Court Bans Bloomberg’s Ban

March 11th, 2013 5 comments »

The New York Times reports that a New York State Supreme Court judge has thrown out Mayor Mike Bloomberg’s ban on large size serving cups of sugar sweetened beverages. The judge apparently concluded that the statute was ‘arbitrary and capricious’ because other high calorie drinks were not covered and not all establishments selling beverages were covered.

The Court’s opinion states, “The simple reading of the Rule is nevertheless fraught with arbitrary and capricious consequences. The simple reading of the Rule leads to the earlier acknowledged uneven enforcement even within a particular City block, much less the City as a whole. Furthermore, as previously discussed, the loophole in this Rule effectively defeat the stated purpose of the Rule. It is arbitrary and capricious because it applies to some put not all food establishments in the City, it excludes other beverages that have significantly higher concentrations of sugar sweeteners and/or calories on suspect grounds, and the loopholes inherent in the Rule, including but not limited to no limitations on re-fills, defeat and/or serve to gut the purpose of the Rule.”

These problems with the law were easily foreseeable, as I wrote in Note to Mayor Bloomberg. The judge’s opinion also appears to reflect recent decisions of the Supreme Court which are likely to limit similar, broad approaches to obesity.

 

 

Slight drop in fast food consumption

February 21st, 2013 No comments »

New data released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for health statistics finds a modest drop in calories consumed by adults eating at fast food outlets (and, somewhat ambiguously, “pizza”). An earlier report by the U.S. Department of Agriculture found that the percentage of adults eating fast food increased from the early 1990s to the mid-1990s. Moreover, previous studies have reported that more frequent fast-food consumption is associated with higher energy and fat intake and lower intake of healthful nutrients. This report indicates that for 2007–2010, on average, adults consumed just over one-tenth of their percentage of calories from fast food, which represents a decrease from 2003–2006 when approximately 13% of calories were consumed from fast food. During 2007–2010, the highest percentage of calories from fast food was consumed among adults who were aged 20–39 or non-Hispanic black or obese. Among young non-Hispanic black adults, more than one-fifth of their calories were consumed from fast food.

Denmark pulls back on fat taxes

September 19th, 2012 No comments »

Denmark has decided to repeal its tax on saturated fats and forego other taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages and foods after finding that Danes simply went to Germany to buy the foods at lower prices. See FoodNavigator: Fat-tax-why-is-Denmark-such-a-quitter

If you want to see a really well-informed discussion of such taxes, see these presentations from Professor Mick Gibney, Dr. Anne Nugent, Dr. Kevin Denny and Professor David Madden at University College Dublin, Ireland. UCD: Seminar fat and sugar taxes

 

Food Deserts Questioned…Again

August 25th, 2012 2 comments »

Is there a robust relationship between neighborhood food environments and childhood obesity? That is the question Roland Sturm and colleagues Victoria Shier and Ruopeng An set out to answer in a new paper in the journal, Public Health. Using standard definitions and a large database of 5th and 8th graders, they found “no consistent evidence across (counts of a particular type of food outlets per population, food environment indices and indicators for the presence of specific combinations of types of food stores) and outcomes to support the hypothesis that improved access to large supermarkets results in lower youth BMI, or greater exposure to fast food restaurants, convenience stores, and small food stores increases BMI.” See PubMed: Is There a Robust Relationship between Neighborhood food environment

Don’t tell Health and Human Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. In May, at the Weight of the Nation Conference, she declared that food deserts were a cause of obesity stating, “Obesity can be caused by any combination of factors. For some, it is an addiction like smoking. For others, it’s a lack of fresh fruits and vegetables near their home.” HHS_Secretary Speeches_Weight of the Nation

This may be just a case of sloppy thinking or poor staff work. More likely, it was an effort to buttress First Lady’s Michelle Obama’s major $400 million initiative to bring supermarkets to underserved areas. Let’sMove: Food desert programs. Sturm’s earlier paper had already questioned this policy. PubMed: School and residential food environment California

 

Doubts about food deserts don’t deter head of HHS

June 10th, 2012 No comments »

The June 10th Washington Post has an insightful article on the federally-funded food desert initiative in Philadelphia. The article describes how an hypothesis (lack of access to healthy foods leads to eating unhealthy foods which leads to obesity) becomes a large experiment before research is done to determine if it is going to work. WaPo: Will Philadepphia’s experiment in eradicating food deserts

