Category Archives: Politics

Rethinking Soda at the Movies

Posted on by
Reply

soda at the MoviesSince I choose to do those things that amuse me most, I find myself in lots of crazy places. A few weeks ago, I was a guest on Brooklyn Independent Television’s show, Intersect, talking about Mayor Bloomberg’s sugary drink limit with host Brian Vines and fellow guest Andrew Rigie of the NYC Hospitality Alliance. At minute 23:05, I talk Brian Vine out of thinking big portions of soda at the movies are a bargain. Here is our conversation:

BV:   I was just at the movies two weeks ago and split a, what had to be a 60-ounce something, between the two of us. The thing was gone, and this was the debate we had afterwards, that if the mayor would have had his thing, we would’ve had to buy two drinks – and I believe in my health, but I more than that, I am cheaper than I am healthy – so we would have had to buy two different drinks to get the same thing, but we wouldn’t even be allowed to buy the thing if this law passed. So it hits you in the pocketbook because cheap food is usually bad food…
MH:   That’s not food. DON’T CALL THAT FOOD!
BV:   What is it then? It’s empty calorie things….
MH:   It’s empty calorie stuff. You cannot compare….
BV:   Cheap drinks. It’s enjoyment. It’s cheaper though….
MH: Well, for instance, I’m a fun gal, but one thing about me is I do not order anything at the movies. I have unhooked the idea that sitting in a movie means eating. Talk about cheap! I’m not going to that concession stand. I’m not buying any of that stuff!
BV: It’s relative. (laugh)
MH: So let’s get it all straightened out, okay, and that’s what the dialogue is about. It’s testing those ideas people have: “I need my soda!”  Well, why do you need your soda?
BV: Thank you for unhooking me, because it’s not cheap. Soda isn’t cheap at the movies.

Your thoughts: Will Brian Vine quit drinking soda at the movies?

You Are No Match for Big Food as Stephen Colbert Explains

Posted on by
2

So, by now, everybody knows that, at the 11th hour, a New York State Supreme Court Judge overturned Mayor Bloomberg’s plan to ban the sale of large sugary drinks in New York City restaurants. Constitutionality aside, I think the judge didn’t want to wait in the long line at Dunkin’ Donuts. There will be appeals and the lawyers will get rich because the American Beverage Association spends millions and billions to fight soda taxes and laws like Bloomberg’s across the land every year. People don’t understand that we all pay for obesity in higher taxes to support Medicare, Medicare, disability benefits, etc.  And “personal responsibility” is no match against foods that are engineered and marketed to make us overeat. Stephen Colbert explains it better than I. Watch.

Confusion at the Coffee Counter

Posted on by
5
Dunkin' Donuts Flyer

Dunkin’ Donuts Flyer

Call me blogger in absentia. I’ve been busy freelancing for the public relations agency that represents Eggland’s Best eggs – the eggs that are superior in nutrition, with twice the vitamin D, ten times more vitamin E, more than double the omega-3s, 35% more lutein, and 25% less saturated fat – compared to ordinary eggs. It’s all about the chicken feed. I eat EB eggs. And that is public relations.

But I had to take a break to comment about this flyer that comes to you newly at the Dunkin’ Donuts check out counter in New York City. Mayor Bloomberg’s ban on the sale of sugar beverages larger that 16-ounces goes into effect next week.Dunkin’ Donuts want to get ahead of the confusion, which shows that it’s easier to complain than it is to fix.

Here’s the deal: if your hot coffee is smaller than 16-ounces, Dunkin’ will add the sugar for you, but if your hot coffee is size large or X-large, then you’ll have to add the sugar yourself. For iced beverages, do-it-yourself sugar service starts with size medium because, for iced, medium is the large hot and large is the hot X-large. Got it? That ice has to go somewhere. For beverages that already come with added sugar, like hot chocolate or that oxymoron, frozen hot chocolate, you cannot buy a portion larger than medium – but you can buy two or more.

So, now, you will have to think twice before adding six sugar packets to your “Extra Extra.” Teeheehee. And it doesn’t stop there. Bloomberg is going after the Styrofoam cup next.

