| More
Home / Soft Drinks / Headlines


January 7, 2004
printable version email to a friend join our e-mail list


Pediatricians Against Fizzy Drinks

On Monday we told you how the media over-hyped a study (appearing in the journal Pediatrics) that attempted to blame childhood obesity on fast food. It turns out that the journal's publisher, the American Association of Pediatrics, announced a new anti-soft-drink policy position in the very same issue. The policy's most controversial recommendation: "Pediatricians should work to eliminate sweetened drinks in schools." This is unfortunate. In making its recommendation, the Association overlooked a great deal of scientific research demonstrating the lack of any connection between obesity and soda consumption.

A recent study in the International Journal of Food Sciences and Nutrition found that children's weight was not associated with the consumption of non-diet soda. The study's authors wrote:

This analysis refutes widespread speculation that carbonated soft drinks are responsible for the increase in overweight among children and adolescents ... [P]olicies aimed at curtailing consumption of carbonated soft drinks and fruit drinks/ades are impermanent solutions that will fail to coerce children and adolescents, in particular, to reject soft drinks.
A study by Georgetown University researchers found that overweight children consumed, on average, about a shot-glass more soda per day than children of normal weight. That amounts to 30 calories -- the same number that's in a carrot. And there is no evidence that banning soda in schools reduces children's overall soda consumption anyway. Kids can easily bring soda from home, or leave school grounds to buy a can. And as we've pointed out before, the research that purports to back soda bans in schools is deeply flawed.

Maintaining a healthy weight follows a simple formula: "calories in" should equal "calories out." Even if we were to exclusively focus on the calories-in side, there's no reason to single out soda as a culprit -- especially considering that a can of soda contains fewer calories than an equivalent amount of many fruit juices.

email us comments




printable version email to a friend join our e-mail list

Daily Headlines

  • Momentum Builds Against Soda Taxes
    Posted On: Thursday 3/18/2010
  • Critics Sound Off Against Soda Taxes
    Posted On: Monday 3/8/2010
  • Food Cops Prepare for Round 2
    Posted On: Wednesday 3/3/2010
  • The Golden State Soda Tax
    Posted On: Friday 2/19/2010
  • A Stimulus for Food Cops' Appetites
    Posted On: Wednesday 2/17/2010


  • Activist Cash

    Center for Science in the Public Interest
    Background | Quotes | Financials
    The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) is the undisputed leader among America’s “food police.” CSPI’s joyless eating club has issued hundreds of high-profile — and highly questionable — reports condemning soft drinks, fat substitutes, irradiated meat, biotech food crops, French fries, and just about anything that tastes good. read more here »

    Marion Nestle
    Background
    Marion Nestle is one of the country’s most hysterical anti-food-industry fanatics. She writes: “Sellers of food products do not attract the same kind of attention as purveyors of drugs or tobacco. They should.” read more here »

    OpEds

    Obesity activists a public health threat
    Did you know your soda is a public health menace? read more here »

    NO. Wrong to use tax code to punish soft drink makers and industries.
    Despite opposition from two-thirds of Americans, President Obama has latched onto exploring one proposal to raise billions of dollars for health care reform through so-called “lifestyle taxes” on soft drinks. read more here »


    Copyright © 1997-2010 Center for Consumer Freedom. Tel: 202-463-7112.