by Barbara Berkeley, MD
In the war for the way America eats, the most recent battle went to Big Soda. Citing "personal freedoms" the Coke and Pepsi folks raised their glasses to Thursday's court decision that overturned the New York City limit on soft drink size. How much would you like to bet that those happy executives were not toasting with the sugar-filled products they sell? Heck no. They want to live long enough to spend their fortunes.
To be clear, the soda "ban" was not a draconian decree that prevented people from engorging themselves with as much sugar as they wanted. It simply limited the top dispensing size for sugared drinks to 16 ounces. Want to refill or buy another? No problem.
Essentially, the size restriction for soda was no more than a way of slowing people down; perhaps making them think about going back for more. Or perhaps showing them that 16 ounces was enough to satisfy. Both the soft drink lobby and its vendors cited interference with "freedom to choose" in their noble defense of removing the ban. It is the height of hypocrisy to cite personal choice when you produce a product that completely co-opts personal choice by addicting consumers. Perhaps I am just unduly cynical, but somehow I believe that this issue has more to do with.....well, money.
Isn't it interesting, then, that the NY Post reports:
In the meantime, Coke and Pepsi have also been rolling out smaller cans and bottles, some as small as 7.5 ounces. The idea is that people would be more willing to drink soda if they could control the portion sizes. The smaller sizes are also more profitable for companies.
In other words, the soda industry has figured out that smaller sizes, significantly smaller than those proposed by the soda ban, may actually boost sales. They are privately doing exactly what Bloomberg wanted the city to do.
So what was the big objection to limiting soda size? Simply that it doesn't look good. It implies that soda is a harmful substance and that this viewpoint is endorsed by a public entity: the City of New York. If Coke and Pepsi have correctly surmised that cutting down the size of sodas boosts revenues, they should have nothing to worry about. The nicely addictive buzz of a brain floating in glucose will assure that people will keep consuming no matter what.
Yet the soda lobby is nervous. And perhaps Big Food is getting nervous too. Because while individual skirmishes won't change national behavior, a big swing in cultural perceptions will. This is what happened when America finally got educated about tobacco and it is beginning to happen in regard to sugar, starch and processed foods.
Each debate about the "nanny state", each minor skirmish in the food wars brings increased attention to what motivates the soda lobby and those who make most of our processed foods. That motivation is not our health. Whether the soda ban goes down to defeat or not, it makes people think. And eventually they may start to think this way: "I'm tired of some company which does not have my best interest at heart manipulating my food choice. I'm tired of finding myself in an addictive eating cycle and waking up each day on a slew of medication. I'm tired of watching my friends and relatives become diabetic. Maybe I'll just start eating simple food as it comes from the ground and from well-tended animals."
The war to control America's eating habits is not about who wins one battle, but about the attention and awareness these battles bring to a country that is very, very ready to feel alot healthier.