Snow Beverages Founder and CEO Stu Strumwasser discusses the Mission Statement of the Soda Revolution.
Americans drink about as much soda as they do water. That isn’t to say that they drink as much soda as “bottled water”—that figure includes (amazingly) ALL water. The vast majority of soda sold and consumed in this country is from “traditional” manufacturers who utilize preservatives, artificial ingredients and high fructose corn syrup in their formulations. We simply believe that those ingredients are unhealthy and that people deserve better. While we realize that this is not the most urgent political issue of our time, it does affect the health of millions and it matters. At Snow Beverages we strive to make a “better soda” and to be a “better company.” Therefore, we pledge to our customers, friends and fans that we will always adhere to the following principles:
- NO Artificial Junk. Simply put, we will never include an ingredient in any of our products that we believe is unhealthy or that we wouldn’t feed to our own families.
- NO Phony Marketing. Sure, we want you to buy our soda. We will do what we can—ethically and responsibly—to try and convince as many people as possible to choose our products. But we will never mislead or lie to consumers. We will strive to be transparent whenever possible and build a dialogue with our customers and our community based on honesty and integrity—words that we do not take lightly or consider to be clichés.
- NO Silly Claims. Soda is not a “health drink.” It is about fun and exuberance and it’s an indulgence. Ours happens to be natural, and it is not “unhealthy” but it will not make you live longer, make you smarter, make you better in bed, give you the power to fly, to transmute matter into energy or travel through time… and we will never make any silly claims that are health-related or otherwise. We just make Naturally Refreshilicious soda. That claim is enough for our fans.
- Natural cane sugar is not somehow inherently “evil.” We will not succumb to the misinformation in the popular media lately about sugar, in any form, being the cause of all health evils. It is not. We use natural cane sugar in some of our products (and natural no-calorie sweeteners such as Stevia in others we are developing.) However, there is more sugar in juice than there is in most soda. Is orange juice unhealthy? Of course not. There are many other ingredients in traditional soda that are unhealthy and a correlation between traditional soda consumption and certain illnesses might be more about those ingredients—like preservatives, artificial flavors, artificial sweeteners, etc.—than simply “calories.”
- We will not accept the status quo. In 1980, when I became a health-conscious vegetarian, my mom had to go to a health food store and pay triple the regular price for a can of natural soup without preservatives or other chemicals. Now, you can go to any supermarket. Soda does not have to be unhealthy either, and someday, most of it will not be. Today, there are many natural brands (including Snow) that you can choose instead of traditional soda.
- We won’t quit. Yeah, so the other guys are a lot bigger, a lot tougher, and have a lot more money. That’s okay. We’re better dancers.
- Snow Beverages will always be a good corporate citizen of the world. A company’s primary responsibility is to create and enhance value for its shareholders. That said, it is everyone’s responsibility, always, to protect the planet and to care about others. We will do our best.
Together, we can make meaningful changes and improvements in our world, one step at a time. I hope one of your many steps will be to join us in The Soda Revolution. You can start by becoming our fan on Facebook at: www.facebook.com/drinksnow.
Yours truly,
Stu Strumwasser
CEO of Refreshilciousness
Snow Beverages, Inc.
Last night I read a press release about Governor Patterson’s new version of a soda tax proposal and I experienced a feeling vaguely reminiscent of what I think it felt like when consuming too much MSG. My head felt like it was expanding, balloon-like, in a way that could lead to a potential rupture.
David Patterson and Michael Bloomberg (a guy I used to respect) are lying to you. That’s it, plain and simple. To claim that this tax has anything to do with health is a blatant example of their lack of respect for the public intelligence. As Patterson redrafts and repositions and kneads and molds this thing into different shapes, trying desperately to find a format acceptable enough to the opposition that it will diminish the fervor of their response and somehow thereby squeak through an unreceptive state legislature so he can get his hands on a billion dollars in new tax money to try and plug the bleeding hemorrhage in his mis-managed state budget, his latest proposal comes down to this:
They are going to drop the EXISTING taxes on diet soda and ramp UP the tax on regular soda, in an effort (so they claim) to try and force consumers to switch from regular soda consumption to drinking diet soda. You may wonder if that wouldn’t just equal a financial trade-off, but it wouldn’t. It would generate substantial revenues because the current breakdown of regular versus diet soda consumed in this country is still about 70% regular and 30% diet.
