Food Police Crack Down on Soda
Food Police Crack Down on Soda
Media treat left-wing
pro-tax group as unbiased consumer advocate.
by Megan
Alvarez
July 14, 2005
The advocacy group Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI)
is pushing its agenda of more government regulation and higher taxes
on food and beverages again. And major networks, including ABC and
NBC, and newspapers like the New York Post and USA Today have
provided them the stage on which to promote this agenda.
CSPI released a new report saying that the average 13-
to 18-year-old boy drinks two 12-ounce cans of soda a day and the
average girl consumes 1 and 1/3 cans a day.
CSPIs director, Michael Jacobson, claimed on CBSs
The Early Show on July 14, 2005, that soft drinks are a
contributor to obesity, advocating for government warning labels on
soft drink cans. Among the warnings Jacobson mentioned on the show
were Contributes to obesity and tooth decay and Consider
switching to diet soda, water, or skim milk.
None of the July 14 reports included any information
about CSPI. CSPI advocates more taxes on food and drinks,
government-mandated nutrition labeling on menus at chain
restaurants, and government regulation of food advertising. They
also have created a category of food know as food porn. Food in
this category has included pound cake, a Hardees hamburger or low-carb
breakfast bowl, numerous Starbucks drinks, Oreos, Ritz Crackers with
cheese, Kelloggs Nutri-Grain Yogurt bars, as well as many other
foods.
The most unbalanced report on the study was by Charles
Gibson on ABCs Good Morning America. Gibsons report centered on
an interview with CBSs medical contributor, David Katz, who also
works for the CDC, although this was not mentioned in the report.
They were seated in front of a mound of soft drinks, meant to
represent the amount an average teenage boy drinks in one year,
according to the CSPI study. A boy identified as Connor sipped
soda on the set in the background.
Throughout the interview, Katz essentially followed
Jacobsons anti-soda agenda, while Gibson did not bother to bring in
any group who disagreed with CSPI.
Gibson set up Katz by referring to the mound of soda,
saying, Is it so harmful? Gibson noted that soda has no fat
calories, to which Katz replied, It doesn't matter where calories
come from. Excess calories cause weight gain. Gibson asked Connor
what his favorite soda was, and he said Diet Pepsi. But Katz still
was not satisfied. He said, The CSPI campaign is focused on the
calories in regular soda and I'm very concerned about diet soda as
well.
Katz also said, I also think parents need some support
from policy change. We shouldn't have soda in schools and we have to
do something about the advertising of soda to kids. Katzs
suggestions were heavy on government regulation, pushing for more
restrictions on the free market activities of commerce and
advertising.
His call for removal of soda from schools mirrors a
plan that already failed in Texas. According to the Austin-American
Statesman on Feb. 19, 2005, a candy removal plan at Austin High
School was thwarted by classmates who created an underground candy
market, turning the hallways of the high school into Willy-Wonka-meets-Casablanca.
Of all the reports delivered on this study on July 14, 2005, CBSs
was the most balanced. Anchor Harry Smith posed many questions to
Jacobson about the sensibility of his proposal. Smith opened the
interview saying, I read this idea of putting these warning labels
on soda cans and I thought, are we going to follow that with candy
bars? Are you going to put it on Aunt Mary's blueberry cobbler? Are
you serious about this? He then went on to note, The numbers are
already on the can. Any can of soda has the calorie content.
In response to Smiths questions, Jacobson replied, The U.S. government's dietary guidelines for Americans have urged people to consume less sweetened beverages. But the government doesn't do anything. Which is exactly the point they are guidelines, not mandates. Not to mention, enforcing these guidelines would be impossible.
Smith also obtained comments on CSPIs study from the American Beverage Association (ABA), in which the ABA stated that warning labels were patronizing to consumers. Smith further questioned Jacobson saying, Can't parents have some control here? He also rightly labeled CSPI as an advocacy group.
In print, bias cropped up in a Washington Post story on July 14
titled, Debate Pops Open Over Soda Warnings. The Post labeled CSPI
as a consumer group, which has aggressively sought stricter food
labels and standards, but then labeled the Center for Consumer
Freedom a nonprofit group funded by restaurant chains.
USA Today also ran a story on July 14 titled, Group calls for
health warnings on soft drinks. In contrast to the Post, USA Today
did not use biased labels in their reporting.
