In a recent column, Davis Enterprise columnist Bob Dunning pushes back against a public health brochure on sugar, calling it “a big flop” because apparently a number of people emailed complaints to the venerable columnist.
“How much did this fancy brochure cost?” they want to know. “Who’s paying for this stuff?” asks another.
There is somehow an impression in the world that brochures are expensive, that something colorful is more expensive. The reality is we are not talking about a lot of money. In 2010, the Vanguard printed and mailed about 10,000 brochures on fire department issues to local residents.
Talk about fancy and colorful. Total cost, less than $5000 to print and mail the things. If the Vanguard can afford to do something like that, let alone back in 2010 when we were really on a shoestring, a statewide public health organization should have no problem flipping that bill.
Besides, the complaint about money is misplaced here. San Francisco and Berkeley’s soda tax measures drew between $15 and $20 million from the beverage industry. That’s a lot of flier and BART station billboards (see here, scroll down to the photos). The public health organizations are outgunned in this fight – Mr. Dunning is barking at the mouse and ignoring the elephant.
The biggest problem, however, is this: “Can’t they just leave us alone and let us raise our kids the best way we see fit?”
Back in December, Mayor Pro Tem Davis said, “Each generation has its public health challenges. My generation it was cigarettes and a tax on cigarettes was going to destroy small businesses – it hasn’t and we’re healthier.”
He said, while sugar is everywhere, “what we have in a sugary beverage is we have a delivery system… it’s almost like a cigarette in terms of what it gets, it gets sugar to your pancreas in a hurry.”
Mayor Pro Tem Davis added, “It is causing the public health crisis of this generation. That is our crisis, there is no other. Some people are living with it, some of you are going to die from it, or your kids are.”
Does Mr. Dunning also believe that laws aimed at cigarettes in public places are (or were) paternalistic?
There is a lack of acknowledgement that we have a public health crisis. The Sacramento Bee recently had an article on the obesity rate in local communities. The good news is that Davis, not surprisingly, is healthier than most. But still, one in four of our kids are overweight and/or obese and face an increased risk of diabetes. Neighboring communities are not so “fortunate,” as their obesity rates are skyrocketing up over 40 percent.
A UCLA study, reported on in the Sacramento Bee last August, found that more than a quarter of California adults are obese, with a higher rate of 31 percent in the Sacramento region.
The Bee noted, “More than 1,180 households were surveyed in Sacramento County. The center, which launched its study in 2001, calls it the most comprehensive statewide health survey in the country, reaching people in all 58 counties.”
They conducted interviews in seven different languages, and 20 percent of the interviews were done with cellphone-only households.
They found, “For the first time, more than one in four California adults are considered obese – in 2014, about 27 percent, compared to 19 percent in 2001.” And, “About 31 percent of adults surveyed in Sacramento, El Dorado, Placer and Yolo counties were obese last year, compared to 20 percent of adults in 2001.”
Worse yet, public health officials believe that, because the data “are self-reported, the actual incidence of statewide obesity could be even higher, given that people tend to overestimate their height and underestimate their weight.”
Meanwhile, the U.S. government has now put out its 2015-2020 guidelines, published in early January, “which for the first time recommend a clear limit on added sugar of no more than 10 percent of daily calories.”
The alarming part of that is a single sugary soda per day will put many people over that limit.
Kimber Stanhope, an associate research nutritional biologist at UC Davis and a scientist for the SugarScience (an online source about sugar, developed by health scientists from UC San Francisco) research and education initiative had comments on added sugar and beverage recommendations in the University of California news published by the UC Office of the President.
On the recommendation for added sugar: “I’m definitely relieved that the new recommendation is for not exceeding 10 percent of calories. In 2010, when the guidelines’ upper limit on added sugar was left at 25 percent of calories, I was very disappointed and actually surprised. In August 2009, the American Heart Association announced that women should not exceed 100 calories per day of added sugar and men should not exceed 150 calories per day of added sugar. To have one group of experts saying women should not exceed 100 calories of added sugar – that’s less than one can of soda – and the other saying a woman can drink as much as three cans a day, made no sense at all. It was a victory for health that they did reduce it from 25 percent down to 10 percent.”
On the recommendation for beverages: “They are recommending high-nutrient drinks such as non-fat milk and they say we need to be careful with 100 percent juice and full-fat milks. These suggestions make sense. We need a lot more data. Just how much better is fruit juice than soda? Many researchers think they are equally problematic and many researchers think fruit juice is a healthier choice. To the best of my knowledge, there have been only two studies comparing the two.”
Biggest adjustment for consumers: “I think the guideline to eat more whole fruits and vegetables is incredibly important – if everybody would concentrate on that, health would improve immensely. The other big adjustment is making an all-out effort to eliminate as much added sugar as possible – that’s not just from beverages but also from candy and cookies.”
What’s missing: “I think they made changes that are very reasonable based on the knowledge that we have. It would be great if we had better nutrition data.”
Most important takeaway: “Eat more fruits and vegetables and less added sugar.”
Mr. Dunning writes, “Given that the brochure urges us to give our kids milk, maybe there’s a dairy farmer or two behind all this spending. Or, given that sugary ‘fruit’ juice was specifically excluded from the list of evil beverages, maybe there’s a citrus farmer out there who is now downgrading soda pop in his spare time.”
The recommendations are that children should be drinking non-fat milk, and avoiding 100 percent juice and full-fat milk. In addition, there should be warnings on things like soda and Gatorade. The flier’s display of beverages was clearly not intended as an exhaustive list.
That makes sense.
Mr. Dunning writes, “No matter, for judging by the response heading my way, this pushy, paternalistic, holier-than-thou brochure was a monumental flop. To use a popular basketball term, the folks putting it out shot an air ball.”
Maybe Mr. Dunning, instead of cracking jokes, should educate his readers on just how bad the consumption of sugar is and figure out ways for us to reduce the local obesity rate, which is still unacceptably high.