Your thoughts: Mayor Bloomberg: Yea or Nay?

Read about mayor’s public health campaigns in The New York Times:
City’s New Drink Rules Add Wrinkle to Coffee Orders
To Go: Plastic-Foam Containers, if the Mayor Gets His Way

A Postmortem for Prop 37

Posted on by
1

Prop 37, the Mandatory Labeling of Genetically Engineered Food Initiative, was rejected by California voters. If passed, genetically engineered foods would have had to include an identifying label on the package and whole foods would need a sign on the shelf. But, alas, Californians gave up their right to know.

I thought it was reasonable to ask for transparency in food labeling. (See my blog, What You Should Know About Labeling Genetically Modified Food.) Fifty countries, including the European Union, Australia, Japan, Russia and China (China!), already label genetically modified foods.

Genetically modified foods are made in the lab by taking genes from one species and inserting them into the DNA of another species. The genes introduced produce proteins that have some a new effect. For instance, corn hybrids contain a Bt gene, a gene from a bacterium that produces an insecticidal protein, and the Roundup Ready gene makes plants resistant to the herbicide Roundup. In the United States, 70 to 80 percent of our processed food is made with genetically modified soybeans, corn, sugar beets, cottonseed oil, and other GMO ingredients.

Prop 37 supporters argued that the long-term health impacts of genetic manipulations are unclear. In humans, they fear allergic and immune system reactions, transfer of antibiotic resistant pathogens, and unexpected secondary effects. And because weeds are rapidly becoming resistant to GMO crops, more herbicides are being used.

But opponents argued louder and spent more money to defeat Prop 37.
Big Agra actually spent close to $46 million to lobby against the initiative. They claim that GMOs are tested and safe (even though safety testing is left up to the manufactures and long-term testing does not exist), and compliance would have cost voters $400 a year in handed-down costs of label changes and lawsuits.

In the end, the voters surrendered their right to know.  For now.

Your thoughts: Are you for or against Mandatory Labeling of Genetically Engineered Food?

Breakfast (Cereal) With the Candidates

Posted on by
Reply

Choose between delicious Obama O’s and delectable Romney Flakes! Candidate Crunch, a limited edition breakfast cereal from Cerealize.com, is just plain fun. As much, or more, fun than binders full of women! I’m ordering a box of each.

Cerealize is a new company, in beta mode, that lets you create your own breakfast cereal and then they ship it to your home. The ordering is done online. I read about them in Food + Tech Connect, Breakfast with Obama and Romney, Courtesy of Cerealize.

Your thoughts: Would you buy custom-blended cereal?

Building A Better Sidewalk

Posted on by
Reply

Subway grates and sidewalk beds

Recently in Scientific American, Better Sidewalks Could Bring Improved Public Health:
A new report recommends 43 public health changes that can make big improvements in overcoming preventable diseases. “To arrive at their recommendations, researchers reviewed more than a thousand studies of public health. Their findings are in the American Heart Association journal, Circulation. [Dariush Mozaffarian et al., Population Approaches to Improve Diet, Physical Activity and Smoking Habits.]  Some surprisingly simple suggestions could be easiest to institute. (For instance) try improving sidewalks and visual appeal of neighborhoods to make people want to walk, bike, or run more often.”

Around the corner from my Brooklyn apartment, policy makers have put the sidewalk recommendation into action. For quite awhile now, like maybe two years, the NYC Department of Design and Construction have been working on the Eastern Parkway Reconstruction Project from Washington Avenue at the Brooklyn Museum to Grand Army Plaza. They installed water mains and sewer replacements and now they are finishing up the pavement, curbs, sidewalks, bike path, catch basins, pedestrian ramps, green spaces, street lighting, and traffic signals. The job is nearly finished.

And so, this is a public health project in action, a benefit of city living, not so “surprisingly simple,” but easier than beating down each individual to change. I, for one, need no encouragement to use the sidewalks and bike path.

Your thoughts: Does your town have good sidewalks?

Serves 3 Over Ice – NICE!

