Hello, everyone,
It really isn’t my style to deliberately deliberate along gender lines, but in the case of New York City’s Mayor Bloomberg vs. Banning Extra Large Sugar-Laden Drinks, I really am wondering whether we women see health issues through a different lens – the female home cook, nurturer, guardian of health… diet police lens to be exact. I am proud of the fact that I care about what my husband and stepson eat. I love them. I care about them. I say things like: “Did you take your vitamins today?” or “Do you really need to eat 6 cookies?” or, “Okay, like that’s the 3rd Coke you’ve guzzled in the last 10 minutes?” or “Ummmm, do you absolutely need to drown your salad in dressing?” So shoot me for caring.
Gary S Hart created this post last evening on the growing and lively debate about whether my City’s Mayor has an right to infringe on either the creation and selling of uber huge sugar-laden drinks or to infringe on the sale and consumption of them and you will see on Gary’s original post that as of this morning there are 82 Comments.
I happen to weigh in on the side of health, and wonder about the insanity of drinking gigantic drinks that are nothing but chemicals, and wonder about the plastic/paper containers they come in, and wonder about the whole darn thing and what seems to me to be the sheer stupidity of creating a drink that big to begin with. Am I being judgemental? You betcha!
But then again I also wonder about Giant Truck Pulls. And kids Bungee Jumping off of bridges. And SUVs as big as public libraries. And Hummers so big they take up all the road and drive everyone else into the ditch. And trucks with tires so huge my car could snuggle up underneath them. And Starbucks coffee drinks that have so many calories you have to go to boot camp for a week after drinking just one. And whether cell phones cause brain cancer. And why exactly there is a 78% increase in autism. And why there is so much Alzheimer’s. And why younger and younger women are getting breast cancer. And why there are so many hormones and antibiotics in our food supply. And what’s up with Mad Cow Disease.
And why we have a hard time admitting some things are Out. Of. Control.
KJ Dell’Antonia, who wrote the following for the New York Times Motherlode, seems to be asking the same questions I’m asking. And that makes me feel better about being a policewoman.
What do you think?
Giselle
The New York Times / Motherlode / Adventures in Parenting
May 31, 2012, 8:12pm
What if the City Banned Sales of Junk Food to Minors?
By KJ DELL’ANTONIA
One of my four children is a sugary drink addict. Restaurant meals present a small battle every time, because while the other children may or may not choose soda, and may or may not finish it, this child chooses soda every single time and drains the cup (often before dinner is served) every time as well. The battle? She wants to be served in a “big kid cup” because she says, rightly, that she never spills (in part because her grip on the cup resembles that of Gollum on the ring). I insist on a “baby cup,” not because of the lid, but because of the size: just the right amount of soda for someone of her small stature.
Don’t worry — compromises are easily reached, and “no” is a word with which she is familiar. But the response to Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s plan to ban the sale of large sodas and other sugary drinks in some locations reminds me (loosely) of our periodic debates. Is this about freedom and personal responsibility, or about imposing a reasonable limit?
Few (besides my daughter) would question my right to limit my children’s soda consumption, but some adults resent the city’s attempt to “limit” theirs — or, really, to limit easy access to soda in large quantities. The proposed ban is little more than a “nudge”: those determined to drink their fill of soda need do nothing more than return for a second, third or fourth cup. Slippery slope arguments are inevitable, and they’re being made all over (first, they came for our Big Gulp; soon, we’ll be dealing contraband Doritos on the streets). But the audacity of the proposal made me wonder how a ban that was both more limited, and more expansive, might be received.
What if the city banned the sale of those big, sugary sodas only to children under 18? What if it extended the ban to those “Big Grab” bags of chips and other junk foods? This year, Robert Lustig and his colleagues proposed, in Nature, putting age limits on the sale of all drinks with added sugar and creating laws to restrict the access of children to convenience stores after school. An extended “Bloomberg ban” could allow the children in the stores, but limit their purchases to the equivalent of bananas and cheese, or junk foods in the reasonable serving sizes that have become so hard to come by.
I, for one, did not greet Mr. Lustig’s original proposal with unabashed enthusiasm. What about my right to send my child to the concession stand to buy himself a soda during his sister’s hockey game?
