Quantcast

Archive

Posts Tagged ‘legislation’

Soda Tax Saga: Will California Pave the Way to Legislation?

February 22nd, 2010 2 comments

If you have not been following the soda tax controversy lately, here’s a quick update. In the past year,  Capitol Hill and even the President have said that taxing sugary soft drinks may be a good way to reduce consumption and create a $50B revenue stream for the federal government over the next decade.

The American Beverage Association spun into action in order to kill any such legislative ideas, using TV commercials, direct lobbying efforts, and through persuading additional organizations representing Hispanics to join the fight. Why Hispanics? Because the numbers show that they are more apt to consume soft drinks on one hand, but have less to spend on the other. The soft drink industry repeatedly stated it is “protecting working families”.

All told, the ABA spent $18 million. The efforts succeeded, and just a few weeks ago it seemed as if all the congressmen who supported the tax suddenly had a change of heart. In launching her new campaign against childhood obesity, the First Lady also steered clear of the soda tax issue. In return, Coca Cola and Pepsi pledged to prominently display beverage calorie counts on their products.

Now for the news. Not content with the federal response, California is considering a state tax on soda, according to the Los Angeles Times:

Legislators last week pledged to pass such a tax in light of new studies linking soft drink consumption to obesity in children and adults. One study suggests that obesity and related problems cost California alone $41 billion a year in medical expenses and reduced productivity.

…When California Senate Majority Leader Dean Florez (D-Shafter) introduced his soda tax bill, he said one penny of tax per teaspoon of added sugar in any sweetened beverage would generate as much as $1.5 billion each year. That money would pay for parks, recreation and school health programs, Florez said. “The Legislature is primed for this bill,” Florez said, adding that he expects bipartisan support. read more…

And in an interesting turn of events, one of the Hispanic organizations that initially aligned itself with Coke decided to break away, and 2 Californian chapters of other organizations split from the still-in-bed-with-Coke national organizations. Bravo!

Our take on this issue is a bit different. While we certainly applaud any and all actions meant to decrease sugar consumption on a massive scale, the tax should be levied directly on manufacturers. Read more about “calorie offsets” that will squeeze the cash from rich corporation instead of “working families”.

What to do at the supermarket:

Whether you’re a working family or not, the easiest way to save $500 a year is to quit soft drinks and switch to tap water (for a family of four). You’ll save not just 5 Benjamins, but also several pounds of body weight, along with a decrease in tooth decay, and a general contribution to a greener earth.

Get Fooducated: RSS Subscription or Email Subscription

Follow us on twitter: twitter.com/fooducate

New! Choose a better breakfast with CerealScan™ by Fooducate

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Should There be a “Local” Label for Foods?

April 25th, 2009 No comments
even at the NY Union Square greenmarket, here's a SxSWi bag

flickr photo: kthread

Organic food gets a nice seal of approval from the USDA that we can all see on the package. And meats imported from abroad must be labeled with their country of origin. (COOL Legislation).

But some markings on foods are not regulated at all. The most common is the “Natural” label which has been slapped on every kind of food imaginable.it is meaningless in that “natural” in no way means “healthy”.

The latest trend is to mark foods as “local”. But what does local mean? Fresher, Tastier, Healthier, and Better for planet Earth? The Guardian, a well respected UK newspaper, asks, and immediately answers:

Has ‘local’ become as meaningless as ‘natural’?

It is the latest supermarket buzz word, which is vague at best and misleading at the very worst

For a couple of years now we’ve been told that local is the new organic, the next fad for the ethically-minded food shopper. And, hey, it’s true! How do I know? Because the supermarkets have got hold of the idea. Sales of “local” foods and drinks are up 30% at Tesco, 41% at Asda. “Local” is as big as fish now, says Asda. The store is “very proud” to be stocking 6,500 “local” lines.

read the full article…

What you need to know:

Food manufacturers and supermarkets have one goal – to sell us as much as possible. The creative marketing people working for these corporations have a keen sense for what is popular with the public. And they know very well to translate it into messages that play all the right chords on our mind.

