Précis: To summarize the Wall Street Journal article "Gillibrand Not Sweet On Sugary Drinks Plan" Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand is unsure if she yet supports Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Gov. David Paterson proposal to ban the purchasing of soda with food stamps. The proposal is meant to create better eating habits of New Yorkers, and is attempting to lower the cities obesity rate. By limiting which drinks can be bought with food stamps it directly affects the behavior of the adult rather than the child. The rule would apply to beverages containing more than 10 calories per 8 ounces, with an exception for fruit juices without added sugar and would be tested for two years.
View point one: Support of the proposal
By restricting that sugary drinks be bought with food stamps essentially the consumption of soda and other unhealthy sugary drinks would decrease amongst the lower income class in New York City. New Yorkers with the lowest income were most likely to consume one or more sugar-sweetened beverages a day, putting them at a greater risk of obesity and diabetes. “The obesity epidemic is also taking a toll on children. In New York City, close to 40 percent of public school students in kindergarten through 8th grade are overweight or obese. The figure is 46 percent for Hispanic students and 40 percent for black students.” The idea is that if there is no longer soda available in lower income households that children and adults won’t have the urge or capability to drink it. “The proposal for this initiative will not affect the total benefits received, but by cutting out sugary drinks it would increase the amount of money available for more nutritious foods and beverages.” This may work or will the excess money be spent on other types of sugary/high calorie foods? Health care costs caused by poor diet are paid by the city and taxpayers so this I an attempt to eliminate two problems with one proposal.
View point two: Disagree with the proposal
Although the new rule may change eating habits it’s not going to create long term values. Instead of completely removing sugary drinks from people who have lower income diets, there should be better funding for better nutritional education, AND more education about the origin of cheaper food (high calorie food) and how it is produced. Having an informed population is the only way to maintain a long term pattern of healthy eating. If you are trying to get a drug user off drugs you can just remove the drug from their life for two years without educating them about the consequences of using that drug. They won’t have the willingness to stay off that drug once the two years is over, because of their lack of knowledge. Senator Gillibrand said: "I think giving parents and families the tools they need to make the right choices is a better approach."
Press release:
No comments:
Post a Comment