But a few more months spent thinking, reading and writing about childhood obesity have moderated my stance. We know now that as children get older, and presumably make more of their own food decisions, they eat less healthfully. And more parents and doctors are writing still more powerfully on the impact of advertising, our societal snacking habits and the heavy toll children pay when they fall prey to the various causes of obesity.
Yes, it’s an idea that presents logistical challenges (fast food restaurants aren’t equipped to check I.D.) and begs many questions (let’s say, for the sake of argument, that there would be no ban on sales to any adult on behalf of a child). But it’s an application of the “nanny state” to those more traditionally considered in need of a nanny. It’s public policy that supports parenting, rather than trying to parent those who’ve arguably gone beyond the need for it.
Again, we’re talking about a nudge. Adults could still provide access to junk foods, and teenagers could still purchase flour, butter, eggs and chocolate chips (or even potatoes and oil). Maybe a ban would just make all the snacks that turn your fingers orange that much more desirable. But it would still make them more difficult to get, and might bring the real goal — reducing, rather than eliminating, the consumption of foods with no nutritional value — within reach.
I haven’t even fully convinced myself, but this proposed ban on all sales of big, sugary drinks makes it feel as though anything is possible. Could a limit on sales of junk foods to children work — and is it a more appealing use of the powers that Mr. Bloomberg is clearly willing to test?
Originally shared by Gary S. Hart
Bloomberg Says End Go-Large Sugar Laden Drinks
Coke & McDonald’s Cry Foul
“(Soda) is my drug of choice and I am dealing with the consequences of it,” Cashin said, referring to a struggle with his weight.”
If caffeinated and sugar loaded soda is a drug, should government regulate the way it is sold and packaged? We have not controlled cigarettes to this extent. How about a warning from the surgeon general? Should cigarettes have more regulation? Or should the government keep its finger out of the business pie?
June 1, 2012 at 2:31 pm
When I lived in Russia they had even better idea. Let’s ban food altogether! And than we will have Obama burocrats distribute rice and water in accordance with five-year plan approved by surgeon general. After all there in no obesity problem in North Korea. Let’s legislate and distribute all food directrly from the government -2000 calories for man, 1600 calories for a lady.
June 1, 2012 at 2:36 pm
Thing is, soda’s are hardly the only ‘bad’ thing out there. Candy bars. Cotton Candy. Cupcakes, cookies, and candy are all over the place, and if we’re looking at just sugar, well…orange juice has 122 calories in 8 oz. Coke has just 97. You can argue that OJ has ‘natural’ calories, rather than chemicals, but that’s not entirely true, since most OJ is from concentrate, and enhanced with added sweeteners.
Prohibition doesn’t work. Never has. Education is FAR more effective.
June 1, 2012 at 2:39 pm
I’m with Sheila Garl. She said it best.
June 1, 2012 at 2:41 pm
Drink water, it’s better for you.
June 1, 2012 at 2:42 pm
As for gender lines my dear Giselle Minoli, men are playing a larger role in domestic affairs. I personally do most of the shopping and cooking.
Addendum: It isn’t that I think Bloomberg’s desire to protect our health is wrong, but that his approach is ill conceived.
June 1, 2012 at 2:48 pm
Sheila Garl FTW. I agree. Education is a place to start. And another place to start is where we educate our kids – has anyone seen what’s on the menu at the local school cafeteria? The fact that we could label ketchup as a vegetable is just the tip of the iceberg.
I think that there is plenty of room for sensible public policy, which actually helps society. The problem is that sensible public policy is not a very sexy political tool.
As for parental dietary controls Giselle Minoli I am with you 100%. We have no sodas at home, and my kids have never developed the taste for it. We went to a friend’s house the other day and we saw them giving their toddler (toddler!!) soft drinks. Multiples! Why?!? My beloved spouse, knowing me well, had to shoot me one of those Looks which wives have to prevent me opening my mouth. It was a long evening I tell you.
June 1, 2012 at 2:51 pm
I saw this coming. I knew it, I was telling everyone when they started with “cracking down” on cigarettes that it was only a matter of time before they went after junk food. I’m tired of other people dictating what I can do and put in MY body.
That’s really what it comes down to: how much say does the government have over MY health and MY body.
June 1, 2012 at 3:00 pm
So if I read Bloomberg’s plan correctly, they are simply trying to limit the size of the container that a beverage can be sold in. No one is limiting how many containers a person can buy. I think that’s the only workable way to effect what I consider to be a needed change.
