After obesity rates in the United States began soaring in the 1980s, federal, state and local governments started to push back. Calorie counts were mandated for food packages and in many restaurants. School lunches were made healthier. Unhealthy trans fats got phased out.
Yet American waistlines continued to swell, with two-thirds of adults and one-third of children now overweight or obese — a major factor in the country’s health-care crisis, as obesity triggers expensive chronic illnesses, including diabetes and heart disease.
By the early 2000s, policymakers began focusing their energies on a new target: soft drinks. High in calories and with no nutritional value, sodas are a huge source of added sugar in the American diet. Study after study shows that people who drink the most non-diet soda are at the highest risk for obesity.
But in the face of intense lobbying from drink makers, efforts to tax and regulate soft drinks have foundered.
This past week, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg — amidst a multi-front war on obesity — tried a new tactic. He proposed limiting sugary drinks sold by restaurants, cinemas, street vendors and stadiums in his city to 16 ounces. (Grocery stores would be exempt.)
“We know that portion size influences consumption. We know that portion sizes have risen dramatically. And we know that sugary drinks have this uniquely strong connection with weight gain,” said Thomas Farley, New York’s health commissioner.
The move intensified the debate over how far government should go to steer individual behavior in the name of health and immediately drew scorn from the $75 billion-per-year soft drink industry.
“Here they go again,” said Chris Gindlesperger, spokesman for the American Beverage Association, an industry group. “The New York City health department has an unhealthy obsession with attacking soft drinks. It’s over the top. It’s overreach. The city is not going to address the obesity problem by attacking soda, because soda is not driving the obesity rate.”
A group funded by restaurants began running ads in New York branding Bloomberg — shown in a housedress and scarf — as “the nanny.”
“You only thought you lived in the land of the free,” read the newspaper ad bought by the Center for Consumer Freedom, which sourcewatch.org says represents the restaurant, alcohol, tobacco and other industries.
Fast-food giant McDonald’s also weighed in with a tweet to Bloomberg on Friday, “We trust our customers to make the choices that are best for them.”
But public-health advocates contend that letting everyone make their own choices has led the country to $192 billion per year in medical bills for obesity-related care. That’s a tab everyone ends up paying via Medicare, Medicaid and soaring rates for private health insurance.
“There is nobody on face of the planet who needs a soda, let alone a 32 ounce soda,” said Robert Lustig, a pediatric-obesity researcher at the University of California at San Francisco who is a vocal proponent of restrictions on sugary drinks.
Advocates of soda regulation point to a long list of government mandates — vaccines to prevent childhood diseases, seat-belt laws and automobile-air-bag rules, and high taxes and age restrictions on cigarettes and alcohol — that they say have improved public health and saved lives.
What sets New York’s proposal apart is that it addresses a new aspect of the obesity problem — portion size.
“If New York City’s initiative succeeds, it really opens up a new front,” said Michael Jacobson, executive director for Center for Science in the Public Interest, an advocacy group. “I’m sure it will encourage other cities and states to seek similar measures to reduce portion sizes.”
The approach also offers a model for getting around the kind of political warfare that has impeded soda taxes, Farley said.
The battle over sodas raged in 2009, after President Barack Obama floated the idea of a national soda tax to reduce consumption and pay for his proposed health-care reforms. As top academics championed the idea, states and cities rolled out proposed taxes.
But soda makers pushed back hard — upping their lobbying expenditures eight-fold from 2008 to 2009, to $40 million, according to records for the American Beverage Association. The result: Soda taxes were defeated in 30 states and several cities, including Philadelphia.
PepsiCo threatened to move its headquarters out of New York state if an 18 percent tax passed there (it didn’t). And, despite the president’s rhetoric, a soda tax never even made it into drafts of the health-care bill, which was passed into law in 2010.
Soda makers “have indicated they will spend as much money as it takes to kill a tax because tens of millions [of dollars] is nothing compared to the sales they would lose if a stiff tax were adopted,” said Jacobson.
