My last ride in was just before my very good friend Eric arrived from Portland on Sept. 24. My chain popped off the big cogset on the rear wheel and I ripped apart a couple of spokes, and it took me until this Tuesday, Oct. 12 to fix them. I made it to HK and had a visit from another old friend for a week in the meantime. Hence the absence of any biking/iTunes blogs because I was out of my normal groove.
This show was fascinating, to say the least. Mayor Bloomberg is on a crusade to improve the state of New Yorkers' health, and I must say: "Hats off to you, sir." He's banned smoking in bars and eliminated trans-fat oils from the city's packaged foods and restaurants. Smokers and snackoholics don't like it, and they can just go to New Jersey if they desire. In fact, Manhattan may actually become a more attractive city if this stinky, oily demographic were to relocate.
Bloomberg's latest crusade is to lobby the federal government to add sweetened soft drinks to the list of goods prohibited for purchase with food stamps (aka "EBT" or Electronic Benefit Transfer".) There are two camps: 1) Food stamp recipients who claim they have the right to buy whatever they like with their government-issued food money; and 2) High-minded individuals who believe the growth of obesity and diabetes in America should not be facilitated by the federal government.
What struck me was that the EBT program is used by one in eight Americans, and one in FOUR American children. Perhaps Arianna Huffington is correct with her latest book which claims that American standards are heading toward third world levels. I don't agree with her sensationalised conclusion, but the point hits home when the EBT statistics are heard. Twenty five percent of American kids get fed in part from EBT? Now I understand why Bloomberg is lobbying so hard, because New York City undoubtedly has an above average rate of program participation so possibly one in three New York children are assisted by EBT. If so, these kids and their families probably (and the key word is "probably") forgo an amount of nutritious food for unnutritious food substitutes. Sweetened soft drinks are high profile because their volume is so high, and have extremely high consumer penetration, so Bloomberg's plan is probably to start with these and then keep moving the needle.
There are many points to consider: 1) An individual's right to use food stamps for various goods; 2) Cheap prices of highly processed foods versus higher cost of healthier raw materials; 3) Local government rights to manage federal programs; 4) Long term government health care costs related to obesity and diabetes; 5) Education versus prohibition; 6) Retailer adminstration costs and feasibility of excluding soft drinks at the checkout; 7) Abuse of the EBT program in which purchased food is resold for cash; 8) Expanded government control of its constituents; and others.
I can't go through all these points, but I can sum up my personal position. Currently, the EBT program excludes fuel, tobacco, alcohol, hot food, and non-food like detergent and shampoo. Adding soft drinks to the list is straightforward both technically and in terms of staff and consumer education. The EBT program is government-funded and by willingly accepting assistance, participants abdicate their rights to choose exactly what is available. Participants are not prevented from buying sweetened soft drinks in the same way they can already purchase cigarettes and beer, albeit with their own money and not the government's. Sweetened soft drinks provide absolutely no nutrition and by substituting them for healthy alternatives, consumers degrade their health and of particular concern the health of children who don't buy for themselves. Government subsidies for corn results in cheap corn syrup, and therefore relatively cheaper soft drink prices versus healthier alternatives, so removing subsidies will move soft drink prices in line with better alternatives and change purchase mix.
These days consumers, and perhaps the average American, opts for convenience and forgoes spending time cooking. Unfortunately, convenience foods are relatively quite unhealthy and cheap. To encourage a trend back towards consumption of raw materials, i.e. fresh meat and produce, it seems sensible to discourage the alternatives in terms of price and education. Ideally, it would be wonderful if parents and schools educated the upcoming generation of children, but clearly the situation in places is out of control and the "penalty" approach is required. I absolutely side with Bloomberg on this, and would support reduced subsidies for all products that overwhelmingly result in negative health consequences. Corn farming is a large target, and those who cry foul about the farmers' plight should consider that a great number of American children are deeply affected by how corn is being abused. These kids have few alternatives because they are fed by parents who buy as cheaply as possible, while the farmers do have legitimate choices about what they plant.
Rather than talking about improving health, at least Bloomberg is doing something and even if he doesn't win this one, at least he is creating some healthy, productive discussion. So good for him.
