Does Research Support NYC Mayor's Nutrition Regulations?
By: Tanya Jolliffe,
DailySpark Blogger
8/20/2012 10:00 AM
: 50 comments
: 5,403 Views
Two recent studies suggest that Bloomberg may be right, that legislation may be necessary for people to improve their health. See if you agree.
New laws went into full effect in New York City restaurants in July 2008. Now trans fat content must be less than .5 grams per serving. City health officials monitored fast-food fat content purchases before and after the law went into full effect. Newly published study results in the Annals of Internal Medicine indicate the introduction of local regulations were "associated with a substantial and statistically significant decrease in the trans fat content of purchases at fast-food chains, without commensurate increase in saturated fat."
Last month at the public hearings on sugary drinks, Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz's statements indicate some citizens know exactly why they are overweight. Markowitz denied oversized soda as the culprit to his own weight problems. Instead, he recognized choices such as too much pastrami, cream cheese and lox, and red velvet cake as bigger obstacles to his weight loss success. At the same time these unhealthy choices are being made, people are also drinking large bottles of sugary drinks like vitamin-enhanced water, other sugary sports drinks, and soda. All these factors together certainly contribute to difficulties in meeting healthy weight goals.
Previous research has found that sugary drinks contribute to the development of obesity, Type 2 diabetes, and metabolic syndrome rates. A new study suggests there may be other reasons for these negative health developments besides just the additional calories. A study published last month in the European Journal of Nutrition found that healthy individuals that received four weeks of sugar-sweetened beverage supplementation experienced a metabolism shift away from fat and toward carbohydrates making metabolism less efficient. Over time, this shift can reduce the ability of the body to burn fat, which can in turn cause fat gain.
So with all that we know about the harmful influence of sugar-sweetened beverages and the early results of decreased trans fat purchase after citywide legislation, could Mayor Bloomberg be on to something? Are mandates and legislation the only way to get people to change their habits to improve health? Aren't people able to make healthful changes on their own? I believe everyone has the ability but accept that not everyone is motivated or interested in making health a priority. For those that do want to make a change on their own, here are some resources that can be helpful.
Translating Those Trans Fats: Understanding and Avoiding these Unhealthy Fats
Eating for a Healthy Heart: A Heart-Healthy Diet Plan
Fats that Fight Cholesterol: Fat Can be a Friend or Foe
What do you think? Are mandates and legislation the only way to get people to change their habits to improve their health? Are people able to make necessary changes on their own to improve their health? Who benefits from the legislation? What is the harm in such legislation?
Is legislation the only way to get the majority of people in a community to change their habits to improve their health?
 You will earn 3 SparkPoints |
Comments
n-sherwood-refreshments-canada.html
- 8/24/2012 1:51:58 PM
If you ask if it's the -only- way, you're sure to get a lot of negatives - including from people who are in favor of the idea. - 8/24/2012 1:27:07 PM
Forgeddabout "freedom of choice":
Every day there are BAZILLIONS of dollars being shoved into the advertising and marketing of unhealthy food choices. Only MINUSCULE attention and media coverage is granted toward healthy food choices. If you don't think this affects our supposed FREEDOM of choice, think again:
Businesses are not going to throw away this kind of money unless it brings a powerful return on their advertising dollar. And it does. Why? Because what we have come to believe is delectable and drool-worthy has been shaped toward the high-fat, high sugar, highly processed food that these corporations are pedaling. We buy more of it and these corporations are happy to take our money for items we have supposedly "freely" chosen.
There are many ways to shift our system toward promoting health and wellness. One of which is legislation. Another of which is government subsidy for growing, promoting healthier foods instead of paying farmers to grow more corn and other products which contribute to our detriment rather than our wellness. There are probably other methods as well. Government public advertising which is as clever or more so that McDonald's or Taco Bell's promoting freggies as delectable, cool and drool-worthy!
Swimming upstream against the current media flood of unhealthy food choices is killing our country and changes need to be made if we as a society are going to thrive.