As Robb Davis, himself a public health specialist, put it, this is the public health crisis of our lifetime.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
It’s interesting to note that those who are advocating a reduction in sugar consumption are completely silent on the issue of allowing sugar filled sodas using SNAP benefits (previously called food stamps). It doesn’t make a lot of sense to me that public health advocates think that it’s perfectly fine for the poor and disadvantaged people who typically receive SNAP benefits to have the government purchase sugar filled sodas for them.
It seems that limiting purchase of sodas using SNAP benefits is a cause that both “liberals” and “conservatives” could support. If we were really concerned with the public health risks of excess sugar, we would be holding a discussion of this topic.
I’m not silent at all. I wrote a column on it sometime in 2014.
Excellent! Perhaps you should write some more about it now since the topic has come up.
or not since it’s not a local issue and it changes the topic from the issue that we face in this community. it seems like a lot of people like to take a policy proposal and say, hey why are we looking at x and not y. when the reality is we need to look at both x and y, but we can’t take on both things at the same time. it distracted from the entire topic of this column. was that your intent?
TopCat and David
As David has pointed out, this is not a matter of silence. This is a matter of some people not following what is happening at various different levels in attempting to improve dietary offerings and purchasing wherever they happen to occur. I doubt that many read the minutes of various public health boards and commissions nor the minutes including presentations before the board of supervisors with summaries of suggestions for means that could be used locally and regionally to improve dietary choices.
Another frustration of mine is that whenever a new process is suggested for public health, a chant is raised that we should just rely on education……as though those of us in individual and public health have not been doing this for as long as public health departments have been in existence. Just because you do not read about the educational ( and other ) efforts on the Vanguard daily, does not mean that they are not occurring. As an individual practitioner, and as a member of the public health community, I can outline for you what my efforts have included ? Can the naysayers here do the same ?
It’s nice in this very liberal town that we have a voice of common sense in the form of Mr. Dunning’s columns which often serves to combat some of the liberal silliness.
What do you think about the idea of continuing the policy of the government allowing taxpayer dollars in the form of SNAP benefit to purchase sugar filled sodas? Where is the “common sense” in that?
From the lack of discussion of this topic it seems like most people think it’s perfectly OK for the poor and disabled to keep loading up on sugar filled sodas at taxpayer expense. Perhaps we are not as concerned with public health as we pretend to be?
AMA
Bloomberg
But you can do your own sleuthing on this. Try googling some combination of this:
“beverage industry lobby to allow soda in food stamps purchases”
The bottom line is that sugary drinks are allowed in SNAP because the beverage industry fights to keep them there. But it is this awful thing called “liberalism” (undefined) that is the problem.
According to your link there’s more than just the bev industry fighting to keep them there:
but you ignored the next paragraph bp, “While Coca-Cola and PepsiCo are among the largest contributors to the nonpartisan Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, a research and education institute, caucus members say their positions are not influenced by such contributions.” it’s still all about the beverage industry’s influence. all you have proven is that black people aren’t immune to the pressure of monied interests. shocking i know.
Are you accusing these Black Caucus members of lying and selling out their constituents? It’s just proves one thing for sure, if SNAP ever denied sugary sodas the cries of racism would be loud.
Vanguard: Why Keep Denying We Have a Public Health Crisis?
I think Robb Davis’ answer is it. The beverage industry, in various ways, influences how we perceive sugary drinks. It’s helpful to remember that smoking was originally not considered the health issue that it later became. Example.
Yes. You’ve pinpointed the reason that SNAP benefits allow recipients to purchase sugary drinks. The amazing thing is how little concern there is within the public health community about this issue.
Topcat, can you imagine the outrage if SNAP recipients were denied ability to buy sugary sodas? Corn fructose syrup is in many products, if you’re going to deny them sodas then why not all corn fructose syrup products? I can hear the charges of classism and racism.
seems like it’s the beverage industry running this train.
BP
“if you’re going to deny them sodas then why not all corn fructose syrup products?”
This specific issue regarding “why target the sodas” has been addressed over and over in previous articles here on the Vanguard. As the briefest of refreshers I will post the reminder.
One reason for targeting sodas is that the delivery is via a rapidly absorbed liquid substance with no simultaneously administered nutrients and no bulk to counter the speed of absorption. This represents an almost immediate and overwhelming sugar bolus to the pancreas that is not encountered when consuming products that also contain other ingredients. This is the simple physiology of liquid vs solid absorption from the gastrointestinal tract and is the well known basis for anesthetic, surgical and dental procedures requiring sedation.
The main pushback against any such proposal would be from beverage industry lobbyists who would pressure our Congressmen/women and Senators.
Rather than try to micromanage what’s in their shopping carts, I would prefer to provide benefit recipients with education and information about healthy eating. I’d love to see the USDA do more work on the ‘smart’ interactive shopping carts that were in the news a couple of years ago. But of course, the right wing went nuts about that project. http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/ICF-IHC-Final-Report-0714.pdf
I agree with the first two sentences, but am not aware of this USDA idea. Why did the right wing go nuts about it?
I kept thinking what a cool thing this would have been to use while shopping with my teenager.
I’ll let them speak for themselves.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2014/07/16/regime_wants_talking_shopping_carts_to_tell_food_stamp_recipients_what_to_eat
http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/236352/government-wants-talking-30k-shopping-carts-tell-daniel-greenfield
So Rush Limbaugh speaks for the right wing?
Does Bill Maher speak for the left wing?
I agree that the shopping cart technology would be cool and useful to some degree.
But this is what we really need more of… https://www.ted.com/talks/jamie_oliver?language=en
Absolutely; I think Jamie Oliver is great and would be especially useful in educational programs aimed at junior high and high school kids. He sure ran into a lot of opposition when he tried that in L.A. I hope he continues to try to fight public school bureaucracies on this issue.
According to what I can find, Limbaugh has 13+ million listeners; Maher about 4 million viewers.
Liberals are less likely to listen to the radio and get their “news” on the Internet.