Here are my two questions (and therein lies my opposition and anger):
- Even if they succeeded in causing people to switch from regular soda to diet soda, would that really cause a reduction in obesity?
- Even if that somehow caused a reduction in obesity, would it really be better for the public health?
Answer # 1: It is questionable (at best) that adding a tax to sweetened soda and removing the existing tax on diet soda would even create a meaningful reduction in obesity. There are many who claim that drinking diet soda messes with the sweetness receptors in the brain, confuses the metabolism and, in the end, actually causes the opposite of the desired effect—it CAUSES additional weight gain. Put it this way: have you ever noticed anyone sort of heavy drinking diet soda? Furthermore, where is the hard science that proves that this might work? Even those supporting the tax, at the end of the day, acknowledge that it is theoretical.
Answer # 2: Trying to address obesity by motivating people to consume large quantities of a beverage with artificial sweeteners (not to mention artificial, chemical preservatives, artificial flavors, and other unhealthy chemicals) is kind of like telling someone with a cold to cure it by sitting out in the snow butt-naked. Sure, the cold will be cured—they’ll end up with either the flu or pneumonia. Weight, BMI, and obesity is not the only measure of one’s health! Do Governor Patterson and Mayor Bloomberg not know this? Of course they do. But they are simply acting like the worst kind of politicians and hiding their real agenda in a phony claim they are trying to spoon feed to a public they obviously think can’t read or reason too well. There are tons of scientists and important anecdotal information that suggest potential links between artificial sweeteners and cancer. Would it really serve the “public health” to trade off one health crisis (obesity) for another (cancer)?
When is SOME politician going to step up to the plate and acknowledge these three simple things:
- The proposed soda tax is myopic, arbitrary and amounts to taxing an ingredient (high fructose corn syrup—after all, there is no real sugar in the vast majority of soda) that is made very cheap, in the first place, through government subsidies—i.e. “taxes.” Maybe Patterson should spend some time trying to get the federal government to remove subsidies that make HFCS so cheap in the first place. Then, instead of double-TAXING New Yorkers, he could REMOVE a tax in the first place—but still achieve his alleged objective of causing a tax increase on soda to force a reduction in consumption. But again, this isn’t really about health, so don’t expect him to waste his time….
- Obesity is not the only measure of health and if anyone really cares about the “public health” we need to have an overarching conversation and examination of that in a way that is much more comprehensive as well as responsible.
- This soda tax is purely about money. Let’s just be straight about it already.
Like many “problems” or “issues” this current media attention and this dialogue is not just a “challenge” to overcome, but rather, it’s an opportunity. For us to get anything out of it we need some common sense and real concern for the public at large, and less of the old politics of money and mis-direction.
-Stu Strumwasser,
CEO of Refreshiliciousness
Snow Beverages, Inc.
Don’t ask me how, but I ended up hosting a concert in the media room of my Manhattan apartment building last night. It was a private show organized by my buddy Johnny Beach (the talent buyer for The Bowery Ballroom of Bowery Presents) and featured the brilliant solo acts of Will Johnson (of centro-matic and also the drummer in Monsters of Folk) as well as Anders Parker (formerly of Varnaline and Space Needle.) When Johnny asked me to do this I was sure it would be a total fiasco that would probably get me tossed from my building—so of course I agreed. What happened instead was quite different. We had one of those spontaneous and magical moments wherein we were all reminded why we care so much about music. Before I founded Snow Beverages I spent fifteen years trying to get people to listen to my songs, but I always had a pretty good day job. Conversely, there are thousands of kids right now driving around the country in vans who won’t make gas money tonight at their shows, but they do it for love. Last night, I watched Will and Anders sing their freaking hearts out for thirty strangers in a NYC apartment—and it was perfect. Thanks guys. In attendance were some of the folks from Bowery Presents, Kevin French of Paradigm, DJ Headyruxpin and several other NYC music industry dignitaries, as well as thirty randowm (and lucky) ticket buyers—but for two hours we were all simply great fans of watching a dude on a stool with an acoustic guitar. BTW, tonight—The Wedding Present at Bowery, and we are all very psyched for Earthrockers, when Snow will co-sponsor the Kidrockers show at Bowery on Sunday April 25th. What could be stranger (or better!) than watching bands like Real Estate and Apollo Sunshine rock out for hundreds—of kids between 3 and 13. -Stu Strumwasser, CEO of Refreshiliciousness, Snow Beverages
I am happy to pass along news that the Legislativegazette.com reported yesterday, in an article by Smita Bhooplapur entitled, “Legislature Discards Soda Tax” as follows:
“The Senate and Assembly both rejected a proposed tax on sugar-sweetened beverages after the beverage industry relentlessly protested against it over the past few months.