Last month, at the Weight of the Nation conference, Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius took the hypothesis one step further elevating food deserts into a cause of obesity. She said, “Obesity can be caused by any combination of factors.  For some it’s an addiction like smoking.  For others it’s a lack of fresh fruits or vegetables near their home. “ This is pretty sloppy work for a conference so highly organized by the CDC and HHS. An addiction? Still being researched I believe. People are looking at whether certain foods may be “addictive” not whether excess adipose tissue itself is addictive. When a national health leader elevates putative causes like addiction and food deserts to actual causes, a disservice is done and real progress is delayed.

 

Are Healthy Foods More Expensive? Will cutting out bad foods result in weight loss?

May 29th, 2012 2 comments »

A common perception is that “healthy foods” are more expensive than less healthy foods. Researchers from the US Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service looked at three different ways to compare costs. One method was to look at the price per calorie, another to examine price per edible grams and the third, to look at the price per average portion size. They also looked at the price of meeting the Federal dietary recommendations for each food group.

Andrea Carlson and Elizabeth Frazao found that healthy foods were cheaper than less healthy foods, except for the price per calorie. Foods low in calories, like fruits and vegetables, appear to have a higher price when measured on a per calorie basis. When measured on the basis of edible weight or average portion size, grains, vegetables, fruit, and dairy foods are less expensive than most protein foods and foods high in saturated fat, added sugars, and/or sodium. USDA ERS: Are Healthy Foods Really More Expensive?

But what does this mean for your diet? If you consume the recommended amount of fruits and vegetables and other low calorie foods, you still need calories to meet your minimum daily intake requirements. So, if the “bad foods” are more expensive, that is a good reason to drop them from your diet? Well, yes if you want to save some money.  But what if you are trying to lose weight? Earlier studies have suggested that reducing variety in non-nutrient dense, energy-dense food groups (think ice cream, potato chips, cookies, and candies) may result in lower overall energy intake and thus improve weight loss and weight management. The mechanism is thought to be ‘hedonics’, that the more boring the food is the less it is consumed.

In a clinical trial, Rena Wing and colleagues 200 adults were randomly assigned to either a lifestyle or lifestyle plus limited variety diet. Both groups received 48 group sessions over an 18-month period, covering cognitive behavioral intervention, a diet prescription, and a physical activity prescription.

The lifestyle + limited variety group was limited to 2 self-selected non-nutrient dense energy dense foods including baked goods, granola snack bars, high-fat crackers, frozen dairy-based deserts, frozen yogurt, ice cream, ice milk, cheese, candy, chips, salty snacks, and chocolate.

The results? Intake from this category was reduced, but overall energy was not and there was no difference in weight loss between the two groups. PubMed: Limiting Variety in non-nutrient-dense foods

 

Food Industry Batters Reform Efforts

May 1st, 2012 No comments »

Reuters has published a devastating report on how the food industry has won numerous fights in Washington over childhood obesity.  Its victories include stopping the Federal Trade Commission’s development of voluntary industry guidelines on marketing food and beverages to children, weakening the USDA proposals, strongly backed by First Lady Michele Obama, to improve the nutritional quality of school lunches. Reuters: How Washington Went Soft on Childhood Obesity

While noting that the food and beverage industry has defeated state and local taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages, the article did not address how the industry has had state legislatures ban municipalities from enacting local legislation to require caloric labeling on menus or bans on trans-fats. NYT: Local Laws Under Siege

 

Competitive Food Sales in Schools Not Affect Obesity

February 2nd, 2012 No comments »

Most US middle and high schools sell soft drinks, candy and chips to their students. These practices have been widely criticized as contributing to childhood and adolescent obesity. However, a new study followed  approximately 19,450 children from fifth to eight grade. Researchers found the children’s weight gain was not associated with the introduction or the duration of exposure to competitive foods. This did not vary by gender, race/ethnicity or family socioeconomic status. Possible explanations are that children’s food preferences and dietary patterns are firmly established before adolescence. Also, schools are highly structured whereas home life may have more opportunities for snacking. http://www.asanet.org/images/journals/docs/pdf/soe/Jan12SOEFeature.pdf.