Don, Co-Leader of All Health Professionals, Binghamton Area Losers and Laid Off But Staying Strong - 8/22/2012 9:23:39 AM
When will we make individuals responsible for their own actions and get the gov't out of the parenting business? - 8/21/2012 8:55:33 PM
Providing improved nutritional information on foods is important to making informed decisions. This includes the legislation that gives us the information we were missing on restaurant meals. What we didn't prepare ourselves, we had limited idea of what was in it before so it was often difficult to make a truly good decision.
Government oversight to control safety and integrity of the food chain..... like processing plant hygiene and proper food storage from farm to final purchase point (store/restuarant)..... is very important.
BUT government acting as my nanny and telling me what I can and cannot eat is wrong (and violates the whole spirit of the founding fathers etal). It also will not work for many reasons..... did they not learn anything from Prohibition?
(That also makes it a total waste of time that would be better spent on doing their real work.)
Want to do something that will work and do some good - then - go for $$$ measures, rewards for good decisions and penalties for bad decisions and higher penalties if you make so many bad decisions that they end in bad results. You are free to make bad decisions but if you do system should see that you pay for them not me. Reward people for making good decisions and you will find even the uneducated will make more good choices.
One simple example:
On food stamps ..... prohibit their use for buying junk THE WAY THE PROGRAMS USED TO FUNCTION. Goodness, what idiots made the change so that welfare funds can now be spent on alcohol and in stripjoints rather than on good food? And some of the current blockheads (like unfortunately my governor) are trying to make arguements against restricting the use of welfare payouts. @#$^%&^
They want to legislate how large a soda I can drink but if I'd just go on welfare they'd give me money so I could be drunk instead and not care. That's messed up.
Another simple example:
An internationally well respected hospital provides very nice medical benefits to its employees (, a wish-I- worked-there kind of nice). They have alot of components that foster wellness and exercise and assist with weightcontrol coaching/assistance. They also have a monetary component that controls the %split between the company-versus-personal share of the insurance premium cost. It is a more complicated formula than just this but essentially if you are morbidly obese you must pay a higher amount than if you are not. I know some nurses, doctors, and janitors who've gotten much more motivated to feed their families better and to make serious use of the wellness benefits in the plan in order to keep their healthcare costs down. - 8/21/2012 5:45:05 PM
I do see that it does say volumes about this seemingly being the only way to make people think and wake up. I do think it is better to have the stats on menus and on the board is fast food is a step ahead.
I also strongly object to the places where people are getting hassled about either growing or sharing veggies and fruit from their own yards.
I can see that some of the foreign Sparkers that commented here is true... that either the person pays for these habits in terms of health, insurance or the government. - 8/21/2012 5:04:55 PM
If you need your 64 oz of Mountain Dew in a giant cup, that's still possible - pour five cans into a bucket and you won't even know the difference. You might even be a bit more in touch with just how much you consume from the ultra-giant-sized container when you've got to up-end the better part of a six-pack to fill it, which is the whole point anyway. It's just a TEENSY bit less convenient, in hopes of making a TEENSY change in behavior. A tiny first step.
The way some of the comments read, you would think Bloomberg is rounding up soda drinkers and shooting them in the streets. - 8/21/2012 10:59:22 AM
Aren't artificial sweeteners much worse for our bodies than good, old-fashioned, natural sugar??
America = freedom of choice.
- 8/21/2012 10:43:37 AM
- 8/21/2012 8:37:08 AM
My point comes down to this: The USA seem to have a culture of eating out (just think about it, here on Sparks one of the goals is to get you to cook meals from scratch and pack your own lunch), when the choices for eating out seem largely fast-food joints (and not the good ones) and the overweight and obese percentage of the population starts rising, something has to be done! From an economic stand-point an overweight or obese person is more likely to cost the system (or state) money than somebody who has a healthy body weight. I guess if you behave like children where your food and health is concerned, then you need to be treated like children. - 8/21/2012 8:02:27 AM
Current research shows that belief is not backed up with data.
We are easily manipulated by corporate advertising to make poor decisions. I would ask everyone who screams that government has to no right to guide their decisions,
consider rather they are really making their purchasing decisions free of outside profit seeking interests at this time, interests that could less about our long term health or the health of our children. - 8/20/2012 4:20:41 PM
Without top-down support for one-time, flash-in-the-pan interventions like running a TV ad, or teaching a kid not to drink soda, what chance do you really have to alter behaviors?
