In a meta-analysis of 88 studies, we examined the association between soft drink consumption and nutrition and health outcomes. We found clear associations of soft drink intake with increased energy intake and body weight. Soft drink intake also was associated with lower intakes of milk, calcium, and other nutrients and with an increased risk of several medical problems (e.g., diabetes).Study design significantly influenced results: larger effect sizes were observed in studies with stronger methods (longitudinal and experimental vs cross-sectional studies). Several other factors also moderated effect sizes (e.g., gender, age, beverage type). Finally, studies funded by the food industry reported significantly smaller effects than did non-industry-funded studies. Recommendations to reduce population soft drink consumption are strongly supported by the available science. (Am J Public Health.

No abstract

PUHL, REBECCA, AND KELLY D. BROWNELL. Bias, discrimination, and obesity. Obes Res. 2001;9:788 -805. This article reviews information on discriminatory attitudes and behaviors against obese individuals, integrates this to show whether systematic discrimination occurs and why, and discusses needed work in the field. Clear and consistent stigmatization, and in some cases discrimination, can be documented in three important areas of living: employment, education, and health care. Among the findings are that 28% of teachers in one study said that becoming obese is the worst thing that can happen to a person; 24% of nurses said that they are "repulsed" by obese persons; and, controlling for income and grades, parents provide less college support for their overweight than for their thin children. There are also suggestions but not yet documentation of discrimination occurring in adoption proceedings, jury selection, housing, and other areas. Given the vast numbers of people potentially affected, it is important to consider the research-related, educational, and social policy implications of these findings.

PUHL, REBECCA M. AND KELLY D. BROWNELL. Confronting and coping with weight stigma: an investigation of overweight and obese adults. Obesity. 2006; 14:1802-1815. Objective: This study examined experiences of weight stigmatization, sources of stigma, coping strategies, psychological functioning, and eating behaviors in a sample of 2671 overweight and obese adults. Research Methods and Procedures:The total sample was partitioned into two subsamples for investigation. Sample I was comprised of 2449 adult women, and Sample II was a matched sample of adult men and women (N ϭ 222) that was disaggregated to investigate gender differences. Both samples completed an online battery of self-report questionnaires measuring frequency of weight stigmatization and coping responses to deal with bias, the most common sources of the bias, symptoms of depression, self-esteem, attitudes about weight and obesity, and binge eating behaviors. Results: Experiences of weight stigmatization, in many forms and across multiple occasions, was common in both samples. A variety of coping strategies were used in response. More frequent exposure to stigma was related to more attempts to cope and higher BMI. Physicians and family members were the most frequent sources of weight bias reported. No gender differences were observed in types or frequency of stigmatization. Frequency of stigmatization was not related to current psychological functioning, although coping responses were associated with emotional well-being. Discussion: These findings raise questions about the relationship between stigma and psychological functioning and have important implications for obesity treatment and stigma reduction intervention efforts, both of which are discussed.

In light of proposals to improve diets by shifting food prices, it is important to understand how price changes affect demand for various foods. We reviewed 160 studies on the price elasticity of demand for major food categories to assess mean elasticities by food category and variations in estimates by study design. Price elasticities for foods and nonalcoholic beverages ranged from 0.27 to 0.81 (absolute values), with food away from home, soft drinks, juice, and meats being most responsive to price changes (0.7-0.8). As an example, a 10% increase in soft drink prices should reduce consumption by 8% to 10%. Studies estimating price effects on substitutions from unhealthy to healthy food and price responsiveness among at-risk populations are particularly needed.