Now, I'll be the first to admit that I am rather direct in my assessment of his article. This is possibly the first time that I have written some of my reservations about another person's idea with such intensity. However, should someone make a claim that sugar is "toxic," or that it is the job of the government to regulate it, they had darn well better be prepared to back up said claims. And, as I have previously admitted, I agree that sugar may well be at the base of our weight problem. It is how Mark Bittman structures his arguments and his proposed solutions to the problem that I fail to comprehend. And with that folks, grab a soda or stack of Oreos, pull up a chair, and enjoy.
Sugar Solutions
Cody L MacCabe
English 201 Section 51
Ms. Thompson
April 10, 2013
Abstract
In his paper Sugar Solutions, Cody MacCabe scrutinizes food critic and
author Mark Bittman’s “It’s the Sugar Folks,” who argues that government
intervention is necessary to combat America’s obesity problem. Cody attempts to
overlook Bittman’s arguments, choosing instead to focus more on the
opposition’s proposed solution to the problem; government control. Cody
concedes there is a problem, but questions the lack of clear arguments and
goals of the opposition. He brings up issues that Bittman and others appear to
have ignored, and speaks briefly of how proponents of government control
structure their arguments. Ultimately, Cody concludes that the government has
no business in regulating individual’s food choices, leaving parents and
individuals to shoulder that responsibility.
Sugar Solutions
“That’ll kill you.”
I
turned my head to look into a somber pair of four year-old eyes, and raised one
eyebrow. “Oh really?” Little red-headed Jeremy continued. “Yep, ‘cause it has
white sugar in it.” The hand that held an Oreo half-way to my mouth stopped its
forward momentum; not out of fear of death by cookie, but by simple incredulity
that a four year-old was telling me that white sugar was lethal. So much for
lunchtime. The temptation to take a bite out of the cookie and then keel on
over was almost irresistible. I really liked Jeremy, the oldest kid of my new
boss. But never before had I been warned that something I had been ingesting my
whole life would end my human career. Apparently, little Jeremy isn’t the only
person who feels that these crystalline grains of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen
are in fact a danger to society. In his article “It’s the Sugar, Folks,” Times
Magazine’s food columnist Mark Bittman goes so far as to call sugar “toxic,”
suggesting that government intervention is necessary to regulate the American
diet. May I be the first to say that an overly-indulgent intake of calories,
sugars, and a generally nutrient-depleted diet is unhealthy, can lead to
obesity, and be a general burden to a citizenry. While proponents of government
intervention argue with wild accusations and pseudo-science, I have no qualms
admitting that there is a serious weight-related health problem in America.
Agreements notwithstanding, I vehemently express concern with the rhetoric that
a nanny-state “solution” of government monitoring of caloric or sugar intake,
controlled portion sizes, taxing sugary beverages, or any other such food
control measures, will reduce obesity.
Background
Data is showing that
America has an exponentially increasing weight problem. Nationwide, 72.5
million adults are obese. That is over a quarter of the adult population
(Mantel, p. 799). Americans on average are consuming 300 calories more each day
than the previous generation, much of which comes from sugary beverages (Marrow, p. 4). A look at Americans over the last 50
years has shown a spike in average weight that correlates with the increasing
amounts of sugars and calories in the American diet. Most people agree that
this added weight is a problem; it is the proposed solutions that many find
controversial.
While
debate raging throughout nutrition networks through the country about causes
and effects of obesity is nothing new, there is a high-stakes political battle
currently waging about the proper role of government and food. The most recent
high-profile case takes place in New York City, where the ever-sedulous Nanny
Mayor Bloomberg has passed a law restricting the sale of containers of soda
over 16 oz. at food establishments (Clemmitt, p. 1015). Other proposals, or
current laws, include the taxation of sugary beverages, controlling portion
sizes, menu-labeling requirements, monitoring advertisements that are aimed at
children, and passing requirements controlling what can be served in school’s
cafeterias. This raises the
question of what role, if any, should the government play in combating obesity
and the associated problems? There are many proponents of government
intervention. Obesity is a serious and growing problem. Others say that the
government isn’t allowed the right to dictate what and how people consume food.
