|
|
Post by Summre Blakely on Nov 14, 2016 2:58:37 GMT
Soda has become ingrained into American society. CocaCola especially has led a powerful advertisement campaign, attracting children to their product at a young age and reaching out to them everywhere, through tv, through movie theaters, through school, through public transportation ads, and much more. Starting their consumers off at a young age, the soda companies attract consumers for life. According to nutritionists, sodas are filled with "empty calories," and are a big factor in the obesity epidemic in America. One 12 ounce can of Coke has 140 calories and 39 grams of sugar. You can buy a coke almost anywhere, making them even more accessible and therefore dangerous than cigarettes. Tobacco companies were known for blending their advertisements into pop culture, using celebrities and films to make smoking look "cool." Soda companies have done the same, branding themselves as the all-American drink. Not only has CocaCola become ubiquitous in pop culture, but it has also found itself in a publicly-trusted position, as it often contributes to charities and partners up with the U.S. Olympics, Six Flags, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and the World Wildlife Fund. If soda is the next tobacco in America, what should be done to protect American society? If the knowledge is already out there that soda is bad for you, is it overkill to attach a warning label on all soda products as was done on cigarettes?
|
|
|
|
Post by Megan Mikesell on Nov 14, 2016 20:31:24 GMT
I think that putting a warning label on sod is a bit too much. The link to diabetes, heart attacks, and obesity has to do with the sugar in sodas. You would have to put a warning label on everything with more than __ grams of sugar. However, I don't think a soda tax would be a bad idea. It cannot be stated that soda is killing people like tobacco is, but it does have harmful health effects in the long run. One article found that cities with soda taxes, typically not much higher than 4%, did not see a substantial decrease in soda consumption. However, they did see a greater impact on obesity rates linked to obesity prevention efforts funded through the tax.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jeff Dennis on Nov 15, 2016 22:36:09 GMT
As with many of these items, I think the perspective really has to be long term. Can an added tax be used to fund education programs that reduce consumption of sugary beverages in the long term?
As some of you may be aware, when New York City was proposing a soda size limit, many brought up comparisons to non-soda drinks, such as many Starbucks drinks, that were just as bad or worse than a Coke. As such, it highlights our longstanding relationship with sugar, and the inclination to put more sugar in our drinks to make them more popular. Sodas have been stigmatized some, where I know many parents today are more restrictive than when I was a kid, but the sugar has been transferred to many other places.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lex Hurley on Nov 19, 2016 16:28:11 GMT
First off, thank you for acknowledging sugar as a drug! I have made the same argument multiple times regarding sugar's dopaminergic neural effect, lack of any substantive nutritive value, and proven links to morbidities such as obesity and diabetes. As you noted in your post, CocaCola is a large enough economic entity that they may aggressively advertise their product in so many places that it develops an omnipresence (How many people do you know that say "soda"? How many people do you know that say "Coke"?) and in some cases even fund misleading scientific studies that say weight loss is more influenced by exercise than calorie intake.[1]
For solutions, I definitely think that a sugar tax is in order for the United States; perhaps a few cents extra for every gram of added sugar over 10g. That should make sodas and the like just expensive enough to help convince people to rely on drinks such as teas and waters and avoid many sweets devoid of nutrient quality without making them prohibitively expensive. As for your other idea, I don't think it would be out of line at all to introduce warning labels on items such as sugary sodas and candy bars to say that these products are known to damage your health.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lex Hurley on Nov 19, 2016 16:30:15 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by ghannaba on Nov 23, 2016 17:54:14 GMT
Advertising targets children though for sodas and junk food and the like. Remember "Dunkaroos?" I loved those as a kid in the 90s because of those darn commercials. I loved Surge because of the commercial and then needed it when I was hooked on the caffeine inside. Regulations seemed only targeting things based on censorship and what is "immoral" or "immodest" yet people (particularly at risk populations like elderly and children) are targeted, and especially in the realm of most younger children, they lack the reasoning ability. Yes, it would be a slippery slope. I just think just like Dr. Byrd points out that ultimately the vape industry seems to target younger users, maybe advertising for other things ought to be at least looked at and discussed?
|
|
|
|
Post by Summre Blakely on Nov 30, 2016 2:07:24 GMT
Yes, I think that taxing sodas would not be such a terrible thing, as soda companies are usually pretty successful. While I don't personally think that it's very fair for these companies when many other companies selling sugary products wouldn't be persecuted, I do think that society's needs for less sugar trump this idea. Also, not allowing non-grocery stores to have sodas and/or candy bar displays by the cash register could also be effective. I mean, why does Best Buy of all places need candy by the register? These last minute purchases are frequently made, and can add up. Furthermore, while warning labels might be a bit extreme in my opinion, perhaps displaying the calories and sugar amounts in larger fonts on the FRONT of the can right under the name could potentially be effective as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by Leslee Castro on Dec 8, 2016 4:30:16 GMT
Hello Summre! This truly is an excellent example that is quite comparable to smoking. There are so many commercials that advertise CocaCola, and people do not seem to truly understand how unhealthy sodas are for them. I do not drink carbonated beverages; I stick to water. I do not understand the hype, but when I see a commercial advertising CocaCola, I kind of want a coke. It is quite odd, but I do not ever act on that desire. It is extremely unhealthy, and to me, extremely unnecessary. I do not know if a warning label needs to be place on all soda products, because it would seem that warning labels could be placed on almost all unhealthy foods. That would be tragic. The overproduction of unhealthy foods and beverages is a major public health issue in the US, and it leads to malnutrition in children and adults. While CocaCola might be popular, it is not healthy for people. I often come across people who do not like water, and constantly consume unhealthy carbonated beverages with almost every meal. It is quite sad and alarming to me, but people make personal choices. As much as I want to sit and explain to them why its unhealthy to consume sodas, a warning label would not necessarily alter their habits. The person themselves must understand and have the internal motivation to act on that understanding to make healthier choices.
|
|