Although both houses of the Legislature excluded the proposed tax from their budget resolutions, negotiations with the governor over a final 2010-2011 budget are pending, and the ultimate decision will be known after an agreement is reached.”
The article went on to say, “Sen. Diane Savino, D-Staten Island, who opposes the tax, said, “We have uniformly come to the conclusion that this tax is a bad idea.”
Dismissing the argument that the tax would help decrease obesity, Savino said more emphasis needs to given to primary and preventive care instead of “picking people’s pocket in an attempt to fight childhood obesity.”
Maybe now our local and federal governments can get on with the more serious business of addressing obesity and health from a more responsible and comprehensive perspective and also educating consumers about the truly unhealthy ingredients in traditional soda (like high fructose corn syrup and chemical preservatives) and stop obsessing about natural cane sugar.
Below is an article just published by the American Beverage Association. Obviously they have a biased perspective and a vested interest in the issue (as do we) but that does not make their position or opinions any less valid than those who support a soda tax. Please read the article below. It is well-articulated common sense. -Stu
News Releases & Statements
April 1, 2010 | back to news
Singling Out One Product For Taxation To Solve Obesity is An Ineffective Approach
April 1, 2010
NEWS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact:
ABA Press Office
(202) 463-6770 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting (202) 463-6770 end_of_the_skype_highlighting
Singling Out One Product For Taxation to Solve Obesity is An Ineffective Approach
Taxes Don’t Make People Healthier
WASHINGTON, D.C. – A study published today in the journal Health Affairs provides further evidence that, when it comes to reducing obesity, excise taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages will have no noticeable impact. Although the authors speculate that substantial taxes may reduce consumption and weight gain among select groups, even their own findings undermine that hypothesis and counter the fallacy that singling out one set of products will make a significant impact on a challenge as complex as childhood obesity.
The fact remains that taxes don’t make people healthier – a balanced diet and exercise do that. A report by researchers from the Mercatus Center at George Mason University showed that even a 20 percent tax hike on a soft drink would decrease Body Mass Index (BMI) for an obese person by just 0.02, an amount not even measurable on a bathroom scale. It is also worth noting that the RAND analysis found no significant link between the consumption of soda or weight gain among children and differential taxes on sodas compared with other foods, further showing that soda taxes would be ineffective.
“We understand that governments are facing tough budget challenges,” Susan K. Neely, president and CEO of the American Beverage Association (ABA), said. “But singling out one item for taxation completely misses the mark in having an effect on the national challenge of obesity.”
Science shows that singling out a food or beverage won’t make a dent in obesity. The RAND analysis itself highlights the fallacy that targeting one product for taxation will reduce obesity. In fact, the analysis confirms that many factors impact the complex issues of overweight and obesity, including things such as sedentary lifestyles and genetics.
It’s also important to keep in perspective the relatively small percentage of calories that come from beverages. Sugar-sweetened beverages, including soda, contribute only 5.5 percent of the calories in the American diet, according to a National Cancer Institute analysis of government data presented to the U.S. Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee just last year. That means that more than 94 percent of calories come from other sources.
“The effectiveness of a soft drink tax, if anything, would be trivial,” Neely said. “A tax doesn’t even qualify as a good start to addressing the rising rates of obesity. We need to move beyond these simplistic ideas and pursue comprehensive, meaningful solutions from all aspects of society if we’re really going to reverse childhood obesity. Our industry is certainly stepping up to do its part.”
