By Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger
New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg ignited a firestorm on this blog and elsewhere for his proposal to ban all but 16 ounce containers of sodas, energy drinks, sweetened iced teas and other sugary beverages in restaurants, movie theaters, sports arenas and food carts (they will still be available in supermarkets and bodegas). Wondering why he’d make a proposal that could not possibly help him politically and was likely to draw the ire of Big Soda, I did a little research. Here is the abbreviated case against cola:
- Weight Increase. Using high fructose corn syrup as a sweetener, a 20 oz can of soda contains the equivalent of anywhere between 17 (Coke) and 20 (Pepsi) teaspoons of sugar per can. Drinking just one regular 20 oz soda per day adds about 225 calories to our daily diet or about 7000 calories a month which, without concomitant exercise, translates to 2 pounds a month of 24 pounds of weight gain per year. And that’s just one per day. Many American teens average 3 per day. Since 1978, the consumption of sugary drinks has skyrocketed. Back then we soda was a puny 3% of our caloric intake and milk chimed in at 8%. The numbers are now almost reversed with soda making up about 7% of our daily caloric intake. If you’re interested, here’s the sugar content of many popular drinks.
- Insulin Blaster. Americans with type 2 diabetes has tripled from 6.6 million in 1980 to 20.8 million today. Why? One major reason might be soda. Researchers at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston and Harvard Medical School analyzed the data from the Nurses Heath Study II. They concluded that “women who drank one or more sugary drinks a day gained more weight and were 83% more likely to develop type 2 diabetes than those who imbibed less than once a month.” The researchers also noted that, “rapidly absorbed carbohydrates like high fructose corn syrup put more strain on insulin-producing cells than other foods.” When sugar enters the bloodstream quickly, the pancreas has to secrete large amounts of insulin for the body to process it. Some scientists believe that the unceasing demands that a soda habit places on the pancreas may ultimately leave it unable to keep up with the body’s need for insulin.
- Tooth Dissolver. Soda is a known enemy of tooth enamel due to its high acidity. In a series of studies, Professor Poonam Jain, director of community dentistry at Southern Illinois University School of Dental Medicine, tested various sodas by measuring their pH–an indication of acidity. Battery acid, for example, has a pH of 1; water scores a 7. Jain found that sugar-sweetened sodas came in at about 2.5, while diet sodas scored 3.2. “The acidity can dissolve the mineral content of the enamel, making the teeth weaker, more sensitive, and more susceptible to decay,” he contends.
- Bone Dissolver. In the 1950s we drank 3 cups of milk for every one cup of soda. Now those numbers are reversed and we’ve seen an increase in osteoporosis as a result. In 2000, research at the Harvard School of Public Health disclosed that brittle bones were a particular problem for soda drinking adolescent girls. The study of 460 high schoolers found that girls who drank carbonated soft drinks were three times as likely to break their arms and legs as those who consumed other drinks. And the problem continues into advanced age. Grace Wyshak, PhD, a biostatistician and the study’s lead researcher, believes something in colas is interfering with the body’s ability to use calcium. This is a big problem, she says, “because girls will be more susceptible to fractures later in life if they don’t acquire optimal bone mass in adolescence.”
- Caffeine Addiction. Many in the medical community consider caffeine a psychoactive substance. In fact, almost 90% of Americans consume it daily. It reacts with the central nervous system and stimulates the body. The caffeine in just one can of sugar-free diet soda ” is associated with a 48 percent increased risk of ‘metabolic syndrome,’ which plays a major role in heart disease and diabetes.”
Diet soda fairs no better with new research indicating its sugar less formula may well trigger food cravings and thus leads to weigh gain. It contains equal or more amounts of acid and caffeine and provides little in the way of nutritional benefits.
Bloomberg’s proposal then makes sense both from a public health perspective and from the point of view of logic. Why then all the resistance? Are we like spoiled children refusing to “eat our vegetables” because we just don’t want to eat them? Are we afraid of government depriving us of the products we take for granted and really, really like? Or are we just rationalizing our own indulgences under the banner of freedom of choice?
