[brightcove vid=2221817338001&exp3=821618942001&surl=http://c.brightcove.com/services&pubid=821308279001&pk=AQ~~,AAAAvznJyNk~,ySIaKlvw3DChgupE0IN9SZ4k03wPY_dt&w=300&h=225]
Yes, I said, “sugar is bad for all of your organs.” It was one of those sound bites I was really hoping would not be used, but, alas it was. I’m sure sugar is bad for all of your organs in some way, but mostly it was a pretty unplanned statement that just escaped from my mouth. A quick google search helped assuage my fears that I completely made it up, though.
Yesterday a judge ruled that NYC’s attempted restriction on what size soda people could purchase for individual consumption was “arbitrary and capricious”. The ban would have prohibited sodas (and other sugary drinks) larger than 16 ounces. The attempt was highly controversial and drew a lot of media attention when Mayor Bloomberg first proposed it.
The spirit of the ban is to curb obesity rates that are impacted by over-consumption of soda and sugary drinks, such as Slurpies, etc. And while the intention is in the right place, bans are difficult to pass and implement. The general public was outraged by the idea that someone else was deciding for them how large a soda was too large. And while many folks would agree that no one really needs to consume more than 16 ounces of soda in once sitting, the point was that “they should be able to if they want to”. Should they? When the burden created by obesity and diet-related disease is born by the greater public via our economy and our healthcare system? Truly, that’s a difficult question.
But what is interesting in the way this debate is framed is that the attention is being focused on the role of the government and the role of the individual. Little discussion is being focused on the role of soft drink companies and the food industry as a whole. Also, even less discussion in being paid to the role the physical environment plays in creating these choices that amount to “personal responsibility”. We just keep hearing folks from the general public talk about how if someone makes poor lifestyle choices, that’s their problem, and their fault. To some extent, yes, but to some extent no, not at all.
The food industry spends over $1.6 billion a year to market to young people especially. This includes extensive psychological research to discover the best ways to influence children and adolescents, as well as how that in turn influences parents. Unhealthy foods are cheap and available at every turn – in schools, corner stores, checkout lines, movie theaters, fast food restaurants, on TV, in commercials, etc. Everywhere we go, we’re being marketed candy, soda, chips, baked goods, etc. This creates the physical environment we live in. These forces don’t create a level playing field between healthy and unhealthy choices – they undeniably favor unhealthy choices, making the healthy choice increasingly more difficult.
And then there’s the issue that government subsidies basically fund the junk food and fast food industries. This just adds another interesting layer to the argument. First the government pays for the production of the primary unhealthy ingredients and addictive-esque fillers, and then wants to restrict them. Hmmmm. Seems counterproductive? Perhaps a more fair, balanced Farm Bill could really help the entire situation a bit more.
But that’s a post for another day, or this post runs the risk of turning into a book.