June 1, 2012 at 3:07 pm
We already have laws banning substances that are deemed unhealthy or damaging to us. I would say the health affects of ingesting large amounts of sugar every day are certainly worse than ingesting large amounts of marijuana every day. I would say its probably similarly damaging to drinking large amounts of alcohol every day.
If you consider Sugar in the same vein as drugs and how it brings the user joy but also causes often severe adverse affects, then I don’t see how anyone can claim that the government has no right to do this (assuming they support the current system of certain drugs being illegal). The difference is purely semantics.
June 1, 2012 at 3:11 pm
Donovan Sandey There is a difference between banning a substance and banning the amount of a substance. This law will ban sodas over 16 oZ but not alcohol over 16 oz. Does that not strike you as odd?
BTW, it is not constitutionally sound for the government to ban ANY substance, they have overstepped their bounds and we are simply reaping the ramifications of it.
June 1, 2012 at 3:12 pm
So because we have laws that ban substances deemed unhealthy, it’s perfectly fine to have laws that ban ANY substances deemed unhealthy?
June 1, 2012 at 3:12 pm
I think too many people are missing the point. It’s about choice and consequences. The government needs to butt out; they also need to stop trying to “fix” everything. The government doesn’t do anything well and they can’t predict every situation. Let people make their choices and then let them face the consequences. That’s what freedom is.
June 1, 2012 at 3:16 pm
Some of the arguments I hear from liberals remind me of the movie, eagle eye. I have yet to meet a liberal in real life who has sat down and read the constitution.
June 1, 2012 at 3:17 pm
I’m a liberal and I’ve read the Constitution. And, just for the record, legislating what people eat for health reasons is NOT “liberal.” Liberal is about EXPANDING freedoms.
June 1, 2012 at 3:19 pm
Dan Pritchett The same people who can’t balance a budget, now trying to balance diets.
Scary, indeed.
June 1, 2012 at 3:20 pm
Adam Wyson Oh, I don’t think we disagree. I’m just saying that there are laws in place banning substances that are arguably less harmful than sugar. There’s distribution laws on alcohol, so if they do it with sugar in minor ways, it shouldn’t be surprising – that’s a more fitting comparison, really.
I think there are much better ways to deal with substances that are potentially dangerous than banning them, but it seems we aren’t the majority. The fact that alcohol is legal while other substances aren’t is hypocritical, but that’s a debate for another time.
June 1, 2012 at 3:20 pm
Brendan Howard I know exactly what liberal means and it is actually defined by it’s root to mean something completely different than what the American media panders to us. But it is what it is, according to the definition by popular belief, liberal is actually the opposite of what it is in many ways. I have not met you in real life but….
The constitution had to be amended for prohibition yet it is not amended for any other drug. The war on drugs is actually not constitutional and this war on our rights to eat what we want as well.
June 1, 2012 at 3:25 pm
Brendan Howard I don’t believe its right to do, just that it shouldn’t be surprising or that this is in some way out of the ordinary. I didn’t mean to imply my consent, just pointing out this isn’t unheard of, and if people feel “drugs” should be illegal, then this is just the next logical step.
June 1, 2012 at 3:36 pm
Donovan Sandey I completely agree that this is precedented, accepted by many Americans, etc. I figured this would happen with fast food and obesity when I saw how quick people were to wag their fingers at smokers, loading them up with brutal taxation, etc.
June 1, 2012 at 3:40 pm
I remember a very interesting conversation among designers, engineers and architects years ago at a most elegant and delicious dinner at the New York home of one of them. They were all talking about how good design affects quality of life, enhances enjoyment of life and how it has the potential to raise consciousness of human behavior. One of them, a Frenchman was talking about the change he has seen in American flatware and dinnerware design and how huge knives and forks are and how huge dinner plates are and he said that he felt there was an absolute correlation between overeating and having giant dinner plates, bowls, etc. One of the women said that her preference, as a designer, was for smaller and more streamlined things, that, as a cook, she didn’t like the way a huge slab of meat looked on a dinner plate…that there was something incredibly unappetizing about it to her.
It was a really funny and fascinating conversation, because these designers – all successful – were talking about their design philosophy but also how they feel about the things we use in everyday life.
