Friday, May 11, 2012

People who drink soda are stupid, implied by soda company

Obesity fight must shift from personal blame-U.S. panel | Reuters:

'via Blog this'



Is Rhona Applebaum Retarded?




(Did people who smoke start smoking tampons or twigs or cyanide when cigarettes became taxed? No. But less people smoke now. Less people smoke now, too. That's a good thing.)




"I do not think in any way, shape or form that such punitive measures will change behaviors," said Rhona Applebaum, Coca-Cola Co.'s chief scientific and regulatory officer, in advance of the report. Anyone deterred by the tax from buying sweetened soda, she said, will replace those calories with something else.




(I would like to point out that many people do not know SODA MAKES YOU THIRSTIER, BECAUSE OF THE SUGAR. Even if people replaced soda with juice, they would not become thirstier and drink more of it. Soda doesn't quench thirst, and sugar is addictive. Fruit juice isn't the best choice, because there are natural sugars in it. Water would be the best choice. If thirsty people reach for anything else to drink, they most likely would not be replacing the calories or doing the same damage to themselves. However, even if they replaced the calories with an equal amount of calories from bacon or cheese, those calories would be used more efficiently and quickly than those from soda or sugar would be.)







The IOM committee also grappled with one of the third rails of American politics: farm policy. Price-support programs for wheat, cotton and other commodity crops prohibit participating farmers from planting fruits and vegetables on land enrolled in those programs. Partly as a result, U.S. farms do not produce enough fresh produce for all Americans to eat the recommended amounts, and the IOM panel calls for removing that ban.
The committee did not endorse the call by food activist Michael Pollan and others to eliminate farm subsidies that make high-fructose corn syrup, partially hydrogenated vegetable oils and other obesity-promoting foods very cheap. "There is no evidence subsidies contribute to obesity," said Glickman.
THE TRUE LACK OF CHOICE
The traditional view that blames obesity on a failure of personal responsibility and individual willpower "has been used as the basis for resisting government efforts - legislative and regulatory - to address the problem," says the report. But the IOM panel argues that people cannot truly exercise "personal choice" because their options are severely limited, and "biased toward the unhealthy end of the continuum."
For instance, a lack of sidewalks makes it impossible to safely walk to work, school or even neighbors' homes in many communities. So while 20 percent of trips between school and home among kids 5 to 15 were on foot in 1977, that figure had dropped to 12.5 percent by 2001.
The panel recommended tax incentives for developers to build sidewalks and trails in new housing developments, zoning changes to require pedestrian access and policies to promote bicycle commuting. Flexible financing, and streamlined permitting or tax credits could be used as encouragement.
The IOM report also calls for making schools the focus of anti-obesity efforts, since preventing obesity at a young age is easier than reversing it. According to the most recent data, only 4 percent of elementary schools, 8 percent of middle schools and 2 percent of high schools provided daily physical education for all students.
The IOM report recommends requiring primary and secondary schools to have at least 60 minutes of physical education and activity each day. It calls for banning sugar-sweetened drinks in schools and making drinking water freely available.
The report also urges that healthy food and drinks be easily available everywhere Americans eat, from shopping centers to sports facilities and chain restaurants. The idea is that more people will eat healthier if little active choice is needed.
"We've taken fat and sugar, put it in everything everywhere, and made it socially acceptable to eat all the time," David Kessler, former head of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, told Reuters. He was not part of the IOM panel.
"We're living in a food carnival, constantly bombarded by food cues, almost all of them unhealthy," Kessler said.
Experience has shown that when businesses offer consumers a full range of choices - and especially when the healthy option is the default - many customers will opt for salads over deep-fried everything.
Walt Disney Co., for instance, found more than 50 percent of customers accepted a healthier choice of foods introduced at its theme parks. And last summer, fast-food giant McDonald's Corp said it would include apples, fewer fries, and 20 percent fewer calories in the most popular Happy Meals for kids.
The IOM report urges employers and insurers to do more to combat obesity. UnitedHealth Group offers a health insurance plan in which a $5,000 yearly deductible can be reduced to $1,000 if a person is not obese and does not smoke. Some employers provide discounts on premiums for completing weight-loss programs.
Such inducements are far from universal, however. The government-run Medicaid healthcare program for the poor and disabled does not cover weight-loss programs in many states. And as of 2008, only 28 percent of full-time workers in the private sector and 54 percent in government had access to wellness programs.
(Editing by Michele Gershberg, Christopher Wilson and Paul Simao)

U.S.
HEALTH
Sponsored links
 by Taboola
Videos you may like:
 From around the web:
[?]

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, seehttp://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (145)
judgebean wrote:
It’s funny how the solution is always to increase taxes…
May 08, 2012 8:54am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Pavoldoe wrote:
This is obsurd. It is another instance exemplifying the ways the U.S. government is shifting towards a totalitarian style of rule. Anyone who buys into this needs to move to China or another such country where every aspect of their lives can be dictated by an all powerful government.
May 08, 2012 8:59am EDT  --  Report as abuse
TDL wrote:
Taxing fat food won’t help, but greedy governments love it. I’m not fat, but certainly don’t want to pay a sin tax on every food a government strapped for cash decides to add to the list. People are still smoking with 500% tax on cigarettes. But the taxes are lucrative. It’s not what you eat, but how much you eat. Taxing soda, sweets, etc., taxes everybody, even if they are eating acceptable quantities. But governments (national/state/local) are always looking for new sources of revenue.
May 08, 2012 8:59am EDT  --  Report as abuse
See All Comments »Add Your Comment

Ads by Marchex
Image Ad
Image Ad
Image Ad
Image Ad

  • EDITION:
    U.S.
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)