Pages

Sunday, June 3, 2012

Supersized Disaster



Yes, that's a 44 oz individual serving of soda!
I never recommend soda to my patients or my family members. And I cringe when I walk into fast food restaurants (only to use the bathroom, of course) or a movie theater and see single serving cups in the range of 32-44 ounces. It’s obscene. That volume of sugar devoid of other nutrients, consumed at a single sitting is crazy. Our society has a distorted sense of what normal portions are—not just for beverages, but for food as well. The only place I’ve been able to find a true juice glass, a 4 or 6-ounce size, has been at antique stores. Really. So I support NYC’s Mayor Bloomberg’s recent ban on the sale of supersized sodas, right?

Not at all. While the mayor is desperately trying to change a growing trend of overconsumption and obesity, his new policy restricting the sale of sodas larger than 16 oz is absurd on so many levels.

While I take my freedom for granted, having never lived anywhere that restricted my personal choices, including what I eat, the thought of a law limiting the size of my portions feels, well, un-American. Mark my word; if they try to restrict my purchase of cupcakes after 8 PM, for instance, I’ll start hoarding them at 7. I mean it.

Who decides what you're allowed to eat and how much?

It’s quite a slippery slope. Who decides that Sprite is out, but grape juice is fine? Or that 24 oz smoothies are ok, but soda is not?  Maybe they should halt the sale of those cardiac-inducing hot dogs sold on food carts throughout NY, instead? Sure, there’s nutritional value in the smoothy, but if the driving force behind this policy is obesity and health—why would 24 or more caloric ounces of anything accompanying a meal be appropriate?

Next, will NYC next set limits on who can buy these large caloric beverages? Will we need to weigh-in at the food carts on 5th Avenue—high BMI? You get the under 16 oz regular soda or the diet one; low BMI? You may choose the supersized drinks—but ONLY those drinks with calories—no diet beverages for you

Should we perhaps ban the sale of large portions of diet beverages, given that they displace the calories and nutrients desperately needed by those with eating disorders and those simply underweight?

And what about cost? Can we not buy a bottle of soda at the deli to share with others, resulting in a smaller portion and less cost per person? Bloomberg’s ruling prohibits this.

The unforseen consequences

What message does it send if 16-ounce beverage portions—regular or diet—are considered the norm? Our caloric needs vary; for some, 16 oz of juice is absolutely appropriate. For others, it’s excessive for their need. But a law stating that 16 ounces is fine or distinguishing between soda and juice as healthy versus unhealthy creates a hierarchy people will believe is valid—when it’s not. If we are talking about weight management it's about calories, and a Coke is no different than a bottle of 100% juice. 

Should those with high blood pressure be forbidden
 this heavily salted popcorn?
I understand that simply educating the public to improve health is at best challenging. We are impacted by visual stimuli and sensory prompts to eat, as well as our perception--not just information about what and how much is healthy to consume. Prompted by the suggestion that you can size up for only 75 cents more (which I overheard at the movies yesterday), most of us will go for it. If you perceive that you haven’t eaten much you will continue eating, regardless of your fullness. And if you believe that 16 ounces is appropriate--because the Mayor believes it's fine for your health-- you may be more inclined to select the 16 oz size than something smaller.

If they’re going to set rules…

Perhaps there are better alternatives than Bloomberg’s to reduce our excessive intake—if or when it is unhealthy for the individual. How about a pricing policy removing the financial incentive to size up? If ordering the 32 oz soda vs the 16 oz adds $1.20 vs 20 cents, I suspect there’d be more thought before supersizing.

Yes, this is for real. And financially more sensible that the 32 oz
 which was more expensive per ounce!
Or what about a rule allowing individuals to bring their own snacks into a movie—maybe healthier popcorn from home? Or limiting movie-theater food to a specific eating area as opposed to in front of the screen? Can we not go 90 minutes without a feeding? Why are we encouraging distracted eating, when all evidence supports mindful eating helps us better regulate our intake and our weight?

Yes, something needs to be done to improve the health of our nation. But setting arbitrary boundaries on portions, about good beverages and bad, is hardly the answer. And the fallout from this perhaps well-intended policy may only result in more problems.


And I thought I lived in the liberal Northeast...

10 comments:

  1. I agree with you completely that this is not the answer. My husband and I have been discussing this and he said, quite reasonably, that removing the super-size incentive will likely result in sales of only larger sizes. The roots of the problem lay with the economics of food sales and the American mentality about "value".

    The cost of a soft drink to a business is almost entirely made up of the cost of the cup. The fountain drinks themselves cost next to nothing. This is why businesses profit by super-sizing for a paltry amount. Eight ounce paper cups may cost 10 cents each and 24 ounce ones 12 cents. If they size things up for 20 cents, that's 18 cents more profit to them since the extra soda is a fractional increase in their costs (likely, literally, a portion of a penny).