Most people will agree that there’s a problem. But, what is the right course of
action?
Lines of Argument
My first concern
associated with proposed government intrusion into mealtimes (and snack time)
is a lack of clear direction as to the purpose behind this bureaucratic
brouhaha. I fail to find a clear consensus as to what is to be accomplished by
printing off enough legislation to drown a librarian. Is the purpose behind
this encroachment simply cutting calories or reducing sugar intake? Is the hope
to slow weight gain? Maybe it is simply to inform people of what they are
putting into their bodies. Is it to reduce obesity, or perhaps prevent it? Is
it simply to get Americans to eat healthier? Then there’s the possibility of setting
up another revenue stream encouraging Americans to avoid “empty” calories
by taxing the sweet stuff. What methods are to be used, and what is the end
goal? Assuming that the government does in fact have our best interests at
heart, which we all know that it doesn’t, it would appear that the hope is
through passing broad and extensive legislation, something that would fall
under government control might possibly someday in the far distant future somehow be part of the solution to
this problem. However, with not clear goals, direction, or limitations as to
how far the government can reasonably regulate, I find myself extremely
hesitant to support any such measures.
And
unfortunately, there is no evidence to suggest that a regulatory rampage by the
government will in any way, shape, or form help achieve the end goal so un-clearly
set in sand. By 2009, 13 cities, counties, or states required menu labeling,
informing customers of things such as the number of calories in a meal. But
when asked if the legislation would have a direct impact on obesity, Marion
Nestle, a sociology professor at New York University, said “Probably not. It
will help some people, but I doubt it will help very many” (Mantel, p. 804).
Real-world studies that have been performed to find the effectiveness of such
laws have, at best, produced mixed results. Brian Elbel, a professor of medicine and
health policy at New York University, also said of menu labeling “We did not
see any change in the number of calories purchased” (Mantel, p.805), which was
the whole point behind the labeling requirement. This is just one example of
the ineffectiveness of such legislation. If you inform people of the number of
calories they are eating, they’ll still eat them. If you tax sugary drinks,
those that want them will still buy them. Serving a strictly healthy diet in
the school cafeteria has led to “trash cans…overflowing with fruit and
vegetables the students don’t want” (Wood, p. 1). While it is perhaps noble to try and help people reduce the
amount of unhealthy foods they ingest, there are factors that are not
considered by the government.
While
there is enough data surrounding calories, sugars, and obesity to suffocate any
scientist, there are other factors involved in this whole health hullabaloo
that are unaccounted for. Americans are less physically active than ever before,
many spending workdays behind a desk, and 40% rarely exercise (Bettelheim, p.
27). Our working environment promotes vehicular use as opposed to walking;
there is a lack of access to nutritious foods, or individual portions;
advertising promoting fast-foods; genetic factors; the use of certain
medications; metabolic or hormonal
causes; smoking; sleeping too little or too much. (Robbins, p. 1) The problem
could be, and likely is more comprehensive than a ban on sodas larger than 16
oz. can cover. Yes, we may be able to attribute one-fifth of the recent decades
weight gain to sugary drinks (Marrow, p. 4);
but how do we account for the rest? I spent much of my childhood doing chores,
playing outside, and staying active. But rarely does government ask how much
more time children spend playing video games than they did thirty years ago. In
the name of educating our children, recess time is diminishing. And never do
you hear proposals limiting how much time adults are allowed to spend watching
television. “Many individuals tend to spend more of
their leisure time engaged in sedentary activities at the expense of physical
activities” (Amarasinghe and D'Souza, p.4).
There is a correlation between food and obesity, not causation. My fear is that
in our eagerness to find a crux to our obese problem, government will get tied
up in a few top branches while forgetting the behavioral roots of the problem;
that the argument for government intervention is based on incomplete, and
perhaps biased, information.
While
there has been much factual data gathered about Americans and food, many of the
claims and the way the data is being used by zealots for the cause is baloney.
