Thursday, September 13, 2012

Quote of the Day

"I applaud Mayor Bloomberg’s initiative as I believe he’s one of the few people in power who is taking practical measures to fight obesity. We hear a lot about how we shouldn’t be 'nannying' people with laws about how they live their lives, but with such a massive problem as the obesity epidemic to deal with, we are way past the point where can trust people to make better choices. We have to help them make better choices."

-- Jamie Oliver on New York City's proposed ban of sodas over 16 ounces, which just passed

You know, I really used to like Jamie Oliver -- until he decided he should be my mother. While I understand a crackdown on certain products which can be deemed not simply bad for you but directly harmful to others: cigarettes, drugs, guns, etc. Bloomberg is taking his crusade to make the world a better place a bit too far. Banning a certain quantity of soda, allowing the state to determine how much is too much for your health to take, is ridiculous and draconian. It's one thing to take on crappy food in schools, where at the very least you have a captive audience with terrible impulse control, but even a 32 ounce soda won't balloon the average person, provided he or she isn't drinking one every day. And that's what it's really all about: moderation.

The notion that the government needs to step in and regulate how much of something an adult can have simply because there are those who indulge in too much -- the thought essentially being, "Well, we gave you freedom and some of you fucked it up so now everybody has to pay," -- is mildly offensive. I'm not an elementary school student who deserves to be punished simply because a couple of my classmates goofed off and now I need to be taught a sweeping object lesson for my own good. I don't drink a lot of soda and I honestly can't remember the last time I downed even 16-ounces of anything like it, but it hardly matters: I don't like the idea of the government restricting freedoms based on the lousy choices of the lowest-common-denominator because, as much as I hate the cliché, that's a very slippery slope. You can't legislate away all forms of bad behavior nor should you try.

And please don't make the argument that I don't need more than 16-ounces of soda. Of course I don't. There are a lot of things I don't need. But nine times out of ten it should be my decision and only my decision as to what I want.

Anyway, I've already mentioned this subject a couple of times...

"Food Fighter" (Originally Published, 4.13.11)

I'm always willing to cop to my somewhat retrogressive knee-jerk reactions, so here goes.

Last night I happened to catch a few minutes of the season premiere of chef Jamie Oliver's ABC reality series, Food Revolution. The basic premise of the show is that Jamie travels across America doing essentially the same thing he's become both famous and notorious for in his native Britain: trying to educate people about the dangers of the processed foods they're eating and drag them, kicking and screaming if necessary, toward a more healthy diet, all in the name of combating the dreaded "obesity epidemic." It should surprise no one that Jamie concentrates a substantial portion of his effort on what kids eat -- specifically what schools feed to kids. Obviously at face value this is an inarguably noble cause.

It should be said that I'm actually a big fan of Jamie Oliver's. I used to watch his BBC show The Naked Chef semi-religiously; I bought several of his cookbooks and I always admired not only his technique as a chef but his philosophy of teaching people to cook rather than simply training them to adhere to recipes and mimic styles. In other words, I'm always more than willing to give Jamie the benefit of the doubt. But something about the tone of last night's show, and maybe the show in general, really irked the hell out of me.

You'd be a fool to deny that we have a very serious problem with obesity -- particularly childhood obesity -- in this country. While I've argued plenty of times before about the media's irrepressibly giddy lust for slapping the term "epidemic" on any and every problem that affects a large enough group, there are far too many obscenely overweight people across this great land of ours and if you think it's simply a personal decision that affects no one but them and the Wal-Mart scooters whose suspension systems they push to the point of collapse, think again; the fact is that you and I ultimately pay for the health issues all that weight brings with it, even if we're not the ones packing on the pounds (which statistics say we likely are at this point). We pay via higher health insurance premiums, higher prices from businesses forced to either accommodate the obese or work around the days off from work they're inevitably forced to take, and more strain on Medicare. According to one statistic, if the obesity rate in this country continues to climb, by 2018 it will cost America $344 billion annually. So, yeah, it's our collective best interest as a nation to slim the hell down.

So why did it bug me to watch Jamie Oliver condescendingly castigate the owner of an independent restaurant in Los Angeles for having the temerity to serve milkshakes that contain actual ice cream as opposed to, say, yogurt and fruit? That's exactly what happened at one point, with Jamie seeming exasperated at the notion that someone would want to serve a customer a milkshake if that's what he or she orders. "That's not a milkshake; that's a smoothie," the restaurant owner says. "But why does it have to be? It's a milkshake," Jamie responds. I get that Jamie Oliver is undertaking the herculean task of trying to get us to change the way we think about the food we eat on a level that's DNA-deep, but I couldn't help but think that the hapless guy trying to run the restaurant aimed at, oh I don't know, giving people what they ask for, was right and his inquisitor from across the pond was wrong. People should be encouraged to buy smoothies rather than milkshakes; each of us should know what one can do to our health versus the other. But if somebody wants a milkshake, that person should be able to get a freaking milkshake. Once again, while there's an argument to be made that I'll eventually pay for the ingestion of too many shakes one way or the other, I'm not sure I or anyone else should be denied something that's harmless in moderation just because somebody else can't control him or herself and treats fatty foods like cocaine.

Jamie Oliver's biggest push, though, is something he and his army of acolytes have been following up for the last 14 hours or so via the circulation of a petition on Twitter. Jamie's white whale of the night -- one which keeps jumping out of the water as the series progresses -- was of course school cafeterias, mostly because they've got a captive audience and have a monumental impact on how someone's diet develops throughout his or her life. So what do Jamie & Co. want? No "sugary milk" in school cafeterias. In other words, they want to see chocolate milk, strawberry milk, any milk besides just plain old milk banned. Again, I get the argument that little good comes from giving kids milk that pumps them full of sugar and empty calories, but is an outright ban on it really the way to go? What about the child who just likes chocolate milk and can actually handle drinking a carton of it without ballooning into a mocha-colored Violet Beauregarde? At what point do we draw the line? At what point do we decide to stop protecting some at the expense of the legitimate desires of others?