Especially when the odds are so stacked against change. Like someone below mentioned, most of us are struggling financially, and that can make the calorie-to-dollar ratio of junk food mighty appealing. The problem with that statement is that calories in beverages don't sate your hunger (hence the term "empty calories".) Wasting your dollars on soda makes even LESS sense if you don't have much to begin with, if you consider that you won't be making a dent in the hunger sensation.
It sickens me to know that people are making sacks of money by selling downright dangerous beverages (dangerous, yes) with impunity, and here so many of us are defending our "right" to poison ourselves with them.
Like I said before... in 30 years, if these kinds of policy initiatives can survive the overpowering needs for blind indulgence and gratification so characteristic of our American society (and the deep pockets feeding them), you'll see these products share the poisonous reputation we've learned to assign to cigarettes and lead paint. - 8/20/2012 1:19:56 PM
Now if I'm being supported by a government program like foodstamps and they don't want me to buy soda, they shouldn't allow soda to be purchased. If I have a child getting lunches at school, yes, get involved and control what kinds of food and sizes. But the rest of it can hang for all I care. I know why I'm overweight and I'm making the change myself without government interference to make myself better. Other people can make that decision too. - 8/20/2012 1:15:39 PM
making thinkgs illegal or heavily regulated doesn't teach any one anything. - 8/20/2012 1:05:07 PM
- 8/20/2012 12:52:22 PM
When they can do all that, THEN they can look at health problems in the US. Quite frankly, alot of people who are obese will tell you that they are stress eaters, and that it's cheaper to buy junk food than nutritious food. When your budget is limited, you have to make it go as far as it can...which means more junk. Do the math. - 8/20/2012 12:46:00 PM
Wake up people, you are responsible for your own life. We don't need government to babysit us. - 8/20/2012 12:15:04 PM
Limiting the size of a beverage that can be sold will only increase the number of beverages purchased (increasing profits for fast food, grocery stores and convenience stores). The trans fat ban was dealing with a different type of issue that was more likely to have an effect on the amount of trans fat purchased. No one goes to a fast food place and orders trans fat...they order a product it is in without knowing that it is there. This type of area is much more conducive to making an impact than when you try to directly dictate what someone orders. Additional changes in this type of nutritional content would be a good idea (reducing saturated fats in products, reducing sodium, etc.).
I am very in favor of requiring restaurants to post nutritional information so that people are aware of what they are consuming. I wish that they would make this universal and not just large chains in certain areas. - 8/20/2012 11:42:57 AM
No doubt, at this moment thousands of New Yorkers (and other Americans) are saying that restricting the consumption of legal products is "tyranny". Smokers said the same thing about raising cigarette taxes, banning smoking from restaraunts, bars and public places, and making smoking in cars with children illegal. 30 years later, however, the culture has caught up with the environment and the majority of citizens, smoking or not, understand where smoking is acceptable and where it is inappropriate.
(I would add on a personal note, to specifically address the pervasive "it's my life, I can make my own choices" argument, that it is just as much MY right NOT to pick up the tab when one's health inevitably goes down the pooper as a result of unhealthy behaviors that lead to obesity and its associated expensive chronic disease states. Jussayin. Those costs average out to between $4,879 - $8,365 for obese women and $2,646 - $6,518 for obese men annually - George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services)
Imagine the reaction to someone lighting up a butt in a crowded restaraunt today - quite a difference from the cries of public disapproval at the onset of tobacco legislation 30 years ago. Give Bloomberg's initiative 30 years for the culture to catch up, and you'll see the same reaction to someone walking down the street drinking an entire day's worth of calories from a 64 oz bucket of Mountain Dew.
Until then, we can expect some freak-outs from shortsighted folks who don't understand the dynamics of population medicine. - 8/20/2012 10:37:59 AM
Keeping junk food from being sold at schools, providing healthy options at schools and government workplaces and making sure that neighborhoods are safe to play and exercise in is well within the authority of goverment. Regulating how much soda I purchase at a time is not. - 8/20/2012 10:07:34 AM
Please Log In To Leave A Comment: Log in now ›