Frappuccino to fall foul of new San Francisco law

Public health initiatives are a good thing. Whether it be a concerted effort to get people active or by embarking on an advertising campaign to highlight to health risks associated with certain pastimes and products, generally, as a collective group, we’re all the better for them. Sometimes, a little gentle encouragement is enough; at other times we might need a jolt to the system.

In the United Kingdom, for example, there is legislation in place with ensures that health warnings are displayed on cigarette packing, often accompanied by a particularly startling image. Something I think that we can all agree isn’t a bad idea.

However the decision by the San Francisco lawmakers to require warning labels on all soda billboards hasn’t exactly been met with universal approvement. And now it seems that they could draw the ire of Starbucks after it turned out that the measure would include the chain’s popular summer time drink: The Frappuccino.

Scott Wiener was pretty forthright in his assessment, saying that “these drinks are making people sick and we need to make that clear to the public.”

The law was based around the notion that a standard 12oz Frappuccino, which is made with a mixture of espresso, ice, milk and flavoured syrup, contains around 140 calories than a can of full fat Coca Cola. Add some cream and top and that discrepancy widens.

In the not too distant future billboards promoting the Frap could contain an in-your-face warning that states: “Drinking beverages with added sugar(s) contributes to obesity, diabetes and tooth decay.”

So far, so logical (even if Wiener was being a little bit inflammatory with his statement.) But what has really got Starbucks agitated is that other high-sugar and calorific products are exempt under the terms of the bill. Doughnuts, for example, get a free pass, as do other espresso-based products that are created in a blender, something which Bob Achermann pointed out.

Achermann, the Executive Director of CalBev, a trade group which represents the beverage industry in the Golden State, said “Singling out one industry, and one type of product, does nothing to educate people.”

“San Francisco’s board of supervisors chose the politically expedient route of scapegoating sweetened beverages instead of finding genuine and comprehensive solutions to the complex issues of obesity and diabetes.”

We’ll keep up to date on issue, that’s for sure.