Friday, June 8, 2012

Mayor Bloomberg Isn't the ONLY Mayor Advocating Limits on Sugary Drinks!

Mayor Bloomberg has been getting a lot of bad press for his public health proposal regarding sugary drinks.  Personally, I think a certain amount of that attention is because a narrow segment of the population disagrees with him about gun control.
NRA Reality - old, white, not buff
Rambo NRA ' Gun Nut' hero Fantasy
When you consider the conservative inhabitants of the Red states, and the progunners fit the profile of old and white, flabby and crabby -- and by flabby, I mean obese not just deficient in muscle tone -- it makes sense that they would be as upset at limiting their fattening soft drinks the same way they get upset at limiting their gun fetish objects that enhance their fantasies of themselves as heroic 'Rambo' figures.  A casual perusal of peopleofwalmart.com will show you what I mean.  After checking out peopleofwalmart.com, consider that it is Wally World that is the number 1 seller of guns in the U.S.  That NRA classic profile I use probably owes the outcome to beer as much as sugary drinks, but you only get in trouble driving with beer, not sugary soda.

"soda jerks, people of walmart.com, page 20
just a little harmless'sugary drink excess - or addiction?
I mean, it's not like anyone is drinking sugary soda pop to excess.......is it?

Yes it IS.  And as was noted in a segment of 60 Minutes earlier this year, sugar is an addictive substance, not just a food choice.  That puts it in a somewhat different category from other kinds of food, an aspect of the discussion which has been overlooked in the push back against Mayor Bloomberg.



It is NOT just Bloomberg who is promoting the idea of a little healthy portion control on sugary drinks as a public health measure!  Other mayors share the idea in different iterations.
Public health issues are a public problem; failing to address self-destructive patterns of consumption that are the root cause of public health issues require a comprehensive and broad (pardon the pun) based solution, portion control
in the form of product size limitations or taxation is just one part of that solution.  To call it the nanny state is to deny or ignore the nature of the problem, and to fail to produce a solution, just as gun nuts rejecting reasonable gun control relates directly to our high rates of death and injury.  And as with both sugary drinks and guns, the worst victims tend to be children.  Portion control solutions work.  No one is taking away your freedom to indulge, but it is making that choice a more thoughtful one that makes it easier to make the correct choice.

FOR EXAMPLE, from the Philadelphia Weekly re hizzoner, Mayor Nutter of Philadelphia:

Mayor Nutter Says Bloomberg Soda Plan ‘Worth Evaluating and Considering’

dont-buyAs we mentioned earlier today, Mayor Michael Nutter is in Washington, DC today and delivered the keynote address at the Center for Science in the Public Interest’s Inaugural National Soda Summit. His statements were recently sent out to press and note something we’ve all been thinking: He is still adamant about his soda tax idea and even believes New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s ban on super-size drinks is a positive step.
“Mayors across the country and I have proposed taxes or new regulations on sugar sweetened beverages,” he said. “We need a multi-pronged approach to decrease sugary drinks consumption. Education, taxation, and increased access to healthier options have to all be a part of the discussion.”
Last summer, the Nutter Administration proposed a 2-cent per-ounce tax on soda, after a previous plan failed and property taxes were hiked instead. The city has invested its own and federal stimulus cash into an anti-soda campaign, in which posters are put up outside delis and other establishments asking consumers to think twice before purchasing their beverage of choice.

Mayor Nutter’s press secretary Mark McDonald told us earlier this year there were “no specific plans at this time [to introduce a soda tax].”
Nutter continued in his summit talk today, noting Mayor Bloomberg’s accomplishment.
“Just last week, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg proposed a ban on sugary drinks larger than 16 oz. His ban would limit large sugary drinks being sold at food service establishments, like fast food restaurants, sports arenas or deli’s. The ban wouldn’t apply to diet sodas, fruit juices, dairy-based products or beverages with no more than 25 calories per 8 oz. serving,” he said, adding: “It’s a bold strategy and is worth evaluating and considering. Studies have shown that people eat what is served to them. Perhaps, if offered smaller portions people would consume less. The problem, which Mayor Bloomberg has clearly noted, is that ridiculously large portions have become the norm – 20 or 24 oz. sugary drinks are common.”
Mayor Bloomberg’s idea was both touted and slammed throughout the media, often dependent upon ideology. A Gawker headline urged readers to “Quit complaining about Mayor Bloomberg’s soda ban, fatsos.”
As we wrote earlier this year, the American Beverage Industry has been lobbying hard against any increase in tax on sweetened beverages across the country. Here in Philadelphia, they spent $238,921 on lobbying the city against a soda tax—six times more than the next group. Funded by the American Beverage Association, a group called Smart Taxpayers Exposing Waste was put together to put a hip face on efforts to stop anti-soda legislation. They’ve noted stimulus money earmarked for anti-obesity campaigns would have been better spent on a larger blue collar workforce. A STEW Facebook graphic noted the money Philly spent on its anti-obesity campaign could have bought 52 police officers, 54 firefighters, 57 paramedics, 58 teachers or 88 EMTs, for one year.
The Nutter Administration has essentially ignored these campaigns, publicly. “In 2011, with Philadelphia’s School District facing a significant budget shortfall, I reintroduced the sugar-sweetened beverage tax. At two-cents-per-ounce, this time on distributors, we believed it would close the budget gap,” Nutter said at the summit. “Each time we introduced the sugar-sweetened beverage tax, we faced determined opposition from the beverage industry.” (Philebrity has the entire speech up here.)
Nutter went on to tout his “Get Healthy Philly” initiative as well as a $7.5 million Center for Disease Control grant for obesity reduction strategies.
“Taxes can play a role in adjusting consumer choices, he said. “Mayor Bloomberg’s idea of a serving-size ban could help reduce consumption.”


