![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Mar. 20th, 2013 10:42 amSo, I'm reading an article on the NYC soda size ban (that was court suspended) and I read another article this weekend about Mississippi passing a law that NO REGULATION can be passed regarding nutrition.
Yeah. Um. Hmm.
I'm not sure it's all one thing or the other.
(And before I talk about that can I bitch about the new online LJ interface for posting? It sucks! Look, I"m not as picky as some about all the bells and whistles, but I damn well want to have some ability to actually make the damn thing work with a functioning cursor! Damn it, LJ!)
The thing is, I'm all for 'our freedomzzz!' We should be able to choose to eat what we want and if we want to eat too much, well, our choice.
But that's looking at things on an individual level.
The complication comes in with the fact that many of these problems are systemic. It's not like the government isn't involved. The government is already involved. Look at our farm subsidies program, the foodstuffs we subsidize to keep priced artificially stable (read: low), or stuff we supply to the poverty stricken in the form of SNAP and WIC, or things we make readily available in public schools. We primarily subsidize corn and soybeans, which sounds more healthful than it is because the corn is in the form of High Fructose Corn Syrup and the soybeans are distributed as soy oil and isolated soy protein, things that haven't existed in nature before. These are bio-engineered foodstuffs distributed in historically unprecedented quantities (and in themselves are historically unprecedented. They didn't EXIST a century ago but are now in virtually EVERYTHING from cornbread mix to tomato sauce to blue cheese salad dressing. Experiment for a week trying to avoid them. It's damn near impossible.) To reduce them will take government action, because it's through government intervention that they are more cheaply produced than other options in the first place.
Still, does that mean Bloomberg sizing your soda for you?
Or does it make sense for Mississippi, listed as the state with THE most weight related problems as well as the most dependent on poverty aid to stamp their foot and say "No regulation on nurtrition! EVAH!" It's thinking like that that causes the USDA and FDA budgets to be slashed, with us winding up with uninspected peanut butter factories that cause salmonella outbreaks.
Not all regulation is bad. If the only thing we're concerned with is profit margins, we're on the road to Soylent Green, people.
Still, does that require regulating what size soda is sold?
Don't get me wrong. The above linked article has some good points.
Arguing that we should:
That part seems practical.
Okaaayyyy. That's a bit more, but I see it's worth discussion. Rational discussion (good luck with that in politics these days).
I mean we have warning labels and 'luxury' taxes on cigarettes for not dissimilar reasons. (BTW Nabisco is currently owned and run by William Morris, the maker of Malborough cigarettes... AKA Big Tobacco.) You can do what you want, but no one said it has to be as cheaply as humanly possible to do it.
I guess.
But... I don't know.
Still:
Well... sorta but not exactly. From all the books I've read recently, it seems that yes, caloric consumption has increased across the board. However, protein consumption has remained roughly the same. Fat consumption has even (marginally) gone down. The increase in calories has come from an increase in carbohydrates -- primarily cerals (wheat, corn, and rice products) and sugar be it sucrose OR high fructose corn syrup... or any other of a half dozen names they currently break sugar into so that labels can list it multiple times without it having to show up first on the ingredient list.
So yes, calorie consumption has gone up in the U.S. . . . because sugar and cereal consumption (we also subsidize wheat) has exploded. When discussing these things we tend to mention the first and politely avoid mentioning the second.
Anyway, interesting article, but I remain conflicted. And I don't know that I totally agree with the writer.
Still, in practical terms I tend to think that what should be done is move many of the farm subsidies away from non-edible (sugar producing) corn (The corn used for that is too sweet to be consumed in any way but sugar or alcohol or used to produce ethanol. It's not your corn cobs and niblets) and towards a broader scope of vegetables. That should (but won't) be done, because keeping the price low for sugar is good for mega-corporations like Coke, Nabisco, General Foods, etc. and we live in an era where profit is king (queen, king's hand, and court jester. Oh hell, it's practically the whole damn court). As long as what the government does is to the benefit of big business, well that 'government intervention' is good. But, if it's intervening in other way (for the 99%) 'teh socialist evol!!!!'
So, yeah, the most logical step (stop subsidizing agri-businesses' hyperproduction of sugars) will never be taken (they have big-time lobbyists, y'know). Which leaves things like soda bans, which feels an awful like avoiding tackling thorny issues with suppliers and instead taking the problem to the consumers.) And I don't know how I feel about that.
I don't know where I come down on the concept regulating soda bottle sizes. Seems like a bicycle being used as a fishing pole. Though I think even that may be better than Mississippi behaving like a three year old having a tantrum because someone is trying to limit its time with its binky.
*sigh* No good answers. I don't know. Just navel gazing, I guess. Carry on.
Yeah. Um. Hmm.
I'm not sure it's all one thing or the other.
(And before I talk about that can I bitch about the new online LJ interface for posting? It sucks! Look, I"m not as picky as some about all the bells and whistles, but I damn well want to have some ability to actually make the damn thing work with a functioning cursor! Damn it, LJ!)
