Editing Soft drink (section)

==Government regulation==
===Schools===
Since at least 2006, debate on whether high-calorie soft drink [[vending machine]]s should be allowed in schools has been on the rise. Opponents of the soft drink vending machines believe that soft drinks are a significant contributor to [[childhood obesity]] and [[tooth decay]], and that allowing soft drink sales in schools encourages children to believe they are safe to consume in moderate to large quantities.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna12604166|title=Non-diet sodas to be pulled from schools|agency=Associated Press|date=May 5, 2006|access-date=November 10, 2019|archive-date=September 15, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200915141452/http://www.nbcnews.com/id/12604166|url-status=live}}</ref> Opponents also argue that schools have a responsibility to look after the health of the children in their care, and that allowing children easy access to soft drinks violates that responsibility.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.bmsg.org/node/210|title=Issue 17: Debates from four states over selling soda in schools|agency=Berkeley Media Studies Group|date=November 1, 2008|access-date=January 4, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131012052146/http://www.bmsg.org/node/210|archive-date=October 12, 2013}}</ref> Vending machine proponents believe that obesity is a complex issue and soft drinks are not the only cause.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.dailydemocrat.com/2013/05/29/states-soda-tax-plan-falls-flat/|title=State's soda tax plan falls flat|agency=Daily Democrat|date=May 29, 2013|access-date=July 20, 2013|archive-date=July 28, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200728170407/https://www.dailydemocrat.com/2013/05/29/states-soda-tax-plan-falls-flat/|url-status=live}}</ref> A 2011 bill to tax soft drinks in California failed, with some opposing lawmakers arguing that parents—not the government—should be responsible for children's drink choices.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://abc7.com/archive/8093976/|work=ABC News Los Angeles|title=Soda tax nixed in state assembly committee|date=April 25, 2011|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121010135242/http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news%2Fstate&id=8093976|archive-date=October 10, 2012}}</ref>

On May 3, 2006, the Alliance for a Healthier Generation,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.healthiergeneration.org/|title=Alliance for a Healthier Generation|work=HealthierGeneration.org|access-date=February 13, 2017|archive-date=September 1, 2010|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100901153305/http://www.healthiergeneration.org/|url-status=live}}</ref> [[Cadbury Schweppes]], [[the Coca-Cola Company]], [[PepsiCo]], and the [[American Beverage Association]] announced new guidelines<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.healthiergeneration.org/schools.aspx?id=108|title=Schools|last=Clockwork.net|work=HealthierGeneration.org|access-date=February 13, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100901153305/http://www.healthiergeneration.org/schools.aspx?id=108|archive-date=September 1, 2010}}</ref> that will voluntarily remove high-calorie soft drinks from all U.S. schools.

On May 19, 2006, the British [[Secretary of State for Education and Skills|education secretary]], [[Alan Johnson]], announced new minimum nutrition standards for school food. Among a wide range of measures, from September 2006, school lunches will be free from carbonated drinks. Schools will also end the sale of junk food (including carbonated drinks) in vending machines and [[tuck shop]]s.

In 2008, Samantha K Graff published an article in the ''Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science'' regarding the "First Amendment Implications of Restricting Food and Beverages Marketing in Schools". The article examines a school district's policy regarding limiting the sale and marketing of soda in public schools, and how certain policies can invoke a violation of the [[First Amendment]]. Due to district budget cuts and loss in state funding, many school districts allow commercial businesses to market and advertise their product (including junk food and soda) to public school students for additional revenue. Junk food and soda companies have acquired exclusive rights to vending machines throughout many public school campuses. Opponents of corporate marketing and advertising on school grounds urge school officials to restrict or limit a corporation's power to promote, market, and sell their product to school students. In the 1970s, the Supreme Court ruled that [[advertising]] was not a form of [[free expression]], but a form of [[business practices]] which should be regulated by the government. In the 1976 case of ''Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council'',<ref>{{cite web|url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/425/748/|title=Va. Pharmacy Bd. v. Va. Consumer Council 425 U.S. 748 (1976)|work=Justia.com|access-date=February 13, 2017|archive-date=January 31, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170131185729/https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/425/748/|url-status=live}}</ref> the Supreme Court ruled that advertising, or "[[commercial speech]]", to some degree is protected under the First Amendment. To avoid a First Amendment challenge by corporations, public schools could create contracts that restrict the sale of certain product and advertising. Public schools can also ban the selling of all food and drink products on campus, while not infringing on a corporation's right to free speech.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Graff |first=S. K. |title=First Amendment Implications of Restricting Food and Beverage Marketing in Schools |journal=The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science |volume=615 |issue=1 |year=2008 |pages=157–77 |jstor=25097981 |doi=10.1177/0002716207308398 |s2cid=154286599 }}</ref>