As someone hoping to be a scientist, looking at how the data is gathered and
used is something that the author of this article scrutinized while researching
the topic. First, the use of the word “toxic” (Clemmitt, p 1018) is….an attempt
to get a knee-jerk reaction from people, possibly with the hopes that it will
drive people towards a government-based solution? Sugar, scientifically
speaking, is biologically necessary to sustain life. If you ingest radically
high amounts of sugar, certainly the possibility of negative side effects
exists. However, without sugar, you really will die. In moderation,
there is no harm. The same goes for calories, fats, carbohydrates, and even
water. Biologically necessary to sustain life, but too much of it can adversely
affect your health. Unless those labeling sugar as toxic are prepared to do the
same with water, it would be wise for the sake of their own credibility and the evidence to
rescind such malarkey.
Another
possibly damaging factor to the credibility of the proponents of government
intervention is the suggestions they make based off of limited information.
Found in some articles are statements such as “One study also found that…,”
“According to one study…” (Mantel, p. 802/p. 805), and “In one study”
(Clemmitt, p.1027). For some reason, with something that is 100 times more
scientifically complicated than heart disease (Clemmitt, p. 1016), it is
apparently kosher to start pointing to one study as an excuse to choke
Americans out of the calories that are supposedly a menace to their health. In any
serious science, making any claim, even suggesting that one study makes something
gospel truth is deplorable. Doing so would be labeling oneself as nothing less
than a scientific heretic. While no longer punishable by burning at stake,
being laughed out of the scientific community may be the more humiliating path.
Historically, scientists strive to prove a hypothesis false. If after rigorous
testing said hypothesis is failed to be proven false, then you can start
talking about it becoming a theory. It is perhaps best stated by Rebecca L.
Goldberg, who is credited with saying “nutritional science is, at best, a
discipline still in its infancy, far from being able to understand the complex
relationships between our bodies and our food” (Goldberg, p. 788). But in the
end, does it matter what laws are passed, or the amount of scientific confirmation
massed? If people want the calories, scientific evidence and specious
government legislation are not going to stop them.
The
issue that undermines the entire argument for government intervention is the
misguided notion of curtailing current behaviors in an attempt to change
American’s attitudes towards food and obesity. Ultimately, what and how you eat
depends entirely on the individual and their attitude towards food. The problem
associated with government intervention, aside from being a grotesque fusion of
Big Brother and Ophelia Syndrome, is that it removes the responsibility for the
attitude towards unhealthy lifestyles from the individual. Nothing really
changes.
As explained by the writer Barbara Mantel, “There is a good reason why public-health
officials blame the changing environment for much of the recent obesity
epidemic: Blaming the individual hasn't worked so well” (Mantel, p. 814). But
it is with individuals that the problem lies. The government does not
(literally) feed us, we feed ourselves. If the individual is not willing to
change, no amount of legislation will lead them to conform. Attitude cannot be
legislated, just as behavior does not drive attitude. Our beloved government errs in attempting to put the cart in
front of the donkey.
Rather
than rely on burdensome legislation that may or may not effectively treat the
root of the problem, this is one situation in which the individual must take
responsibility for their own habits, as no amount of bureaucracy will change a
person. One source says that “Americans spend nearly half of their food budget
on foods prepared outside of the home and consume about one-third of daily
calories from outside sources, much of it from fast food” (Young and Marion, p.
239). But no one is making them eat out. That choice is theirs and theirs
alone. As explained by Robbin S. Johnson, a research fellow at the University
of Minnesota's School of Public Affairs, “there is nothing …per se that
contributes to the growth in understanding that would lead most directly to the
kind of behavior change needed to arrest and reverse obesity” (Robbins, p. 4).
Yes, some measures passed may enhance the health of the population without
actually contributing to obesity reduction (,
p. 3). But individuals still have a choice, and until they of their own free
will and choice choose to change their behaviors, the government will be
constantly trimming the branches of a growing problem.
