Op/Ed,

The Crass Vigilance of The Soft Drink Molochs and Their Slow Throttling of the American Public For Loaves and Fishes  

By James L. Secor

The American Beverage Association (ABA) sells some of the most popular non-alcoholic beverages in the world. Carbonated soft drinks make up 73% of that total. Americans spend roughly $93 billion annually on refreshment beverages (about $357/person). The ABA believes that all beverages are part of a healthy, balanced lifestyle and helps this along by producing various sized beverages so as to incorporate different, that is larger, serving portions into diets.

This is what the ABA says about itself. Let us stop here for a moment. $93 billion in refreshment beverages. $93 billion--why? What has Americans hooked? Caffeine, yes, but the ABA sells 7-Up and Sprite which contain no caffeine, if we believe the PR and product labeling (which the ABA is fighting to get rid of). But even more disturbing is the contention that soft drinks are part of a healthy diet. Which healthy diet? Whose--Atkins'? Other than the ABA, who else makes the same claim? But it sounds good, so people believe it. After all, the ABA is an authority. In reality, this claim about soft drinks being part of a healthy diet is specious.

What are these profits? With approximately 122.5 billlion servings/year (or 471 soft drinks/person/year), the soft drink industry rakes in about $93 billion. Of course, no mention is made of the fact that 43% of those profits are from government subsidies, what is colloquially called "corporate welfare." Fifty-seven percent of $93 billion is about $53 billion. How does a $53 billion/year business rate a subsidy when so many Americans are in dire straits? How is it that the corporate sector can receive welfare when such subsidies are shameful for the individual and considered a wasteful expense?

One of the answers lies in bought friends in the government: our Senators and Representatives. In 2005, however, things became even more secure: the ABA hired, as Senior Vice President for Communications, Kevin Keane who was Assistant Secretary of Public Affairs at Health and Human Services (HHS). He was an advisor to Tommy Thompson. He was hired to direct the strategic communications program, read propaganda. That is, the ABA managed to acquire an inside touch. Mr. Keane can help science along in support of the ABA, as Mr. Bush helps science support his rapacious programs.

Another answer lies in corn subsidies and sugar tariffs.

What this means is that Coke's and Pepsi's profit margins are supported by government taxes, thanks to corn grower subsidies. A subsidy is used to help the farmer make up the loss between cost to produce and higher marketing costs. That is, if a farmer spends $1 to produce one bushel of corn but market value is 80 cents, the government makes up the other 20 cents--plus a little more so the farmer can make a profit. Thus, there is complicity with the Department of Agriculture. Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) is the biggest player in this market and the most prominent recipient of corporate welfare, which costs the government billions but people tens of billions (in higher prices and higher taxes). While $1 of corn sweetener profits costs you, the consumer, $10, the government paid $49 billion in corn subsidies from 1995-2004.

ADM buys 12% of the nation's corn and turns it into High Fructose Corn Syrup.

We are bilked because part of the money to pay these subsidies comes from our taxes. We are, in effect, paying twice to drink a Coke or Pepsi. This means that buying corn and making High Fructose Corn Syrup--not a naturally occurring substance--is far cheaper than using sugar. Why? Sugar tariffs. A tariff is a tax placed on some substance or other that is imported. Sugar. Sugar tariffs give us $2.25/lb of sugar; without the tariff that would perhaps be $1/lb. Thus, by way of putting a ceiling on homegrown sugar production, the tariffs inflate the cost of sugar and deflate the cost of corn, which means importing more sugar. So, ADM prefers to buy excessive corn at excessively low prices. This equals not only great savings but indecent profits. In order for ADM and the ABA to wreak obscene profits, we must pay more.

Of course, no mention is made of the fact that 43% of those profits are from government subsidies, what is colloquially called "corporate welfare." Fifty-seven percent of $93 billion is about $53 billion.

How does this corn subsidy-sugar tariff affect the soft drink behemoths? A six cent increase in sweetener amounts to $6.1 billion; a one cent increase to, $1.2 billion; a 1/10 of a cent increase, $122.5 million. Fructose is about 75% sweeter than cane sugar (sucrose), so Coke and Pepsi don't have to use very much fructose to attain an equal sweetness. But the cola goliaths found a way to concentrate--make stronger-- fructose. To create sucrose's sweetness an even smaller amount of High Fructose Corn Syrup is needed. Although fructose is naturally occurring, High Fructose Corn Syrup is not. Creating more of a conundrum is the fact that most all of the corn used to make High Fructose Corn Syrup is genetically modified, seedlings that ADM sold and then buys back as ripe corn to make into High Fructose Corn Syrup. And herein lies a problem: the ABA claims that High Fructose Corn Syrup is natural.

This "naturally occurring" sugar substance--High Fructose Corn Syrup--is the ABA's attack on science and public concern over the ill effects of High Fructose Corn Syrup:

Obesity and diabetes are serious health problems in the U.S. that deserve meaningful and effective interventions, not the shallow gestures advocated today. Current Nutrition Facts Panels and labels on soft drinks already provide consumers with key information they need to make the beverage choices that are right for them, including information on calories, sugar, caffeine, sodium, and other contents. To ask the FDA for warnings labels on soft drinks, or any food products that contain caloric sweeteners, patronizes consumers and lacks common sense. Where would such a food 'hit list' stop? Even skim milk and thousands of other food products could potentially fit into a CSPI labeling scheme because of the sugars contained in those products. (Press release of 13 July 2005) 

Warnings about possible dangers to our health are "patronizing"? It lacks "common sense"? Skim milk "and thousands of other food products" (many of them sweetened with High Fructose Corn Syrup) could potentially fit into a CSPI "labeling scheme"? Why no mention of High Fructose Corn Syrup? I can't answer these ridiculous questions but I can answer the ABA's question about where "such a food 'hit list'" would stop: at the healthy foods--which means all foods not manufactured by the ABA, ADM, Cargill, Monsanto and Atria.

Why would the ABA feel constrained to make such erroneous assertions if there was nothing harmful about High Fructose Corn Syrup? In 2004, the ABA released nine articles discrediting scientific evidence of the problems with High Fructose Corn Syrup. Why is the ABA so defensive if High Fructose Corn Syrup is "safe and natural"? (Cf. press release of 2 August 2005)