With its School Beverage Guidelines, the beverage industry has removed full-calorie soft drinks from all schools and provided for more lower-calorie, nutritious, smaller-portion beverage choices. As a result of the guidelines, there has been an 88 percent reduction in calories in beverages shipped to schools since 2004.
The beverage industry’s commitment to provide its consumers with nutrition information extends beyond the school environment. In fact, in support of First Lady Michelle Obama’s “Let’s Move” campaign, the beverage industry recently announced it will make the calories in its products even more clear and consumer-friendly. Beginning this summer, America’s leading beverage companies will put the information on the front of all their packages, as well as company-controlled vending machines and fountain machines.
# # #
The American Beverage Association is the trade association representing the broad spectrum of companies that manufacture and distribute non-alcoholic beverages in the United States.
In today’s Metro newspaper in NY there was another amazingly misleading statement made by a so-called expert, Dr. Jo Ivey Boufford. Below is my letter to the editor in response.
Dear Editor: I am writing in response to the opinion article I read in this morning’s Metro by Dr. Jo Ivey Boufford entitled, “One Sweet Reason For A Soda Tax.” Dr. Boufford states, “The beverage industry can play an important role by promoting natural juices and other products that do not contribute to overweight and would not be subject to the tax.” With all due respect to the President of the New York Academy of Medicine, her statement is factually incorrect and she contradicts herself. It is a perfect example of the incredibly misleading information being circulated around the issue of this ill-conceived proposed legislation. Eight ounces of leading traditional soda contains around 95 calories. Eight ounces of our natural and vitamin-fortified soda contains only about 75 calories. All it takes is five minutes on the internet to learn that eight ounces of orange juice contains around 110-120 calories. Apple juice weighs in at around 115 and cranberry juice contains between 120 and 140 calories!
While it is true that the calories in juice are not from “added” sugar, the calories are still there. How the President of the New York Academy of medicine could make such a confusing and inaccurate statement is strange and disappointing to me. It is not, however, surprising. The myopic and obsessive focus on “sugar” and only on sugar in “soda” has been arbitrary and misleading. The proposed tax will charge New Yorkers more for soda with sugar but not tax diet soda, which many (including me) believe is more unhealthy. It will not tax juice, which has even more (not less!) calories. No one is proposing to tax candy or cake that may be loaded with even more calories while having little or no nutritional value. Why?
This tax is about desperately trying to scrounge up money to close a massive budget gap. It is not truly about health. Furthermore, it is confusing and causing a distraction from us having what we really need in America: a more responsible dialogue on obesity and on health in general from a comprehensive and overarching perspective. Let’s at least start by telling consumers the truth.
Yours truly,
Stu Strumwasser
President & CEO
Snow Beverages, Inc.
New York, NY
Bloomberg and Patterson Should Tax Sex
www.blog.snowbeverages.com
A few days ago I posted a small “article” I wrote for this blog called, “Is “Sugar” Now the Source of All Health Problems in America?” In it I addressed the fact that taxing soda but not diet soda (which is unhealthy) or juice (which has more calories) or candy, cake, etc. is arbitrary, myopic and misleading.
A couple of days ago Crain’s ran a piece which suggested that there is apparently bipartisan opposition to the proposed soda tax in the state senate and that in NY that usually means the legislation is dead. Let’s hope so. Ding dong the … wow, there I go mentioning Ding Dongs again. Sorry, Ding Dong guys. Really.
Anyway, today, I saw two things in the news on this issue that I find to be truly remarkable:
1. The headline from an article that appeared on Reuters on Monday March 8th entitled, “Tax soda, pizza to cut obesity, researchers say” has the following headline: “U.S. researchers estimate that an 18 percent tax on pizza and soda can push down U.S. adults’ calorie intake enough to lower their average weight by 5 pounds (2 kg) per year.” Well, look out Pappa John! So now these guys are thinking about taking down pizza. What is more American than pizza?! I mean, Italian. Oh, whatever. The point is, are they really suggesting that there should be a tax on pizza (but not mac ‘n cheese or Big Mac’s or chocolate cake or, god forbid, non-light beer?….) The degree to which this is arbitrary has spun totally out of control. The lack of real science isn’t far behind.
