The American Beverage Association: Making The Soft Drink Industry Seem Sweeter Than It Already Is

   Obesity is by far the leading health problem in the United States. It is a relatively recent epidemic, with obesity rates doubling in some states over the past 20 years. Because of this, policymakers are scrambling to introduce public education initiatives, improve school lunches, and enact laws that would regulate the food and beverage industry. One product which seems to find itself continually at the center of this is soda. From former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg’s ban on oversized soft drinks to state and citywide taxes on soda, the sugary-carbonated beverage which is dear to so many Americans has become a popular target for laws and regulations aimed at reducing its consumption. While many citizens have been against the laws claiming they create a “nanny state”, proposed laws, taxes, and regulations which threaten to reduce the soda consumption have seen no greater opponent than the American Beverage Association.

   The American Beverage Association, or ABA, is an industry trade group that represents America’s non-alcoholic beverage industry. Founded in 1919 as the American Bottlers of Carbonated Beverages and renamed the National Soft Drink Association in 1966, the organization has been a longstanding fixture in Washington. In 2005, when they finally changed their name to the ABA, it was to better reflect the increasingly diverse non-alcoholic beverages which were coming to market. Though the ABA represents  hundreds of brands of non-alcoholic beverage makers, the organization’s three biggest supporting companies by far are: The Coca-Cola Company, PepsiCo Inc., and Dr Pepper Snapple Group. Presidents and CEOs from these three corporations make up almost half of the organization’s current board members, with the remaining positions being held by executives from the likes of Nestlé Waters, Polar Beverages, Sunny Delight, Honest Tea, and Red Bull.

A few of the companies which make up the ABA.

   A few of the ABA’s top positions, including three out of the six officers, are held by people without ties to any specific beverage corporation. The organization’s president and chief executive officer, Susan Neely, is one of these. Appointed in 2005, Neely had previously worked in the
Department of Homeland Security, but has experience in the executive and legislative branches of the government as well as health care policy. Since taking over, she has worked with the members of the ABA to try to be part of the solution to childhood obesity. With Neely at the helm, the ABA has reduced the calories of its beverage in schools by 88% as well as put an easy-to-read calorie label on every bottle.

ABA president Susan Neely.

   Many health officials, scientists, and critics feel the ABA is hardly doing enough to improve public health and is only looking out for its industry’s members. This is not an unsubstantiated claim; after all it clearly states on their website: “As the national voice for the non-alcoholic refreshment beverage industry, the American Beverage Association staff of legislative, scientific, technical, regulatory, legal and communications experts effectively represent members' interests.” Representing their members’ interests translates mostly into lobbying government officials to support favorable policies, but also can include well thought out marketing and advertisements to shift public opinion and create confusion. Keeping government policy as pro-soda as possible is in the ABA’s interest as the industry has a lot to lose if Americans don't continue to consume more of their products every year. With a direct economic impact of over $140 billion and 233,000 jobs, the non-alcoholic beverage industry is a huge part of the US economy. The industry also pays more than $35 billion in state and federal taxes and donates some $700 thousand to charitable causes and local communities.

   Because of their members’ economic interest in the sale of soda, recent attempts by cities and states around the country to pass a soda tax or set a size limit on soda have been met with the expected opposition from the American Beverage Association. They lobby, release statements, and create ads to promote their view, sometimes spending up to $70 million dollars in opposition to a specific proposal. While this is perfectly acceptable (despite the questionable ethics), the practice that draws criticism from journalists and educated consumers is the organization’s funding of separate political campaign committees which are disguised as groups of concerned citizens. 

   To fight Michael Bloomberg’s proposed ban on soda’s over 16 oz, the ABA created New Yorkers for Beverage Choices, a coalition which labeled itself as a “coalition of citizens, businesses, and community organizations who believe that consumers have the right to purchase beverages in whatever size they choose.” While this coalition did eventually collect thousands real New Yorker's signatures opposed to the ‘ban on soda’, the organizations in support were all large businesses that sell soda and the public relations firm in charge was based out of Washington.

One of many ads against Bloomberg's proposed 'soda ban',

   This practice of creating these allied coalitions in disguise isn't just a one time occurrence. They go by different names in each situation to give the effect of individuality — New Yorkers Against Unfair Taxes, Philly Jobs. Not Taxes., No Hawaii Beverage Tax — but in each case Big Beverage and their go-to PR firm, Goddard Claussen, are behind it. After one successful defeat of a proposed soda tax, the coalition involved (New Yorkers Against Unfair Taxes) even went so far as to post on their website a full write-up of their victory, boasting: “As part of a comprehensive outreach effort, we recruited over 10,000 citizens and 158 businesses to join New Yorkers Against Unfair Taxes.” While there are citizens out there who genuinely believe that taxing soda would not reduce consumption or that regulating our foods this way is not a responsibility of the government, many were led to those opinions because of ABA funded campaigns in some form or another.