    The answer then is in the cost of the cups to the businesses. If you incrementally tax disposable containers such that larger sizes are proportionally more expensive *for the businesses*, you remove the super-size for a small price incentive without controlling what consumers can choose. This allows for freedom, but takes away the financial benefit of super-sizing.

    Unfortunately, most politicians are unwilling to pursue this option because they prefer to protect the interests of business over the consumer. They don't want to alienate supporters with more money to fund their campaigns. Otherwise, it's certainly not unprecedented to tax for vice in America anyway (with cigarettes being heavily taxed and all).

    ReplyDelete
  2. I so agree with you on this. The rule seems arbitrary and simplistic. I tink a better idea would be to print cups indicating the tsps of sugar or calories in the beverage. For some I know it wouldn't make a difference but I know I would pay attention and in this I know I am not unique.

    So far we're safe to drink a soda the size of our heads in Boston. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  3. If I had ever seen the slightest bit of concern on Bloomberg's part for the wellbeing of the people who live in New York, this might have been a little less perplexing, but this is a mayor who:
    -destroys neighborhoods
    -wants to turn away homeless people from shelters
    -has engaged in a long term program to demean and destroy our public education system
    -destroys city hospitals
    -rounds people up in illegal mass arrests for exercising their rights of free speech and assembly
    -provides tax breaks for the rich and large corporations
    -takes every square foot of land he can find, evicts poor and middle class residents and small businesses, and puts large corporations in place so they can erect massive buildings for large corporations and wealthy individuals' luxury housing
    I could go on and on.
    Where in this list is evidence of a concern for the health and wellbeing of the people?
    So now all of a sudden he wants to protect their 'health' by taking away their right to select a certain size soft drink.
    Puh-lease.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I live in NYC and don't drink soda, but I don't think ANYONE (other than parents for kids) should be in charge of what people eat or drink. The goverment, if you ask me, is getting way too involved in everything these days. Schools are an issue too. When I was in school we brought cupcakes in on our birthdays. Not anymore. Schools banned that because of obesity, which I find ridiculious. I ate all of the junk growing up and I did not have a weight problem at all. It's not so much the food, in my mind, but the fact that kids aren't outside playing!! That's another story though.

    We should be able to decide what we want to eat, and how much we want to eat, not the government.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "-destroys neighborhoods
    -wants to turn away homeless people from shelters
    -has engaged in a long term program to demean and destroy our public education system
    -destroys city hospitals
    -rounds people up in illegal mass arrests for exercising their rights of free speech and assembly
    -provides tax breaks for the rich and large corporations
    -takes every square foot of land he can find, evicts poor and middle class residents and small businesses, and puts large corporations in place so they can erect massive buildings for large corporations and wealthy individuals' luxury housing"

    1, bad.
    2, good.
    3, good if they are public hospitals.
    4, bad.
    5, good.
    6, mixed.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I don't really agree with you on this. Your alternate suggestions are just as bad. Instead you want a form of a soda tax (upsizing costs $1.20 instead of .20). That's not any better. Or, why would you segregate people at the theatre? Those that want to eat have to do it in another area... For smokers sure, but for food eaters?

    "You may be more inclined to select the 16 oz size than something smaller" .... what? the problem is that sizes are bigger, you even posted pictures emphasizing that. You said yourself that they don't offer a 6 oz portion!

    :(

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why not have separate spaces for eating and drinking vs viewing? You can't bring food into the seating area of a live theater or performance. What's the harm? Learning to separate eating and other activities would likely have a bigger impact than just being told you can't buy a 20 oz soda. Focusing on behaviors vs good/bad foods makes a lot more sense to me.
      And why would a financial disincentive be a negative? Now we are encouraged to overeat because it's more worth the money! Options still make sense--such as availability of smaller portions--but if it costs the same amount it's gonna be tough to consider the smaller version!

      Delete
  7. A few thoughts from an alien. Occasional touch of sarcasm included.

    I needed a calculator to find out that 16 oz are something like a litre (hint hint wink wink) and it left me wondering where the hell people might want to get one litre of carbonated sugary water in a cup, thus for immediate consumption before it goes flat. If nothing else, they need to go to pee somewhere and I'd find it more convenient to buy a bottle. 44oz is around two-and-half-litres, for goodness sake, it's for ten people or to keep me hydrated for a day and half if I don't eat veggies.

    Another thing I fail to get is popcorn or other food in cinema. I want to enjoy the movie, not people unwrapping their candies and munching on their snacks. If I want to hear people eating, I'll go to a restaurant or cafeteria and close my eyes, without the need to pay for the cinema ticket. At least where I come from, it's considered common courtesy not to eat in such institutions.

    But, well, I'm European. Metric, backward and such.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Thanks for sharing such a valuable information. It’s really amazing,nice sharing it is Thanks for again sharing great

    ReplyDelete
  9. An amazingly accurate 'prediction'... given some 30 years ago:

    "Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves." - RR

    ReplyDelete