On December 13, 2010, President Obama signed the [[Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010|Healthy Hunger Free Kids Act of 2010]]<ref name="Hunger-Free Kids Act">{{cite web|url=https://www.fns.usda.gov/cn/healthy-hunger-free-kids-act|title=Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act – Food and Nutrition Service|work=USDA.gov|access-date=February 13, 2017|archive-date=February 15, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170215223502/https://www.fns.usda.gov/school-meals/healthy-hunger-free-kids-act|url-status=live}}</ref> (effective in 2014) that mandates schools that receive federal funding must offer healthy snacks and drinks to students. The act bans the selling of soft drinks to students and requires schools to provide healthier options such as water, unflavored low-fat milk, 100% fruit and vegetable drinks or sugar-free carbonated drinks. The portion sizes available to students will be based on age: eight ounces for elementary schools, twelve ounces for middle and high schools. Proponents of the act predict the new mandate it will make it easier for students to make healthy drink choices while at school.<ref name="Hunger-Free Kids Act"/>

In 2015, Terry-McElarth and colleagues published a study in the ''American Journal of Preventive Medicine'' on regular soda policies and their effect on school drink availability and student consumption. The purpose of the study was to determine the effectiveness of a program beginning in the 2014–2015 school year that requires schools participating in federally reimbursable meal programs to remove all competitive venues (a la carte cafeteria sales, vending machines, and stores/snack bars/carts), on the availability of unhealthy drinks at schools and student consumption. The study analyzed state- and school district-level policies mandating soda bans and found that state bans were associated with significantly lower school soda availability but district bans showed no significant associations. In addition, no significant correlation was observed between state policies and student consumption. Among student populations, state policy was directly associated with significantly lower school soda availability and indirectly associated with lower student consumption. The same was not observed for other student populations.<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Terry-McElrath YM, Chriqui JF, O'Malley PM, Chaloupka FJ, Johnston LD |title=Regular soda policies, school availability, and high school student consumption |journal=American Journal of Preventive Medicine |volume=48 |issue=4 |pages=436–44 |year=2015 |pmid=25576493 |pmc=4380673 |doi=10.1016/j.amepre.2014.10.022 }}</ref>

===Taxation===
{{Main|Sugary drink tax}}

In the United States, legislators, health experts and consumer advocates are considering levying higher [[tax]]es on the sale of soft drinks and other sweetened products to help curb the epidemic of [[Obesity in the United States|obesity among Americans]], and its harmful impact on overall health. Some speculate that higher taxes could help reduce soda consumption.<ref name=Duffey2010>{{cite journal |vauthors=Duffey KJ, Gordon-Larsen P, Shikany JM, Guilkey D, Jacobs DR, Popkin BM |title=Food price and diet and health outcomes: 20 years of the CARDIA Study |journal=Archives of Internal Medicine |volume=170 |issue=5 |pages=420–6 |year=2010 |pmid=20212177 |pmc=3154748 |doi=10.1001/archinternmed.2009.545 }}</ref> Others say that taxes should help fund education to increase consumer awareness of the unhealthy effects of excessive soft drink consumption, and also help cover costs of caring for conditions resulting from overconsumption.<ref>{{cite news | url = https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/weightloss/2009-09-18-soda-tax_N.htm  | title = USA Today, Experts: penny per ounce to fight obesity, health costs. Sept 18 2009 | access-date = April 11, 2010 | date = September 18, 2009 | archive-date = October 17, 2009 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20091017000635/http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/weightloss/2009-09-18-soda-tax_N.htm | url-status = live }}</ref> The [[food industry|food]] and [[drink industry]] holds considerable clout in Washington, DC, as it has contributed more than $50 million to legislators since 2000.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=N01 |title=Food and Beverage industry profile |publisher=[[OpenSecrets]] |date=February 18, 2013 |access-date=November 19, 2009 |archive-date=August 8, 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090808220508/http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=N01 |url-status=live }}</ref>