Posted on by
Reply

There are some things we would rather forget and I’ll bet Coke would like to forget this.This picture was taken from a poster at the New World of Coca-Cola Museum in Atlanta. Judging by the outfit and decor, it is nearly 60 years old. It was included in a recent presentation by the New York City Department of Health in support of Mayor Bloomberg’s “Maximum Size for Sugary Drinks: Proposed Amendment of Article 81.”

Mike Bloomberg wants to ban the sale at restaurants, food carts, movie theaters, and concession stands at sports arenas of any cup or bottle of sweetened drink larger than 16 ounces. Bloomberg says the proposed ban is a way to fight obesity in New York City, but opponents say that soda is unfairly singled-out as the cause of a multidimensional problem. In fact, the premise that soda causes obesity is unproven. The most that can be said comes from the CDC: “Sugar drinks have been linked to poor diet quality, weight gain, obesity, and, in adults, type 2 diabetes. U.S. dietary guidelines issued in 2010 recommend limiting the consumption of foods and beverages with added sugars.” Save them for a special occasion.

Many people dislike Mayor Bloomberg’s healthier-than-thou arrogance, but I like his attention-getting style. But whether you are for or against the mayor’s proposal, the poster shows that even Coke agreed a “big” 16-ounce soda is enough for three people. His proposal is simply a handy reminder that today’s food portions are out of control. Presently in NYC, you can’t even buy a soda that is smaller than 16 ounces — not even on the kid’s menu; 16 ounces is usually the “small” size, while 32 to 64 ounces is the “large.” Studies show that when people are given larger portions, they simply eat more without realizing it. It is especially true when it comes to beverages. This quote from Michelle Obama’s address to the National Restaurant Association Meeting in 2012 is a good one. She said, “…no matter what you do, it’s important, truly important, to keep portion sizes in check, because we all know that the size of a meal is just as important as the ingredients it’s made of.” And so, next time you see a 16-ounce soda, remember that it “serves 3 over ice – nice!” Coca-Cola said so in writing. Ouch.

Your thoughts: Where do you stand on the 16-ounce sweetened drink limit?

How I Use Calories on the Menu

Posted on by
2

Yesterday, at a rest stop in New Jersey, standing in the combined line for Cinnabon, Popeyes and others, waiting to pay for the blueberry-granola-and (un)real yogurt that I always get, I spied a “MiniBon” roll and mentioned that, calorie-wise, it was better than the classic. (The Cinnabon Classic has 880 calories, while the Minibon has 350 calories per roll.)  My daughter and the woman standing ahead of me, both in their 20s and of slim/normal weight, admitted they had no idea of the number of calories they need. Neither one seemed the worse for the lack of information, but I gave them a tiny lesson on calories (and told them never to “diet.”)

Later that night, I read this on the Intuitive Eaters Professionals Group on Linked-In:
“The other day I went to a restaurant for lunch with friends and was surprised to see calorie counts next to each menu item. My friends, both fairly health conscious “normal” eaters, didn’t seem to mind, but did remark on the counts. I was bothered because I found that the counts drew me away from eating intuitively and back to my days, half a lifetime ago, of dieting. I had to force myself not to look at them and then was okay. My question is: Are menu item calorie counts helpful or not? Might they be useful for different populations, i.e., okay for “normal” eaters who want to eat more nutritiously but not so much for anyone who leans toward dis-regulated eating?”

Calories on the Menu

Expect to see calories on the menu in restaurants with 20 or more outlets as part of the Affordable Care Act upheld by the Supreme Court last week. Restaurants and movie theaters must post calorie information on menus, menu boards, and drive through displays, and provide written information about total fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, sodium, carbohydrates, sugars, dietary fiber, and protein upon request.

For people like my daughter and the woman in line, the information will be meaningless, but for others, it may be extremely informative or downright disconcerting. As a longtime registered dietitian, intuitive eating practitioner, and former dieter over thirty years ago, I think a “calorie information free menu” should be available to anyone upon request, no questions asked. (Heaven forbid the Affordable Care Act returns to the Supreme Court for alleged “actual harm” coming from calories on the menu!) Anyway, I live in New York City where calories have been on the menu since 2008. Real-world studies show that, as a public health intervention, it has only a modest reduction or no effect in the calories purchased by customers. In time, the issue could be a moot point.