By contrast, adoption of Bloomberg’s proposal is virtually assured. The only body that must sign off on it is the city’s health board — all Bloomberg appointees with Farley as the chairman.
The beverage industry’s only recourse appears to be a lawsuit, which Gindlesperger said the beverage association is considering.
“New ideas are often more controversial and are more likely to be passed by a group of experts than by a group of people who have to get elected every couple of years,” said Farley.
Gindlesperger countered that regulators could achieve more meaningful results if they “came to the table” and negotiated voluntary changes with the industry.
But the soda industry’s interests are “in complete conflict with public health needs,” said Yale University professor Kelly Brownell, a proponent of soda taxes and restrictions.
That’s because drink makers and retailers reap big profits from giant drinks, Brownell added. For just a few pennies of extra product, soda companies can sell jumbo drinks for a dollar or two more than smaller sizes.
“That’s why you have to regulate,” he said.
Bloomberg’s proposal swims against two federal policies that public-health advocates say encourage soda drinking:
Farm subsidies that push down the price of high-fructose corn syrup add about $100 million a year to the bottom line of soda makers, according to a 2009 analysis from Tufts University researchers. Those subsidies make soda cheaper.
And the 42 million Americans receiving federal food stamps use those benefits to buy $4 billion of soda every year, according to the Center for Science in the Public Interest.
Still, overall consumption of sugary drinks has dropped 24 percent since 1998, according to an analysis from the group.
“That’s historic and indicates some progress, probably due to a whole range of factors,” including more consumption of bottled water and diet sodas, the popularity of low-carb diets like Atkins, and increased health consciousness, Jacobson said.
Experts disagree about whether the Bloomberg plan will cut into the city’s obesity problem.
“There’s not a lot of evidence it will work,” said Cornell University professor Brian Wansink, who studies food behaviors. “Because the people who drink it really like it, they’re going to figure out a way around it.”
But a slew of research shows larger cups and bottles leads to more soda drinking. “What’s put in front of you, big or small, feels satisfying to people,” said Farley.
Barry Popkin, a prominent public-health researcher at the University of North Carolina, agreed, calling the proposal “gutsy.”
“Controlling sugary beverage portions . . . is critical for reducing weight gain and risk of diabetes in the United States,” Popkin said.
Brownell challenged the industry groups accusing Bloomberg of cutting into Americans’ freedom to choose, “It’s not a nanny state to encourage people not to buy a 64-ounce soda at KFC.”
So where do they stop taking away our right to make our own choices. Have you ever seen how many calories are in a typical massive deli sandwich NY is known for? Why not limit the size of the sandwiches. How about donuts, limit one a day (require some type of electronic tracking of how many people buy to enforce it), what about the size of the bowl of pasta at TGI Fridays. I mean come on, where do you draw the line. I don’t think people like Bloomberg ever draw the line, they just want to lord over us.
A recent study from Duke University, RTI International and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate the U.S. health care system could be burdened with 32 million more obese people in the next 20 years, and the country must take proactive steps to keep obesity rates where they are or lower to prevent this burden on healthcare.
Using data integration technology, the researchers studied information from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System and state-level data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and other organizations. The researchers predict the number of Americans with obesity will increase to 42 percent by 2030. If the country was able to keep obesity rates at their current level or lower, the government and taxpayers could save nearly $550 billion in medical expenditures over the next two decades.
OK Bradygirl2, you got me there. Obese people and obesity rates are a big problem. So limiting one choice (cup size of a surgery soda) will really have little to no effect. So Bradygirl2, be intellectually honest – say the government should limit all portion sizes of – everything. Perhaps we should charge all obese people an Obese Fee to cover their cost – better yet deny them government funded health care – or perhaps kill them. If you really want to address the obesity rate, picking on one industry is ineffectual in the goal, and just plain stupid.
Often times, people use phrases like “intellectually honest” or “slippery slope” to justify doing nothing by taking every proposed solution to its ridiculous extreme. While there is no ultimate solution, giant vats of empty calories that are made artifically cheap with corn starch subsidies are a good place to start.