10 comments:

  1. Bloomberg is being an idiot. You cannot legislate morality or character. It's been tried with booze, sex, drugs, comics and music--doesn't work.

    Having said that, I think two things could be done to raise awareness. The first would be to put a specific tax on every soft drink sold that MUST be used for educational/nutirition programs. The second is to make the use of sugar, not HFCS, mandatory in all soft drinks. Switching back to sugar would make the drinks taste better and MORE importantly cost a LOT more--at least that's the line of reasoning that the megagulp companies used to get the crap into coke in the first place.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. An alternative would be for the government to do nothing and let people make their own choices and live with the consequences. That type of freedom horrifies meddling types like you.

      Delete
  2. Nutter's plan differs from Bloomberg's in being one of taxation.

    I think a combination of taxation is an excellent one, with possibly a slightly steeper tax or surcharge rather than a prohibition on larger sizes. Ideally, it could work like the tax on cigarettes.es

    ReplyDelete
  3. That is definitely part of how this stuff is marketed. An unhealthy and addictive product that is heavily subsidized, and lobbies heavily (I wouldn't be surprised either if Sugar was a big member of special interest group ALEC). If there were such a measure as the various mayors, not just Bloomberg, have recommended, it would be almost certainly shift how the products are marketed - and more than likely the best cost/benefit would then be in smaller sizes.

    No doubt they'd push that by stressing individuality in some way.

    The documentary 'supersize me' comes to mind.

    Thanks for the comment and welcome to Penigma!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Sandra,

    IF the decisions of people, say like those who chose to smoke for years and the tobacco companies who defrauded Americans, had no effect on those around them, then us "meddling types" probably would be all too happy to let the morbidly obese die the difficult deaths their lifestyle choices sadly brought them.

    however, their actions DO affect everyone else. They drive up health care costs, the use badly needed medical resources on things like run-away diabetes rates rather than on say, curing cancer. Consequently, it is, as the Constitution says, "Promoting the general welfare" for government to seek to encourage people to NOT inflict their lifestyle choices on others.

    By enormous irony and contrast, "meddling types" like say YOU, seek to limit wheher same sex couples can marry, DESPITE the fact that their choice has NO bearing on your life. You, or perhaps not you but many who likely vote like you, seek to use the government to interfere in the choices a church can make, namely which sacraments they may perform under the law - a clear intrusion of one church view over another and frankly an unjustifiable intrusion on the common good - as stated by the judge who overturned Prop 8 in California. You also seek BIG GOVERNMENT solutions, needlessly, to non-existent (statisstcally speaking) voter fraud, seeking to strip those who, through not seeking to overcome the hurdles you or those like you put in place to voting, will then not excercise the most important responsibility they have as citizens. So you will strip them of that right and choice all in the bald-faced lie name of preventing fraud when in fact what you seek is to prevent those whom you feel are too stupid to vote, from voting.

    So please, tell me again about meddling? Don't meddle in voting rights or human rights, and I'll give a second thought to asking those who, through their own choices, should have to pay the consequences of such choices.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Sandra, welcoe to Penigma. Your comment is welcomed too.

    Not at all - choice would be preserved. I have never suggested people shouldn't be free to buy sugary drinks.

    People like you would like to see the terrible difference in fatal car accidents and horrific injuries by opposing the mandates for automakers to put seatbelts in cars AND make it the law that people use them - let people decide if they want to drive safe or not! And don't make it the law that kids have to ride in safety seats - let them die, that is their parents right to decide if kids die or not.

    That is not freedom, that is stupidity. It is contrary to the public interest and public health and safety. Your approach may make you feel like you are all libertarian independent, but the societal costs - as in real dollars and cents, as well as the cost to real humans - is horrible. You aren't thinking, you're making decisions with your emotions - bad decisions.

    It makes us less successful, less strong, less viable and secure as a nation.

    Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the current problems are miilitary is having in dealing with a volunteer army that is fit enough to serve, which originates in childhood obesity.

    http://www.9abc.net/index.php/archives/16235

    And when you factor in the newly discovered addictive properties of sugar which literally interfere with the brain's ability to make better, safer and healthier decisions......as well as the role of big Ag in the financial reasons for pushing sugary drinks the way they are so as to undermine and circumvent good conscious thought -- it's not a fair playing field for the consumer.

    I would bet you are one of those who like to chant, we're number one, we're number one, touting American exceptionalism. The reality is that you want us to be worst, not best.

    http://www.americashealthrankings.org/

    Why do you hate America?

    Why do you want to weaken America in the name of a stupid ideology / political philosophy that is totally disconnected from objective reality?

    ReplyDelete
  6. BTW, Sandra,

    whenever I hear a GOPer talk about "meddling", i'm reminded of Scoobey Doo episodes where the villain complains about "meddling kids". I mean, beyond the rampant, hysterical hypocrisy of those who would inflict their morality on others complaining about meddling, i find itt pretty ironic and funny that the villains always complain about meddling when in fact of course their crimes are a meddling injustice in the first place.

    As an aside, welcome to commenting here, but honestly, if you want to play in the sandbox, I'd suggest you bring your A game, we will not overtly or purposefully insult you personally, nor make ad hominem, that's the provoke of right-wing hate blogs and their pantheon of synchophantic trolls, but we will eviscerate poorly thought through comments with some derisive logic. It ain't personal, but it IS on purpose.

    ReplyDelete
  7. That should say "province of right wing" Damn you autocorrect (and my bad Ipad keyboard).

    ReplyDelete
  8. I thought it was a pretty apt Freudian slip actually.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Expect more on this topic - while Bloomberg may have been thoroughly jumped on, he is correct, and the jumpers are wrong this time.

    ReplyDelete