I know for myself that if I have a glass of wine in a “normal” size glass and then I have another, I’m very aware at the end of dinner I’ve had two glasses of wine. But recently a friend took me to a very expensive Italian restaurant in New York and there was these absolutely huge sommelier glasses and suddenly I had no consciousness whatsoever about how much liquid was in each glass – 6 ounzes? 8? More? Less?
To me this issue isn’t about legislation – although on face value it appears to be the case. I absolutely think education is essential. But we have the knowledge. We’ve had the knowledge for decades and no one seems to be listening. Adults have a hard enough time reading, absorbing, processing and hearing that certain things are just bad for you. Kids? Much more difficult.
June 1, 2012 at 3:51 pm
Giselle Minoli You could simply ask the waiter how much wine is in each glass. By the way, well written but soda can’s/bottles everything already say on the side how much soda it holds. This is a conversation about banning certain sizes, not displaying the size. New york Government is essentially saying, we already display how much soda and we have already told you it’s bad for you, but we are going to force you now. Not because of the constitution, but because there are enough people who don’t understand it, to allow us to do so.
June 1, 2012 at 3:59 pm
Of course. But that wasn’t the point of my comment, Adam Wyson. The point is what happens to obvious consciousness when something gets beyond a certain size/amount whatever you want to call it. Most people have absolutely no idea how many oranges are in a glass of orange juice – if they themselves have never made fresh orange juice. It’s like sitting down and eating 8, 9, 10, oranges…and all the sugar that goes with it.
There is a kind of ages old, innate and sensible wisdom in the smaller dinner plates, smaller wine glasses and shot glasses that have been used for centuries. It is all being tossed out the window and so is our health.
I’ll just go back to my original question/statement, which is that I’m more fascinated by the mere existence of these gigantic drinks, cookies, scones, croissants, bags of French fries, hot dogs, candy bars, potato chips, hamburgers, pizzas…I could go on and on and on…than I am by the hoopla over the legislation/not legislation of any of it.
At the bakery yesterday I saw a black and white cookie as big as a dinner plate.
Who was that masked man?
June 1, 2012 at 4:43 pm
Giselle Minoli Yes, but we aren’t animals at a zoo. We don’t need a Zoo keeper to feed us the right amount of everything.
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
In no way shape or form is banning large sodas securing my blessings of liberty.
If people are too dumb to know that that big black and white cookie at the backery is bad for them in one sitting then our education system needs to be revamped, not a law banning large black cookies. This isn’t Germany people. Hitler wanted everyone to eat drink sleep look a certain way. IN AMERICA we eat drink sleep and look however we damn well please. Don’t let the government dumb down the population with their crappy education and then create laws to govern the newly created sheep.
June 1, 2012 at 4:48 pm
Adam Wyson From the one paragraph you have cited, the only phrase that most people seem to care about is securing “the blessings of liberty to ourselves.” The concern for a perfect union, justice, domestic tranquility, common defense, general welfare, well…
June 1, 2012 at 5:25 pm
Giselle Minoli this was a wonderful post. Yes….as it was put,indeed it isn’t JUST sugary drinks. And…might I say that to all who say we don’t need to be policed….I say…no,we SHOULDN”T need to be policed…but then why are 50%+ of us in America overweight or obese? Did you know obesity is a higher risk factor for all-cause cancers and heart disease than a 2 pk a day smoking habit???
And those of us who do NOT need to be policed….well…we pay for those who apparently maybe sorta do. (In insurance premiums).
I agree with the intent;same as Gary. Remember,this is the guy who forced calorie labelling (a good thing,no?) and outed the trans fat…another good thing. The method….who knows?
Sugary drinks INCLUDING fruit juices ( and you know what…. I’m gonna do a post about that!) race to your pancreas which over-pumps insulin and activates inflammatory cytokines which cause micro-tears in arteries. And hence….the start of all SORTS of diseases….
We MUST start somewhere. It is predicted that,if we stay this course;that n 2030,75% of Americans will be OBESE. THEN will it be time to pay attention??
Please don’t shoot the messenger here. I’m on G+ to help you all understand what Giselle is talking about.