Basically, are we endowed by our Creator with the unalienable right to harm ourselves for our own pleasure and increase the costs to our fellows and our future generations as they are forced to pay for all the bad health choices we make?
What do you think?
Sources: Prevention Magazine; ABC News; Healthy Resources
~Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger
pbh51. I do eat some corn, but only from organic non-gmo sourced companies. I look for the Non GMO Project labels in the store. Those are tested by an independent lab.
They even have a non GMO ‘shopping list’:
http://www.nongmoshoppingguide.com/
I think we could solve many of our biggest problems with pollution, depleted soils, food, ethanol, manufacturing of single use items, etc. with industrial hemp. I use hemp oil and milk for the Omega 3s. it is a very healthy food.
leander22
“Thanks for the tip.”
You know trips me out about the leading producers of sugar cane? The number five producer is Pakistan. A land locked country.
Just imagine how much of that stuff could be produced in the old South. Louisiana, Arkansas, Alabama, Mississippi, Florida, Georgia, the Carolinas. I wonder why no one has tried growing this stuff.
And, get this, one of the reasons that Brazil, the # 1 producer of sugar cane is energy self sufficient is that sugar cane has about seven times the stored solar energy than corn. So, when the Brazilians go to make ethanol, which they do in bulk, they get a bigger bang for their real. The ethanol we make out of corn is nowhere near as cost efficient as the Brazilian brand. Meanwhile, they drive their Brazilian VW’s on highly efficient sugar cane.
Imagine what this could do for our economy. Guess what, not gonna happen.
pbh
Shano,
Agreed on what to eat and where we should be spending “health care dollars”, if by that you mean redirecting farm subsidies, which largely go to the corn conglomerate, to more healthy food sources.
The problem is that the conglomerate conrols outright all or part of ten to twelve entire states, Iowa, Ohio, Kansas, Nebraska, Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, North and South Dakota, Wisconsin, Michigan and Minnesota. Which equals 24 votes in the Senate, effectively blocking any change in current legislation as the result of filibuster abuse.
These guys are deeply entrenched in the system and they are not going to give up their privileges without a long and dirty fight. And, if that means taking down the health of America in the process, then so be it.
You say it is easy to exclude all corn and corn derivatives from your diet? I would like to see your typical shopping list and where you go to buy your food.
pbh
I have not eaten CAFO meat, GMOs or HFCS for 7 years or so.
Not one bite. Organic only. Grass fed & free range exclusively.
It is easy to do and the only way to stay healthy in America now.
This is where we should be spending our health care dollars……
Pollan book, “The Omnivore’s Dilemma”
Michael Pollan, looks interesting. I just listened to one of his lectures on the topic. Thanks for the tip.
Bob,
“you would have us believe that the only thing obese people eat is processed corn because the purveyors of the product have them brainwashed to eat nothing but their product and remain sedentary like corn fed veal.”
I didn’t say it was the only thing, but it is the principal means by which high caloric foods are transmitted. Lack of exercise, video games, single parent homes, all play their part, I suppose, but they don’t add calories to everything you eat. Neither does insufficient duty to one’s self.
Nor did I say that anyone is brainwashed. What I am saying is that it is very difficult to avoid eating corn based meals when even Salmon are fish farm fed corn meal. Not to mention pigs, chickens and worst ot all, cattle, which physically cannot digest the stuff without antibiotic intervention. Even some fertilizers contain corn. http://www.turfmagazine.com/article-1195.aspx
I have suggested the means by which you can educate yourself on this issue. Give it a shot.
pbh
“it seems a very American problem and not a recent one either, thus it may be too easy to tie it completely to the corn lobby.”