I think you are off base making Limbaugh the spokesperson for the right wing.
Interesting thing contained in Jamie Oliver’s Ted Talk here. And it is common.
Government is responsible for much of the problem and then the government-class is demanding more taxes and rules to solve the problem.
When you look at most of our economic and social problems the same source and cause relationships exist.
So you got a guy like Robb Davis who is a public health expert and who is also a politician and his “solution” is to tax the private sector instead of working to get the local schools to fix their menus and add food-education courses.
Yes the nation is sick. But the biggest sickness is this routine… the public side causes the problems and then demands that the private side pony up more to fix the problems.
As I’ve said before, I would support this tax if it went to fund education programs. As to appropriate venues and proposals, taxation would be Robb’s bailiwick, while receiving the funds and implementing them would be the school board’s job.
We live in a system where private enterprise develops and markets products. It wasn’t government that invented the 42 oz. beverage size. No rational person would consider that a reasonable amount of beverage to drink. But private enterprise created it and marketed it. Do you think private companies will voluntarily modify or discontinue portion sizes that big? Do you acknowledge that those portions sizes are a part of the problem?
isn’t npr one of the staples of the left, i believe the right calls is national communist public radio
Frankly: Liberals are less likely to listen to the radio and get their “news” on the Internet.
I never thought of myself as a solid liberal until you started labeling commenters here.
I listen to a whole lot of NPR for my news. I guess, now, I’m not a liberal. Thanks for clarifying. I’m also aware of folks who listen to a lot of Pacifica Radio; I rarely listen to that network.
Funny, based you your writing I don’t see you as a liberal. I also like NPR.
What’s funny here is that Limbaugh is also largely snarky and satirical. The difference, I think, is that left-leaning people tend to like their snark and satire in more stinging nuance and subtlety… I think so they can continue to claim some higher and more righteous place on the political discourse pedestal. It is a respectable art for those lefties that do it well. Obama is a master. With a wink and a smile he says things that make his base jump with glee while destroying their opposition. Same with Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert. Then there are the Hollywood entertainment institutions like SNL that are always going to be skewed left. Pop culture humiliation is tremendously powerful these days of 24 x 7 replay access.
But Maher is like Limbaugh in that both of them are just direct and provocative. Limbaugh has more viewers because right-leaning people tend to like it that way. Where left-leaners would prefer to keep their vitriol masked in a barrage of words and nuance.
The right punches with points and wants to see the enemy get back up to try and counter-punch. The left attempts to make thousands of cuts to watch with glee the enemy bleeding to death on the floor.
There is much wrong with this analysis, not the least of which is suggesting that I am promoting a “solution.” I guess I will just have to repeat that this is NOT a unitary solution but one among many to achieve lasting change.
The nation is sick, but to deny the role of private sector in contributing to that sickness is strange to say the least.
There is here a narrative which says that the only thing that matters is the freedom “from” constraints to consume what one desires. There is no questioning of how those desires are formed or how they are manipulated by pressing certain evolutionary “buttons.” There is, more sadly, no discussion of what true “freedom” is–freedom for health and well being.
There is only the fear that by constraining the beverage industry we will somehow reduce ourselves, by giving up some essential piece of our personal freedom.
But that defines freedom as only “from constraint” of a very narrow kind; not freedom to become fully flourishing humans. Such a definition fundamentally ignores how desires are structured and ignores the role of marketing in that structuring. It asks NO questions of the ultimate ends (telos) of human well being. It is as empty, intellectually, as a can of soda is nutritionally.
My view of the world is one where people are not best served by nanny-ism after they reach adulthood. If the private sector, as you say, is manipulating how desires are formed or by pressing certain evolutionary “buttons”, then how do you explain the so many that resist this manipulation?
Answer that honestly and objectively and you should understand why soda taxes are really wrong and, frankly, quite stupid if your goal is to really improve health and reduce the occurrence of obesity.
Great! Restrict sales of extra-large portion beverages to adults. Problem solved, and you agree!
Do you have even a passing familiarity with the advertising industry? Answer this question honestly: how many ads to you see on a regular basis for sugary cereals? How many boxes a week do you buy? And yet, apparently, the ads run, the target audience sees them, and they get bought. It’s like magic.
Not if they fund educational programs. Do you think educational programs don’t work? Do you think educating people about how to eat in a healthier manner, especially starting at younger ages, won’t help to reduce the occurrence of obesity? If education won’t do it, and regulation won’t do it, then what will?
It is not an easy question to answer but I will attempt to do so obliquely. If the private sector is driven by rational assessment of cost/benefit (which I assume you would say, it is), needing to respond to shareholders who demand the best return on investment, then why would it spend the hundreds of millions it does on marketing (creating a brand image and loyalty), if it were not working in some tangible way? In other words, where the beverage industry puts its money should be some indication of where it considers a wise investment to run. Advertising, and the shaping of “desire” is central to the business model of Coke and Pepsi, Inc.
But the bigger point is that many DO NOT resist the manipulation and I will not conclude from my personal choices and behavior that everyone behaves, or can behave, as I do in resisting the pressure. But the conversation here is really about freedom and whether I am “stealing” yours or limiting the freedom of others by suggesting we tax a commodity that has little intrinsic value. Yes, I am pointing towards the question of what true freedom is and whether we value the ends of human flourishing or some narrow definition of “freedom” (which is really a crude autonomy that is essentially a least common denominator narcissism). Or, as William Cavanaugh has put it much more cogently:
It would seem to me that the discussion here is really about preserving the right to choose above all else. That is the “good” for which you fight. I am arguing that “choice” is thin gruel that in no way considers the broader need of the human person.
I look at it from a much less nuanced perspective.
I see that you and I have resisted this manipulation from Madison Ave., so why not expect that we can help others understand what we understand?
In my job I can do the work of my employees that are not yet able to do it. Or I can create rigid procedures and global fines that help ensure that they don’t even have to learn how to use their judgement effectively.
But in doing so I destroy the long-term good for the benefit of the short-term good.
