Yay! My first opportunity to make professional observations as a dietitian (registry eligible) AND discuss recent happenings that have piqued my interest!
So, I'm sure most of y'all have heard some mention of a "soda ban" in the last few days/week? If not, please learn more by clicking through the links at the bottom. But to summarize: in an effort to turn the tide in the ongoing obesity epidemic, New York City Mayor Bloomberg proposed limiting the size of cup sugar-sweetened sodas could be sold in throughout the city's restaurants, movie theatres, food courts, and ball parks (though not grocery or convenience stores). If this proposal is accepted by NYC's Board of Health, sugar-sweetened sodas will no longer be available in cups larger than 16 fluid ounces. This proposal is a pretty great idea, in my opinion.
The first thing that gets me so excited about this proposal (and hopeful that it will soon spread beyond NYC), is the fact that Mayor Bloomberg has done his research. In a response to criticism, Bloomberg cites research on the effect food containers have on intake (5th link below). I have also included links below to this research (#s 2 and 3). The research refers to this concept as "mindless eating" - another buzz word many of you might have heard. All this research lets us know that the size of container in which food and drink are available is contributing to our excessive intake and, in turn, the obesity epidemic. Bloomberg's proposal will ensure most people - those that just order a soda along with meals or as part of their movie-going experience - only consume a moderate amount of sugar-sweetened soda. And for those that want more than 16-ounces, they are perfectly welcome to order more, unhindered - they will simply be aware that they are obtaining a second serving and consuming more than is recommended. Since people repeatedly consume more from larger containers than those with smaller consumers - and do not report any significant differences in satiety (or fullness) - I think making smaller containers the standard is a well-designed intervention.
I'm also a huge fan of the way this proposal does not actually ban or eliminate soda in any way. If I were seeing any one of you as a dietitian and you had any food/nutrition-related changes you wished to make, I know I would tell you that doing anything cold turkey and with no breaks or "cheats" built in is not sustainable. Trying to totally eliminate a food or drink is too restrictive - it is too hard to give up a kind of food in all capacities forever. It is much better to make small changes, and to find a place for all kinds of foods in your diet and sustaining those changes. Legislating away all sodas - something that many people consume daily - would be a terrible idea. (Not to mention taking away someone's choice to eat/drink what they like is also horribly unethical.) It's interesting to me that even in Coca-Cola's public response to Bloomberg's proposal (the 4th link below), the responding company official discusses her family's own intake of sodas in small-to-moderate amounts (8-12 fluid ounce servings) and typically as treats or "pick-ups". Her own description of finding a healthier place for soda in the American diet is close to being in line with Bloomberg's proposal!
Lastly, I've included some links from Harvard University's School of Public Health. They have been active in the public conversation regarding added sugars and soda in the American diet and the effect had on health. I know this was on the long side (and probably rambling in parts because I tend to do that), but I hope that the benefits of the proposal are clear and that some of you are more open to/excited for this proposal than before!
Resource articles:
1. Bloomberg introduces "soda ban".
2. Cornell's research of mindless eating.
3. Of particular interest: the refilling soup bowls.
4. Coke's response to Bloomberg.
5. Bloomberg's response - with a quote of support from Joy Bauer, RD.
6. Great summary of soda role in the American diet.
7. Women who choose water of soda, juice have lower risk of diabetes.
UPDATE:
I've added a conversation that this post sparked on Facebook. Thanks so much to all of y'all for reading and responding - hopefully I can get the comments option worked out soon, but always feel free to contact me with questions/concerns!
- HC:Kaitie! I tried to comment on your blog but I couldn't, and I spent all this time typing my thoughts so I'm just going to ask about it here...has anyone thought about what this plan will do to the environment? My concerns with this otherwise awesome ban is that all of the sudden there will be vending machines on every corner and all of those people that used to only use 1 plastic cup each day will now use 2 or 3 plastic bottles. I'm all for trying to control the obesity epidemic, but I am more concerned about the ecological effects these types of legislature will have. Obese people have other options, the planet does not. What happened do the soda or fat tax idea? I like that one better.
- KYI:I have a link to an article for fat tax. I'm not opposed to it. But right now people are already so up in arms about any and all tax increases, I'm not sure it would be the right first step. And that may be why they didn't apply the initial proposal to grocery and convenience stores. Though movie theatres and ballparks do certainly provide refreshments in one-use containers. Perhaps movie theatres would be open to moving to reusable containers? And I do wonder how restaurants (read: sandwich and coffee shops) will handle those consumers that bring in reusable containers greater that 16-fl. oz. It's not a flawless plan, but I do largely like it. I like that glasses will be standardized at a smaller size. I just hope that people move to reusable glassware or recyclable/compostable one-use paper products. Definitely good concerns though. I wonder if Bloomberg has addressed it elsewhere?
- KYI: ahh, here's that link: http://
www.thedailybeast.com/ articles/2012/06/09/ bloomberg-soda-ban wins-few -fans-but-fat-tax-may-fare -better.html 
www.thedailybeast.comA British medical journal study shows that fat taxes may help counteract the obe... - KYI:and then I realized I didn't fully answer your concerns, HC! You may be right about more vending machines and bottled drinks popping up in >16 fl. oz. sizes, as the Bloomberg proposal basically ignores them. I think THAT is a great opportunity for the fat tax. But, if you've been able to read the above article, the research shows that it would be most effective if it were not merely a soda tax and in fact a significant 20% tax on all foods deemed "unhealthy." I think it's promising, for sure, but will involve much more effort than this initial proposal. I still support the Bloomberg proposal as the best place to start (at least from what I've seen to this point..). I don't think any one initiative is going to address all the many different components of this problem. What do you think?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please feel free to bring up any questions or concerns, but keep it classy y'all!