Currently browsing posts about: Soft drinks

The Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at the University of Connecticut has a new study out on the Howard County Unsweetened campaign.

The study’s key findings:

• Sales of sugar-sweetened soda declined nearly 20 percent
• Sales of 100 percent juice fell 15 percent
• Sales of fruit drinks with added sugars fell a little more than 15 percent

The study attributes the success of the campaign to its policy work:

• Eliminating sugary drinks in school vending machines
• Increasing access to water in schools
• Getting a state law passed to improve healthy drinks in childcare centers
• Getting a state law passed to make healthier drinks available on government sites
• Engaging nearly 50 community organizations to offer healthier drinks

It also notes community-wide public health outreach efforts:

• TV ads, social media messages, and online ads
• Direct dissemination of public health information at community and athletic events, local swimming pools, and health fairs
• Training of healthcare professionals

This was a big effort.  Big efforts pay off.

The documents

• The study
• The editor’s comment

Here is another one of FoodNavigator-USA’s Special Editions, meaning collections of its articles on specific topics written mostly from the perspective of food beverage companies.  This one is on trends in commercial beverages, and is highly relevant to food politics.

Special Edition: Beverage trendwatching

Few sections of the store are as dynamic as the beverage aisles. Meanwhile, the pressure to ‘clean up’ labels continues unabated. But how can we distinguish passing fads from sustainable trends? And who are the entrepreneurial companies driving innovation in this category?

• Experts weigh in on what the next ‘it’ beverage will be as sales for the once all supreme soda slow: For years, carbonated soft drinks were the go-to choice for Americans to quench their thirst and boost their energy, but in recent years the category has begun to falter – creating an opening for a bevy of innovative beverage brands to emerge, according to industry research. .. Read
• Bone broth sales more than tripled in 2016, albeit off a very small base: The bone broth category (shelf-stable and refrigerated) is pretty small in the scheme of things, but it’s growing rapidly, with US retail sales more than tripling to $19.7m in the 52 weeks to Jan 22,* fueled by a small but highly engaged set of health conscious consumers, Paleo enthusiasts and Whole30 fans, says one fast-growing player… Read
• AQUAhydrate targets ‘everyday warriors’ as premium pH segment continues to grow: Celebrity-backed AQUAhydrate has doubled its distribution over the past 18 months from around 30,000 to 60,000 outlets by appealing to a broad set of ‘everyday warriors’ it claims are seeking out more premium products and aspirational brands in the bottled water set… Read
• LIVE Beverages Founder: ‘Drinking vinegars are where kombucha was 4 years ago’: LIVE Beverages founder and CEO Trevor Ross sees great potential for the drinking vinegar category. He started the brand by launching a line of kombucha back in 2013, what he saw would “become a pretty crowded category.”.. Read
• The Dairy Aisle: La Colombe’s clever strategy to stand out in the crowded cold coffee category: Around 80% of La Colombe’s Draft Latte product is milk, so why not place it in the dairy section? That’s what ran through the mind of EVP of sales Kyle O’Brien, and retailers are going with it… Read
• Could molecular hydrogen infused water carve a niche in the functional beverages category?  In regular water, hydrogen is bound to oxygen (H2O) making it “difficult for our bodies to enjoy the [antioxidant/anti-inflammatory] benefits of hydrogen,” claims the company behind Hfactor, which contends that dissolving hydrogen gas into water via a patent-pending process enables Hfactor to deliver a variety of potential health benefits… Watch now
• Drinking vinegar could be the next kombucha if it can overcome four major hurdles: While most Americans remain unfamiliar with drinking vinegar, the category is gaining traction and could be the next kombucha if manufacturers work together to promote its many benefits and uses, according to one segment player. .. Read
• State bills call for warnings about risks associated with synthetic dyes & sugar-sweetened beverages
• Two California state senate bills would mandate controversial warnings on some foods and beverages, and if enacted could start a domino effect among other like-minded states, potentially creating a patchwork of laws and compliance headache for national brands… Read
• Packaging and sweeteners have most room for innovation, says Imbibe beverage expert: What does it mean to innovate in the beverage space? We speak with a beverage trends expert to find out more… Read
• Sparkling ICE unveils $37m ad campaign, queries soda tax inconsistencies: ‘It’s a mess’: Talking Rain Beverage Co has unveiled a $37m national ad campaign that president Kevin Klock says will give Sparkling ICE a stronger brand identity – something it has historically lacked, despite its meteoric growth (estimated retail sales have surged from around $10m in 2011 to well over $600m today)… Read
• Post Mexico’s sugar-sweetened beverage tax, purchases of levied beverages have fallen 7.6%, says study: Mexico’s sugar tax may have influenced beverage purchase decisions of Mexican households in urban areas, according to a follow up study by University of North Carolina Chapel Hill researchers… Read
• Plant-based water sales predicted to double by 2020: The trend for healthy hydration is driving growth in plant-based waters, with global sales growing 21% in 2016 to reach sales of more than $2.7bn… Read
• Ag Committee weighs whether SNAP should pay for sugary drinks: Prohibiting the purchase of sugar-sweetened beverages and other “unhealthy” foods and beverages with SNAP benefits, also known as food stamps, likely would not discourage their consumption, but would be costly and difficult for retailers to implement, industry stakeholders argued on Capitol Hill last week. .. Read
• Soup-To-Nuts Podcast: Countering the impact of climate change on coffee: Every year more people wake up to coffee or use it to fuel their day, but according to a comprehensive report recently published by the Climate Institute. this early morning ritual, and everything that goes into making it possible, face significant threats from climate change. .. Listen now

