Hizzoner in New York City seems to think he was elected Chief Food Nanny. A couple of years ago (geez, time flies!) I wrote about his moronic assault on salt<\/a> (which isn\u2019t based on anything resembling good science, never mind good policy).<\/p>\n Now Hizzoner wants to ban the sale of large sodas<\/a> \u2013 you can guess why:<\/p>\n New York City plans to enact a far-reaching ban on the sale of large sodas and other sugary drinks at restaurants, movie theaters and street carts, in the most ambitious effort yet by the Bloomberg administration to combat rising obesity. <\/span><\/p>\n The proposed ban would affect virtually the entire menu of popular sugary drinks found in delis, fast-food franchises and even sports arenas, from energy drinks to pre-sweetened iced teas. The sale of any cup or bottle of sweetened drink larger than 16 fluid ounces \u2014 about the size of a medium coffee, and smaller than a common soda bottle \u2014 would be prohibited under the first-in-the-nation plan, which could take effect as soon as next March.<\/span><\/p>\n Remember when McDonald\u2019s was under pressure (from Morgan Spurlock, to name just prominent one busybody) to get rid of super-sized meals? They did \u2013 seven years ago. Boy, the nation sure got thinner and less diabetic, didn\u2019t it?<\/p>\n No, of course not. That\u2019s because the idea that large drinks and large meals sold by vendors are the root cause of obesity is based on a flawed theory:\u00a0 we eat too much because others serve us too much.<\/em><\/p>\n That\u2019s not how it works. We eat (and drink) to match our appetites. One of the obese people Spurlock interviewed in Super Size Me <\/em>said he fills his traveling Big Gulp cup six times per day. Ban 7-11 from serving someone like that a 44-ounce drink, and he\u2019ll just make more trips to 7-11. Or he\u2019ll buy a 2-liter bottle at the grocery store and carry it with him. Soda addicts will get their fix, period.<\/p>\n I suspect the law of unintended consequences will kick in, too. Restaurants and convenience stores will offer 2-for-1 specials on sodas, and the soda addicts will buy themselves two (or three, or four) drinks that meet Hizzoner\u2019s limit on cup size. Then a year or so after the big-cup ban sets in, New York newspapers will be running articles on the sudden and unexplained rise in empty cups and bottles littering the streets.<\/p>\n But here\u2019s the biggest reason the ban is stupid: it\u2019s none of Mayor Bloomberg\u2019s business how much sugary soda you drink.\u00a0 I’d urge you to drink none at all, but that should be your decision … not mine, or his, or anyone else’s.<\/p>\n Nope, it\u2019s still HFCS \u2026 not \u201ccorn sugar\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n The FDA has denied a petition<\/a> by the Corn Refiners Association to legally change the name of high fructose corn syrup to corn sugar<\/em>. Frankly, I don\u2019t care either way. Poison is poison, no matter what you call it. The mystery to me is why the Corn Refiners think renaming their product will make a difference. I can only guess they assume most people are stupid.<\/p>\n \u201cMarge, don\u2019t order that! It\u2019s full of high fructose corn syrup! Don\u2019t you know what people say about that stuff?\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cBut this brand is sweetened with corn sugar<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cOh \u2026 well in that case, order me one too.\u201d<\/p>\n Obese and homeless<\/strong><\/p>\n In his books and lectures, Gary Taubes has pointed out that poverty and obesity are often found in the same populations … so much for the popular idea that we\u2019re fat because we\u2019re too prosperous. Apparently even the poorest of the poor in America have a high rate of obesity, according to this CNN article<\/a>:<\/p>\n While the popularized image of a homeless individual is one of skin and bones, a new study shows the reality is not so. One in three (32.3%) homeless individuals in the United States is obese, highlighting a hunger-obesity paradox.<\/span><\/p>\n The paradox is that hunger and obesity can exist in the same person. And although a person may be overweight or obese, he or she can lack proper nutrition.<\/span><\/p>\n Nutrition is a daily challenge for homeless people, as the foods they manage to get are often full of preservatives and high in sodium, fats and sugars. They may not have access to healthier options like fresh fruits and vegetables.<\/span><\/p>\n Here we go with the fruits and vegetables will solve the obesity problem <\/em>nonsense again. I give it maybe five years before the federal government has stepped in to ensure that absolutely every American has easy access to fruits and vegetables \u2013 and we\u2019ll be just as fat.<\/p>\n By the way, a friend of mine once handed an apple to a homeless guy in Chicago. The guy cursed at him and threw it in the street. He didn\u2019t want an apple; he wanted a couple of bucks so he could buy a bottle of cheap liquor.