A recent study found that there has been a rise in insurance claims for obesity-linked illnesses, such as high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, and sleep apnea. While the results of this study–completed by the nonprofit Fair Health, a national clearinghouse for claims data–is nothing new, it is one of the first to use actual claims data. This is important because claims data shows treatments actually rendered, which can help illustrate the medical costs associated with high obesity rates. Beyond the results of this specific study, though, the fact is that obesity has become a major problem in the United States for people of all ages. Read on to learn more about the American obesity epidemic, what is being done to fight it, and the outlook going forward.

Obesity in America

Obesity is a somewhat mysterious term, so it first bears clarifying. According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), a person is obese when his or her Body Mass Index is above 30 percent. BMI is calculated by dividing a person’s height by weight. A BMI above 40 percent is considered extreme or severe obesity. While BMI is a useful tool to help assess health on a basic level, it does not directly measure the amount of body fat a person has.

In 2014, 36 percent of adults in the United States were obese. According to estimates from 2008, obesity cost the nation approximately $147 billion for medical costs. On a more individual level, people who are obese spend $1,429 more on medical costs per year than people of normal weight. Not only does obesity have negative physical effects, but it can also have negative mental effects and lead to depression.

From a demographic perspective, obesity tends to affect certain groups more than others. Non-Hispanic black Americans have the highest age-adjusted rate of obesity, at 48.1 percent. They are followed closely by Hispanics and non-Hispanic whites. The group with the lowest rate of obesity by far is Asian Americans, who have an average obesity rate of just 11.7 percent, which is well below the national average. Additionally, while obesity is on the rise in many demographic groups, middle-aged adults still have higher rates of obesity at 40.2 percent than both older adults and young adults.

Continuing along this same path, for men, there is not much of a correlation between income or education level and obesity. The one exception being that black and Mexican-American men with higher incomes are more likely to be obese than lower income men in the same groups. For women, a more widespread correlation exists–higher income and better-educated women of all races are less likely to be obese than women from the opposite income and education groupings. Geographically, there is a lower prevalence of obesity in states in the West and Northeast of the United States, with those in the Southeast having the highest rates of obesity. The following gives an overview of the facts behind the obesity epidemic:

Factors behind the Obesity Epidemic

So what causes obesity and what led to its rise? While many people may point to a simple lack of self-control to explain the prevalence of obesity, in many cases it is much more complicated than that. One of the major issues is genetics, namely different people absorb, store, and process food differently, which can make them more likely to gain weight.

In the same vein, medical problems that lead to inactivity, such as arthritis, can also contribute to obesity. Similarly, certain medications taken for completely unrelated conditions, such as depression, can cause weight gain. Age and pregnancy can lead to obesity as well, with people’s metabolisms generally slowing down as they get older and some women having difficulty losing weight after giving birth.

In addition to the physical factors, there are also several environmental factors at play. These include access to a place to exercise, knowledge of healthy cooking, and even being able to afford healthy food. Quitting smoking can affect someone’s weight as well, although its potential negative health effects are generally outweighed by its positives. Even a change in sleep patterns can lead to significant weight gain, as they can lead to hormonal changes that affect how food is digested.

Sometimes there are things completely beyond a person’s control, an example being meals at restaurants, which today are four times larger on average than they would have been back in the 1950s. Along with quantity and size, the cost of food also plays an important role in the rate of obesity. Since the 1970s the cost of food as a portion of income has gone down. Nor is all food is created equal, and while all food has gotten relatively cheaper, unhealthy foods tend to cost even less than healthy alternatives such as vegetables. Even if you set aside how healthy cheap food is, the sheer availability of food makes being obese more likely. While factors such as poor diet, family lifestyle, and inactivity can lead to obesity, they are clearly not the only causes.

Efforts to Reduce Obesity

While determining the causes of obesity has been a challenge, actually reducing it has been particularly difficult. However, that failure is not for a lack of trying. The CDC funds programs at the state and local level in an effort to reduce obesity by advocating for a combination of healthy eating habits and an active lifestyle. The CDC’s High Obesity Program provides grants to universities in areas with a high prevalence of obesity that involve a targeted approach to address the issue. Several states and cities have also implemented a range of policies to address health concerns, ranging from taxes on soda and sugary drinks to school nutrition programs.