The chair of the House Ag Committee , Mike Conaway from Texas, provides his votes on issues summarized in a handy chart.  ‘

According to Politico, his opinion on whether SNAP should omit sugary beverages is unclear, although

He did offer his take on sugar-sweetened drinks: “Sugary drinks have a clear impact on people’s health, but if we eliminated them off the face of the earth, I don’t know that obesity rates would be any different.”

And then there’s The Food Marketing Institute , which posted this appreciative tweet:*

I’m out of the country for a few weeks (México) and missed the House hearing on whether SNAP-eligible food items should continue to include sugary beverages.

From what I gather, most witnesses opposed any change in the program, with one from the American Enterprise Institute the lone holdout.

As I discussed in the chapter on SNAP in Soda Politics, I continue to think that taking sugar-sweetened beverages out of the package is a no brainer.

• They are sugars and water and have no nutritional value.
• Tons of research links their consumption to a higher risk for obesity and its consequences.
• SNAP recipients spend a lot of taxpayer money on them.
• SNAP recipients may well have worse diets and higher proportions of chronic disease than equally poor people who do not get SNAP benefits.
• Surveys say that SNAP recipients would not mind this change.
• SNAP recipients can always buy sodas with their own cash.

I recognize that not everyone sees things this way.  I suspect that people opposed to this idea are worried that any change to SNAP will leave it vulnerable to cuts, and they could well be right.

Here are their arguments:

• The Hill: Restricting what recipients of SNAP benefits eat won’t fix nutritional issues
• FoodDive: Grocery and food industry to Congress: No SNAP soda ban
• Washington Post: How liberals undermine the food stamp program
• Politico: Few fans for restricting SNAP purchases

Politico provides some sound bites on the topic:

• “Food surveillance violates the basic principles of this great country.” — Rep. David Scott (D-Ga.)
• “What can we do to incentivize rather than punish?” — Rep. Rodney Davis (R-Ill.)
• “If you want to do a pilot program, I’m happy to co-sponsor one at the White House. I’m worried about our president’s eating habits.” — Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Ma.)

The state of Maine, however, has just renewed its request to USDA to remove sugar-sweetened beverages and candy from SNAP-eligible items.

Maine believes the purchase of sugar sweetened beverages and candy is detrimental to the health of the SNAP population, and is antithetical to the purpose of the SNAP program.

SNAP is supposed to be a nutrition program, no?  Nutrition is about a lot more than calories (and this from someone who wrote a book about calories).

From Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), procurement resources for vendors

• Healthy Product Supply Chain fact sheet
• Tips for Managing Food Service Costs
• Healthier food choices for public places

From the Center for Ecoliteracy, produce lesson plans for kids in grades 3-5

• Oranges: A Taste of California Sunshine 
• Investigating Cabbage Traditions 
• Tomato Salsa Challenge 
• Also: California food for kids website
• Also: Resources for educators

From Salud America

• Research Review Download
• Issue Brief Download in English, Download in Spanish
• Sugary Drinks and Latino Kids, Download in English, Download in Spanish
• Sugary Drink Pricing and Latino Kids: Download in English, Download in Spanish
• Sugary Drink Marketing and Latino Kids, Download in English, Download in Spanish

The CDC has just released two reports on consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages, one for adults and one for children and adolescents.