What will be you’re next decision on what I should not have? Who the heck are you to tell me or anyone how to live their life? To tell someone they can not sell or buy a soda is a ridiculous extreme. You don’t have to take it anywhere else. It’s the your starting point.
Same argument made about seat belts in the 1970’s “who are you to tell me…..”. They saved millions of lives and billions of dollars. It was not the ending of American freedom. I would say that limiting the size of a soda that you sell to kids younger than 14 or so makes more sense than what Mr. Bloomberg is trying to do, but leaving things as they are now is unsustainable, and the rising societal costs of the numbers in my first post will eventually deprive many more people of life and freedom than limiting the size of a Mountain Dew.
next a law requiring 6 servings of veg a day …or a law requiring only certain kinds of meat ..if he really wants to do something good …..their could be laws against certain colors certain music …..and these are the same folks that state on a daily basis that it is the President that is taking away our freedoms …..
Why don’t we just start turning obese people away at the doctor’s office? Take at least 1/4 of the money and pay for comprehensive health education in public schools.
Problem – some overweight individuals have health concerns that are not related to weight. These problems (i.e. thyroid issues come to mind) need careful monitoring regardless of weight.
Of course they do. I was half-kidding. Ideally nobody gets turned away from the doc’s office.
People need to be incentivized to take better care of themselves though. You can’t have over half the population thinking that their own health isn’t their responsibility and expect anything to function properly.
It doesn’t matter, sadly, what you ban. The majority of people who are overeating (and I don’t include every obese person in this group), aren’t eating junk just because it’s available. They’re eating junk because it’s cheap, it tastes good to them, and they have other issues that make them eat too much, like depression and stress. The only way to keep these people from eating so much junk would be to completely ban all forms of fattening and sugary food, which is highly unlikely, if not impossible.
I find it strange and ironic that a country with a such a huge obesity problem is, at the same time, obsessed with appearance. It’s no wonder we’re rife with eating disorders and image problems. There’s a lot more to this issue than the availability of soda.
“I find it strange and ironic that a country with a such a huge obesity problem is, at the same time, obsessed with appearance. It’s no wonder we’re rife with eating disorders and image problems. There’s a lot more to this issue than the availability of soda.”
I agree with this statement wholeheartedly.
So won’t they just buy multiple smaller sizes if they want more? I’m not sure I understand this completely. Either that or I’ve mastered what the politicians can’t comprehend.
“allowing everyone to make their own choices” is tantamount to Bloomberg’s “women’s choices” when it comes to killing the unborn–sugar choice, murder choice–interesting on his part.
The depression comes from a poor diet. Real food is just as cheap if not cheaper. One can purchase sproutable seeds and eat for a few weeks at least on dimes per dollars.
At this point you can’t regulate everybody, but the facts need to be made aware to people so they can make an informed decision. Everything you said is avoidable. It’s my opinion that if you make the wrong choices, you should have to shoulder the burden. Instead, the healthy people pay into a failing system designed to keep sickly people alive while they are allowed to do the wrong things
With respect to portion of size, every time I go back to the States to visit I’m amazed that someone could consume ½ gal of a soft drink in one go. I would say a far bigger problem causing obesity is not the size of a soft drink but eating habits. When it first came to Europe 30 odd years ago, I was informed by a friend that Americans did not eat we grazed. After thinking about thus statement there’s a lot of truth to it. Seldom do we limit our eating to breakfast, lunch and dinner, but grab something as we’re going by. I’m guilty of this habit when in New York I wander from one hotdog vendor to another. Maybe the next thing they will try to restrict is the purchasing of food between mealtimes. Isn’t it about time that we grow up and take responsibility for our own actions rather than allowing the government to make decisions for us.
You wander from one hotdog vendor to another? I think you’re the first person I’ve ever heard of that does that… particularly in NYC, where there’s more to do than almost anywhere else in the country. I’d say it’s far more likely that the average American would stop once and (if they’re the indulgent type) grab a 1/2 gallon of Pepsi with a king-size Snickers + bag of Doritos to satisfy their midday malnutrition-induced cravings.