And that is not a sustainable approach.
Instead I should develop my employees to be self-sufficient and ultimately better than I am at making good value judgements.
I see a bit of elitism here… a view that there are below-the-line people that cannot be trusted to make good decisions and so there are the elite ruling class that will make the rules and set the fines to help corral these people to prevent them from wandering outside their field of safety.
I reject that line of thinking. I would prefer that we education everyone to be above-the-line. You and I did it, so why not them?
You drew that line yourself. You said “after they reach adulthood.” The line is 18 years old.
And on this, we are in complete agreement.
So all you need to do is fund that education somehow. I’m all in favor of educationing everyone. I also love spell-check for the great errors it perpetrates on these forums.
Spending money to educate people below that line about good nutrition and healthy eating could reduce obesity. A tax on soda could help fund those programs. If you don’t pass the tax to fund those programs, and you want to have those programs, then the money has to come from some other tax.
On the other hand, if this tax money just goes into the general fund, then I’d oppose it. I think we’re in agreement on that as well. I wouldn’t really want to pass a tax on soda just to give raises to employees and stuff.
Frankly: The difference, I think, is that left-leaning people tend to like their snark and satire in more stinging nuance and subtlety… I think so they can continue to claim some higher and more righteous place on the political discourse pedestal. It is a respectable art for those lefties that do it well. Obama is a master.
Meanwhile, the Republican Congress passes a bill to change the name of the San Andreas Fault to Barack Obama’s Fault.
HaHaHa! That is quite funny.
But I am sure it will always be Bush’s fault.
I wonder if your M.D. son also thinks this crisis is silly.
Maybe all those concerned about soda should go block a busy bridge at rush hour.
or maybe they should block walmart
or maybe anti-soda tax Davisites should go to a council meeting and shout down any discussion of this stupid tax.
Or maybe we should all grab our guns and occupy the local stores which promote the “tyranny of advertising” by continuing to sell products known to produce illness to our children.
Ok, so much for the lighthearted fun over a deadly serious problem that many seem to want to simply ignore because after all it is all about individual choice right ? The millions and millions of dollars spent on depictions of cute polar bears and the lovey dovey scenes of young people bonding over a Coke are just fine, but the thought of raising even a small amount of tax payer money to help fund counter balancing measures is anathema. I think that as a society, we have our priorities severely messed up when we are willing to sell out the health of generations of children to the coffers of these huge companies.
“this is the public health crisis of our lifetime.”
This point is key to understanding why this particular problem is being targeted. We are reaching, as a nation, the state that the Tohono Ottam and Pima groups were at 30 years ago. At that time, approximately 40 % of their adult populations were obese and 25 % of their adult populations were identified as diabetic by the age of 40. Numbers like these have a devastating effect, not only on the individual, but on the entire community. Sadly, I have watched, over my 30 years in medicine, our overall population moving steadily in this direction.
Another point that is key to our understanding of how some continue to belittle this issue, is our limited ability to assess risk. We spent many millions on prevention of Ebola ( low risk by location and transmissibility) and I received much push back from readers here when I suggested that this funding should be spent on issues of greater risk to our population. Many of you encouraged more draconian measures and more expenditure for this locally very low risk situation because of the fear generated by the horrific reports of the disease and its spread half a world away from here.
And yet Mr. Dunning quibbles over the expenditure of perhaps a few thousand to counter act the millions spent by the soda industry to convince children and adolescents that soda is essential to their social success and happiness. From the perspective of an individual provider who sees these issues on a daily basis, it is Robb that has this correct.
The confluence of obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease and some cancers are the central health issue of our day. They are not to be underestimated and belittled with cheap shots, denigration and snide remarks which are the trademarks of Mr. Dunning, but rather should be taken seriously as the highly expensive killers that they are. While no single measure will provide a panacea, it is just wrong to denigrate the efforts of others attempting to improve this situation.
What people are complaining about is the stupid proposal of a soda tax that only one other city in the whole U.S. has instituted that by most people’s admission won’t do a darn thing to stem obesity or diabetes.
except that the only way that states start taking on these kinds of proposals is once they have been tested at the local level. everyone was slamming the plastic bag ban as ineffective in davis, but that was part of the momentum needed to pass it statewide where it will have a far greater impact and hopefully nationwide where it has even more impact.
About 100 CA cities already had a plastic ban in effect at the time we passed our local ban. Only one other city has a soda tax, we don’t need local liberals using Davis as a guinea pig for their social engineering agenda.
someone had to be first, someone had to be second in order for there to be 100. when are we allowed to go? when there’s 10? 25? 50? 100?
I was thinking number 0, never.
you seem to be moving the goal posts.
BP
I would love to see even one shred of evidence for how you know that this is a stupid idea that won’t do any good. We have evidence of how very small efforts such as this, in concert with many, many other small steps made a huge difference over years in the use of cigarettes. Those who favor these steps have at least precedent to show. What do you have to back your assertion that it is useless ?
The goal of the soda tax is not to save lives or reduce the incidence of obesity and diabetes. Those are the justifications for the tax. The goal is to raise money to fund a public health initiative that will be run by public health professionals. In short, it is an effort to improve job security for the local public health community.
If you want to know why the US has a higher incidence of obesity and diabetes than other developed countries, you need look no further than the past fifty years of advice from the government (through the USDA and Public Health professionals) about what and how we should eat. The advice changes, often times in very contradictory ways, but the story is the same, ‘this is what is healthy for you – really – trust us.’
If we really wanted to make a significant difference in the health of our community we would take all the money that is currently funding public health initiatives on food and diet around the country, and use it instead to buy a copy of Michael Pollan’s ‘In Defense of Food’ for every High School student. It would cost us less, and we would know that the information provided was based on a thorough understanding of the science.