June 1, 2012 at 5:37 pm
Dear Dr. Kim Crawford. At all costs let’s not be reasonable and point to health statistics. Let’s not point out that self-regulation doesn’t work. Let’s not point out that this thing called “general welfare” means what we manufacture and sell to (frequently socially disadvantaged and impoverished) people is frequently poisonous and terrible for their health. Let’s not point that out…because those are left-wing, socialist, liberal principles. Let’s make scads of money and gloat that it was honestly made because, after all, people can self-regulate. How dare you reach deep into your bag of medical knowledge and fire back with reason? Reason has no place in America. (Wink wink).
Now let’s all go bungee jump off a bridge stoned on sugar, refined foods and preserved food.
June 1, 2012 at 5:40 pm
On my original post, I suggested that we have health standards for the growth and manufacturing of food. We have driving, flying, and many other regulations, why not on the stuff we put into our bodies? We have the Universal Commercial Code (UCC), why not a UFC – Universal Food Code?
Much of the junk that is being passed off as food has more chemicals than nutrients. Others are layered with insecticides, hormones antibiotics, irradiated and still many others are genetically altered.
June 1, 2012 at 8:37 pm
Great points Matthew Graybosch and dear Gary S Hart I don’t know how I missed that point but that is a GREAT idea. Our food is just poison…between the pesticides,the HFCS,the GMO’s and on and on….YUK!
June 1, 2012 at 8:54 pm
Matthew Graybosch that point was brought up on the original post a number of times concluding the obvious poor conception of legislation.
June 1, 2012 at 9:06 pm
As I wrote on YOUR post Gary S Hart because of what Matthew Graybosch pointed out…Mayor Bloomberg is taking his stab. People do not self-regulate. Corporations and the food industry do not care about the health of the people who buy their products and this debate about what is good for us and what isn’t is as old as the hills.
Companies know that people have addiction issues. (The Cigarette lobby, anyone?) and they aim to exploit it as much as possible. Then all the Chief Executives of these companies can run off at Christmas time and buy themselves new cars and new boats and new houses on the profits of ill health. This is our America.
June 1, 2012 at 9:08 pm
And that…my friends,,,SUMS IT UP…people do NOT self-regulate….and those few of us who DO end up paying for those who don’t. The end.
June 1, 2012 at 9:11 pm
What Kim Crawford said. The End.
June 1, 2012 at 9:19 pm
Let’s not stab and do something intelligent. We made cars exponentially safer. Let’s do that for food.
June 1, 2012 at 9:23 pm
YES! There’s another post going with this same theme Gary S Hart …LET’S!
June 1, 2012 at 9:58 pm
Matthew Graybosch I did note that in my post. And, I actually think that’s why this approach could work. People have always had the ability to buy as much soda as they wanted, in whatever size container was available.
So why didn’t we consume 32 oz at a time back in 1960? I think it’s partly because it was socially unacceptable to jam 5 7-oz bottles under your arm and stroll in to the theater. It would have looked gluttonous, not to mention ridiculous
Will this new rule stop the determined soda-guzzler? No, but maybe it will put a social stigma on that kind of consumption. And maybe it will remove the easy option that the rest of us have for drinking an extra 8-12 oz for no good reason.
June 2, 2012 at 4:26 am
Giselle Minoli As far as the constitution is concerned, the Government’s only job is to protect me from others, not myself. Socialism doesn’t happen overnight, it starts by nibbling at your toes.
As for Kim Crawford, those of us who believe in the constitution don’t believe we should pay for others either. If America wants socialism then so be it. Socialize the medicine and start telling everyone how to eat since I have to pay for it. For those of us who still want to live in a free land. Work hard and pay for your own medicine, and stay out of my diet.
Every Government on earth that has fallen has fallen for 1 reason and 1 reason only…they stick their nose in the people’s business. The whole world is up in arms against their governments and you encourage mindless Governors to pass pointless laws. Keep it up.
June 2, 2012 at 7:15 am
Ultimately, human beings as a species this is not designed to consume bucket loads of soda, wine, food or anything in such quantities. If your body is a temple, consuming more than you need to keep your body going and healthy, just does not make sense.
Why would anyone buy and drink in one sitting a 16oz of soda which is about 1/2 a litre or 240 calories the equivalent of a meal? Our bodies complain about it with ill health but we don’t listen, survival of the fittest, I guess.