For adults ages 20 and over, the CDC says:

• Half drink at least one sugar-sweetened beverage on any given day.
• These contribute 145 calories per day or about 6% of total calories.
• The amount consumed declines with age.

For kids ages 2 to 19, the CDC says:

• More than 60% consume at least one a day.
• Sugary drinks provide an average of 143 calories a day or 7% of total calories.
• Roughly 10% of kids drink 3 or more per day.
• Kids ages 12 to 19 drink the most.

The Washington Post tracked the trends.  The decline in consumption of sugary drinks has slowed down from the peak in about 2000.

Is this trend real?

These figures are based on self-reported intake (or parents’ reports of their kids’ intake) in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES).

I much prefer industry data on sales, which don’t have to deal with the messy business of self-reports.

Fortune Magazine, for example, says soda sales have declined for the last 11 years.

The downward trend is good for public health.  May it continue!

Advocates have been pressing USDA for years to (1) get data on what SNAP recipients buy with their benefits, and (2) permit pilot studies of what happens to purchases of soft drinks if you exclude them from the benefit package.

In 2012, I did a post on the 2012 SNAP to Health report.  Its recommendations:

1.  Protect SNAP benefits.
2.  Collect data

Lots of people have been trying to get USDA to produce data.  Anahad O’Connor, the author of the New York Times account, filed a Freedom of Information request with USDA.  In response, USDA sent him a report it had commissioned from IMPAQ, a “beltway bandit” consulting firm.  His story is here (I’m quoted).

Now we have a partial answer.  IMPAQ analyzed data from one large, unnamed retailer (could it be Walmart?).

Here’s USDA’s summary of the study (and here’s the complete study).

The USDA says the study shows that SNAP recipients buy pretty much the same amounts of what everyone else buys.

Summary category data show that both SNAP and non-SNAP households focused their spending in a relatively small number of similar food item categories, reflecting similar food choices. The top five summary categories totaled about half of the expenditures for SNAP households and non-SNAP households (50 versus 47 percent). Commodity-level data (in the full report) show that both SNAP and non-SNAP households made choices that may not be fully consistent with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans.

My reading of the report suggests that in this study, SNAP recipients spent more of a combination of their SNAP benefits and their own private money on:

• Sugar-sweetened beverages
• Hamburger
• Frozen meals
• Salty snacks
• Lunch meats
• Flavored milk
• Kids cereals
• Frozen French fries
• Convenience foods in general
• Infant formula

The report does not discuss why these differences might exist but it would be interesting to find out.

If sugar-sweetened beverages really comprise 9.5% of purchases, that comes to $6 billion a year.

That’s why taking them off the list of eligible foods is worth a try.

Recent SNAP news

The USDA is sponsoring a pilot project to allow SNAP participants to buy foods online from certain retailers, including Amazon in three states, Fresh Direct in New York, and various grocery chains in other states.

The idea is to make it easier for SNAP participants to get access to healthier foods.

I hope the USDA is keeping score on what gets bought online, and whether foods cost more.  The benefits are not allowed to be used for delivery costs.

The Urban Institute has just published The Pros and Cons of Taxing Sweetened Beverages Based on Sugar Content.

The report is funded by the American Heart Association and others.  The AHA issued a press release.

The sections of the report state its conclusions:

• Taxing Sugar Content Is the Least Costly Way to Reduce Sugar Consumption
• Taxing Based on Sugar Content Is Feasible at the National Level
• Taxing Based on Sugar Content Raises More Issues at the State and Local Level but Is Generally Feasible As Well

The report concludes:

We conclude that taxing based on the amount of added sugar a drink contains, either by taxing sugar content directly or by levying higher volume taxes on drinks with more sugar, is feasible in many jurisdictions and reduces sugar consumption more effectively than comparable taxes on drink volume.

Broad-based volume or sales taxes on all soft drinks, however, raise revenue more efficiently.

Federal, state, and local policymakers thus face trade-offs between using sweetened-beverage taxes to raise revenue and to discourage consumption of added sugars.

Keep this in mind when trying to do this in your community.