There are many resources outside the government as well, in the form of non-governmental organizations that are focused on combatting obesity. A number of these organizations–like the Obesity Action Coalition or TOPS Club, inc–echo their government counterparts, preaching that a combination of education, healthy eating, and physical activity is necessary to combat the obesity epidemic.

The accompanying video looks at ways to fight obesity:

Nevertheless, for all the energy these organizations, government and non-government alike, are exerting their efforts seem to be in vain. In fact, despite major efforts in research, clinical care, and the development of various programs to counteract obesity, after more than 30 years there are few signs that suggest the fight against the epidemic is succeeding. While the overall trend has not reversed itself, some targeted efforts have managed to bring about success at the community level.

Going Forward

Obesity is a major factor in predictions that for the first time children growing up today may not outlive their parents. That is because obesity rates and body weights, in general, have skyrocketed over the last 40 to 50 years. From 1962 to 2006 the obesity rate among Americans grew from 13.4 percent to 35.1 percent. The average person today weighs 26 more pounds than he or she would have in the 1950s. A 2005 study found that if obesity trends continue on their current path, the life expectancy gains from the past several decades could flatline or even go in the opposite direction.

This troubling news concerning obesity comes at an especially bad time. With rates already increasing, government programs that target obesity prevention, in particular, could lose federal money. One of the many aspects of the Affordable Care Act involved the creation of a Prevention and Public Health Fund, which provided resources to important prevention programs–including some obesity-related grants–and makes up a sizable portion of the CDC’s total budget. With Congress debating whether or not to repeal the law, such funding could be cut. More than 300 public health organizations signed on to a letter to congressional leaders asking them not to get rid of the fund in January.

Investing in these public health interventions is becoming more important now than ever, as estimates indicate that the obesity epidemic will continue to be a problem in years to come. Two different studies predict that the obesity rate could continue to rise to 42 to 44 percent by 2030.

While this is an American epidemic, and America has the highest percentage of obese people, the United States is not the only place feeling the burden. Roughly 30 percent of the world’s population, or 2.1 billion people, are either overweight or obese. This trend affects both developed and developing countries alike, however, it affects them in different ways. In developed nations, men have higher rates of obesity whereas women in developing countries have higher rates.

Regardless of demographics, though, obesity rates are increasing all over the world much like they are in the United States. Also, like in the United States, preventive measures to reduce obesity have mostly failed. It has gotten to the point now that regions outside of North America and the West actually have the highest rates. Currently, the Middle East and North Africa have the highest adult obesity rates in the world.

Conclusion

While obesity tends to affect certain groups more than others, overall obesity rates have increased significantly in the past several decades. While obesity rates have leveled off among American youth in the past 10 years, they have continued to climb for adults and remain at record highs for both. Unfortunately, many of the attempts to reverse these trends have had little success so far. This is extremely troubling as obesity has gone from a problem to an epidemic.

The impact from rising obesity rates has the potential to be disastrous. Obesity already costs the United States alone hundreds of billions of dollars annually. For nations that cannot afford this level of care, obesity could lead many people to develop obesity-related diseases and complications without any way to treat or address them. While most efforts have failed to reverse the trend, some targeted interventions have been effective. Ultimately, the problem will need to be addressed at a larger scale for rates to decline.

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Obesity Epidemic: What’s Behind One of America’s Largest Health Problems? appeared first on Law Street.

On February 17, Maine’s Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) asked the federal government to approve a statewide ban on the use of food stamps to purchase sugary drinks and candy. In its press release, DHHS representatives argued that banning such purchases would benefit public health and ease the burden on taxpayers. While many welcomed the move, it embodies the way in which conditional government welfare programs patronize and stigmatize low-income people.