2. In an article in today’s NY Daily News Mayor Bloomberg, in referring to the proposed soda tax, actually had the unmitigated nerve to say, “If you’re against it, you really are against the kids.” Well, I know that if I am against the war that I must hate the troops and want them all to die–the Bush administration taught me that. But I never would have known–until now–that I hate children. I have two five year old twin sons. All this time I thought I loved them but I guess I was wrong because I am against an arbitrary, ill-conceived and desperate tax on soda. (Yes, I used to like this guy, Bloomberg. I have to admit I am now waffling…)
As I said the other day, the only sense made by this proposed legislation is financial or political. David Patterson (and, I hate to say it, any other politician supporting him and this legislation) doesn’t truly care about the health of our citizens and children or they would suggest taxing Diet Soda, packed with its artificial sweeteners and chemical preservatives and other artificial ingredients that may cause cancer and may also mess with the sweetness receptors in people’s brains resulting in problems regulating weight—ironically. If Patterson or his friends care about obesity how can they possibly attack one segment of the food and beverage industry while ignoring the fact that healthy beverages like orange juice have more calories than soda, or that there are countless other food and beverage products that contain tons of sugar and/or calories that they are arbitrarily choosing to ignore, many of which provide so-called “empty calories” and little or no nutritional value?
Oh, and a quick aside about the economics: one of my favorite parts of the hypocrisy is that the government provides subsidies that leads to a lower price on the production and sale of high fructose corn syrup and now they want to go ahead and tax it back. I think—it’s getting a bit tough to follow.
But the part that I find fascinating in today’s news is the idea of now taxing pizza. Why pizza and not iced cream? Why not chocolate? And then I remembered that in Orwell’s “1984″ the government announced that the chocolate ration was being “increased” from something like 3 grams a day to 5 grams a day when in fact, the day before, the daily ration had been 7 grams. Don’t mess with the chocolate. Since when does the government get to tell American citizens which fattening foods are okay and which they aren’t allowed to eat? This desperate and ill-conceived tax program is literally starting to spill over into an attack on our civil rights and freedom. It wasn’t truly brought on by an obesity problem; it was brought on by a budget problem. If there was a budget surplus does anyone believe we would be discussing slapping an 18% tax on a commonly consumed beverage item when families are struggling financially? Of course not. If the government gets soda, and if they then get pizza…. just think about it everyone… What better way to make a lot of money and to also lower the need for useless and controversial abortions than to simply put a tax on sex! I imagine that Bloomberg probably has some statistic somewhere that says if you tax orgasms the incidence of sex and unwanted pregnancies goes down. The nookie tax is coming and Big Brother Patterson will see that it happens… Oh wait, the NY newspapers say that he may be in jail before that could happen. Don’t let him nail soda or pizza first.
–Stu Strumwasser
CEO of Refreshiliciousness
Snow Beverages, Inc.
www.blog.snowbeverages.com
I qualify the following by saying that this statement is merely my opinion and not intended to be presented as scientific fact:
I woke up today unable to contain my frustration about the misleading information I am seeing in regard to the proposed soda tax and also the disproportionate focus some are trying to put on to the consumption of sugar alone.
Sugar has calories. Yes, we know that. But let’s be clear: lots of healthy foods (like say, fruit) contain sugar and also, if you consumed NO calories, well, you wouldn’t do very well…. Of course there is a major obesity problem in this country. There is also a general health crisis in this country. However, trying to somehow place the blame entirely on sugar or on beverages like soda that are sweetened with sugar, is myopic at best, and misleading at worst.
