I love how the setting sun funnels down our street like this. I stepped out last night to grab a few groceries, and it was beautiful and blinding.
What’s good around the web is a weekly series where I share some of what I’ve been reading around the web. Each week I’ll be posting links to five nutrition related articles, good recipes, and just general good reads. I hope you enjoy it! If you’ve got at article or recipe you’d like to see featured,please email me.
1. Has the advice to avoid giving children foods with known allergen risk (like peanut butter, eggs, shellfish) in the first year of their life lead to an increase in food allergies?
2. Are you eating gluten-free because you think it’s a healthier diet? You may want to pay attention to the important nutrients you might be missing out on.
3. Why do you eat? When do you eat? How do you eat? Is mindful eating a practice you’re familiar with?
4. Did you know that water is America’s favourite drink? I only wish that didn’t mean so many plastic bottles.
5. And, of course you’ve probably heard that the New York ban on super sized sugary beverages was overturned in the 11th hour.
What do you think about this soda ban business? Some people think that the judge’s decision to overturn the ban at the last minute is a tragic loss for public health. Others think of it as a victory for personal rights and freedom. I can see both perspectives. While I do find the existence of such large sizes of sugary drinks disturbing from a health point of view, the reality is that we live in a world where cigarettes are readily available in spite of clear and concrete evidence about the harmful effects of smoking.
But, unlike gigantic sugary drinks, tobacco is heavily taxed, as is alcohol. In Sweden alcohol is taxed by percentage. A 4.5% beer is taxed at a much lower rate than a bottle of 40% vodka, the justification being that you’re much less likely to drink yourself to death on beer than vodka. Hard alcohol is so expensive here that I really can’t afford to drink it. A martini or a high ball ordered from a bar would end up costing around $25 – $30, and it’s much cheaper for us to buy Swedish vodka overseas and bring it back than to buy it here.
I can still choose to drink high percentage alcohol if I want to, but I’m going to pay for it. Perhaps rather than an out right ban on gigantic sugary drinks, the ridiculously large sizes should be the most expensive option, rather than the cheapest. If you want to drink a bucket of soda that’s your right, but perhaps the price should reflect the potential damage that amount of sugar can do.
Thoughts?
All text and photos © The Muffin Myth 2013
When my second child was born the public health nurse admitted that the idea of holding off on potential allergens was actually never researched and based on speculation alone. I can’t believe it was passed off as science!. Good thing I rarely take parenting advice as a hard and fast truth.
As per the large soft drink ban? I think all we can do is educate, educate, educate. There are still smokers out there, but a lot less than 30 years ago.
So much stuff is passed off as science without a proper scientific foundation. It’s totally crazy how matter of factly we’re told certain things, and then when you really start looking into it there isn’t any information to back up those claims.
I do hope that 30 years from now people look back and think it’s crazy to be drinking soda from a bucket.
i have to admit i was glad the judge over ruled the ban on large sized drinks. while i would consume them, i do feel it is an individual’s decision to make. In my opinion the government should not be dictating how we live our own lives be that in terms of food selection or who choose to have a relationship with or with a million other choices we have to make on a daily basis. are we going to get to a point where an individual can say “well the government did not tell me i can not therefore it must be ok”? i think we need more individual responsibility and accountability for our decisions and not less.
I agree, Jacquie, that people should have a right to choose what they eat and drink, among other things. The issue I have is that there is overwhelming evidence connecting sugary drinks, especially gigantic sugary drinks, to a slew of health problems which become a burden on society. The issue with soda is that unlike cigarettes or alcohol, it’s insanely cheap, especially in the gigantic size. People who don’t know any better, or who can’t afford to make a different choice, or who are trying to get the best value for their dollars, will continue to buy these insanely large cheap sugary beverages. We know how bad the stuff is for us, especially in the large sizes, so *something* should be done. A total ban may be too extreme, but a price reflecting the danger would maybe make people think a little harder before the buy, and ultimately consume, a liter of nutritionally void sugary drink.
So I’m torn. While I believe in people’s right to choose, I don’t think a ten gallon tub of soda is a choice anyone should be making. I like your idea of raising the price, but I also think the marketing has to change. Once upon a time, we used to advertise the heck out of cigarettes and that’s no longer the case. The same needs to happen for soda pop and processed food. I hope I’m around to see it happen.
I’m with you, Meghan! Freedom of choice is important, but please don’t make that one! People focus on individual rights, but when so many individuals are making themselves sick with the stuff, it becomes a public health issue and the state has to get involved. It’s not a simple issue, but I think you’re right about education. It’ll take more than education though, money needs to be redirected away from big soda and big food and into nourishing people in a sustainable way. I, too, hope I’m around to see that happen.
Agreed; the wrong companies are getting the subsidies, the marketing is jacked up and with food deserts, real food isn’t even an option for so many. We’ve created a monster with our current food system. Sorry, I get all worked up.
I do too! But, that’s why I do what I do. Be a part of the solution!
Katie, I want to comment on everything you’ve listed here– such an interesting week in food news! I will stick to one, though, and that’s the food allergies article. We are proponents of the hygeinic theory, ourselves, and as such though it’d be a good idea to introduce the baby (gradually and under supervision) to all kinds of foods in his infancy. A few weeks ago, at his 9 month checkup, our pediatrician confirmed that, and encouraged us to feed him everything but honey in his first year. Since then, he’s taken to eggs and dairy, and he LOVES peanut butter and shrimp. It’s fun because now he really is eating what we’re eating, just cut up small, so it’s really neat to see what his preferences are. And I’m pretty sure he loves eating at the table with us, and seeing that we’re eating the same thing– I believe that’s the beginning of good food and eating habits. Since, he’s started sleeping through the night (thirteen hours!!), is happier, and naps better during the day. Is all this coincidence? Very possibly. At the least, its anecdotal “evidence,” which isn’t evidence, but the science behind telling people to introduce those foods at a young age is much more compelling than the other argument, so I’ll take it. We were very wary, initially, because our nephew has a severe nut allergy and we wanted to be prudent. But it just makes more sense to me not to hold off. I think sometimes we mess with things for no good reason, and I want to do the right thing but I DEFINITELY want to see the evidence.
Leanne, I think you’re on the right track. When I was doing my BSc in nutrition I remember reading about this guy who, after years of suffering from all kinds of allergies, went to Africa in search of a specific parasite (after doing a lot of research) and after he intentionally infected himself, his allergies disappeared. This came up because we were discussing a food aid product called Plumpy Nut, which is given to kids in extreme starvation situations. It’s 25% peanuts, 25% milk, 25% oil, and 25% sugar, and the question was, what was the impact of giving a food aid product of which 50% was known allergens. It doesn’t seem to be an issue. So what is it? Hygiene? Exposure? Genetics? Not sure.
The Mindfulness Article is very good. I saw it while on vacation in Europe so could not spend time really reading it. I did notice a bit more structured approach than old and new mindfulness practice. I think for those who can embrace it has huge potential.
Now I am going to my cushion to meditate on cheesecake. Mmmmm. And of course read the article.