Low-fat was a big hit, then low-carb. Organic is huge, despite a current blow due to the faltering economy.

And Local has now become the flavor de jour. Never mind the little discrepancies, such as the food actually arriving from hundreds of miles away, or stored for 6 months in chillers, or picked from a nearby orchard but shipped halfway across the country to a sorting and washing facility.

What to do at the supermarket:

As Mark Bittman, cookbook author and NY Times food writer explains:

You can’t trust the supermarket companies to sell you only good, wholesome food. Yet they’ll try to convince you that everything they sell is exactly that. So: skip the [marketing] labels, watch what you buy, and strive for goodness, no matter where you find it.

Keep this in mind the next time you shop at the supermarket. Or, try a farmers market nearby. It’s springtime and there should be one open near you every weekend.

Get Fooducated: RSS Subscription or Email Subscription

Follow us on twitter: twitter.com/fooducate

Help us test our new food comparison tool: alpha.fooducate.com

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

California to Ban Antibiotics In Livestock?

April 23rd, 2009 2 comments
A cow and sheep pastured together in South Africa
Image via Wikipedia

Did you know that antibiotics are regularly added to livestock feed in the US?

This may change if California’s State Senate passes a bill…

…that would bar ranchers and farmers, starting in 2015, from giving feed containing antibiotics to healthy animals to promote growth and ward off disease.

The bill would also prohibit schools, starting in 2012, from serving students meat from animals that have been routinely treated with antibiotics and would require state and local government facilities to try to buy antibiotic-free meat for their kitchens.

read the news item from KCRA…

What you need to know:

Antibiotics help stave off illness, but when constantly provided to healthy animals, may result in mutated strains of bacteria that are more powerful and harmful to both animals and humans.

Just as you wouldn’t give a healthy child antibiotics on a daily basis, there should be no reason to do so with bovines. So why do growers do so?

Unfortunately for most cows, they aren’t born into an ideal farm surrounding where they graze merrily in open pasture.They lead a short and miserable life in CAFOs (concentrated animal feeding operations) which are more like factories than farms. The animals are held in very close quarters, with little room to move and exercise. As a result, they are more prone to illness, and receive daily preventive doses of medicine.

What to do at the supermarket:

Today the only way to get antibiotic free meat and poultry is to buy organic or from a trusted local farm. It’s much more expensive, mind you, than “regular” beef, but for many people it is the only logical choice, from a health perspective as well as a moral one.

And who says we gotta eat meat every day?

Get Fooducated: RSS Subscription or Email Subscription

Follow us on twitter: twitter.com/fooducate

Help us test our new food comparison tool: alpha.fooducate.com

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Calorie Information – Now at a Pizza Hut Near You

October 2nd, 2008 No comments
Pizza hut

flickr photo: markhillary

Americans spend over 40% of their food dollars outside the home, in restaurants and fast food chains. Many experts see these meals as a prime contributor to the obesity epidemic, as fast food tends to be nutritionally inferior to home cooked meals. New York City enacted a menu labeling law earlier this year, and several other cities followed suit. Each menu item now includes information about calories, fat, sodium, and sugar, helping consumers make more informed meal choices.

Yesterday two more milestones in menu labeling were achieved:

1. California became the first state to enact a menu labeling law. From the LA Times:

Consumers are typically unable to correctly guess the nutritional content of fast food. One study found nine of 10 people underestimated the calorie content of certain restaurant foods by an average of 600 calories. Another study found that even professional nutritionists underestimated the calorie content of restaurant food by 220 to 680 calories.

2. Yum Brands, the owner of Pizza Hut, KFC and others will start adding calorie counts to all food on the menu, in company owned branches across the nation.

Now lets see if consumer habits will begin to change…

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]