Okay, I have an issue with these guys and their egregious blog, “Sip and Savour.” Today’s entry is “weird science” and how consumer don’t know what to think about all these conflicting studies regarding the health impact of soft drinks. They cast a negative light on the Harvard School of Public Health by saying, “(you have to love the science-by-press-release of today; adds even more to public cynicism).”
Um, its their job to release information about new scientific research. How is that adding public cynicism? And talk about bias? The trade association for big corporate beverage companies is talking about bias? That’s rich.
Tags: American Beverage Association, scientific research, soft drink
Reading Tea Leaves by Randy Wilson 
April 27, 2009 at 2:06 pm |
I think it does go underreported that some of these universities repackage old or misleading information and try to play it off as “new” or “dangerous.” Just like anyone trying to get media coverage, they can be susceptible to overhyping their own stuff. Why is Harvard calling for the creation of a class of low-calorie beverages? There are a ton already on the market.
April 27, 2009 at 2:28 pm |
But who do you trust more; a university with a long and respectable scientific tradition or a trade association formed to promote big corporate interests? I know where I stand.
April 27, 2009 at 3:55 pm |
These are scientists who use every study as an excuse to attack food and drinks. Most people recognize that overconsuming anything is bad for you, and that moderation is the key to good health. These studies just try to shift blame for obesity where it doesn’t belong. I know where i stand, and it’s not with the university, no matter how long and respected their scientific tradition may be.
April 27, 2009 at 9:04 pm |
C’mon, comparing beverages to tobacco? That’s obscene. They’re not even in the same universe.
April 27, 2009 at 9:36 pm |
I’m not comparing soft drinks to tobacco as products but how these industries respond to criticism. Both industries are very good at changing the terms of the debate to make themselves look better. They don’t address the criticism head-on but attempt to obfuscate and attack the messenger.
Thanks for comments!