Per capita consumption of soda is down. Sales per case slipped for the first time in 20 years, reported Beverage Digest. Although a decrease of 0.7 percent may not appear significant, Editor John Sicher warns that the “carbonated soft drink category is fundamentally in trouble” (Caroline Wilbert, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 9 March 2006). As soda popularity fizzles out, “the migration to water and sports drinks and other noncarbonated drinks seems to be permanent” (Melanie Warner, New York Times, 9 March 2006). The reason: soda's unhealthy image.

Nutritionists and health experts have long considered soda one of the main culprits for the child obesity epidemic in the U.S. A pilot study conducted by the Clinical Research Program at the Children's Hospital Boston concluded that sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) promote excessive weight gain in adolescents. Complete elimination of SSB consumption led to observable decreases in baseline bodyweight over a six-month period. (Cara B. Ebbeling, PhD, Henry A. Feldman, PhD, Stavroula K. Osganian, MD, ScD, Virginia R. Chomitz, PhD, Sheila J. Ellenbogen, MBA and David S. Ludwig, MD, PhD, Pediatrics, March 2006)

So water is healther than Coke. So reducing calories will lead to weight loss. Those are obvious conclusions for six-months of clinical research. Crude oversimplifications of the study's findings as these statements may be, The American Beverage Association said as much: "It stands to reason that anyone could lose weight if calories from any certain food or beverage are removed and not replaced by other calories.” (American Beverage Association, 6 March 2006)

The beverage industry may dismiss offhand the study's results based on a simple net difference of calories, but it fails to acknowledge the recently demonstrated efficiency with which SSBs deliver the calories and the accelerated risk of obesity posed by additives like High-Fructose Corn Syrup. The fact that some subjects lost on average one pound per week in the study means that a disproportionate amount of adolescents' caloric intake comes from SSBs. The conclusion may appear obvious for any adult with a modicum of common sense, but the industry's long-term denials and willful obfuscation of its products' health effects make such studies necessary. The American Beverage Association's statement also typifies the PR tactic of blaming the nutrient and not the food. It's the calories; not the soda. (Marion Nestle, Food Politics)

Which is not to say that large beverage companies are not savvy to health consciousness. Pepsi is attempting to remake its image as a healthy company launching an $11.6 million initiative. Allied with YMCA, Pepsi proposes to “make healthy living a reality for millions of Americans.” (Chris Mercer, Food Navigator, 13 March 2006)

The Smart Spot, a green dot, touts the health-worthiness of Pepsi products:

In order to carry the symbol, products must meet one of three criteria. They must contain at least 10 percent of the Daily Value of a targeted nutrient, such as protein, fiber, calcium, iron, vitamin A or vitamin C, and meet limits for fat, saturated fat, trans fat, cholesterol, sodium and added sugar; or they must be formulated to have specific health or wellness benefits; or be reduced in calories or nutrients such as fat, sodium or sugar. Existing Smart Spot products include brands such as Baked Lays, Life Cereal, Gatorade Thirst Quencher, Quaker Oatmeal, Diet Pepsi Cola and Quaker Chewy Granola Bars. (Chris Mercer, Food Navigator, 13 March 2006)

That all sounds good, except when you consider that these so-called healthy snacks only need meet one requirement, not all. The Gatorade Thirst Quencher, for example, meets the 10 percent nutrient requirement, but contains as many calories and as much sugar as regular soda. Lauding Diet Pepsi as a health drink simply because it substitutes aspartame for sugar as a sweetening agent is quite feeble if you ask me.