Mike Bloomberg, you’re my hero!
In the last six weeks, I’ve published 2 posts discussing the primary reasons for today’s obesity epidemic as I see them. The first, Is Sugar Toxic – part 1 and part 2 , decries the massive increase in simple sugars in our diet, and the second, just last week, Supersizing = Super Sizing , takes a look at the multi-fold increase in portion sizes over the past 60 years.
Mike Bloomberg, mayor of New York City, in one courageous and controversial policy put forth in this last week, aims to ban the sale of sugary beverages to serving sizes that are 16oz (that’s 2 cups) or less. So basically, he’s attempting to address the excess sugar problem and the portion control problem at the same time. I love it!
First and foremost, this policy addresses the issue of empty liquid calories. One of the first things any dietitian will tell you if you’re trying to eat healthier, is “ eat your calories, don’t drink them!” Liquid calories don’t trigger satiety in the body the same way as solid ones do. Several studies have shown that test groups offered a solid food as a snack (eg 200 calorie apple) vs groups offered a liquid food (eg. 200 calories of apple juice) would consume less food at the next meal than the ones consuming the liquid. With this policy, a significant number of people would be consuming hundreds of calories less each day, which could halt the rate of weight gain, and possibly initiate some weight loss, for many.
The second issue the policy addresses is portions. North Americans have completely lost sight of normal portion sizes. The human stomach comfortably holds about 32oz (4 cups) so it’s hard to justify a need for beverage sizes greater than the proposed 16oz maximum.
Why do we order these mammoth drinks that leave us with the sensation that our stomach is about to explode? Or for that matter, why do we order the jumbo popcorn at the movie theatre? Or gorge ourselves at buffet restaurants?
Value for money. Most of us like to believe that we are being responsible with our money, and that we are getting the most value for what we spend. So if we think we’re likely to want a 16oz drink, but a 24oz drink costs only a few pennies more, then it makes sense to get the bigger drink because we’re sure not to be left thirsty…or might as well get the large popcorn instead of the medium…and definitely eat enough so you won’t be hungry for several hours after the buffet. What we don’t realize is that by simply having more food available, we’ll eat more, whether we’re hungry or not. The absence of a larger size just means that we’ll have to make do with the size we’ve got; if we really want more, we can buy another.
My libertarian friend was entirely appalled when he heard this, as I’m sure many people are. I’ve heard it all before…”people should have the right to eat/drink/smoke whatever and how much they choose”…”government shouldn’t be regulating how people live their lives” etc. etc.
Here’s the problem: so far, without government regulation, people are getting fatter and sicker by the year. All you need to do is look at the statistics…rates of obesity and diabetes are climbing, and as a result, so are the complications thereof. And not only are the numbers getting worse overall, but obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and hypertension…they’re all affecting more and more individuals of younger and younger ages. How many times has it been said that the generation after the baby boomers is expected to be the first one that doesn’t outlive their parents?
How come we didn’t have disease rates like these 60 years ago? Well, we didn’t have high-fructose corn syrup; we didn’t have Tim Hortons/McDonalds/Burger Kings/Subways etc. chock-a-block on every other corner; we didn’t have an environment where it’s next to impossible to raise a family on less than two incomes, squeezing out the time available to make home-cooked meals and thereby making frozen meals or take-out a regular occurrence; we didn’t have electronic gadgets to provide us with 24/7 entertainment making getting out of our homes to socialize face-to-face with friends and neighbours seem like too much effort. Times have changed, and policy needs to change with it.
Certainly, there are individuals who are taking care of themselves, watching their portion sizes, avoiding junk foods, keeping fit, and taking responsibility for their health and well-being. And I applaud them. Sadly, that’s not the majority. Either through ignorance or circumstance, a greater percentage, every single year, is contributing to those aforementioned statistics. And the thing is, their health isn’t something that affects only their own lives. It becomes a drain on our healthcare resources, it decreases worker productivity, it becomes a hardship on family and friends who are required as caretakers, and it is a loss for society as a whole as individuals need to withdraw from full participation in their communities because of health issues.
I would hope, then, that we all recognize that there is a problem, but for those who don’t approve of the New York ban, what is the solution? I for one, think it is a huge step in the right direction and am eager to see how it plays out.
Not that I have any desire to live in the US, but I suppose if I had to, I’d want to live in New York city just so I could vote for Mike Bloomberg!