From Wikipedia:
“Sugarcane is the world’s largest crop. In 2010, FAO estimates it was cultivated on about 23.8 million hectares, in more than 90 countries, with a worldwide harvest of 1.69 billion tonnes. Brazil was the largest producer of sugar cane in the world. The next five major producers, in decreasing amounts of production, were India, China, Thailand, Pakistan and Mexico.”
Notice which country is missing from the list of producers? The U.S. of A.
Wonder what we use instead of sugarcane to provide sugar to Americans? Corn. When did this change from sugarcane to fructose begin? about 30 years ago.
etc. etc. etc.
If you want to educate yourself on this issue, I would again suggest the Pollan book, “The Omnivore’s Dilemma”. It’s a good read and will give you some insight into the problem on both a macro and micro level.
pbh
ooops, actually I had a really bad teacher in chemistry, you may understand what that means. You are correct I shouldn’t babble. I found what you wrote about the US corn lobby highly interesting. But it would need a lot of research really. Besides I have the impression that whenever I tried to talk with my family’s expert (biologist) on similar issues, he tended to point out to me that much of it feels hysterical to him, and compared to me he knows what he is talking about.
Admittedly the ability of people with eating disorders I know to discover buns (the German variant of the French baguette in the shape of small rolls) in the hindmost corner made me curious about carbs, to start with. They seemed to have trained themselves to discover them everywhere in a couple of seconds no matter how far away or no matter how complex the surrounding. …
But you are correct they seem to suspect the source of obesity is suspected to be the increased carbohydrate consumption in sweetened drinks:
Fact is, I would only believe this if they did extensive tests with obese people. Although I don’t really know how a study design would need to look to convince me. A friend who studied psychology once told me about a task she had to absolve, for two weeks she had to note everything she ate during the day. She was surprised about the amount of almost automatic intakes, she wouldn’t have believed before she had to carefully observe herself. I tried to support her in her intermediary exams, which in her field were enormously extensive, we often joked about study designs.
To be quite frank, while it seems to increase over here too, it seems a very American problem and not a recent one either, thus it may be too easy to tie it completely to the corn lobby. But see above, I am babbling. I have never noticed the same amount of extremely thick people as in the US, but that’s my private perception, although it seems to be supported by statistics.
If you remain with developed countries, in Japan it seems extremely rare apart from the Sumo fighters, much rarer than over here even.
corn syrup is in everything and so is corn. Our beef, our chicken, farm raised fish, pork, deer. Everything seems to eat corn. Our entire food chain is based on corn or so it seems.
Pbh: “Meanwhile, you have nothing to say about the attack on the nation’s health by the corn lobby. Nothing to say about the predatory behavior of such entities. Nothing to say about the overall health crisis created, in large part, by their domination of the food chain. Nothing to say about the affect of the resultant obese population on the productivity or the economic health of the nation. Nothing. Nothing at all. It’s all just Kant to you.”
Pbh,
The first and foremost issue was rejecting your assertion:
Pbh: “If we believe in the social compact, then it is our duty to be as healthy as possible. It is also our duty to support healthy activities for others.”
Okay?
Per the corn lobby, what do you want me to say? While I definitely disapprove of the actions you’ve cited taken by the corn lobby and want an investigation, e.g. something along the lines of an anti-trust suit to bust it up, your underlying premise that they are responsible for the obesity epidemic is absurd. Based on your argument, you would have us believe the human race is nothing but corn fed cattle. Absent genetic and illness factors, obesity is caused by excessive caloric intake and lack of exercise. Yet you would have us believe that the only thing obese people eat is processed corn because the purveyors of the product have them brainwashed to eat nothing but their product and remain sedentary like corn fed veal.
Ever consider the possibility that the increased sedentary lifestyle of today’s youth is caused in part by the increasing allure of electronic entertainment in the past three decades? Where is your outrage at the video game purveyors that keep these kids indoors to such an extent that the NFL has started a campaign to get kids moving for at least 60 minutes per day?