Opposing Viewpoints
We have a health crisis
on our hands, there’s no question about that. Over 25% of American adults are
obese (Mantel, p. 799), and if you include those simply overweight, that
percentage jumps another 30% (Bettelheim, p. 25). While I disagree with the
opposition on a few points, I have no qualms about agreeing with them 100% that
there is a problem. They are absolutely right. Many Americans, for any number
of reasons, are not in currently in control of their weight. I will concede
that point without an argument. What I fail to understand, however, is how that
justifies taking control of what Americans put into their own mouths. The
Constitutional Republic which this country claims to be allowed government the
power to protect Americans, that the people might live in freedom. Never was
the government allowed the license to remedy every problem that would ever
face the American people. If we’ve got a problem, we have the right to fix it
in our own way, and in our own time.
And at our own cost.
Proponents of government intervention are correct in labeling this as a
financial problem as well. In 2012 in the state of New York alone,
obesity-related medical bills reached an astronomical $11.8 billion – $4.3 billion through
Medicaid, and the other $7.5 through Medicare and private insurance (Clemmitt,
p.1015). I agree this is a financial problem as well. One might argue that
“When your problems only affect you, then that’s ok. But the current health
epidemic has become such a widespread problem that it is starting to affect the
general welfare. The government is already has its pocketbook involved, and in
order to start reducing costs to the taxpayers, the government must take
action. When people can keep themselves under control, that’s great. But when
the actions of the public at large are in conflict with the financial welfare
of the general populace, it must needs be that the government intervene for the
security of all involved.” I admit, they make a convincing argument. And yes,
it’s costing us. But does that justify government to intervene? I see no reason
why it should. When people realize what it costs them, financially or
physically, they will take the necessary actions themselves to rectify the
problem. Until then, it’s the government’s job to get out of the way and let
people make their own, sometimes less-than-intelligent, decisions.
Conclusion
Do we have a problem on
our hands? Yes. I will be the last person to deny that claim, and I don’t think
many people will intentionally turn a blind eye to the pervasive poundage
problem in American society. But does that give government the right to
regulate itself into my personal meals? Abso-stinkin-loutely not! Where is the
personal responsibility? We live in a society that is trying to facilitate our not taking responsibility for our own actions, striving to remove unpleasant
consequences of our own stupidity on our behalf. How nice of them. And how
short-sighted. While it is much easier to let the government force us through
legislation to attempt to lose the pounds than it is to develop self-control,
when are we as Americans going to step up to the plate, and accept the
consequences of our own actions? This will be an uphill battle. There isn’t an
easy way around it. But that is what this issue comes down to; that’s what it
is going to take to fix this problem. Short of the government installing video
cameras in the forehead of every American to see and regulate what they put in
their mouth, self-control is, as near as I can see, the only option.
References
Mantel, B. (2010/2013).
Preventing obesity. CQ Researcher, 20, 797-820. Retrieved
from http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/
Clemmitt, M.
(2012/2013). Sugar controversies. CQ Researcher, 22,
1013-1036. Retrieved from http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/
Goldberg, R. L.
(2012/2013). Administering Real Food: How the Eat-Food Movement Should--and
Should Not--Approach Government Regulation. Ecology Law Quarterly, 39(3), 773-829.
Wood, Benjamin.
(2012/2013). Students, parents, educators
displeased with new school lunch standards. Deseret News, Sept.
27 2012
Marrow, Mary
Winston. (2011/2013). Public Health Law Center, TAXING SUGAR DRINKS: A Tool
for Obesity Prevention, Cost Savings and Health Improvement (2011).
Bettelheim, A.
(1999/2013). Obesity and health. CQ Researcher, 9, 25-48.
Retrieved from http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/
Robbins, Johnson S.
(2011/2013). Caloric Sweetened Beverage Taxes: The Good Food/Bad Food Trap. Choices
Magazine
(2011/2013). Soda taxes and substitution effects: will obesity be
affected? Choices: The
Magazine of Food, Farming and Resource Issues 3rd Quarter 26 (3).
Young, Lisa R. and
Nestle Marion. (2007/2013). Portion Sizes and Obesity: Responses of Fast-Food
Companies, Journal of Public Health Policy, Vol. 28, No. 2, pp. 238-248
Amarasinghe, Anura and
D'Souza, Gerard. (2012/2013). Individual, Social, Economic, and Environmental
Model: A Paradigm Shift for Obesity Prevention, ISRN Public Health, vol. 2012,
Article ID 571803, pp. 1-10