Soda vs. the Jelly Bean Rule

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

jeffstier@gmail.com - 21 Dec 2004 15:42 GMT

December 20, 2004

Soda vs. the Jelly Bean Rule

By Jeff Stier, Esq.

Cadbury Schweppes' new calcium-enriched 7 Up Plus has really shaken up
the soda market.

Until now, soda companies have been under pressure not to add nutrients
to sodas because of the FDA's so-called "Jelly Bean Rule," which
forbids health claims on low-nutrient foods and drinks. The rule
doesn't forbid fortification, but it has had that effect.

The new 7 Up, which seems to get around the rule by not making any
specific health claims, as well as by adding a bit of fruit juice to
the soda, may open a whole new market. 7 Up Plus shatters the "good
food/bad food" false dichotomy buttressed by the Jelly Bean Rule and
preached by "food police" activists. Before 7 Up Plus, activists such
as Michael Jacobson at the Center for Science in the Public Interest
railed against soda pop as "liquid candy." Calls for bans on soda in
school have gained in popularity. And in New York City schools, as
part of an effort to fight obesity, even Diet Coke was banned from
schools (only to be replaced with high sugar fruit juices.) But
adding nutrients to soda takes the fizz out of the "liquid candy"
argument.

Those who argue against fortifying fun but non-nutrient-rich foods with
important nutrients have it all wrong. They won't tolerate less than
"perfect" choices for consumers who don't get adequate amounts of
calcium in their diets -- especially teenagers. This is a
counterproductive attitude.

Certainly, we should redouble our efforts to educate consumers about
overall good dietary habits, but until those efforts are fully
effective, fortified sodas -- and yes, even candies, if marketed under
a reasonable regulatory framework -- can be a positive development.

As long as large sections of society (teenage girls, for instance) are
not getting enough calcium, and as long as those very same consumers
are already drinking sodas, why not provide them the choice of drinking
a more nutrient-rich soft drink?

Jeff Stier is Associate Director of the American Council on Science and
Health.

This information was found online at:
http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/newsID.477/news_detail.asp

Reply to this Message

Hagrinas Mivali - 22 Dec 2004 17:40 GMT

> December 20, 2004
>
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
> adding nutrients to soda takes the fizz out of the "liquid candy"
> argument.

Unfortunately, there are too many products masquerading as "good food"
already. Do we really need soda joining the parade? I agree that it makes
little sense to get rid of diet sodas and replace them with highly processed
orange juice that is higher in sugar, and has probably lost its fiber and
much of its vitamins. But a more sensible approach would be to have school
children drink lowfat or fat-free milk instead of 7 Up.

If the lines are blurred, perhaps we need more "jelly bean" rules, not
fewer. As you said, nobody is stopping anybody from fortifying anything; it
merely stops companies from making health claims about junk food.

Reply to this Message

NoOption5L@aol.com - 23 Dec 2004 13:04 GMT

> December 20, 2004

> Soda vs. the Jelly Bean Rule

> By Jeff Stier, Esq.

> Cadbury Schweppes' new calcium-enriched 7 Up Plus has really shaken up
> the soda market.

> Until now, soda companies have been under pressure not to add nutrients
> to sodas because of the FDA's so-called "Jelly Bean Rule," which
> forbids health claims on low-nutrient foods and drinks. The rule
> doesn't forbid fortification, but it has had that effect.

> The new 7 Up, which seems to get around the rule by not making any
> specific health claims, as well as by adding a bit of fruit juice to
> the soda, may open a whole new market. 7 Up Plus shatters the "good
> food/bad food" false dichotomy buttressed by the Jelly Bean Rule and
> preached by "food police" activists.

Some of these food manufacturers (and I use this term very, very
loosely for this company) have no scruples. Trying to disguise soda
as something other than what it is -- garbage -- is a new low.

> Before 7 Up Plus, activists such
> as Michael Jacobson at the Center for Science in the Public Interest
> railed against soda pop as "liquid candy."

Which it is, but worse because soda has zero filling effect.

I like the term liquid calories better.

> Calls for bans on soda in
> school have gained in popularity. And in New York City schools, as
> part of an effort to fight obesity, even Diet Coke was banned from
> schools (only to be replaced with high sugar fruit juices.)

The difference is 100% fruit juice starts with a real food (fruit) and
can provide a healthy dose of nutrients. In contrast, soda starts as
crap (sugar or artificial sweeteners) and provides absolutely nothing
nutritionally. Dumping in one, or a few, cheapy synthetic vitamins
doesn't change the fact that the "core" of soda is still crap.

> But
> adding nutrients to soda takes the fizz out of the "liquid candy"
> argument.

No, it doesn't. It merely circumvents the argument.

I think the "weapons of mass destruction" we need to worry about are
the mass-marketed "foods/drinks" the food industry is pedaling.

> Those who argue against fortifying fun but non-nutrient-rich foods with
> important nutrients have it all wrong. They won't tolerate less than
> "perfect" choices for consumers who don't get adequate amounts of
> calcium in their diets -- especially teenagers. This is a
> counterproductive attitude.

Obviously written by a guy whose parents didn't encourage him to eat
and experience good quality, nutritious, natural foods. Probably ate
whatever was "fun" instead of what was good for him. And now,
physically, probably looks like it. The worse thing is, he's probably
teaching his own kids the same terrible food choices.

> Certainly, we should redouble our efforts to educate consumers about
> overall good dietary habits, but until those efforts are fully
> effective, fortified sodas -- and yes, even candies, if marketed under
> a reasonable regulatory framework -- can be a positive development.

I'm sorry, there's no other way to say it. This guy is a moron.

The fact is there are, and will be, parents out there that will think
these "fortified" sodas and candies are, if not good, at least
acceptable to feed their children. And they'll figure, hey if my kids
won't eat real fruit at least they're eating these "fortified" "fruit"
jellybeans.

> As long as large sections of society (teenage girls, for instance) are
> not getting enough calcium,

Then their parents should be encouraging these girls to eat real food
that contains calcium.

> and as long as those very same consumers are already drinking sodas,

A habit which needs to end, btw.

> why not provide them the choice of drinking a more nutrient-rich soft

drink?

"Soft-drink" is a good label. The more you drink, the softer you
become.

> Jeff Stier is Associate Director of the American Council on Science and
> Health.

Jeff Stier is a dingbat and should not have a signature block that
contains the word health in it. But that's my opinion... what are
everyone else's thoughts?

Patrick

Reply to this Message