<\/p>\n The human body might be hoarding calories, as an adaptive response when people do not consistently have enough to eat. The body\u2019s response could contribute to obesity, by \u201cbecoming more efficient at storing more calories as fat,\u201d according to the report. Also, people who are homeless are more likely to suffer from a lack of sleep and high stress, which contribute to obesity.<\/span><\/p>\n Now we\u2019re getting somewhere \u2026<\/p>\n \u201cIt just mirrors what Americans look like in general,\u201d said Barbara Dipietro, policy director of the National Health Care for the Homeless Council. \u201cIt follows the homeless in general. They are more economically driven. They are intact families and people who are coming into homelessness, who don\u2019t come with behavioral health issues. When we look at the homeless population, we think they\u2019re different, but they\u2019re like everyone else.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Uh, no, they\u2019re not. As much as homeless advocates (and Hollywood film producers) like to portray the majority of the homeless as people just like you and me who happened to hit an unlucky streak, that\u2019s simply not the case. Most are addicts or mentally ill. An estimated one-third are schizophrenics. But that\u2019s another issue.<\/p>\n \u201cNutritious food is really expensive compared to other food choices,\u201d she said. \u201cIf you\u2019re living on food stamps, on disability or safety net, or living on nothing, that\u2019s the food you\u2019re going to have to get. A salad is not in the cards.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n It doesn\u2019t take salads to make fat people thin, Ms. Homeless Advocate. But I agree about the cheap food. I served meals in a homeless shelter in Chicago when I lived there, and the food was mostly carbs, carbs and more carbs. Pasta was on the menu several times per week, bread was on the menu every night.<\/p>\n Or it could just be that the homeless are choosing too much highly-palatable food.<\/p>\n Shoe company sued for health claims<\/strong><\/p>\n Boy, the U.S. government is really cracking down on unfounded health claims<\/a>:<\/p>\n Skechers advertised that its toning shoes would help people lose weight, build muscle and get in shape, claims that will now cost the company $40 million in a settlement with U.S. regulators.<\/span><\/p>\n The Federal Trade Commission announced today that the company has agreed to the settlement on charges that it “deceived consumers by making unfounded claims” about its Shape-ups, Resistance Runner, Toners and Tone-ups lines of shoes. Consumers who bought the shoes are entitled to refunds.<\/span><\/p>\n “Skechers’ unfounded claims went beyond stronger and more toned muscles. The company even made claims about weight loss and cardiovascular health,” David Vladeck, director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, said in a statement. “The FTC’s message, for Skechers and other national advertisers, is to shape up your substantiation or tone down your claims.”<\/span><\/p>\n So \u2026 does mean the FTC is going to sue all the companies promoting healthywholegrain <\/em>cereals? Or the pharmaceutical companies pushing statins for women and elderly? Talk about unfounded health claims.<\/p>\n Better yet, how about if the FTC sues the USDA for its lousy and unfounded dietary recommendations?<\/p>\n The Institute for Justice takes on the Cooksey blogger case<\/strong><\/p>\n Yes! Yeee-har! The Institute for Justice, a pro-liberty legal group, is coming to the aid of Steve Cooksey<\/a>, the blogger who was targeted by North Carolina<\/a> after some dietitians complained about him giving out dietary advice without a license. Here\u2019s part of their online announcement:<\/p>\n Can the government throw you in jail for offering advice on the Internet about what food people should buy at the grocery store?<\/span><\/p>\n That is exactly the claim made by the North Carolina Board of Dietetics\/Nutrition. In December 2011, diabetic blogger Steve Cooksey started a Dear Abby-style advice column on his popular blog (www.diabetes-warrior.net) to answer reader questions. One month later, the State Board informed Steve that he could not give readers advice on diet, whether for free or for compensation, because doing so constituted the unlicensed, and thus criminal, practice of dietetics. <\/span><\/p>\n But the First Amendment does not allow the government to ban people from sharing ordinary advice about diet, or scrub the Internet\u2014from blogs to Facebook to Twitter\u2014of speech the government does not like. North Carolina can no more force Steve to become a licensed dietitian than it could require Dear Abby to become a licensed psychologist.<\/span><\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.fathead-movie.com\/images\/NutritionWorksheet.jpg\")
<\/p>\n