I'm all for healthier options at America's schools; that and food education are musts at this point in our evolution as a nation. But there's a difference between an option and a mandate. And while it makes sense for Jamie Oliver and his Food Revolutionaries to fire all guns at once with the understanding that it may be what's required to effect even a small amount of necessary change, there's still something decidedly draconian about pushing to reflexively relieve us of our freedom of choice when it comes to what we eat.

Now, who's up for an In-N-Out Double-Double?

Related: DXM: Feast of Burden/11.25.09


Mike said...

See, here's the thing: someone else's terrible eating habits increase the cost of my (and everyone else's) health care. Yeah, everyone knows that moderation is key. But have you looked around lately? There are a lot of people who don't know how to moderate.

I think it's pretty absurd to ban a certain size of soft drink too, but there's scientific literature to support the idea that decreasing the size of a product leads to eating less of it (the argument against "Well, I'll just have two 16 ounce soda's instead!"). And until someone comes up with a better idea to curb obesity, I'm willing to try this one out and see if it works.

Mozglubov said...

There is an important distinction that so many who are upset by the ban seem to miss: this isn't a regulation on how much soda a person can drink, it is a regulation on how that soda can be marketed to consumers.

Anonymous said...

Soda size, I could not care less.
Buy two. Buy three. Buy 14 and pour them into a solar-cooled vat that you carry around on your back like a fire-jumper. I have other issues with this post...first and foremost, Jamie Oliver.

It would be one thing if that fucker ever cooked anything more taxing than a damn omelet...or had any particular claim to culinary skill besides being a famous TV dork chef...but the simple fact is that he couldn't cook his way out of a soggy Arby's bag.
He's opposed to food made from 'Pink slime'? Who isn't (ADM notwithstanding)?
He thinks school cafeteria food suffers in comparison to Wolfgang Puck? Who doesn't?
Jamie Oliver is the Ric Romero of TV kitchens: no particular skill, and doesn't know what the word "Lit'rilly" means.

It's coming - you KNOW it's coming - Jamie Oliver and Snooki: Cooking for Guidos.

Chez said...

Of course, Moz. I figured that went without saying.

disputin said...

Bloomberg missed the boat. Instead of outlawing it, just tax it. Every ounce over 16, and you pay more. Two 16 ounce soda's will be cheaper, but I bet 1) less people would by larger soda's (his intent), 2) generate revenue....

Matt said...

The thing that gets me is that he said in an interview that if people wanted more soda, they could just buy two. Since the price difference between 2 16 oz. sodas and one 32 oz soda is huge, it seems to me that this move is as much about increased revenue as it is health.

Chris said...

When my wife and I go to the movies (or, infrequently, to a fast food place) we order one large-ish soda and SHARE it. It's a great way to save a couple coins. Taking away that option is foolish.

Unknown said...

Fuck me. Fuck you. Fuck it all.
There's actually a goddamn debate about whether or not a damn few people ought to be able to buy a swimming pool full of bubbly sugar water.
Go fuck yourselves and die a useful fed to crabs death.

Chez said...

Clint Eastwood, everybody. Give it up for him.

Mart said...

I have worked at dozens of sugar refineries and fructose factories, and picked up a few tidbits along the way. Humans evolved without sugar in the diet - maybe 20 teaspoons per year. When then rare refined cane sugar made its way from Asia to Western Europe; royalty treated it like cocaine . Napoleon learned that a process had been developed to refine sugar from beets. He built beet sugar refineries throughout Europe to fund his army. The global sugar rush was on. Depending on whose estimate you read, the average American consumes well over 100, maybe over 160 pounds of sugar per year. (We are No.1, go USA!) It is no wonder it is killing us, the body simply is not designed for its consumption. The nice thing is of course, you can blame it on the French.

C.L.J. said...

Personally, I wish that these vendors would downsize on their own; we got here not because anyone WANTED a huge freaking soda: we got here because we're stupid.

12 ounce soda prices went up, even as the cost of manufacture went down. When consumers began complaining about the cost, soda companies responded by selling larger containers at a lower cost per oz than the smaller containers. Still cost has much to make, but we thought "hey, when we buy too much, we get more for less, so we're technically saving money."
The same approach has been applied to all kinds of consumables.
Compare the relative costs of a McDonald's lunch today versus one from 1965. Adjusted for inflation, we're paying a few cents more for the meal, but by the ounce, we're paying far less. Only the 1965 standard lunch order was 550 calories, and the current standard is 1790 calories. One meal provides almost your entire day's caloric count, and we haven't counted breakfast, dinner, or snacks. THAT is why we are fat.

We were happy with the simpler meal; nobody was clamoring for the larger burgers, but marketing made us desire the bigger meal that was a "better value" per measurement.

Why should we care? Because the cost taking care of fat people is driving up health care costs for everyone else.

ZIRGAR said...

A few years back Jamie Oliver came to Huntington, WV (the most overweight town in America, and fifty miles from where I live) to teach the kids about good nutrition; he explained what was actually in a Chicken McNugget, and frankly, it grossed me out, so when he was done explaining the horrors of McNuggetery, smug in the knowledge that he'd cured these kids of eating this crap, he asked the children who would still want a McNugget after knowing what it was in it, almost every kid raised his/her hand. I died laughing.

Jennifer said...

The Daily Show did a great piece on this topic a few weeks ago. And I couldn't agree with him more.