Big Food is the New Big Tobacco

Man exhaling after a good suck on a cigarette. Or a Smoke Monster, what evs

In Sunday's NY Times, there was an article on the front page of the business section that detailed a class of high powered lawyers who spent their careers targeting Big Tobacco quite successfully. Now that the Smoke Monster has been more or less defeated, they've set there sights on a new monster:

“There was nothing scary on (the can of Pam cooking spray), just this innocuous word, ‘propellant,’ ” said Ms. Sturges, a hairdresser from Los Gatos, Calif. After digging deeper, she learned that “propellant” included petroleum gas, propane and butane. “I’d been spraying that on muffin tins to make muffins for my grandchildren — oh my God!”

The lawyers are going after Big Food, but not for the reasons I assumed. It's not that Big Food is promoting unhealthy food for maximum profitability at the expense of public health -- that may be immoral and evil, but not illegal...yet. They are going after mislabeling. As my dad said, "Hey, cyanide is all natural." There are no set standards to call something "all natural" or "healthy", so when something is promoted as such, even subtly, when it really isn't, that may be actionable.

Big Food's new mascot, Devilly Foodstein

The article points out that Big Tobacco wriggled out of years and years of lawsuits because it pulled the McDonald's Defense -- smoking was a personal choice, and who are we to interfere with one's personal rights? Only when the clutter was pushed aside and the science was taken seriously, it was finally acknowledged that Big Tobacco's product was making people addicted & sick, run up huge medical bills and -ahem- killed them. The government and justice system turned and made things a bit righter. Not fast enough to help my mom's life-long cigarette habit that  killed her before she could meet my children, but what-evs, B.T.

Consumers are increasingly conscious of their eating habits as rates of heart disease, Type 2 diabetes, obesity and other health problems rise. State and local governments are also becoming alarmed at the escalating costs of caring for people with those diseases and are putting pressure on food companies.

Smoking was a "personal choice", but man does not make choices in a vacuum, and those who profit from influencing choice bear responsibility. Perhaps when enough people die from the food habits that will be reclassified as addiction-fortified and under the pointed influence of Big Food for their profit at our expense. I hope I'm not being too shrill, I'm gettin' all Chris Crocker on ya.

Please!! Leave Big Food aloooone!

In local  news, NYC's Mayor Bloomberg has been pushing a "soda ban", which is so gentle that it doesn't actually ban any soda at all.  But Big Money is at stake, so at even the hint that public opinion might be shifting from "personal responsibility" to "societal responsibility", the representatives of Big Money will come at us, pretending to be our friends, defenders of freedom, choice, babies and AMURIKAH! Big Soda put together a website with everything you need to know, so let's (cue DJ sound) BREAKITDOOOOWN!

Don’t let Mayor Bloomberg ban beverages over 16 ounces in NYC
Mayor Bloomberg is proposing to ban sales of sugar-sweetened beverages over 16 ounces in New York City. Fountain and bottled beverages over 16 ounces could no longer be sold in restaurants, movie theaters, sports venues, coffee shops, food trucks and street carts.
According to the mayor, New Yorkers need help deciding what size beverage is appropriate.  

If this now, what’s next?

The scare-title is wrong. It should read

Don't let Mayor Bloomberg ban sugar-loaded beverages over 16 ounces per single cup in NYC's inspected eating establishments

That's right, there is NOTHING stopping anyone from ordering TWO 16 ounce beverages. Or ten for that matter. It only effects businesses that need inspections from the Department of Health, so you can still get your 2 liter bottles of pop from the supermarket.

New Yorkers (and all Americans) need help deciding what size beverage is appropriate. Many are eating too much, we're getting fatter, and sugared soda is nutritionally vacant. When sugared beverages originally hit the market, the typical bottle was 7 ounces. Why is 20oz the new standard? Is it because people wanted more "freedom", or is it because agricultural policy made sugar cheap and vegetables expensive, that sugar is addicting and there is more profit in selling larger and larger quantities? People do not want  to be fat, get diabetes and rot their teeth. Is guzzling large quantities of soda more important than health?

Bloomberg's smoking ban has been a raging success. Bars and drinking establishments that predicted dire consequences ate their words when

1. smokers just smoked outside in all weather, because they're addicts and 
2. people who hated having to share air with smokers and make their clothing and skin stink now spend more time and spend more money in those establishments.

When Fran Drescher is elected Governor, I'll cede the point.

I have close friends who are against the "soda ban", decrying the "nanny state". I guess if you believe any sort of gun control is nanny-state, any sort of illegalization of hard drugs is nanny-state, any laws pertaining to the consumption of alcohol is nanny-state, then fine, I can't fault your consistency.

Such unilateral thinking blinds us to the shades of gray and the value of gradual positive outcomes. An actual soda ban would be a real attack on freedom of choice. Being forced to buy two 16 oz cups instead of one 32oz Mega-Jug when sitting down for a movie? Please. It's more likely you'll feel gluttonous, and that's a good thing. It is not a slippery slope, it is an adjustment in favor of our health vs. an industry's wealth.

We need light-handed guidance to direct us to habits that will add up to the greater good for everyone. Less obesity will help promote lower medical costs for all, at perhaps less profit for Big Soda. Just as a 7 ounce bottle was once the accepted normal standard put out by the soda industry, now it is in the hands of those elected to represent us and our interests to help establish a new normal standard.

Tomorrow, we delve into the "facts" as presented by Big Soda...

THE COUNT: 2345
Weekend eating went relatively well. Saturday was a day trip up to Connecticut to visit family, centering on a nice semi-home cooked meal with a lot of salad and corn. Sunday was a bike trip with the toddler to Staten Island for a big Polish festival, involving perogies, bigos, keilbasa and stuffed cabbage. I ate well, maybe a little too much, but no binging. Went to sleep feeling slightly hungry Sunday night, so I must have done something right.

Today is the first of four weeks of Edie out of day camp, before her preschool starts. Milli slept while we did the laundry, lifted weights and did misc. chores. I pulled out the old weight set my dad bought me when I was a teen, took off all the weights and had Edie do "lifts" in tandem with me, it was incredibly cute.

The main adventure of the day was a subway out to Coney Island to ride the Wonder Wheel. Couldn't take the kids to Coney without a hot dog! Fortunately, Nathan's has all it's nutritional info on line.

AM SNACK: 8:15am am, iced green tea, 25 cal

BREAKFAST: 9:30am, steel cut oatmeal, water, 375 cal

LUNCH: 12:45pm, hot dog with kraut, onions and mustard, deep fried potatoes, diet coke, 800 cal

I normally would have had two hot dogs, but that would have destroyed the budget. A dog is only 300 cal -- it's the fries, at it's smallest, is a whopping 500. The biggest size, with cheese, is about 1,200 cal, well over half my daily budget.

PM SNACK: 2:45pm, momma salad, 120 cal

DINNER: 6:15pm, broiled sole, steamed string beans, multigrain rice mix, pickle, 7oz diet sprite, 840 325 cal
Something went funky, the wild rice/brown rice/wheat berry mix required more water and less salt than I eyeballed, came out funky. I had to eyeball it because the 117g/415 cal (+100 cal for a tbsp of butter) was all that was left in the package, and I was too tired to do the correct math. Funny how light the meal becomes when it's just fish and beans.

DINNER pt 2: 7pm, slice of pizza, +/- 300 cal

EVENING SNACK: 9pm, homemade vanilla ice cream with chocolate syrup, 400 cal

An indulgence, after chores, a day out with both kids, a failed dinner, grocery shopping and coming to a halt, finally, at 9. Still kept in budget, though -- almost felt like a binge, as this was a satisfying portion size!