That modern technology has literally made us softer is without question. However, it does not entitle you to redefine the social compact or commit the fallacy of composition (arguing from part to whole) in pointing the finger at who you think is to blame.
Leander22
“Once you break it down in monosaccaride, or simply get rid of the longer chains of the polysaccrides and refine the hell out of it you end up with the same white stuff.”
I’m not so sure about your assessment of this. If it was all the same, then I don’t suppose that it would be possible to trace corn fructose throughout the food chain, which apparently is actually practicable. Which is to say, that if you eat something that has previously digested the stuff, then you will bear traces of it ever after. This does not appear to be true of cane sugar, for instance. Or much else.
Also, your anaysis does not appear to account for the caloric content, which I understand is the real problem.
pbh
Leander22
“Anyway, this would mean, you take their sugar drinks away from them, so they need to fill “the void” with something else.”
Insofar as you profess to know something about chemistry, probably more than I do, it continues to surprise me that you can’t or won’t connect the dots.
How do you explain the epidemic of obesity? Do you refuse to admit that it exists?
Does the possibility that the amount of sweetness conveyed by corn fructose contains twice as many calories as the amount of sweetness conveyed by cane sugar create any kind of an “ah hah” moment for you? Does the real fact that corn has invaded areas of the national diet that were off limits to it merely 30 years ago, such as cattle feed, not further awaken you to what has been going on? Where do all these obese people come from? Don’t you even wonder?
There are a lot of ways to “fill the void”. I could fill that “void” with cement, for instance. Or I could fill it with nutrients. It turns out that there is literally a cabal, subsidized by tax transfers, that has spent its entire existence filling that void with what has finally created an epidemic. All in the name of profit.
pbh
Bob,
“He’s simply interested in exercising more and more control over the duties of virtue of the individual.”
The fact that Bloomberg is not attempting to limit the rights of any single individual to imbibe whatever quantities of corn fructose they choose rather undercuts your assertion.
Meanwhile, you have nothing to say about the attack on the nation’s health by the corn lobby. Nothing to say about the predatory behavior of such entities. Nothing to say about the overall health crisis created, in large part, by their domination of the food chain. Nothing to say about the affect of the resultant obese population on the productivity or the economic health of the nation. Nothing. Nothing at all. It’s all just Kant to you.
“You’re paving the way to overturning Roe v. Wade and rendering all of us as mere governmental chattels.”
No, I am not. Apparently, I can draw lines better than you. Bloomberg is regulating the sale, not the purchase. Get it?
pbh
veggie virtue? Vegetarian? Actually this is way beyond my expertise,
But I would assume that whatever you take doesn’t matter. Once you break it down in monosaccaride, or simply get rid of the longer chains of the polysaccrides and refine the hell out of it you end up with the same white stuff.
When I am down South with my parents I usually go shopping in Switzerland, they do this regularly. It’s considered more expensive but you get a lot of better stuff, some you won’t get here easily and some ironically even cheaper, e.g. brown crane sugar. In Germany you only get that in organic food shops. Interestingly in Switzerland you find that in ordinary supermarkets too. But come to think of it, Sugar seems to be one of the old monopoles with different labels North, South, West, here in Germany, only very reluctantly different brands have entered the market, but in this case it doesn’t help, it remains the same stuff over and over again. I find this interesting, considering we don’t have centrally planned economies. How comes there is only one kind of sugar everywhere, wherever you look? Take or leave it. Reminds me of the East.
Probably in New York a 64-ounce turnip-juice smoothie would be able to apply for an exception or deferment based on veggie-virtue. That and an application fee.
pbh, I actually found most of what you wrote highly interesting. I am not a fan of genetically engineered crops, neither of Monsanto which you may have in mind. But yes I met people in one of our giant chemical concerns over here that find the economical aspects a real dream scenario, ditto this: just imagine you can make them resistant to the most extreme poisons that wipes out anything around it.
