A ‘Big’ Threat?
Sarah Theodore
Editor
Nutrition watchdog groups
seem irresistibly drawn to the soft drink industry, no matter what these
companies do to balance healthful products and indulgent offerings. This
month saw two reports that went as far as comparing soft drinks to
“big tobacco,” and have industry watchers predicting more
changes in the way products are marketed. The first is a Massachusetts
lawsuit that has been threatened by the Center for Science in the Public
Interest, the Public Health Advocacy Group and a number of other lawyers,
some of whom were involved in the class action lawsuits against the tobacco
industry 10 years ago.
The groups plan to seek class action status for a suit
that claims that kids in school are captive audiences for marketers, and
that soft drinks should be banned from schools for their contribution to
obesity.
Susan Neely, president of the American Beverage
Association was recently quoted on the issue as saying the suit is
“trying to paint a bull’s eye on a particular product and pass
it off as a meaningful solution to a complicated problem.” In
response to the news, the ABA released a study that shows full-calorie soft
drink consumption in schools has dropped 24 percent since 2002 while
purchases of bottled water, diet soft drinks, 100 percent juice and sports
drinks all have increased.
The second is a report from the Institute of Medicine,
a government-chartered organization, which stated that food and beverage
companies are using television ads to entice
kids into eating and drinking unhealthful quantities. The institute called
for food and beverage manufacturers, as well as restaurants, to change
their advertising within two years, getting rid of cartoon characters in
marketing and increasing advertising of healthful products… or have
Congress step in and mandate the changes. While the food and advertising
industries criticized the report, Advertising
Age warned it could become “a
watershed on the scale of the 1964 Surgeon General’s report on
tobacco.”
The potential litigants in Massachusetts and the
Institute of Medicine report fail to acknowledge the steps the industry
already has taken, including self-imposed limits on sales in schools and
marketing policies regarding children, as well as the wide range of
products these companies actually offer, including bottled water,
low-calorie products and fruit juice. PepsiCo, in my opinion, has done the
best job of showing the industry’s ability to provide balance in
drinking and snacking occasions with the Smart Spot campaign it rolled out
this year.
Perhaps the new year will bring with it more solutions
and less fingerpointing, but I wouldn’t bet on it. Like it or not
— whether it’s fair or not — it seems certain there is a
big battle ahead. BI
Sneak Peek
JANUARY |
Beverage bottler of the year — Pepsi-Cola Bottling of New York |
Beverage R&D — 2006 R&D survey |
Category Focus — Juices & juice drinks |
Packaging — Closure technology |
FEBRUARY |
Corporate profile — Heineken USA |
|
Beverage R&D — Flavor survey |
Category Focus — Ready-to-drink coffee & tea |