   Another tactic of the ABA and soda corporations alike is their tactical ‘philanthropic’ giving used to buy support or silence the opposition. The action and effects can be subtle yet effective: a million dollar grant to the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry in 2003 was enough to make them less vocal about soda’s negative impact on dental hygiene. Though the beverage industry has proved time and time again that it is willing to throw money towards almost any large group or organization willing to take it (including cities), they focus a large part of their philanthropic giving towards African American and Latino organizations; two demographics which see the highest rates of obesity and soda-linked diseases. Both are over 20% more likely than white Americans to be obese and 50% more likely to die from diabetes. Still, the amount of money the ABA is willing to give to these organizations is enough to make them shift their view on the subject and even endorse the industry’s rhetoric.

   One of the larger of such groups is the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People or the NAACP. In January 2013, the NAACP unexpectedly voiced its support of the ABA while the organization was amidst arguing its court case against Bloomberg’s proposed limit on the sizes of sugary drinks. This endorsement came less than 1 month after Coca-Cola gave $100,000 to the civil rights group. The NAACP admitted that obesity was a significant problem among blacks and Hispanics but encouraged the city to try a solution which better addressed the problem such as increasing funding for education about nutrition and physical activity.

An example of Coca-Cola's philanthropy.

   Because of this selfish philanthropic giving, vocal opponents of the American Beverage Association are few and far between. Large health advocate groups, such as the American Academy of Family Physicians, have been less insistent about soda’s adverse effects on health due to the industry’s money (in this case a $600,000 grant for their website). Still, critics do exist. Scientists and health professionals as well as advocacy journalists all aim to protect the consumer from the lax regulations brought on by the industry's incredibly successful approach to blocking any government initiatives which would not be in its best economic interest. Unfortunately, because of the industry’s deep pockets, much of the actual science and research gets drowned out by the ABA’s privately funded research. The ABA funds dozens of websites to promote their opinion as fact including LetsClearItUp.org which states: “Soda is a hot topic. And the conversation is full of opinions and myths, but not enough facts. America’s beverage companies created this site to clear a few things up about the products we make. So read on. Learn. And share the clarity.” Though sites like these might contain some truths, most of the ‘facts’ involve a great deal of manipulation of language and statistics and go against the general consensus in the scientific community.

My Reaction

   As someone who is considerably more informed than the general public, it troubles me to see how relatively easy it is for corporations to effect public opinion and government policy. Marion Nestle, a food and politics expert, discusses almost all of the practices the ABA uses in her book “Food Politics”. From creating confusion to targeting certain demographics such as minorities and children, the ABA literally uses every trick in the book to help its members continue to reap in as much profit as possible. Nestle goes into depth about how large soft-drink corporations like PepsiCo. and Coca-Cola are buying the exclusive rights to have only their products available in schools around the country. This not only has a huge influence on kids and their impressionable minds, but also puts the principals of the school in the tough position of deciding whether to take the funds for their under budget school or stand up to the corporation.

   After learning about everything that goes on behind the curtains between the makers of something as simple as soda, special interest groups, and the government I can't help but be turned off by the actions of corporations. With this in mind I would find it really hard to work for any group that was pro corporation. If I was forced to work on the board of the ABA I would honestly not be able to set aside my ethics, liberal values, and desire for increased government regulations to protect the consumers. I would be a lot more happy and productive fighting against the ABA’s attempts to sacrifice our public health for the gain of their industry. Though it is hard to compete with the sheer amount of cash the industry is willing to dump into a city or state, trying to limit people’s consumption of soda, I am sure that by focusing on the individual stories of the people affected by diabetes and other soda-linked diseases, the opposition will be able to gain ground. Passing a tax on soda in a major city would be a huge win for the overall health of the country as it would signal a victory against a previously impenetrable industry and open the doors to many more similar acts across the country. San Francisco, a city famous for being the testing grounds for progressive new laws such as banning plastic bags, is currently in the process of putting in place a $.02 tax on sodas. The measure needs to get the support of two-thirds of the public vote in order to go into effect. Until then I will wait with bated breath; not drinking soda of course. The way I see it, they don't need one more penny of my money and I don’t need one more drop of their flavored carbonated sugar water.