“you need look no further than the past fifty years of advice from the government”
Right. Let’s certainly not look at the massive amounts of money that are poured into selling “food products” instead of food. Let’s not look at ads for sugary cereals and beverages on TV. Let’s not look at every mainstream movie theater that promotes before every showing treats found in the lobby while blocking food from outside being brought in. Let’s not look at the fast food industry or those who have promoted the consumption of ever enlarging portion sizes. Let’s just blame it all on changing recommendations from the government and call it a day.
I’m not blaming the changing recommendations from the government Tia, I’m blaming the public health professionals who made those recommendations, and continue to do so, with little or no understanding of the science.
Go ahead and point the finger at the evil food companies who did a good job providing the low- and no-fat products that public health officials told us were important for our diet. The problem is when you take out the fat, you have to add back sugar, or in most cases, high fructose corn syrup. That is the problem with your reductionist approach – identifying one product and saying it is bad – the unintended consequences.
Sugar is not bad. Sugar is a food source and an important part of the nutritious diet. Sugar in excess can increase your risk for certain health problems, but so can water when consumed in excess. Is water bad Tia?
And why soda? Fruit juice often contains just as much sugar with the exact same impacts on health risks when consumed in excess. Fruits and vegetables are an important part of a nutritious diet, but when you put them in a blender and destroy all the fiber you create a beverage that has the same impact on your risk for health problems when consumed in excess as does that sugary soda. Why not a tax on fruit juice and juicers too?
The problem here is that you and your colleagues want simple answers to complex problems. So I will help you out. Here is your simple answer, and best of all it doesn’t require a new tax.
“Eat food, not too much, mostly plants.” – Michael Pollan
Maybe this is the Davis idea of a Health crisis? EBola was a health crisis, especially when people treating the victims of it were merrily flying back to infect people in another country?
Sugar and obesity is something we all fight if we want a healthy diet. Why is the Schools not taking the lead on this? Because they make money on it. And because addressing the REAL PROBLEM, parents not controlling the diet of their growing child, is the real culprit.
Parental responsibility is not being employed at this level, and you are putting the responsibility of a fat kid on people who are not parents, rather minimum wage fast food workers? The kids?? Just try to control a kid not your own… After a couple of generations of ignorant parents, we have ordinances instead of talking to people? Control by Government in its worst form.
I sure know children grow at different rates and need different nutrients as they grow, and this lumps them into a One Size Fits All mentality.
really ebola was a health crisis?
Number of deaths for leading causes of death
Heart disease: 611,105
Cancer: 584,881
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 149,205
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 130,557
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 128,978
Alzheimer’s disease: 84,767
Diabetes: 75,578
Influenza and Pneumonia: 56,979
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 47,112
Intentional self-harm (suicide): 41,149
you’ll note that diabetes is 7th, but heart disease is also attributable to diet, as are some cancers. just because diabetes kills you slowly doesn’t mean it’s not a public health crisis.
Using DPs numbers, if one includes the conditions of heart disease, cancer, stroke, diabetes, and the kidney related disorders one arrives at a little over 1.4 million deaths. If even half of these ( a very conservative estimate) would have been preventable since they are linked to obesity related metabolic disorders I would say that this argues strongly for a preventable epidemic of disease.
I also think that this is another area in which we might reconsider our relative assessment of risk. From 9/11/01 to the end of 2014, there were approximately 3,000 – 3,500 civilian deaths related to terrorism on American soil. We have politicians currently urging major changes in the structure and principles of our society based on this perceived risk. And yet, from the same philosophic camp, we hear no support, and much denigration of efforts to address the numerically much larger risk to our population based on preventable metabolic diseases.
Guess this does not rise the level of importance YOU assess it, but the world sure did.. Our National response was hundred of “Soldiers” and equipment sent over to Africa so it would not get here.
Does the “accidents” category include traffic too? Just curious.
Miwok
“Maybe this is the Davis idea of a Health crisis? EBola was a health crisis,”
Public health crises come in different forms. Some are dramatic and sensational like the Ebola crisis, which was certainly a health crisis in West Africa, but not here. There was not one single case of Ebola in California.
Some crisis are here, such as obesity and its related disorders, but are not dramatic but more in keeping with turning the temperature of the frog containing pot of water up slowly. At what point will this become a “crisis” in your eyes ? It would seem that you do not consider 1/4 a crisis. It would seem that you do not consider dropping life expectancy a crisis. I would disagree. I believe that we are in crisis now. But if you do not agree, would you mind sharing what proportion of the population this would have to involve before you would consider it a crisis ?
You all seem to know all the causes of this “crisis” – seems more like a discipline problem to me.
Frankly
“But this is what we really need more of… https://www.ted.com/talks/jamie_oliver?language=en”
I could not agree more and I thank you for posting it. And I would like to highlight a few of his statements.
1. “It cannot come from one source”.
Not even just from talks and projects like this. One thing that he made clear in his talk is that improving health is a project for our entire society, not just one aspect of it.
2. Some of the principle players he emphasized are : supermarkets with food ambassadors, government working in concert with the fast food industry to wean us off our acquired preferences for fatty/sugary foods, school preparation of fresh nutritious meals on site, school and community gardens and centers to promote and instruct in healthy food preparation, schools teaching healthy life skills so that every child graduates knowing how to prepare at least ten healthful meals, corporate responsibility for providing nutritious meals for employees, homes and family’s passing on food acquisition and preparation skills.
3. Please note that one important point that he emphasized is that there is not money allocated for these efforts. He stated that the corporate world needs to work with Mrs. Obama in her efforts to improve health.
So since he is correct that there is not money allocated for these efforts, would it not seem reasonable for us to at least discuss a proposal and perhaps vote on a proposal to raise some funding at the expense of bad habit purchases with those funds to be used for improvements in these areas. In this talk the chef was very clear that he wants to see more, not less money and resources devoted to this issue. He is taking a completely inclusive approach, not one which denigrates individual initiatives on the local level, but rather an approach that encourages such efforts.