Point being, I think the “American mindset” is more conducive to positively responding to regulated portion-sizes than you give it credit for… as embarrassing as that may be.
The Mayor is one of the only politicians who will take a stand on issues of this sort. The same people who go crazy over this proposal also go crazy over any rule that is made for the public good. How big of an imposition would it be to influence limiting the consumption of over priced sugar drinks? Hopefully this spreads to other things such aas portion sizes.
At what point would you like the government to stay out of your personal life?
At the point where they want to determine what goes on in my bedrooom.
This is very simple but a lot of people just do not get it. When someone else is paying the bills you lost your rights to choose. It is that simple. When you went on Food Stamps, Welfare, Unemployment, Medicare, Medicaid and anything else that is not you earning the money and paying for your choices from the time you make them until the time you die. There is no difference between this and smoking, well smoking may kill you just a little bit faster, and as far as the Diet Soda thing, I am not sold on it being any better, look at all the Salt that goes into it, and other chemistry. I am not saying just drink water, bottled water is a joke and a ripoff. I drink what I want but in moderation. If I buy a 2ltr of soda I make it last over 24-48 hrs not 2, and I make my own drinks like old style lime aids, lemon aid, tea, all with no or very little sugar.
The way most are going, we are going to have to pay in the end since all you drink is soda by the gallon and I do not like to see my tax money going to pay for your diabetes meds because your to stupid to eat correctly and exorcise! So you see you have lost the right to even complain about the Government taking away your rights, you did that when you took the money, and benefits from it.
I say stop letting anyone on Food stamps buy any sodas and foods that are junk, and stop the subsidies to the corn farmers. They do not need them any longer, and we do not need to help out the Soda industry any longer. If not put a $5.99 Medicare flat tax on anything with high-fructose corn syrup in it, and I know that it is in everything from bread to soup!
Do I really think this is going to stop people from sucking down a 2Ltr of soda and 2 LG pizzas then going for ice cream, cookies, and stopping for more soda and candy on the way home to do nothing all night but complain how sick they feel. NO I DO NOT! My theory is this the less cash you have to waste the less you can buy trash foods. The Average American Kid would stroke out if it had to get off the couch and do something as simple as cut the grass, or take out the trash, let alone play a sport. And let’s not start talking about mom and dad. I will say that it is true there is someone out there for everyone not matter how much you weight!!
It is not discrimination to require anyone on food-stamps to act responsibly and buy food that is good for them. Start here and then move on to everyone else. NO soda, Cake, Cookies, Ice Cream, Fats, Sodium, You get the idea.
Lmao not all overwieght are on food stamps. Its just dumb to think that.
Whats next? Regulating how many Chili-Cheese Dogs you can purchase from a Food Cart?
The tactics of the beverage industry reminds me of the cigarette industry when it fought a losing battle over new cigarette regulations and taxes. In the end, I believe that the beverage industry will lose too.
For too long this country has encouraged average Americans to become terrestrial whales, who’s rolls of blubber would provide a good food source if we are ever visited by aliens looking for dinner. It is time to stop being polite about this situation and get this expanding portion of our population to take a good look at themselves in a wide angle mirror and let them understand that what they are doing to themselves, their children and those who depend upon them is also hurting the country.
Being polite about the situation has not worked. It is time to face the truth, fat hurts.
Reduced sized drinks should only be a beginning. People who fly, ought to be weighted along with their luggage and pay by the pound to fly. At least when I hear the plane groan when taking off, I’ll know the Hogazilla next to me helped pay for the extra fuel it took to get him off the ground. It isn’t fair to spread the cost of lifting these Leviathans to all the other customers. Their bulk adds to the cost of flying a plane, they ought to pay the added cost.
Medical insurance costs ought to be higher for the obese. Why should people who do the right thing be lumped in the same fee structure as those who damage their health by being obese?
