We are committed to making natural products that are healthy. Our CEO has committed to tattooing the Snowflake icon from our logo on his arm if we get 1000 new fans on facebook (if we break 2500 fans) before the end ofSeptember. Maybe he should just BE committed? Please “like” us on facebook at www.facebook.com/drinksnow and help us “Tattoo Stu.”

(CNN) — A piece of ice four times the size of Manhattan island has broken away from an ice shelf in Greenland, according to scientists in the U.S.

The 260 square-kilometer (100 square miles) ice island separated from the Petermann Glacier in northern Greenland early on Thursday, researchers based at the University of Delaware said.

The ice island, which is about half the height of the Empire State Building, is the biggest piece of ice to break away from the Arctic icecap since 1962 and amounts to a quarter of the Petermann 70-kilometer floating ice shelf, according to research leader Andreas Muenchow.

“The freshwater stored in this ice island could keep the Delaware or Hudson rivers flowing for more than two years. It could also keep all U.S. public tap water flowing for 120 days,” Muenchow said.

Muenchow’s team is studying ice in the Nares Strait separating Greenland from Canada, about 1,000 kilometers south of the North Pole.

Satellite data from NASA’s MODIS-Aqua satellite revealed the initial rupture which was confirmed within hours by Trudy Wohlleben of the Canadian Ice Service, according to the University of Delaware website.

Muenchow said the island could block the Nares Strait as it drifts south, or break into smaller islands and continue towards the open waters of the Atlantic.

“In Nares Strait, the ice island will encounter real islands that are all much smaller in size,” he said.

“The newly born ice island may become land-fast, block the channel, or it may break into smaller pieces as it is propelled south by the prevailing ocean currents. From there, it will likely follow along the coasts of Baffin Island and Labrador, to reach the Atlantic within the next two years.”

Environmentalists say ice melt is being caused by global warming with Arctic temperatures in the 1990s reaching their warmest level of any decade in at least 2,000 years, according to a study published in 2009.

Current trends could see the Arctic Ocean become ice free in summer months within decades, researchers predict.

-Stu Strumwasser,

CEO of Refreshiliciousness

Snow Beverages, Inc.

     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): 

1.  Even if they succeeded in causing people to switch from regular soda to diet soda, would that really cause a reduction in obesity?
2. 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:

1.  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….
2. 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.
3. 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.

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.

News Releases & Statements

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

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