June 2, 2012 at 11:13 am
Adam Wyson What a load of rubbish. For what it’s worth to you, I own my own business, which is a capitalistic endeavor at its most basic definition. I don’t know what newspapers you are reading, but they are not in English, otherwise you would know that the governments some people in some parts of the world are up against are those run by tyrants and despots. The biggest fear of economic tyrants and despots is that someone, anyone – Oh My God…a socialist – would prevent the invention of something I’m sure you wouldn’t even be able to define – like an investment derivative. The financial debacle in this country was created, fueled and covered up by Wall Street.
What is most amusing about your faulty analysis is that Mayor Bloomberg (for the record, he is not the Governor) is one of the richest men in America. He, too, is a capitalist, not as you would claim…a Socialist. You might disagree with his “ban” on gallon containers of bubbly sugar water for sale, but you cannot call the man a Socialist. That’s laughable. Saddam Hussein was a dictator, not a socialist. Mubarak was a dictator, not a socialist. These men shoot their own citizens. These men poison their own citizens with chemicals. It could have been construed as an outright act of kindness for either of them (or so many others like them) to care enough about the health of their citizenry to actually try to ban something that was bad for them, rather than possibly making a secret effort to lace the liquid with arsenic.
Further, you own life wouldn’t change an iota if you or anyone else were not allowed to buy a giant container of soda. It wouldn’t threaten your freedoms in the slightest. You only think it would, and that, perhaps, is what is really the most disturbing about your argument.
Oh, and for the record, I ended up in the hospital in Bologna, Italy (the oldest medical school in Europe) once and the care was superb. I spoke their language and they spoke mine. Brilliant, professional, thorough doctors, nurses and medical staff.
June 2, 2012 at 11:16 am
Good morning, dawn ahukanna. That is absolutely truth. Which, in a disturbing way, points to our inability to self-regulate and to listen to our bodies.
We are systematically overriding the messages our bodies are giving us about what they need and don’t need in the same way that we have been overriding messages from Planet Earth about how to take care of the environment in which we live.
It’s called Denial. With a capital “D.”
June 2, 2012 at 11:25 am
dawn ahukanna It’s Saturday…surprises absolutely abound!
June 2, 2012 at 3:36 pm
Well said Giselle Minoli ! Good morning from sunny Las Vegas; even in this town of excess your words ring true!
June 2, 2012 at 3:37 pm
Or maybe I should say especially in this town…
June 2, 2012 at 5:57 pm
Brian Titus is there a single Socialist to be found in Vegas Brian Titus????? But lots of Super-Sized everything that’s for sure. I’ve seen it with my own eyes, I have I have!
June 3, 2012 at 12:56 pm
What a strange world.
June 3, 2012 at 1:32 pm
Hello Jon Henry. Indeed. Let us count the ways!
June 3, 2012 at 2:31 pm
Not sure where to start, Giselle Minoli 🙂
June 3, 2012 at 4:44 pm
Gosh, what a shame that I missed the start of this post Giselle Minoli. I’m in the process of moving to the Santa Cruz mountains and am staying currently in Point Reyes whilst I await the movers to catch up. Mind you, reading through the ebb and flow of the thread is fascinating. There is, however, one element that seems to be implicit in the original post and many of the comments, but not pulled to the fore—Education.
Any form of regulation allows for corruption and/or personal interests of lawmakers (if indeed these can be separated all the while politicians are allowed to be bribed legally) to be imposed. Education works, but only if given the budget and commitment. In the five countries in which I have lived where healthcare is socialised, (and, by the way, where the life-expectancy is greater than in the U.S.), the national interest is served well through deep, continuous, and effective public education. Taxation works too.
June 3, 2012 at 5:15 pm
We missed you and your brilliance Colin Lucas-Mudd. Actually, education was brought up on the original post, but never took off:
“San Francisco’s mayor is trying to eliminate soda from the school system. This is sensible. Healthy food in school. Teach the kids how to eat properly and send them hope to convert their parents.”
We need a multi-pronged effort tackling junk that is passed off as food with higher standards and reinforced education.
Hope your move is not too stressful {smile}
June 3, 2012 at 5:23 pm
Thank you Gary S Hart. Very kind. I look forward to settling in up North and getting back into the stream. As to the education point, thanks for the quote. I do believe that this needs to be in both directions—to the parents through TV and other media, and kids in school. First, we need the will and the budget. Then we need time.