But strictly from a nutritional perspective–and I have a problem here with the correct technical terms–ordinary corn flower will do, or the refined flower used e.g. for your sandwiches. It may not taste sweet but it is ultimately sugar. The longer the chains the less it tastes like sugar. I could add another little anecdote concerning this, but I do not want to bore you.
Anyway, this would mean, you take their sugar drinks away from them, so they need to fill “the void” with something else. One or two more burgers? It may not taste thus, but there they are again, the sugars, only in longer chains and the longer the chains the less sweet “sugars” taste. In that case it doesn’t help if they drink water instead of sweet drinks to meals, which I would prefer anyway.
The corn you have in mind seems to be in it’s first stages in the UK. But yes, the little sugar I need is always brown unrefined crane sugar. The usual white refined sugar over here comes from turnips, not from corn yet.
Pbh: “Bloomberg is actually hitting the distribution of overmarketed and ultimately harmful (because it is not a natural sugar) corn fructose at the spigot. And still you can’t figure it out?”
Bloomberg gets it. I am sorry if you still don’t.”
Pbh,
Bloomberg doesn’t “get” anything. As much as you may suggest, Bloomberg is not fighting the good fight against a corrupt industry. He’s simply interested in exercising more and more control over the duties of virtue of the individual.
http://jonathanturley.org/2012/06/13/uber-nanny-bloomberg-administration-now-moves-against-popcorn-and-milk/#more-50035
You’re paving the way to overturning Roe v. Wade and rendering all of us as mere governmental chattels.
leander22
“[I] was slightly puzzled by how the corn lobby was interwoven. Excuse me if I misunderstand, but one of the ultimate problems is really somewhere else but it helps to start if you arbitrarily start with something that can be more easily controlled? Since it is a start for discussing the issue at all?”
I don’t know how much better I can explain it. If you can’t, or won’t, understand that the corn lobby has a vested interest in securing tax subsidies while simultaneously imbedding its product in every other product from cereal to trash bags, then what more can I say? And if this corn in all its various froms is directly responsible for obesity, and if one of the major transmitters of this corn is branded soft drinks, whose distributors work side by side with the corn lobby to limit competiton from less harmful products such as cane sugar, still you can’t figure it out?
Bloomberg is actually hitting the distribution of overmarketed and ultimately harmful (because it is not a natural sugar) corn fructose at the spigot. And still you can’t figure it out?
Bloomberg gets it. I am sorry if you still don’t.
pbh
should be: or as discussed here, “sweet drink” disorders. 😉
Seems I am still with Bob and Bron on this issue.
pbh51, although I enjoyed your argument, I was slightly puzzled by how the corn lobby was interwoven. Excuse me if I misunderstand, but one of the ultimate problems is really somewhere else but it helps to start if you arbitrarily start with something that can be more easily controlled? Since it is a start for discussing the issue at all?
One big change to control obesity would be for parents to quit telling children to finish all the food on their plate.
I think something similar has been on my mind. What I noticed with obese people is that they seem to have killed the natural signals of their bodies, the feeling of satiety. Ask them, they never feel it. They feel constantly hungry. And from what I have observed it is hardly sweet drinks that matter that much, at least that is what it feels like to me.
A little anecdote has been on my mind during this debate. In my block there was an elder lady, the owner of a sweets shop. When she retired, I was told by one of the informed ladies around here, that her doctor had told her she had to loose weight fast. This lady was huge, thus she never really appeared fat to me, well formed maybe. Thus I was a little puzzled. I do not have much medical knowledge, apart from a slightly sceptic attitude concerning the latest medical wisdoms, thus my response was, couldn’t it be that her body got used to the specific weight in the last 50 years, and won’t there be problems if she looses weight too fast? Notice I had known her for several decades at that point and her weight seemed rather constant. this is not the typical trait of people with eating or as discussed her “sweet drink” disorders. The lady lost weight fast, as her doctor had told her, she also died shortly after.