For instance, a lot was made recently in the press about a study released that concluded that there is a link between regular consumption of traditional soft drinks and pancreatic cancer. My dad just recovered from pancreatic cancer which nearly killed him a year ago. I am particularly sensitive to severity and risks of this illness. If you look at the anecdotal information passed around in the popular press on this study you will find that they claim that people who consumed soda regularly over prolonged periods of time were, according to that study, 87% more likely to contract pancreatic cancer. However, in that same study, they point out that people who consumed juice had no greater incidence of pancreatic cancer. Juice typically has an even higher sugar content and calorie count than even traditional soda. (Granted, the sugar is naturally occurring and was not “added”—but nevertheless, it is THERE.) So, people who drank soda got pancreatic cancer, but people who drank juice (with MORE sugar and calories) did not. Conclusion (according to that study): it was the SUGAR in soda that got people sick. I have not seen anyone in the press call them on this. I still can’t figure out why. In addition, did anyone ever stop to think that people who drink traditional soda everyday may also be more likely to have other unhealthy habits that are contributing factors (such as smoking or lack of exercise)?? Here’s my favorite part: what about the OTHER ingredients in traditional soda?? They often contain artificial sweeteners, preservatives like potassium sorbate or sodium benzoate, and many other artificial ingredients. Is there any chance that any of those chemicals might contribute to a greater incidence in cancer? Not according to that “study”—it’s the sugar. Just the sugar, everyone. Calories kill. I guess we all need to stop eating.
At Snow Beverages we pride ourselves on making healthy products. I have been a vegetarian since 1980 (when I was 14) and I am committed to never making a product that contains any ingredient that is unhealthy. Is sugar unhealthy? No. Is TOO MUCH sugar unhealthy? Of course. However, as I stated earlier, orange juice has substantially more calories than our soda. Is orange juice unhealthy?….
Traditional soda contains unhealthy ingredients. We simply don’t use them. Diet soda contains many ingredients that I would never let me family consume. I have two five year old twin sons. I have absolutely no problem with them drinking a little Snow Natural Soda + Vitamins. I would never let them drink traditional diet soda. Rather than have our children misled and pushed into drinking diet soda (with it’s chemical artificial sweeteners and it’s preservatives that some claim are low-level carcinogens) why not teach them to look at health from an overarching and global perspective? Let’s be responsible and teach them to be as well. They should eat balanced and healthy diets. They should try and avoid chemical ingredients. They need to exercise regularly. If they do this, they will not become obese. Taxing soda won’t save them. It will temporarily put some money in the depleted state coffers and then it may have a myriad of other negative long-term economic effects (such as layoffs at local soda manufacturers, a strain on already-strapped low income families, etc.) but this “band-aid” attempt to raise revenue that is posing as some sort of “quick-fix” for the health and obesity problems in our state and our world, is really nothing more than an ill-founded and misrepresented lie.
The “Alliance for a Healthier NY” has a website. According to my two-minute search for the domain name on Go Daddy it appears to have been registered as recently as February 4th of 2010. There is no way I could find to contact them. I would be interested to know who is funding them. On their site, there are a plethora of FAQs addressing many of the major questions related to this issue. I find them to be extremely biased, one-sided and in fact, in many cases, rather misleading. Below are a few examples, along with my comments below their answers:
Q. What are sugar-sweetened beverages?
AHNYN Answer: For the proposed tax, sugar-sweetened beverages are soft drinks that contain more that 10 calories per 8 ounces. They include sweetened water, soda, sports drinks, “energy” drinks, colas, sweetened bottled coffee or tea, and sweetened fruit or vegetable drinks containing less than 70% natural fruit or vegetable juice. Milk, milk products, milk substitutes, dietary aids, and infant formula are exempt.
Stu’s Comment: So, for some reason if it is juice or milk-based the amount of calories is suddenly unimportant?? This seems arbitrary and absurd, and purely politically-minded.
Q. Why tax only sugar-sweetened beverages? Other foods, like Twinkies and Ding Dongs, provide empty calories.
AHNYN Answer: There is significant evidence linking sugar-sweetened beverage consumption with obesity and other health problems. Studies that follow people for a long time show that people who consume more sugar-sweetened beverages gain more weight. One article that reviewed many studies found that drinking sugar-sweetened beverages had the strongest link with overweight and obesity, more than any other food-related behavior. When people drink a sugar-sweetened beverage, they do not compensate (i.e., reduce their concomitant or subsequent caloric intake) for the additional calories from the drink. So the calories from the drink become “extra” calories.
