Read the entry on the carbohydrate controversy. Listen to the audio Podcast between 14-32 minutes. Read the opposing view at Science Daily. The City has passed a cap to large beverage sizes in an effort to curb the obesity epidemic.
Previously, the Mayor had championed a general smoking ban in public spaces that included parks and plazas. This was largely based on the idea that it was in the interest of public health and other municipalities have seen positive outcomes. One example of such improvement over public health after a smoking ban comes from Pueblo, Colorado where a 27% decrease in heart attack cases resulted from a ban while surrounding municipalities had unchanged rates.
The large beverage cap was a discussion on a recent Science Friday audio podcast. Do you think we will see public health benefits from a beverage cap? Check out the discussion on Science Friday and figure out where you fit in on the debate.
References for this assignment (listening and reading):
- Read the entry on the carbohydrate controversy.
- Lustig Podcast between 14-32 minutes (listen)
- Opposing thought at Science Daily (read)
- Beverage cap audio podcast (listen)
Then answer the questions below in a coherent and cohesive essay (not a series of statements that answer each point). Be sure to address each point and post in the comments for this posting by April 4.
- Weigh in on your opinion in this debate and refer to specific arguments from the podcast and the Science Daily article
- Do you feel that having excessive amounts of sugary products is deleterious towards your well-being?
- Do you think taxation will make a difference in the habits of consumers that will effectively reduce obesity?
- What are the alternatives to taxation that would/could be implemented instead of a “soda tax”? The beverage size cap?
- What are your opinions regarding food subsidies and the abundance of low cost food of questionable “quality”?
- Food subsidies as in agricultural incentives
- Food subsidies as in public assistance (WIC and Food Stamps)
- Do you see this figuring in to ameliorating the obesity issue? Will the public truly benefit from this?
- What do you think about the marketing campaign and the formation of artificial grassroots movements that are sponsored by the American Beverage Association who benefit from the increased sales of their product?
My first thought of the soda ban was that it was entertaining, but definitely not going to be successful. I personally feel that having excessive amounts of sugary products is deleterious towards my well being on a short term basis rather than a long term effect. As the body ages, a high consumption of sugar becomes something that you crave to something that upsets your stomach and hurts your teeth. As a child I loved sugar to the point where I probably could eat it raw. Now that I am older, I can barely eat products that contain too much sugar or taste extremely sweet. I agree with the Science Daly article on the point that consuming bigger portions of food cause excessive weight gain and not the increases consumption of sugar. The portions of food in America are significantly larger than many other countries.
Taxation works with certain products but I do not think taxation will make a difference in the habits of consumers that will effectively reduce obesity. Nicotine products have been taxed and have not changed the amount of people that are highly addicted to nicotine products. I am convinced that if a box of cigarettes sold for $20, many individuals would still go through packs a day. Taxation will only increase revenue but will not reduce obesity. The alternatives to taxation that can be implemented would be decreasing the amount of fructose that our food products are made with. I completely agree with the beverage size cap because our society will only adapt to āBIG GULPSā and yearn for bigger drinks and cheaper prices. We are going to continue to be addicted to fructose just like nicotine.
Food subsidies and the abundance of low cost food has been a controversial topic that holds many arguments. My opinions regarding food subsidies and the abundance of low cost food of questionable āqualityā is that we are not given the opportunity to consume healthier products. I walk into whole foods every morning and cringe at the prices. The price of eating healthy is not cheap and many individuals are unable to enjoy the luxury of healthier products. If healthier products were more affordable, I honestly do feel that many people would prefer it. Many low quality foods fill you up for a short amount of time, where as a hearty healthy meal will make you feel satisfied and full of energy. I do see this figuring into ameliorating the obesity issue because it will provide us with many other dietary options. If given the option of choice, I am sure that many individuals will take the healthy route if it cost the same as the āunhealthy routeā. It is unfair to force specific products on society based on availability and price. I also do feel that we are all adults and should be able to make the right health choice. The American Beverage Association will always benefit from the increased sales of their products as long as we have the freedom to choose what products we consume.
I think that the question about putting a cap on soda is an interesting. As I was reading the articles and listening to the podcasts, I couldnāt help to notice that there were parts that I completely agreed with and segments were I strongly disagree with. Food is not bad, rather it is what we do to it that makes it bad, as Dr. Robert Lustig mentioned. Same goes for sugar. Sugar is one of the food components that we need to provide energy to our body, however too much sugar can cause health issues. Sugar to a certain extent can be deleterious to our well-being, if we have minimize/limit the amount of sugar we intake a day to just exactly what our body needs then we should be okay, at least in that category. We need to moderate our intake of sugar. Sugar is an addiction, at least for me, it was. Similar to one of the callers on the podcast, I to had a sweet tooth for soda. At one point in my life, soda was the only thing drunk. I knew that soda was bad, but it tasted so good, way better than water of course. One day I challenge myself to give up soda for 40 days, and it was one of the hardest 40 days of my life. I was going through withdrawals, I dreamt about soda cans running after me, I craved soda so much that eventually I stop liking it. By the 39th day, I barely though about soda and water became my new habit.
