers
are already drinking sodas, why not provide them the choice of drinking
a more nutrient-rich soft drink?


Jeff Stier is Associate Director of the American Council on Science and
Health.




This information was found online at:
http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/newsI...ews_detail.asp

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Here are some WW's Dessert Recipes SPOONS Weightwatchers 3 August 24th, 2004 01:06 AM
Interesting article Luke Low Carbohydrate Diets 2 April 1st, 2004 02:30 AM
Diet Soda [aspartame] Dangerous? Shari Lieberman, The O'Reilly Factor 3.19.4: Murray 3.23.4 rmforall Rich Murray General Discussion 15 March 27th, 2004 03:22 AM
Recipes: Christmas cookies Amberle3 Weightwatchers 6 November 29th, 2003 05:31 PM
sweetners and jelly Preesi Low Carbohydrate Diets 2 November 26th, 2003 08:03 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:26 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 WeightLossBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.