'Sugary' drinks to become civil rights issue

“I have a dream today. I have a dream that one day, America will no longer drink Coca Cola.”

No, the Center for Science in the Public Interest didn’t actually say that, but it’s doing the next best thing to out-and-out mockery of the civil rights movement by turning its anti-soft drink jihad into a civil rights issue.

CSPI announced today that it would launch a “Life’s Sweeter with Fewer Sugary Drinks” campaign with the goal of reducing “sugary” drink consumption by 50% by 2020.

CSPI executive director Michael Jacobson stated in the campaign rollout,

Life’s Sweeter’s goal is to broaden the battle against sugary drinks from health experts to civic organizations, youth groups, civil rights groups, and others. [Emphasis added]

So Al Gore likens climate skeptics to racists and Michael Jacobson thinks sugary drinks are racist. Rave on, dudes!

For more on CSPI, check out Steve Milloy’s “False Alarm: The Center for Science in the Publci Interest, 1971 − 2006.”

5 thoughts on “'Sugary' drinks to become civil rights issue”

  1. This evenings happy hour will include rum & coke on the aft deck. A toast will be made to wish a swift return to these control freak/ knuckle dragging/ commie/ libtard/ pinheads, as they slither back to the hole they crawled out of.

  2. “The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.”— Robert A. Heinlein

    “Sic semper tyrannis.” – Motto of the Commonwealth of Virginia

  3. The campaign sentence is plain false.
    Also there is a contradiction between them (CSPI) being called consumer advocacy group and them campaigning against consumption. (against 50% of sweetened drinks consumption)

  4. Much like the Union of Concerned Scientists, CSPI is just another advocacy group. Way back in 2000-01, they were pushing the National Academy of Science, “Science” magazine and others to basically cast a wary eye on skeptic climate scientists, as in the 3rd paragraph here: http://www.cspinet.org/integrity/wp_letter.html Rummage through CSPI’s sources for this particular accusation and they cite Ross Gelbspan / Ozone Action, who are the same collection of people I show to be the epicenter of the smear of skeptic climate scientists (click on my name above for more on that).

    Weird how in another CSPI piece, they say this about potentially problematic funding of scientists, “Such information should be provided to readers when it may have a bearing on a scientist’s credibility”

    Right. The mere mention of a fossil fuel association suggests corruption, but has any journalist first provided such funding information regarding places where skeptic scientists work, FOLLOWED by proof of how the funding directly clouds the scientists’ credibility?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.