Study: “Sugary Drink Facts”

Posted By elissa on Nov 3, 2011 | 1 comment

A new study by the Yale Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity reached the (obvious) conclusion that young people are still being bombarded by ads for sugary drinks, despite the beverage industry’s stated “commitment to responsible marketing.”

The report’s executive summary is here. The full report can be downloaded here.

A few facts cited in the report:

• … in 2010, teens saw 18 percent more TV ads for energy drinks and heard 46 percent more radio ads, than adults did.
• Teens also saw 20 percent more TV ads for energy drinks in 2010 than they saw in 2008.
• Parents may have difficulty monitoring caffeine in drinks because caffeine content is not required – and is often not listed – on product packages.
• Beverage companies have indicated that they view Hispanics and blacks, and teens as a source of future growth for sugary drink product sales.
• Black children and teens saw 80 percent to 90 percent more ads compared with white youth, including more than twice as many ads for Sprite, Mountain Dew, 5-hour Energy, and Vitamin Water.
• Marketing on Spanish-language TV is growing. From 2008 to 2010, Hispanic children saw 49 percent more ads for sugary drinks and energy drinks, and teens saw 99 percent more ads.
• Hispanic preschoolers saw more ads for Coca-Cola Classic, Kool-Aid, 7 Up and Sunny D than older Hispanic children or Hispanic teens did.
• More than half of sugary drinks and energy drinks market positive ingredients on their packages, and 64 percent feature their “all-natural” or “real” ingredients. For example, Cherry 7 Up Antioxidant highlights that it is “low sodium,” and labels on Kool-Aid powders promote that they have “25% fewer calories than the leading beverage.”

For my money, though, the most interesting part of the report isn’t the report itself… it’s the response by the American Beverage Association (ABA), which presumes people are either a) dim; or b) can’t be bothered to parse the “weasel words” used.

Well, it’s Halloween, so it should be no surprise that Kelly Brownell is up to his old tricks in twisting and turning the facts like a Twizzler when it comes to the beverage industry’s strong commitment – and real deliverables – on marketing to children.

Today’s Rudd Center report on our member companies’ marketing practices is yet another attack by known critics in an ongoing attempt to single out one product as the cause of obesity.  Both common sense and widely accepted science show that the reality behind the serious health issues like obesity is far more complex than the picture painted by the Rudd Center.

…Research has found that there has been a dramatic change in food and beverage advertising during children’s programming.  According to recent report from Georgetown Economic Services, advertisements for soft drinks decreased by 96 percent between 2004 and 2010.

For starters, the report states exactly nowhere that sugary drinks are the “one” cause of obesity. IMHO, it’s reasonable to single them out for criticism, however, since they provide very few nutrients in exchange for the calories they provide.

But even more amusingly, the response cites an industry-sponsored report as refutation… even though comparing the Georgetown Economic Services report to the Yale report is like comparing apples to oranges. According to the summary, the Georgetown report is limited to ads/product placements in “children’s programming” – which the ABA defines as “any audience that is comprised predominantly of children under 12″ (emphasis mine – since it’s a word that’s wide open to interpretation). The Yale report, however, includes teenagers… and also takes in the impact of social media, company web sites, internet banner ads, promotions, cell phone apps and games.

If the ABA can find any legit, scientific problems with the Yale study methods and results, I’d love to hear about it. But using a summary of a more narrowly-focused industry-supported report to rebut conclusions it doesn’t like is a pretty shabby tactic, IMHO.