For what it’s worth, this is what I told my daughter and the woman in line about how I approach calories on the menu:

  • Women need about 2,000 calories a day and men need around 2,400.*
  • When the calorie count is high – say greater than 20% of the daily total or 400 calories – look askance
  • Decide if the extra calories are from too much wholesome food or from “empty calories” full of added sugar and/or animal fats but with negligible nutrients.
  • For wholesome food, I split the serving with my companion or carry away half, and for empty calories, I decide if I love it enough and have to have it right then. (Luckily, I’m not impulsive.) If yes, then I have it; if no, then I skip it. But if I were to feel guilty or otherwise, awful, I’d ask why and think of it as a growth opportunity.

Righteous indignation seems to fuels me. You can’t get me to eat most of the crap sold in American chain restaurants. I don’t value filling my body with junkie food. I am attracted to fresh food well prepared, mostly by me. Usually, I’m sated at don’t care about dessert. If I really want dessert, then I eat it only a little at the meal.

Your thoughts: What do you think about calories on the menu?

*To find your calorie requirements, use this chart from the government or use a calculator fromany one of the online diet websites.

Pedal Power, Think About It

Posted on by
Reply

This woman is using a stationary bicycle to power a generator to run electrical devices. The generator might be on the other side of the blue tarp. The picture was taken at Zucotti Park, the Occupy Wall Street camp in New York City last fall. When you think about it, why aren’t we using human power to generate electricity and turn mechanical cranks more often? Pedal power offers so many solutions: fuel, exercise, disaster-preparedness, and “the obesity crisis”. Pedal power could be mandatory to run laptops and TVs. (Calories burned: Stationary Bicycle: 333/hour; Sitting Quietly: 47/hour) There is really no reason NOT to have a pedal power generator. Even in my small apartment, I could keep the apparatus in the basement. To bring pedal power into your life, read this article: Pedal powered farms and factories: the forgotten future of the stationary bicycle

Your thoughts: Do you know anyone who generates energy by pedal power?

Hepatitis C and All of We

Posted on by
3

Line up baby boomers – all 78 million of you – it’s time to test for hepatitis C. That’s what the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) propose. We all need to get a blood test. Hepatitis is an inflammation of the liver that may progress to liver cancer or cirrhosis. Hepatitis C, the most common type in the United States, is spread when blood from a person infected with the virus enters the body of someone who is not infected. Around 15%–25% of infected people clear the virus without any treatment, but the remaining 75%–85% develop a chronic infection that may be silent for years. Most infected people don’t feel sick – while their livers are slowly being damaged.

Historically, the CDC has recommended testing people known to be at high risk.  They include current and past users of injection drugs, recipients of blood transfusions and organ transplants before 1990 when screening blood donations became widespread, and healthcare workers exposed to blood. Much less commonly, the hepatitis C virus is spread by sharing razors, toothbrushes, and other personal care items that may come in contact with blood. Having sex with someone infected with hepatitis C is somewhat risky too, especially when exposed to multiple sex partners who have sexually transmitted diseases. Sex, drugs and rock and roll. Bummer.

I, for one, I wish the CDC would stop scaring me. Doctors test for the hepatitis C antibody (also called HCAb or anti-HCV) to tell if you’ve been infected. The test is very sensitive, which means false positives, more testing, and more being scared. All when only 3 percent of asymptomatic boomers actually test positive. As a responsible health blogger, I probably shouldn’t say this, but I am always skeptical of guidelines that push asymptomatic individuals en masse towards prescriptions. I just wonder who is being best served. The CDC’s draft recommendations are available for public comment until June 8, 2012.

Your thoughts: Are you worried about having hepatitis C?

Addendum:  August 16, 2012
It’s official: The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is now recommending that all U.S. baby boomers get a one-time test for hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection, according to final screening guidelines released by the public health agency.  Read more.