Stu’s Comment: Do I even need to respond? I guess they are claiming that soda is “the worst” and they just sort of “skip over” the question about Ding Dongs. If they actually care about health and/or obesity, why not tax Ding Dongs too? [By the way, out of respect for the Ding Dong people I would like to point out that I didn’t reference their brand—they did…]
Q. Shouldn’t all sodas be taxed, diet and non-diet? Diet sodas are not good for people, either.
AHNYN Answer: While drinking diet soda is not recommended, the evidence linking its consumption with poor health outcomes and/or obesity is weaker than the evidence for sugar-sweetened sodas. The most healthful drinks are water and low-fat or fat-free milk.
Stu’s Comment: What study done by independent researchers concluded that taxing soda will force people to give it up, avoid diet soda, and somehow switch to milk (wait—only low-fat milk, since regular milk isn’t being taxed either) and water??? Clearly this has nothing to really do with “health” or diet soda, which is, in my opinion, dramatically more unhealthy than consuming some natural cane sugar, would be taxed doubly. In addition, I guess they missed the studies that claim that diet soda confuses the sweetness receptors in the brain and leads to the body’s mismanagement of sugar and insulin levels. Some claim that diet soda actually ends up backfiring and causing more obesity than it prevents. There is all sorts of data saying that people who drink diet soda are more likely to be obese. I wouldn’t quote those sources because I think that is also confusing, but let’s not pretend that diet soda is some kind of magic cure for obesity.
Q. Won’t taxing non-diet soda just encourage people to drink diet soda, which is not really a healthier alternative?
AHNYN Answer: With increased public awareness surrounding the tax, we expect people to switch to healthier beverages like water and low-fat milk.
Stu’s Comment: Why? The assumptions here are unbridled….
Q. Aren’t people opposed to a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages?
AHNYN Answer: A majority of New York adults support a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages. In a poll conducted by the Healthcare Education Project in January of 2010, 78% of the people polled supported a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages if the revenue raised was to be used to prevent healthcare cuts.
Stu’s Comment: So…. I guess they are certain that the people of the state of NY aren’t actually concerned about those “health care cuts” they reference in passing and completely (in my humble opinion) twist out of context.
The fact is, people should eat and drink healthy and natural products. Taxing any beverage that has sugar in it (even natural cane sugar) will not solve any widespread health problem or any obesity problem. It may cause more economic damage than it provides in tax revenues. Furthermore, it detracts from a comprehensive and responsible dialogue on these important and timely issues or their actual solutions. Don’t be fooled.
–Stu Strumwasser
CEO of Refreshiliciousness
Snow Beverages, Inc.
Today Snow Beverages purchased 5000 downloads of the new online CD from 1 % For The Planet for use as giveaways in an upcoming social media promotional campaign. 1% For The Planet is a non-profit that works to facilitate the donation of 1% of sales from corporations to non-profits who fight for sustainability and who work toward solving the problem of climate change.
This year, we launched our ‘Save The Snowflakes’ campaign wherein we endeavor to help educate elementary school children about global warming and how they—as a kid and as an individual—can be a part of the solution. The program culminates around Earth Day with the Earthrockers concert (promoted in conjunction with Kidrockers) for kids and parents at NYC’s Bowery Ballroom featuring top indie rock bands. A portion of proceeds from that concert will go to 1 % For The Planet. We are very motivated to help them try and engage as many corporate donors as possible and help facilitate the transfer of revenues to non-profits working to save the planet.
I have been a vegetarian for a long time and interested in green issues for many years. I am also a business-person and a pragmatist and I believe that 1% FTP has developed an effective and real-world way of making a difference. Their model, and the manner in which they execute it, is something we are proud to support.
The 1% “CD Mission Statement” states: “It’s simple, really: the 1% CD helps save the planet. All proceeds from the album allow 1% for the Planet to do more for the environmental non-profits all around the world. So if you like the Earth, as well as good music, get your copy here now.”
Well, I like the Earth. And as a former musician this also appeals to me in many other ways. In 1979, when I was twelve, the first arena show I saw was the No-Nukes at Madison Square Garden. Jackson Browne was a headliner at that show. Thirty years later, he is one of the headliners on the 1% album (along with Jack Johnson, and about 38 cool indie rock bands.) It was a no-brainer for Snow that this was a way we could do a little bit to help a good cause while also providing an extremely appropriate incentive to our own fans in our upcoming marketing campaign. I only hope that we get to do much more in coming years.