If you agree with him that this is a problem, what we should be doing is working collaboratively together to take the problem on, not opposing ideas as they are expressed because of some minor ideologic quibble over “being told what to do”. If you do not like the idea of a soda tax, please express what concrete steps you would like to take, and how you would like to finance them because I can assure you that your county health department is already doing a great deal along the lines he expressed towards improving health and wellness, it is the private business sector that is dragging its collective feet in this area.
So here is my suggestion Frankly. We put the soda tax on the ballot. If passed, we use the proceeds to hire a city health and wellness officer such as this chef to institute such a program here. You have already said that we need it, so, let’s fund it as a community. If you have an alternative suggestion for funding someone with this approach, please state it. I will very likely be supportive.
You always have the unique views I love to read,
Isn’t Government working with Food Companies like Archer Daniels Midland and Monsanto some of the reasons we have this “problem”?
Unless you count the FDA, who arguably created these problems, so maybe they can be persuaded to fix it? Other wise you are taking money to fix what you already took money to create? Nirvana for tax and spend freaks.
See, I always thought the FDA and other agencies were supposed to enforce laws and not be detrimental to the public. Instead, they become the problem, and we have to spend MORE to correct them?
Frankly
“the public side causes the problems and then demands that the private side pony up more to fix the problems.”
I do not believe that it is the “public side” that created either the disaster that was the industry driven promotion of cigarettes, nor the industry driven disaster that is the current “food product” driven disaster that Jamie Oliver spells out so well. If we did not have private companies such as Coke and Pepsi and Mars promoting “food products” instead of actual food, there would be no need for the “public side” aka government to get involved at all. The responsibility for the current mess lies squarely in the “private sector” with the emphasis on profits at all costs…..and I do mean all, since the statistics Mr. Oliver is quoting on decreasing life span are unfortunately accurate.
Well, since the proposed soda tax would go (based on comments by supporters) 100% to health care (education/treatment, etc.) perhaps it should be more appropriately put on the ballot by the County, the State, and/or by a citizens’ initiative… but, not the City Council.
The most logical and “fair” increased revenue source for infrastructure repairs/improvements has been ‘taken of the table’. What remains are proposals that either won’t do ANYTHING meaningful for infrastructure, and/or are patently unfair. The UUT is the most fair, most effective source to raise the revenues needed for infrastructure. Perhaps it should be placed back on the table.
Well, taxing everyone as you mention is not fair, given that some people live to old age without these problems. How about you have guards to collect the tax only after stepping on the scale, or will there be an age requirement too? you going to test old ladies and can you test for whether this is the first or fourth drink that day?
Will you debate parents who only give a treat to their kids once a week, as mine did, or every day, as my uncle and aunt did? Of you just wanna tax everyone, as is the California custom?
hpierce
“it should be more appropriately put on the ballot by the County, the State, and/or by a citizens’ initiative… but, not the City Council.”
Just because public health issues have more traditionally been handled in these ways does not mean that this is “more appropriate” or that it is inappropriate for another level of government to take on the initiative, only that it is not typical.
“just how bad the consumption of sugar is and figure out ways for us to reduce the local obesity rate, which is still unacceptably high.”
Fact… consumption of sugar is not inherently BAD… Fact… some folk are genetically susceptable to developing Type II diabetes… Fact… some folk are genetically more likely to be obese… they should avoid sugars, particularly OVER-consumption of sugars.
There are folk that over-consume food, yet do not become obese… there are folk who smoke tobacco, and die, free of heart or lung disease, at the age of 99-105.
There are folk who, shaking hands with someone who had a peanut butter sandwich, may have a medical event. Should we tax and/or forbid the use of peanut products?
Since the City has an adversarial relationship with the University in their town, which has researchers and a Nutrition Department, Cancer Center, Medical University, and even a Transportation Institute, the City seems to be more informed and has more people on City Council/Staff who are professionals in these topics as well, since they seem to want to pass ordinances affecting all these topics without asking the closest and maybe best resource to help?
Basing City Ordinances on TED talks is not the best way to do it.
hpierce
Stating that there are other potential reasons for a problem to exist, which is true, is not a valid argument against addressing one of the most preventable and common reasons for the existence of the problem.
The most ‘preventable’ measure is to ensure that those genetically pre-disposed to diabetes and obesity is to not allow them to reproduce.
According to this,
http://www.webmd.com/diabetes/type-2-diabetes-guide/diabetes-causes?page=2#2
genetics is the main ‘driver’ of diabetes… so your dismissive comment is not supported by medicine.
Whatever… you apparently have an axe to grind, and I don’t want to be your grinding stone… end of my participation, as you seem to ignore medical knowledge, as convenient, and I have not the medical background to categorically refute your posits.
Do you know of ONE case of Type II diabetes that is NOT genetically driven, no matter what sugar intake?
hpierce
“genetics is the main ‘driver’ of diabetes… so your dismissive comment is not supported by medicine”
Genetics is one driver of diabetes. You have never and will never hear me refute this. However, it is not a driver that we can change. Thus the focus on those changes that we can effect. Genetics provides a setting in which a condition may develop it does not make the development inevitable. What we can provide is protection against the chance that the condition will develop.
Can you even consider the possibility that I am not “ignoring medical science” but perhaps demonstrating a more nuanced view of it which one would hope that I would have given that I have been in the field for 30 + years. I am sorry that you seem to feel “ground down” by this. However, I do lack understanding of why, since I do not feel put down by your superior knowledge of finances. Why does this lead you to a defensive stance. Can we not respect each others areas of relatively superior knowledge without making it a competition ?
“I’m blaming the public health professionals who made those recommendations, and continue to do so, with little or no understanding of the science.”
The reason that the recommendations change, is that knowledge and perspectives on that knowledge change. Thirty years ago, I used to recommend hysterectomy for conditions for which I would now recommend much more conservative and less dangerous approaches. It was not that I was giving bad advice at that time. It was that the better approaches, such as minimally invasive destruction of the lining of the uterus and the progesterone containing IUD had not yet been developed. Heaven forbid that we arrive at a time where medical advice never contradicts the best understandings of the past since that will mean that we have stopped discovering and exploring better alternatives.
