Move over, Mary Jane, there's a new bad girl in town -- March 6, 2014 column

By MARSHA MERCER

For Ronald Reagan’s first presidential inauguration in 1981, a candy company sent three-and-a-half tons of red, white and blue jelly beans to the White House.  

The candy was such a hit that Reagan jovially offered jelly beans to guests in the Oval Office and on Air Force One for the next eight years. First lady Nancy Reagan traveled the country warning young people to “just say no” to marijuana and other illegal substances.  

In those days, pot was the public enemy and sugar was just sweet. How quaint.

Today, the “evil weed” is seen increasingly as unthreatening, if not benign. Sugar is eyed as a gateway drug, blamed for everything from cavities and obesity to diabetes and heart disease.  

That sugar and marijuana have traded places in the public eye says a lot about how our culture and attitudes have changed. Nearly four in 10 Americans have tried marijuana, and more than half approve of legalizing it, polls show.  In 1969, the Woodstock year, only 12 percent approved, according to Gallup.

Twenty states allow medicinal use of marijuana, and voters in Colorado and Washington approved ballot measures in 2012 that legalize the use, cultivation and sales of marijuana to people 21 and over.

Other states don’t want to be left out of the blossoming pot economy. Oregon and Alaska are expected to put full legalization to the ballot test this November. Just the other day, the city council of the District of Columbia voted to decriminalize small amounts of pot.

Proponents see pot not only as an adult, personal choice, like alcohol, but also as an economic engine and boundless source of state tax revenue.  A TV ad that aired during the 2012 legalization campaign in Colorado showed a middle-aged mom who said she didn’t like pot but taxing it would mean money for schools and health care.  

In Denver, an enterprising Girl Scout troop set up its annual cookie sales table right outside a pot shop. And that leads us to sugar.    

If people are smiling on pot – at least for now – many have soured on sugar.

The World Health Organization says that our sugar intake should be no more than 5 percent of our total calories or about 6 teaspoons of sugar for women, 9 teaspoons for men.  A soft drink has up to 40 grams – about 10 teaspoons -- of sugar.

In England, chief medical officer Dame Sally Davies said last week that she believes “research will find sugar is addictive” and that “we may need to introduce a sugar tax.”

Several medical studies say sugar triggers the brain’s pleasure centers much the same way cocaine or heroin does. A study last year found Oreo cookies are as addictive as cocaine. Nobody wants to criminalize sugar, but many think more stringent labels and a tax on sugary soft drinks are good ideas.

First lady Michelle Obama last month unveiled proposed nutrition labels that will warn consumers how much added sugar is in their food. San Francisco and Berkeley, Calif., as well as Illinois are considering a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages.

When former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg tried to ban large sugary drinks, the courts slapped him down. Still, the publicity may have dampened New Yorkers’ thirst. Soda sales in New York declined nearly 7 percent over the 12 months ending last November.

The sugar and beverage industry groups insist that soft drinks are a small part of what Americans eat and drink. They say more research is needed and it’s unfair to blame sugar for America’s weight problem.   

Still, the potential tax revenue from sugar-sweetened  drinks is, well, intoxicating. The Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale University has a dandy calculator that shows how much each state could reap from a penny-per-ounce tax on sugary drinks. In Virginia, it’s $376.5 million a year. 

If we can legalize and tax marijuana, we should debate taxing sugary drinks. Oh, and pass the jelly beans. 

(C) 2014 Marsha Mercer. All rights reserved.

On sugary drinks and the right to be stupid -- March 14, 2013 column

By Marsha Mercer

Secretary of State John Kerry was right when he said, “In America you have a right to be stupid – if you want to be,” especially when it comes to drinking soda.

Kerry was talking to German students about political liberty, but we also take seriously our freedom to make bad food decisions.

Three-fourths of Americans disapprove of New York City’s ban on gigantic sodas, which a judge invalidated March 11, and about six in 10 say no to “sin” taxes on unhealthy foods and sodas, the Associated Press reported in January.

   

Downing the equivalent of 16 packets of sugar – the amount in a 20-ounce can of regular soda – is a personal choice, people say. OK, but where does personal freedom stop and public responsibility start?

Smoking was once considered a personal choice, but when the preponderance of evidence proved its health hazards, the government took action. Americans balked at first but then accepted warning labels on cigarette packages and higher taxes on cigarettes. Today, most people appreciate bans on smoking in offices, bars, restaurants, shops, movie theatres and sporting events. We’re glad not to breathe second-hand smoke or wear it in our hair and clothes.

Similarly, we’ve come to appreciate seat belts and, in all but a few states, motorcycle helmet laws that limit our freedom for the greater good of survival.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s soda rule has flaws, but its intent – “to address the super-size trend and reacquaint New Yorkers with smaller portion sizes, leading to a reduction in consumption of sugary drinks” – is sensible. There’s a consensus that Americans are getting fatter and sicker, and that soft drinks are partly – but not totally – to blame.

 “There is very real evidence now that soft drinks are related to weight gain and obesity and, most certainly, diabetes,” nutrition expert Dr. Walter Willett of Harvard School of Public Health told NBC News.

Diabetes is epidemic, Willett and others say. Among Americans 20 and older, 11.3 percent have diabetes, and among those 65 and older, nearly one in three have the disease, according to the American Diabetes Association, which says the cost of diabetes last year reached $245 billion, up 41 percent in just five years.

 

A 2004 Harvard study found that women who drank one or more sugary drinks per day had an 83 percent greater risk of developing Type 2 diabetes than women who rarely drank them.

Limiting consumption of sugary drinks in hopes of improving health is New York’s approach. But state Supreme Court justice Milton Tingling said it was arbitrary, capricious and full of loopholes. The rule applied to cafes and restaurants but not to convenience stores. It regulated sodas but not milkshakes or alcoholic beverages, which have more calories. It allowed unlimited soda refills, effectively gutting the restriction.

Portion control would create “an administrative Leviathan,” Tingling wrote a day before the rule was to go into effect.

Bloomberg, dubbed “Nanny B” by critics, is appealing the ruling. He says he’s confident the rule will stand and will become a model for other localities. New York was among the first to eliminate trans-fats in prepared foods and require calorie counts on menus.

The American Heart Association recommends that women have no more than six teaspoons and men nine teaspoons of added sugar a day. Americans eat about 22 ½ teaspoons a day in everything from soda and candy to cakes and sweetened yogurt.

Consumption of sugary drinks already has declined, says the American Beverage Association, which notes the average number of calories in a beverage serving has dropped 23 percent since 1998 because more people are drinking diet and low-cal drinks and bottled water.

If Bloomberg is right that sugar is the next tobacco, could a sugar tax be waiting in the wings? President Barack Obama has said a tax is worth exploring. Congress rejected a sugar tax as part of health reform because it’s so unpopular.

For now, we have the right to be stupid – without paying one penny more.

© 2013 Marsha Mercer. All rights reserved.

30