June 3, 2012 at 5:30 pm
Yes Colin Lucas-Mudd “The Will.” History has shown that when the people exercise their will, they get what they want. Right now, it seems to me, most people want their cake – sugar filled without calories or consequences – and eat it too. They’re eating and the promised magical diets, insulin shots, and other medical feats are not working.
June 3, 2012 at 5:35 pm
Indeed Gary S Hart. And, until money is removed from the political-commercial equation it will always be thus. It would be interesting to see the anti-trust debate as the next logical step in this descent is taken—as a junk/processed food manufacturer acquires a pharmaceutical company. Or vice versa.
June 3, 2012 at 6:25 pm
Greetings, dear Colin Lucas-Mudd Did I miss that you were moving…or is this a sudden decision? You just had to tell me that you are in my beloved Pt. Reyes – with you know who, no doubt – didn’t you? Just to fill me with irrepressible jealousy? Why are you moving North. Aside from the fact that it is gorgeous and peaceful and serene and a perfect place to write. And will there be a guest house?
As for large-sized sugary things, I’m not fond of the regulatory smell of it, but somehow it just doesn’t seem that threatening to me. People can still by a six pack if they want. Why should we make it easy for people to do their health in? And…as far as regulations are concerned…people are against regulating Wall Street and Banks and Mortgage companies and it’s just getting worse and worse and worse.
Colin Lucas-Mudd to be honest with you, isn’t education for those who want to be educated? And if someone falls into that category would they be drinking sugary drinks of this size to begin with?
In spite of what people might think, I really am trying to examine this from every angle because I think it’s a mess. A mess. A mess. A mess. And, frankly, New York City life is better with the No Cigarettes in Public Places regulation.
June 3, 2012 at 6:33 pm
Gary S Hart I am dismayed. I am wondering what is happening to me as I think/believe/feel/sense that education and knowledge are not at the forefront of thought here. But that self-gratification and immediate pleasure the consequences be damned are.
Colin Lucas-Mudd and Gary S Hart I suppose that my deep suspicion is the addictive nature of sugar and super-size anything. Once that is put in place (like sugar-filled cereals) it is very hard to undo. Why are we adding coals to the fire in the name of freedom. Where does our definition of liberty and freedom fall short of taking in to consideration the consequences of what we produce? What is the difference between being enraged about a BP oil spill in the Gulf and an Exxon spill off the coast of Alaska, or the dumping of chemicals into the Hudson or asbestos in housing materials and being concerned about the size of sugary drinks? Everyone says this is a stupid way to accomplish the goal of educating people about the dangers of sugar.
But, I’m sorry, everyone knows the dangers of sugar. They always have. Let’s not kid ourselves. This is taxing our health system and a host of other things. Colin…I’m honestly not sure we have any more time…
June 3, 2012 at 7:12 pm
I have to agree with Giselle Minoli, education is only a part of the puzzle. There is a large cultural influence at play here.
I grew up in the US and now live in Germany (since 1998). I didn’t see it when I lived in the states, but now looking back over the ocean, it seems that US culture is bulimic. The absolute and singular value placed on performance, passion and commitment tips over into autistic excesses. The “Carpe Diem!” culture, live today as if there is no tomorrow, teaches kids to eat and drink as if there is no tomorrow.
In fact, life is NOT short. Life is long. And kids need to understand that they will have to live with the consequences of their decisions for the next 50 or 60 years.
Oh, and corporations should be held accountable for the crap that they dump on us. Thalidomide, anyone?
June 3, 2012 at 7:20 pm
Jon Henry your statement In fact, life is NOT SHORT is worthy of a post and your fleshed out thoughts on it because it is an absolutely sobering statement. Indeed Americans are all about Let’s do whatever we want, whenever we want, however we want, and damn the cost and the consequences…
June 3, 2012 at 7:33 pm
I see kids right out of school in Germany will ask their first employeers about pension plans. It’s a small difference in mentality. But basically, the US needs to get away from the “get rich quick” mentality and understand that value is not created in consumption.