There is no one on the medical side who is approaching this from the “reductionist” point of view that you seem to be ascribing to us. No one is pretending that sugar is the “great Satan” from which all must be protected. And no one is saying that fruit juice, or any other sugary beverage is necessarily better. However, it is only, and I repeat only the sodas and similar beverages that offer no nutritional value along with the sugar load. Milk, of which I am not a big fan, contains sugar. Fruit juices contain sugar. Whole fruit contains sugar. This is not the problem. The problem from my perspective, is the products that contain large quantities of added sugar with no nutritional benefit to offset the detrimental amount of sugar present. This is not vilifying sugar. It is opposing a product with no nutritional value which is capable of significant harm. Can you really not see the difference between the two ? If not, then I am doing a terrible job of communication and obviously need to rethink my approach.
Of course, I can, but that is not what you have been saying. I will grant that it may have been your intent, however.
Any claim that this proposed local tax will have an impact on consumption, let alone health, is completely bogus. How about we just leave the money in people’s pockets so they can afford to buy better food.
Excellent point. How is taking money from people going to help them buy more healthy foods, if anything it deters them.
Mark, you have made this statement before as if it there is some group of “public health professionals” setting dietary standards. This is not the case as anyone who has been involved in things like creation of the food pyramid or recommended intakes of meat, grains or dairy products can tell you. The creation of dietary standards is a highly politicized process in which public health bench scientists and their policy-focused colleagues have a relatively small voice and often get co-opted.
So rather than focus on dietary recommendations about, say, fat intake, I would prefer we look at the role of public health practitioners in things like smoking cessation programs, or improved water supply, or promotion of breastfeeding, or the spread of immunization practices world wide. In these cases, public health practitioners have fought large corporations and fearful politicians to bring about changes that have, arguably, improved the health of humans on the planet. I don’t have to tell you about the devastating effects of smoking, breast milk substitutes or unregulated water supplies. And yet it is people who looked at health data from a population perspective (public health), pulling back from individual case treatment, that named the problems and proposed population-based solutions.
These solutions included–but were never limited to education. There was government compulsion in all of them and the need, at times, to confront businesses on practices that were detrimental to health. The case with sugary beverages is not different.
But I agree with you as you quote Michael Pollan. We should eat food.
The problem is, sugary beverages are not food. The only thing they have in common with food is that they are ingested via the mouth and they pass through the digestive tract. People in Haiti are known to eat clay. But that does not make clay a food. It is not, nor ever will it be a food. Same with soft drinks.
With that in mind we can look objectively at the science of causes of fatty liver disease (so-called non-alcoholic cirrhosis). And the science is clear: sugary beverages are a sugar delivery system that take sugar to vital organisms in a highly efficient way. Much like cigarettes are means to deliver fine particulate matter from burning tobacco (and other substances that cling to it) deeply into the lungs. In both cases the results are highly pleasing to users but they come at a great cost over time.
We are not proposing a sugary beverage tax as the sine qua non of the fight against this fléaux, but we are saying it is one instrument in what is shaping up to be a long battle against something that has no nutritional value whatsoever and has terrible outcomes.
I never thought being a public health professional would make me an object of derision and suspicion, but now, at least, I understand why Ibsen’s “An Enemy of the People” was required reading in my very first public health class.
Isn’t it ironic that the “Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program” (SNAP), is providing those sugary beverages to the poor and disabled at taxpayer expense?
Robb:
I know and agree that politics plays a big part in the process, just as is the case here. The soda tax will have no impact on public health though it may fund a few grants for public health professionals. This is a political initiative, not a public health one.
Yes they are. They may not be very good food, but they do contain metabolites that may be used by the body, obviously some more than others. Fruit juices, for instance, may be a significant source of vitamins and other nutrients.
Here is where you run into problems with your explaination of the science. It is not ‘sugar’ that is associated with fatty liver disease, it is the specific sugar, fructose. Fructose is metabolized to fat by the liver, and stored there. Excess fructose leads directly to fatty liver disease. If you had jumped up on your soapbox and screamed about the evils of added fructose, I would have grabbed my own box and jumped up beside you. The problem is you chose to attack generic ‘sugar’ with a tax that won’t do anything.
Our bodies have evolved to metabolize a mixture of sugars, generally glucose and fructose, especially when presented in combination with the dietary fiber found in fruits and grains. What causes us problems is when we are delivered a bolus of fructose alone without the dietary fiber. What is important to remember here Robb, metabolically, it is the exact same problem whether we consume a drink made with added fructose, or refined ‘white bread’ (or other similar manufactured products) made with high fructose corn syrup and no fiber.
Now here is where the politics are really fun. Originally, when manufacturers wanted to add sugar to their foods, they added sucrose, a disaccharide made up of one glucose and one fructose moiety. Sucrose, however, is relatively expensive due to the high tariffs placed on imported sugar in order to protect our domestic producers. At the same time, we are paying farmers in the midwest to grossly overproduce corn, which puts pressure on manufacturers to find a new way to use that excess crop, hence high fructose corn syrup and ethanol. The combination of the tariffs and the subsidies results in corn syrup being dramatically cheaper than sucrose, and the obvious choice for food manufacturers.
So…Public Health’s attack on fat in the diet lead directly to an increased intake of sucrose, which then was replaced by fructose, which increased the incidence of fatty liver disease and all the concomitant health problems. It is all more complicated than that, but that is the general gist. It ain’t the soda folks, it’s not even the ‘sugar,’ it’s the added fructose. Science at work.
Mark – Your description of the role of subsidized corn in feeding the sugar boom is elegant, well-informed and, I believe, spot on. Your description of the causal chain between fat recommendations and sugar less so. But whatever the case, to call out NOW the problem of overproduction (and overconsumption) of sugar would seem appropriate.