Even clothing should be priced by size. Why should someone wearing a size 10 pay the same price as someone wearing a size 20? It is one thing to wear a size 34/30 pants and another to wear a size 44/30 and you can bet, the size 34/30 fits into a movie seat and the other does not. The person wearing the 44/30 pours over the armrest into the space of the person next to him. So movies ought to have a fat section and restrict the obese to bothering each other.
Restaurant portion sizes are too large. If customers really want two meals on one plate, they ought to pay for two meals and let normal people only pay for what they really can eat. All you can eat buffets are a crime against humanity. Recently I ate at one and at least half of the women there could have been the Fat Lady in the Opera. The last thing they needed was an all you can eat meal. Nearly as large percentage of the men were as big as steers too.
In my opinion, the restaurant industry needs regulation and not just drink size. As a people, we eat too much and this is helping to destoy the health of the nation. It cannot be good for the country and people who defend this as a “right” are really saying, “I can do what I want to myself and the damage I do to the country is none of the nation’s business.” At the very least, that is being selfish.
The saddest thing is that fat parents raise fat children and pass their poor habits on to the next generation. Retired Marine Drill Instructors ought to be assigned to neighborhoods and have them run those fat families through physical exercises on a daily basis until they get their weight down. That isn’t going to happen but I’d love to see some Drill Instructor yelling at these jelly rolls in gym shorts as they waddle down the street. What a U-Tube moment!
If I insulted someone, I am not sorry and do not apologize. I believe you would only be insulted is you were fat and if that is the case, you need to come to the realization that the best time to change your behavior was yesterday. Next best time? Right now. Set started and good luck. Buy a bike and not a jelly roll. Walk around the block and not to the convenience store for a candy bar and soda. Eat your veggies and lay off the cakes. Buy a dog and walk it daily. Do somethng.
You and those who think like you are whats wrong with our country. You want to stick your nose in business that doesn’t concern you. The weight of plane passengers in relation to fare price I might could go along with. But your rant about buffets and portion sizes is just plain silly. It’s none of your business how much someone else eats as long as you don’t have to pay for it. The fact that you spent time to write that longwinded rant speaks volumes for your belief that you are smarter somehow than the rest of us. Go eat something and STFU.
Ahh, but we ARE paying for it. Obesity and diabetes related illnesses cost the taxpayers millions of dollars a year!
Honestly, I thought his long winded rant was a joke. I thought he was making the ridiculous look more ridiculous to make a point. I might be wrong….
I truly hope that was a joke. I really really do…
sad so sad. I wonder how you react when the government takes away your right to voice your opinion. and it is going to happen.
fyi plus size clothes cost 3 to 4 dollars more
How about you calm down, stop worrying about what other people are doing with their lives and start worrying about you and your loved ones. You have no right to impose your will onto others.
By the way, just because someone is fat does not mean they are any less healthy than their thinner counterparts. Yes, people who have unhealthy habits should pay more for health insurance, just like crappy drivers pay more for auto insurance.
The rant above was a little excessive, and I believe to be taken slightly in jest, but just to respond to your comment, how is it not invasive when you’re on an airplane and you can’t place your arms on the armrests, your legs are squeezed together, and two elbows jab into your sides, all because of the physical profile of your neighbors? Shouldn’t I be entitled to my seat? In this case, not even the airline can do anything because the government protects the rights of the individuals to my left and my right, but I’m apparently forced to deal with it. Does that sound fair?
Similarly, when government funded healthcare is on the block, why do I want to pay excessive tax dollars towards people who do not take better care of themselves? Am I not right to say that “I’m thinking of my loved ones” when public interests are at large?
The issue is precisely that of which you speak, nobody has the right to impose their will on others. What you’re missing is how that notion has already been violated.
The government has been granted the right to impose regulations on others (citizens) – it is necessary for the benefit of society as americans as individuals and as a society do not do what is in their own best interest; this is why a socialist society is necessary in this country.