This brings me to the point that I donāt believe that taxation on soda, will help anything. Honestly, I think that taxation is a way for the government to benefit from the peopleās hard earn dollar (at least some people). If the government chooses to tax then I strongly believe that they are not actually concern about peopleās well-being, but making money. I think if the society and government were really concern about peopleās healthy then they would allow companies to create products that are ākilling their peopleā. Yes I know people would make the argument that this suggestion would eliminate free will, but honestly the only reason why this idea would be shut down is because it would interfere with capitalism, correction MONEY MAKING. Issue needs to be able health and not wealth.
Also as mentioned in the podcast that if someone whatās something bad enough, they will find a way to get it. Which means this mind set allow will crumb the idea that taxation or sodas ācapā will help reduce the rate of obesity. History alone is an example that abovementioned mindset can hinder the ācauseā i.e. the prohibition and the 18th amendment.
A possible solution can be decreasing the price of healthy food and making them cheaper, than the non healthy stuff. But then, I ask myself this question, āIf water companies made it so that their water bottles would cost 25 cent and soda was 75 cent to a dollar, would people buy the water instead? The answer would be no, people donāt buy food all the time because it is cheap also because they think it tastes better. āItās the fructose that keeps us coming back for moreā. So now I am back to square one with alternate solutions. I think in the end it should be the peopleās choice. The government should provide educational resource to people about what they are consuming and what it is doing to their body and allow them to choose whether they want to continue to harm their body , or make it healthier, after all it is the their body, they should have a choice on what to do with their body. Apparently we live in a democracy , right ?
This cap can possible improve obesity or it may not, the only way to know for sure is to try it out. However, I think it is extremely difficult to say that one thing (Soda cap) has led to a decrease of obesity. Someone that has knowledge in running experiments would tell you that one cannot really make the above mentioned statement because there are too many outside factors that play a role in obesity. This experiments(soda cap) is not a controlled environment which means that anything could be the reason for decrease of obesity such as exercise, less food intake, etc.
When talking about food subsides, I think that it would be extremely beneficial if families on WIC or Food stamps are not allowed to buy food that are detrimental to the body, such as chips, soda and candy. But my suggestion is countered with my strong belief of self-choice. One should be able to choose what they eat. I donāt really know, because I can make arguments for both sides, so I canāt really make a suggestion without nullifying it with an argument.
According to the Science Friday Show, average American drinks 57 gallon of soda a year,
which has 450 calories in one drink. Therefore, sugary drinks become a big problem for
people right now. Soda and other sugary drinks have fructose and fructose can be bad
for your liver as alcohol. The goal of the ban is to decrease the preponderance of obesity
in children. Dr. Lustig believes that it is necessary to curb carbohydrate consumption to
keep your liver healthy. However, people are still consuming soda every day. Curbing
obesity has been the latest goal of the mayor Bloomberg, who has been concerned
about high rates of diabetes and weight-related health issues. He offered restriction
on sugary drinks over 16 ounce, without affecting fruit juices, dairy-based drinks like
milkshakes, or alcoholic beverages. āThis is the single biggest step any city, I think,
has ever taken to curb obesity,ā Mr. Bloomberg said. And I agree with his restriction,
because one of the methods for sugar to go down is to low the sizes of a drinks.
In the Science Friday Show they mentioned, that the brain is effected by sugar the same
way as other drugs, therefore it fosters continue consumption. Only success they got
through regulation. However we could change the labels on products, itās still much
more than a human body needs. Type 2 diabetes and heart disease are examples of
effects on human body from overconsumption of sugary drinks. Our current food
supply is over-loaded with glucose that now creates a toxic effect. The question is how
to remove excess sugar from processed food, which has been added in there by food
industry, not for human health benefits.
I found the researches from St. Michael’s Hospital (Science Daily) not really
substantiative about fructose being unfairly blamed for the obesity epidemic. But I
agree with his statement: “Fructose may not be to blame for obesity,” he said. “It may
just be calories from any food source. Overconsumption is the issue.” The difference
between fructose from natural fruits and artificially added sugar to products is quite big.