cross-posted at annoyedomnivore.wordpress.com
It has been established for years that consumption of soda and other sugary drinks is a leading cause of obesity. Mexico’s population, apparently, is the single largest per-capita consumer of Coca-Cola products, and has now surpassed the U.S. to become, by some estimates, the most obese country in the world at 32.8% to our 31.8%. The Mexican government, led by President Enrique Pena Nieto, recently signed into law measures that impose taxes on junk food and sweet drinks. The tax on soda is one peso or eight cents a liter, and in the last year has caused a dip in Coca-Cola sales.
There were two initiatives on the ballot in San Francisco (Proposition E) and Berkeley (Proposition D) that would have placed a tax on sweetened drinks. San Francisco’s tax would have amounted to 2 cents per ounce. The tax in San Francisco would have been directed toward childhood nutrition and recreation, and would therefore require a two thirds majority vote, while Berkeley’s tax would go into the general fund, requiring only a simple majority. These ballot measures sparked national interest and the Big Soda branch of world control is definitely paying attention.
The American Beverage Association (ABA), which exists primarily as the lobbying arm for Big Soda, pumped up their lobbying muscle in response to the success of the tax in Mexico, and also in response to a New England Journal of Medicine study published in 2009. That study linked consumption of sweetened drinks to obesity, diabetes and heart disease. Another study conducted this year by the University of Southern California demonstrates a connection between sugar consumption by adolescents and children and memory problems. The ABA spent $10 million to defeat these measures. As more people become aware of the dangers to their health from the consumption of sugar, these tax laws could gain traction, and as that would affect profits for Big Soda, they definitely want to stop the momentum. The prevailing assumption is that if they can prevent these measures from becoming law in two of the most liberal cities in America, it would effectively put an end to future attempts. And you can be sure that Big Soda was aware that if Proposition E and D passed, it would have reduced consumption of sugary drinks by 30%. Former Secretary of Labor, Robert Reich, who lives in Berkeley, said “If a soda tax can’t pass in the most progressive city in America, it can’t pass anywhere. Big Soda knows that, which is why it’s determined to kill it here.”
One argument being used by the ABA is that poor people would obviously be more affected by a soda tax, particularly as they are the largest group of soda consumers. Obesity, however, overwhelmingly afflicts the poor, and this particular problem is far deeper and more complex than can be addressed by soda and taxes. In any case, I’m sure executives at Coca-Cola and Pepsi don’t conduct meetings to worry about poor people. The fact remains, as was pointed out in a 2010 Harvard Kennedy School report, that “soft drinks are the single largest contributor to caloric intake in the United States, [and] research has shown that consumption of soft drinks not only increases rates of obesity but is associated with poor diet and a greater risk for diabetes. These links are especially strong for children.” Diabetes alone kills as many as 70,000 people a year in Mexico, and more cases are being diagnosed each year. In the U.S., close to 30 million people have diabetes, with 8 million people undiagnosed or unaware of their condition. And diagnosed cases, according to the CDC, costs the U.S. an estimated $245 billion a year.
That diabetes is preventable and can be eliminated is a good enough reason to increase education concerning the dangers of soft drink consumption. I believe it is the provenance of government to safeguard the health and welfare of its citizens rather than allowing corporate interests the same privilege. Many people rail against any attempt to control what they eat and drink, but passively ceding control of what we consume to multinational corporations is simply another grand example of corporate welfare – they reap the profits while we suffer the economic consequences.
Unfortunately, Proposition E in San Francisco failed, but Proposition D in Berkeley passed overwhelmingly.
Recipe of the Week
This recipe can either be extremely simple and quick or a little more complicated, depending on whether you want to add the meat. It’s a faux bolognese, but with the addition of chicken meatballs flavored with pancetta and rosemary becomes a substantial meal.
Spaghetti with Chicken Meatballs
For the Sauce:
2 cups canned organic whole tomatoes, pureed
3 tbls. organic tomato paste
one small onion, minced
5 celery stalks, chopped
one small carrot, diced
6 cloves garlic, minced
3 tbls. extra virgin olive oil
1 cup milk
1/2 cup white wine
Heat the oil in a cast iron pan. Add the onion, celery and carrot and saute until the onion becomes translucent. Add the garlic and cook for under a minute. Add the tomato paste and wine and cook for two or three minutes. Add the tomatoes and milk and simmer for 20 minutes. Check for salt and pepper. This sauce is good for about 1/2 pound of pasta.
Chicken Meatballs
1/2 pound ground chicken breast meat
1/2 pound ground chicken dark meat
3 ounces pancetta, finely chopped or ground
1 slice of bread, briefly soaked in milk and squeezed out
2 sprigs of fresh rosemary, minced
salt and pepper
Form the mix into small meatballs, about the size of a walnut. Lightly oil a cookie pan and turn the oven to 350 degrees. Place all the balls on the pan and cook for about 15 minutes. Add the meatballs to the sauce and briefly reheat. Remember not to rinse the pasta after it’s drained. You can add parmesan if you like, but it doesn’t really need it.