I dont’ think you insulted anyone.. no one would take you seriously anyway.. have you lost your mind or what…
Eliminating “super-sized” sodas is a good place to start. Sure. some people may just order seconds but by suckering customers into far more sugar and calories than is good for them soda purveyors are trading consumer health for increased profits. Ultimately we all end up paying higher insurance premiums and taxes to subsidize the healthcare needs that are the inevitable outcome.
Coming soon and beginning in NY, one
12oz draft beer per day for a person. Sexual
activity once a month for anyone over 18. One
hot dog or one hamburger (your choice) per
cookout. No salt or condiments can be used.
No bread served at restaurants. All pizza shops
to serve “healthy” pizza only. The sheep will only
eat what you will be told to eat. Our leaders know
what is right for us, we need them to take care of
us. Oh and NO THINKING or having ownership
for your actions will be necessary, they will do all
that for you too. Thank you Mayor Doomberg and
thank you all you carers of the masses.
The american public continually demonstrates it will not do what is in it’s own self-interest as individuals or a society; this is why government must intervene, and it must for our own benefit.
Hitler??? Is that you??
You know, it kind of does suck that my taxes go toward paying for people to get med after med after med for their “faultless” sedentary lifestyles while I can’t pay for physical therapy for my torn labrum (an acute sports injury requiring no surgery, but proper assisted strengthening for full recovery) because I don’t have any health insurance at all. I’m all for a health plan that works for everyone but while I make every effort to live healthy just to reduce my own costs, others clearly do not. The incentives are misaligned somewhere down the line…
Is there something wrong with being educated, self-employed, but living only with a modest income? I seem to be paying for everything but missing all of the benefits I’m paying for.
It’s wonderful that people are getting so much bang for their buck in terms of portion sizes. Just because they give you enough food for the whole day does not mean you have to eat it all in one sitting.
When you start to get full, simply pull a ziplock bag out of your pocket save the rest for later. If someone has a problem with that, just tell them you are full and can’t eat another bite and do not like to waste good food. Many establishments will furnish you with a “doggy bag.”
Here’s a proposal- the government should stop subsidizing corn refiners. We are driving down the cost of high fructose corn syrup, and in turn encouraging its use and making it cheaper for soft drink manufacturers. Let’s stop making sugary processed foods so damn cheap, because that’s what encourages people to make bad decisions.
More gym class for school kids, outlaw high frutose corn syrup. It would be nice if kids who live in towns and cities felt safe to play outside, like it was 30, 40 years ago, but that seems like a lost era. Our personal safety beyond our the 4 walls of our homes is not a given, so sad.
The government has no authority to intervene with the choices of the people unless it interferes with the rights of others. It is easy to be torn on such an issue because having unhealthy eating habits potentially lead to an unhealthy person, in which case “others” generally have to pay for it. Interestingly, due to genetics, and overall body “makeup” every person reacts differently to the same eating habits. This is why some people who are overweight actually eat healthier, and less than those who eat nothing but garbage all of the time. In which case the thinner person is not always the healthier person.
Overall this is a very complicated issue, it is an issue that will take a generation to “fix”, it will require the education of our children about healthy life choices, and an entire cultural shift, and interestingly the government believes that by banning “big sodas” it is somehow going to solve it. It is laughable, it is a disgrace, and it is an invasion of our personal liberties as it accomplishes absolutely nothing.
And you think this is bad, just wait until we have nationalized health insurance. It will be in the best interest of the government, and the tax payer to tell everyone what they cannot and cannot eat.
Lets blame all inanimate objects for our faults!
I don’t see anyone putting a gun to anyone’s head and ordering them to get Big Macs.
Perhaps in the future when the government finally gets off it’s duff and has the FDA approve our food choices,beverages and portions for us; then impose health insurance surtaxes on foods and beverages that are considered unhealthy so that we who do eat in a healthy manner and exercise aren’t subsidizing everyone else’s health care when they continue to consume unhealthy foods and beverages. Other’s bad habits increase my and everyone’s health care expenses; this should not be the case.
Hey Washington stay out of my refrigerator my bedroom and my wallet!