The thing is, I'm all for 'our freedomzzz!' We should be able to choose to eat what we want and if we want to eat too much, well, our choice.
But that's looking at things on an individual level.
The complication comes in with the fact that many of these problems are systemic. It's not like the government isn't involved. The government is already involved. Look at our farm subsidies program, the foodstuffs we subsidize to keep priced artificially stable (read: low), or stuff we supply to the poverty stricken in the form of SNAP and WIC, or things we make readily available in public schools. We primarily subsidize corn and soybeans, which sounds more healthful than it is because the corn is in the form of High Fructose Corn Syrup and the soybeans are distributed as soy oil and isolated soy protein, things that haven't existed in nature before. These are bio-engineered foodstuffs distributed in historically unprecedented quantities (and in themselves are historically unprecedented. They didn't EXIST a century ago but are now in virtually EVERYTHING from cornbread mix to tomato sauce to blue cheese salad dressing. Experiment for a week trying to avoid them. It's damn near impossible.) To reduce them will take government action, because it's through government intervention that they are more cheaply produced than other options in the first place.
Still, does that mean Bloomberg sizing your soda for you?
Or does it make sense for Mississippi, listed as the state with THE most weight related problems as well as the most dependent on poverty aid to stamp their foot and say "No regulation on nurtrition! EVAH!" It's thinking like that that causes the USDA and FDA budgets to be slashed, with us winding up with uninspected peanut butter factories that cause salmonella outbreaks.
Not all regulation is bad. If the only thing we're concerned with is profit margins, we're on the road to Soylent Green, people.
Still, does that require regulating what size soda is sold?
Don't get me wrong. The above linked article has some good points.
Unlike other foods, sodas are a unique target for intervention. They contain sugars – and sugar calories – but nothing else of nutritional value. They are candy in liquid form.
Arguing that we should:
crack down on what gets sold in our schools, tackle abusive marketing practices, demand a redesign of labels [to inform consumers of content]
That part seems practical.
You will still be able to drink all the soda, and down all the sugar, that you want. The cap on soda size makes it just a tiny bit harder for you to do so.
That “tiny bit harder” is its point. If you have to order two sodas instead of one, maybe you won’t. If you have to add sugar to your coffee drink yourself, maybe you will only add one or two teaspoons instead of the 10 or more someone else put in there for you.
Okaaayyyy. That's a bit more, but I see it's worth discussion. Rational discussion (good luck with that in politics these days).
I mean we have warning labels and 'luxury' taxes on cigarettes for not dissimilar reasons. (BTW Nabisco is currently owned and run by William Morris, the maker of Malborough cigarettes... AKA Big Tobacco.) You can do what you want, but no one said it has to be as cheaply as humanly possible to do it.
I guess.
But... I don't know.
Still:
You may find this hard to believe, but the original Coca-Cola was 6.5 ounces, smaller than any size available today. In the 1950s, Coke advertised its 16-ounce bottle as large enough to serve three.
Times have changed. The sizes of foods and drinks have expanded, and so have waistlines. This is no coincidence. On the basis of calories alone, larger portions are all you need to explain why Americans are putting on pounds.
Well... sorta but not exactly. From all the books I've read recently, it seems that yes, caloric consumption has increased across the board. However, protein consumption has remained roughly the same. Fat consumption has even (marginally) gone down. The increase in calories has come from an increase in carbohydrates -- primarily cerals (wheat, corn, and rice products) and sugar be it sucrose OR high fructose corn syrup... or any other of a half dozen names they currently break sugar into so that labels can list it multiple times without it having to show up first on the ingredient list.
So yes, calorie consumption has gone up in the U.S. . . . because sugar and cereal consumption (we also subsidize wheat) has exploded. When discussing these things we tend to mention the first and politely avoid mentioning the second.
Anyway, interesting article, but I remain conflicted. And I don't know that I totally agree with the writer.
Still, in practical terms I tend to think that what should be done is move many of the farm subsidies away from non-edible (sugar producing) corn (The corn used for that is too sweet to be consumed in any way but sugar or alcohol or used to produce ethanol. It's not your corn cobs and niblets) and towards a broader scope of vegetables. That should (but won't) be done, because keeping the price low for sugar is good for mega-corporations like Coke, Nabisco, General Foods, etc. and we live in an era where profit is king (queen, king's hand, and court jester. Oh hell, it's practically the whole damn court). As long as what the government does is to the benefit of big business, well that 'government intervention' is good. But, if it's intervening in other way (for the 99%) 'teh socialist evol!!!!'
So, yeah, the most logical step (stop subsidizing agri-businesses' hyperproduction of sugars) will never be taken (they have big-time lobbyists, y'know). Which leaves things like soda bans, which feels an awful like avoiding tackling thorny issues with suppliers and instead taking the problem to the consumers.) And I don't know how I feel about that.
I don't know where I come down on the concept regulating soda bottle sizes. Seems like a bicycle being used as a fishing pole. Though I think even that may be better than Mississippi behaving like a three year old having a tantrum because someone is trying to limit its time with its binky.
*sigh* No good answers. I don't know. Just navel gazing, I guess. Carry on.