In January 2013, a British [[lobby group]] called for the price of sugary fizzy drinks to be increased, with the money raised (an estimated £1 billion at 20p per litre) to be put towards a "Children's Future Fund", overseen by an independent body, which would encourage children to eat healthily in school.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.govtoday.co.uk/health/44-public-health/14591-61-organisations-call-for-a-sugary-drinks-duty |title=61 organisations call for a sugary drinks duty |publisher=Govtoday.co.uk |date=January 29, 2013 |access-date=March 26, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130216220641/http://www.govtoday.co.uk/health/44-public-health/14591-61-organisations-call-for-a-sugary-drinks-duty |archive-date=February 16, 2013 }}</ref>

In 2017, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain imposed a 50% tax on soft drinks and a 100% tax on energy drinks to curb excess consumption of the commodity and for additional revenue.<ref>{{Cite journal|vauthors=Backholer K, Blake M, Vandevijvere S |date=2017|title=Sugar-sweetened beverage taxation: An update on the year that was 2017|journal=Public Health Nutrition|volume=20 | issue = 18 |pages=3219–3224|doi=10.1017/s1368980017003329|pmid=29160766|pmc=10261626 |doi-access=free|hdl=10536/DRO/DU:30105615|hdl-access=free}}</ref>

===Attempted ban===
In March 2013, [[New York City]]'s mayor [[Michael Bloomberg]] proposed to ban the sale of non-diet soft drinks larger than 16 ounces, except in convenience stores and supermarkets. A lawsuit against the ban was upheld by a state judge, who voiced concerns that the ban was "fraught with arbitrary and capricious consequences". Bloomberg announced that he would be appealing the verdict.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/03/11/new-york-soda-ban-struck-down-bloomberg-promises-appeal|title=New York Soda Ban Struck Down, Bloomberg Promises Appeal – ''U.S. News & World Report''|website=USNews.com|date=March 11, 2013|access-date=March 26, 2013|archive-date=March 27, 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130327092448/http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/03/11/new-york-soda-ban-struck-down-bloomberg-promises-appeal|url-status=live}}</ref> The state appellate courts upheld the trial court decision, and the ban remains unenforceable as of 2021.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://oneill.law.georgetown.edu/nycs-super-size-soda-ban-declared-unconstitutional/|title=NYC's Super-size Soda Ban declared Unconstitutional &#124; O'Neill Institute|access-date=July 22, 2021|archive-date=July 22, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210722230845/https://oneill.law.georgetown.edu/nycs-super-size-soda-ban-declared-unconstitutional/}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.menshealth.com/nutrition/a30999936/new-york-bloomberg-soda-ban/|title=A Look Back at Mike Bloomberg's Failed New York City Soda Ban|date=February 19, 2020|access-date=July 22, 2021|archive-date=July 22, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210722230844/https://www.menshealth.com/nutrition/a30999936/new-york-bloomberg-soda-ban/|url-status=live}}</ref>

In 2022, amidst soaring rates of obesity and diabetes, the Mexican state of [[Oaxaca]] enacted a ban on sugary drinks, including notably Coca-Cola, but it was poorly enforced.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2022/nov/04/sugar-rush-how-mexico-addiction-to-fizzy-drinks-fuelled-its-health-crisis-acc|last=Busby|first=Mattha|title=Sugar rush: how Mexico's addiction to fizzy drinks fuelled its health crisis|date=November 4, 2022|work=The Guardian}}</ref>