I have criticized the overproduction (via subsidy) of HFCS just as I have criticized (and left one job) over the overproduction of corn and soy that went into international “development” programs via PL480 and the unholy alliance of NGOs, farmers and shippers (a story told cogently in “Food Aid After Fifty Years”), and I criticize and will continue to fight against the overproduction and sale of sugary beverages that it has spawned. A local tax is but one part of that fight but it, joined with the efforts of others, will change things.
There are lots of things parents do to/for their kids. Letting them eat food that is bad for them is one. Brainwashing them with belief systems is another.
I don’t like it but it happens daily.
Nothing I can do about it…
But these people will talk it to death, then pass an ordinance, then never see them volunteer an ounce of their time or a dollar of their money to a good cause, when they can force all the City to do it. Once they get their boy elected, they can pass another Law.
keithvb and Miwok
“Nothing I can do about it…”
I agree with your post until you reached this point. There is much that we as individuals can “do about it”. We can decline unhealthy foods ourselves. We can model for other parents and their children as well by bringing fresh fruit and water when it is our turn to provide the after game or party treats. We can invite the gang over for a freshly prepared meal rather than going out for fast food after an event. We can talk about why we are making these choices. These are individual actions available to all of us.
As an individual, we can also support the efforts of those in public health. Instead of taking the attitude that it is always someone else’s responsibility, we can accept that we have power with our own words and actions. As small groups, we can act to provide healthy meals for those who have less. My daughter did this through her high school as part of her community service obligation. Some mothers volunteered by teaching gardening skills and cooking skills in North Davis Elementary when my children were there.
There is a great deal that we can do. Many of us are still volunteering our time in various ways in the community to promote healthier outcomes.. I would be willing to bet that every one who posts here on the Vanguard has some skills that, if shared with children, would make improvements in how they see the world and behaviors that would impact their future health.
There is a lot of criticism of the efforts proposed by those in health care be it individual or public health. Some of this criticism is based on the feeling that these should not be governmental responsibilities, that these are private matters. And I would agree that if the private sector consistently acted in a responsible manner, there would be no need for governmental intervention. Unfortunately this is not the case. So to those who want the government at whatever level to get out of this area, my suggestion would be, take it on yourself. Get involved. There are many levels on which one could choose to act :
Education of children/ education of parents/ healthy food events/ collaboration with the schools/ collaboration with places of worship/ organization of product boycotts/ letter writing to companies whose products are known to be harmful/ letters to lawmakers to change governmental subsidies and other practices that support harmful products.
There are many, many ways to address these issues. The least effective in my opinion is to merely criticize the efforts of others.
Today’s Enterprise:
Read it, the poll showed that citizens wanted labels as a tool to promote personal responsibility for one’s sugar consumption. That’s right, personal responsibility, not someone dictating a penalty tax for whatever choices they might want to make.
http://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/field-poll-shows-growing-support-for-warning-labels-on-sugary-drinks/
Why is it either / or. The comparable situation is cigarettes. We have warning labels on cigarette. But we also have taxes on cigarettes.
Why does it have to be both? We have warning labels on many products but don’t charge extra taxes if one decides to purchase them.
Because I don’t think warning labels alone impacted cigarette smoking. It was the education programs, it was the restrictive legislation, it was the taxes that made cigarettes less affordable, etc. A lot of those programs are funded by cigarette taxes. I was just talking to Supervisor Provenza – First 5 Yolo, where Gina Daleiden was just named executive director is funded through cigarette taxes. Ironically the success of those taxes means they are experiencing declining revenue and so now they will need to find additional revenues. But the point I’m making is a lot of the program in place are funded through things like the Cigarette Tax. A soda tax is needed to generate revenue to run some of the programs they are proposing to fight obesity and childhood diabetes.
So we’re going to create another bureaucracy where if/when the funds start to dry up we’ll have to come up with other forms of revenue (taxation) to feed the pig (so to speak).
I think we have enough existing bureaucracy
As Mark West so aptly stated:
BP
“Why does it have to be both?”
Because a multifactorial approach is almost always better than using only one modality. A simple example. Let’s take an individual case and let’s further suppose that the goal is a ten lb weight loss. While it is true that it is possible to lose this weight by either caloric restriction alone, or by exercise alone, a far more effective approach will be caloric restriction, wise food choices, and appropriate increase in physical activity.
Yes, I agree. You take personal responsibility and make choices.
But not by taxing people for every pound they’re overweight.
What a great idea! Just imagine how many public health agencies that will fund…
Actually, the more I think about it the more this makes the most sense from a utopian social justice perspective.
Why go after one product category when there are many more that cause obesity? Candy, white bread, lattes, etc… they all contribute the same. And it isn’t just calorie intake, it is also the lack of energy expended. So then we get into taxing things like video games for being a cause of obesity.
So why not just cut the fat (pun intended) and tax fat.
Everyone pays a new BMI tax. Roughly speaking, the bigger you are the more you pay.
And for obese youth we will tax their parents.
Since social justice liberals are so sure that increasing the tax on a thing will cause it to become more scarce, then it is obvious that we should just tax fat.
Mark West and Frankly, I think we’re on to something here. A Fat Tax.
Frankly
“Why go after one product category when there are many more that cause obesity? “
Having spoken with you on a number of occasions, I know you know better than this. The rationale for targeting sugary beverages has been explained again and again here. You can go ahead with the repetitive chant of yours as much as you like hoping to evoke the “slippery slope” trope. But it will not change either the rationale, nor the physiology behind the selection of this group of products.
Speaking of repetitive chants………..
BP
Well, I will be happy to quit repeating the facts just as soon as opponents quit repeating the same erroneous tropes. Deal ?
Frankly
“My view of the world is one where people are not best served by nanny-ism after they reach adulthood.”
This would suggest that you would not object to regulations designed to stop the promotion of unhealthy food product consumption to children. We might actually have a point of agreement. I would love to see elimination of soda, candy, sweetened breakfast cereals and other selections such as doughnuts, pop tarts commercials from daytime programming. Is that something that you would support since these adds are obviously aimed at children ?