Interesting article

Food Cops Still Hop On Pop

http://www.consumerfreedom.com/headl...ADLINE_ID=2435

Our nation's diet scolds are running out of reasons to pick on soda
pop. Researchers at Virginia Tech's Center for Food and Nutritional
Policy (CFNP) have found that calcium intake among adolescents does
not appear to be linked to soft drink consumption. CFNP director
Maureen Storey explains: "This is most likely because milk and soft
drinks are not close dietary substitutes." In other words, when kids
drink soda it doesn't mean they're drinking less milk. Does this
finding mean the food police will stop playing "kick the can" with
soft drinks? Not likely. They view soda as a Trojan horse that will
gain them access to the kingdom of food taxes and other needless
regulations.
Activist arguments against soda just don't hold water. For instance,
they claim soda makes kids fat; but the Georgetown Center for Food and
Nutrition Policy found no link between soda consumption and obesity in
children. And a can of soda contains fewer calories than an identical
serving of most fruit juices.
Determined to fly in the face of facts, these soda-bashers-gone-wild
want to turn their nanny-state dreams into our soda tax nightma
Harold Goldstein, director of the California Center for Public Health
Advocacy, has referred to soda bans in schools as "just the entry
point to address the bigger issues." Goldstein's group was the primary
sponsor of a bill to tax soda in California.
Kelly Brownell, father of the "fat tax," has advocated charging a
"penny or two tax on soft drinks." Brownell makes zero effort to hide
the insidious nature of his proposal, noting that a small tax "would
mostly go unnoticed by the public." Brownell has also written that
"Twinkie taxes" are specifically designed to price certain foods out
of reach.
Nutrition nag Marion Nestle has called for taxes on soft drinks and
has also ominously declared that "soda comes first" in the battle to
regulate what we eat and drink.
Margo Wootan of the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI)
has declared that "soda makes the most sense to tax" and even compared
a levy on pop to cigarette taxes. CSPI executive director Michael
Jacobson recently called for picking "billions of dollars a year" from
Americans' pockets through taxes on sugar and other foods he doesn't
like. CSPI first demonized soda with its "Liquid Candy" report, which
overstated soda consumption by 100 percent.
John "Sue the *******s" Banzhaf has threatened to sue the Seattle
School Board over their use of soft-drink vending machines to raise
money for (gasp!) athletic programs and physical education. He even
threatened to target individual school board members.
Though their rhetoric is short on fact, these fizzy agitators are
having an effect in some state legislatures. Maine has used taxpayer
funds to promote an "Enough is Enough" advertising campaign, advising
citizens to steer clear of soft drinks and "cut the crap." The Texas
Department of Health has a CSPI-inspired campaign called "Soda
Busters." Washington, Nebraska, and California have all flirted with
slapping new taxes on carbonated beverages.
This is just the beginning. Food activists and other social engineers
see soda pop as a "wedge issue." They aim to use a victory in the soda
wars -- and the public obesity debate -- to position other foods and
beverages for new government regulations and restrictions. Don't say
we didn't warn you.

Luke wrote:
Americans' pockets through taxes on sugar and other foods he doesn't
like. CSPI first demonized soda with its "Liquid Candy" report, which

JMHO but...

Soda pop *is* "liquid candy". IMO people indeed do drink too much of
it. If they indeed only did have it "once in a while", people wouldn't
be freaking out over a teeny price increase via a tax.

In Canada, junk food (candy bars, soda pops, chips, cakes, donuts, fast
food etc) is already taxed. Over the years, people have grown
accustomed to the price and still continue to drink it. It's basically
sugar water and is not expensive (unless you buy it from a cinema
concession stand), and people continue buy it by the case.

CM

Crafting Mom

writes:

Luke wrote:
Americans' pockets through taxes on sugar and other foods he doesn't
like. CSPI first demonized soda with its "Liquid Candy" report, which

JMHO but...

Soda pop *is* "liquid candy". IMO people indeed do drink too much of
it. If they indeed only did have it "once in a while", people wouldn't
be freaking out over a teeny price increase via a tax.

Absolutely right. Soda calories are pure junk calories. What gets me is that
people will freely tell you that juice is nothing but sugar, but freak out over
sodas. I'm not condemning anyone for wanting to keep it in their diet -- I'm
not condemning anyone for anything. Diets and WOEs have to fit the individual.
But for me, sodas are the quintessential junk food. There's nothing to
recommend them; they have no value past the taste buds. I even feel weird
about considering them "food."

Daria
166/147/140
sugar-free since 2/1/04
low-carb since 2/17/04