June 3, 2012 at 8:48 pm
Greetings to you too Giselle Minoli. Actually, the move has been in planning for some months now. South of the ‘Orange Curtain’ became stultifying even in our funky ‘People’s Republic’ of Leucadia. Also, you can only take so much ocean and desert—15 years was enough. Back to the seasons. It is ‘Western Week-end’ here in Pt. Reyes. I’ve just finished a photo shoot of the parade and will tag you when I upload the gallery—small-town America at its very, very, best!
As to the legislation vs. education point: overall I agree with your position where habits and activities impact others—such as smoking. Banning this is public places is essential. Regulating it otherwise, not so good. As we move into other categories then the lines become more blurred and I worry about the ‘thin end of the wedge’ aspects.
June 3, 2012 at 8:53 pm
Jon Henry. Excellent. Your last sentence sums up the entire point perfectly.
June 3, 2012 at 9:01 pm
Northern California is the perfect combination of seashore and foliage and cow pasture and fog. I am insane with jealousy and will look forward to your posted pix. I dare say that I plot and scheme for another trip out there. So every beautiful. Do enjoy it. And I’m with you on the confusion about the Blurred LInes on the Thin Edge of the Wedge aspect. However it’s easier to pinpoint a civil intrusion when it is a cigarette waft coming your way across the table in a restaurant. It is much more difficult to feel good, entitled, allowed, or whatever you want to call it, about calling the culprit sugar when you wonder what the world would be like if Super-Sized Anything didn’t even exist. I vote for a world when delicious croissants were palm-sized instead of dinner plate size. And I am not shy about saying that I believe it was a healthier world.
June 3, 2012 at 9:36 pm
There is always a room, wine, palm-sized croissants (I’ll make a batch for your visit), and good conversation available when you’re out here next Giselle Minoli. Redwoods, pines, oaks, meadow, and wildlife as well. The new home is ten minutes from a great (albeit colder!) surf break and half an hour from Cupertino.
On the ‘super-size’ issue we are, once again, in accord. Luckily I don’t ‘do’ sugar or sweetener in any form. I eschew all forms of processed food and don’t believe that I have consumed a ‘soda’ in over 30 years. Strange that during business lunches I’m often looked at askance when I order wine—with alcohol would you believe! Those with whom I’m lunching order Coke’s and the like. Ho hum.
Interesting point though. Am I an alcoholic because I enjoy a glass of wine during the day? If so, what is the term for those who persist in eating and drinking junk?
June 3, 2012 at 10:19 pm
Colin Lucas-Mudd if you gave me the choice of these two things to be accused of – Wine-O-Holic or Junk-O-Holic – I would choose good wine. Wine is made from grapes. And the food in soda is, what exactly?
Here’s to a glass of wine at lunch. It’s the European in you. Americans are confused about many things and this is one of them! 😉
June 3, 2012 at 10:24 pm
Perfectly expressed Giselle Minoli. I’m cooking for Rig this evening. Wine, scallops, shrimp, and farmer’s market fare. I feel sure that this post’s primary topic will feature in the conversation. Here’s to more enlightened times. Cheers!
June 3, 2012 at 10:27 pm
Please do send Rig my regards Colin Lucas-Mudd and tell him how very much I enjoyed meeting him (and Roberta) and that I really hope it won’t be the last time. And do ask him when he’s going to have a presence on G+ so that we can all enjoy his photographs. Have a lovely time in Pt. Reyes. Ah, me but jealousy is a witch!
June 3, 2012 at 11:04 pm
Sally and I spent the best part of a sunny, humid free afternoon in a microbrewery overlooking the Blue Ridge with a bottle of Prosecco. My meal was chosen carefully. Veggie soup and a humus spread, slowly sipped and nibbled, for a three hour late lunch or early dinner, whichever you prefer.
One thing I concluded today is willpower is a rare commodity in a free society.
June 4, 2012 at 12:07 am
So… Gary S Hart you and Sally were in a beer brewery cheating with a bottle of Prosecco? What on Earth would any sane person want to have any will power when it comes to a bottle of Prosecco? _Especially_ when accompanied by veggie soup, humus spread, and, most importantly, one’s spouse?
June 4, 2012 at 12:24 am
Rig sends his regards in return Giselle Minoli. The invitation remains open for next time you’re in this neck of the woods.
June 4, 2012 at 12:32 am
With all the junk food speak, I passed up a good cheeseburger for veggies instead. But when it comes to Sally, I have no willpower 🙂