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), also known as the Food Stamp program, is a state-administered and federally-funded program designed to help low-income families. Maine’s move to ban candy and soda aside, SNAP is already an example of conditional welfare in that benefits can only be used to buy foodstuffs from approved vendors. Rather than providing unconditional benefits for low-income families to spend at their discretion, conditional welfare programs like SNAP undermine the autonomy of low-income people by imposing parameters on how they are allowed to use their benefits. Governments rationalize the conditions imposed on welfare recipients, but these rationalizations are often unjustified. Ultimately, conditional welfare is motivated by a cultural and institutional mistrust of low-income people.

The press release from Maine’s DHHS justified the prospective ban on the grounds that soda and candy lack nutritional value and that eliminating the option to buy soda would reduce obesity amongst SNAP recipients. However, the assumption that simply improving nutritional content of the food one eats will improve one’s weight is not that well supported by evidence. While poor nutrition can affect certain health outcomes, the American Medical Association and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases agree that caloric content, not nutritional content, of food overwhelmingly determines one’s weight.

In 2010, a professor of human nutrition at the University of Kansas made headlines when he lost 27 pounds in two months by cutting his calorie intake and restricting his diet to Twinkies, Doritos, and Oreos. Of course, being thin is not equivalent to being healthy and there are many positive health outcomes associated with improving nutritional intake. Nonetheless, simply banning the purchase of some items will do little to reduce obesity, nor ensure those on food stamps will diversify their nutritional intake.

Misguided Calculations

After drawing a tenuous prediction that the prohibition of sugary foods will cause a reduction in obesity rates, the press release notes “Over $700 million is spent in Maine on obesity related medical expenditures and more than a third of that paid for by taxpayers in the Medicare and Medicaid programs.” This, of course, implies that low-income individuals are disproportionately responsible for Maine’s obesity problem and that they disproportionately contribute to the healthcare costs associated with obesity.

However, according to data from the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF), the average low-income Mainer generates an effectively equal amount of “obesity related medical expenditure” as the average Mainer who is not reliant on Medicare or Medicaid. Over 269,000 of 1.33 million Mainers rely on Medicaid and over 306,400 on Medicare. When factoring in the 104,000 dual eligibilities, KFF’s data shows that nearly 35 percent of Maine’s population relies on these health aid programs.

Therefore, just under two-thirds of the Maine population that is not low-income makes up about two-thirds of Maine’s “obesity related medical expenditure.” The assertion made in this press release is likely grounded in the misguided and simplistic belief that poorer Americans are more likely to be obese. In reality, obesity is a relatively constant cause for concern across all income brackets.

Unconditional Help

Obesity is no doubt an issue in Maine and throughout the country. While the state’s move to eliminate sugary products from its food stamp program may have been well intentioned, it is but one example of how conditional welfare disproportionately blames low-income people for public problems that are largely unrelated to economic status. Such misguided rationalizations are often used to justify patronizing conditional welfare programs.

While limiting the autonomy of beneficiaries is seen as a way of ensuring government funds are spent properly, doing so not only unjustly stigmatizes welfare recipients, it often undermines the efficacy of each dollar spent on welfare. Conditional welfare assumes that because one is in need of welfare, they are unfit to have discretion over how they spend money.

Research has shown that unconditional cash transfer and welfare programs are far more effective means of improving recipients’ conditions. In 2003, Brazil introduced a program known as Bolsa Familia under which poor families were eligible to receive direct cash transfers. While Bolsa Familia did impose some conditions on families (requiring children of recipient families be vaccinated and attend school), each family was free to spend their cash transfer as they saw fit. The program was considered a huge success, helping to reduce poverty and inequality nationwide.

Maine’s effort to ban the purchase of candy and soft drink with food stamps awaits approval from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), which is the federal agency in charge of overseeing SNAP.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post No Food Stamps for Sweets: Unjust Welfare Conditionality appeared first on Law Street.

Americans all have different relationships to food. I didn’t know that you could buy applesauce in a jar until I went to college. I was aware that you could get soup in a can but I had never experienced it personally. My mother and grandmother made these things from scratch. So there were no food labels indicating the nutritional value on any of these items, but following Michael Pollan’s advice to not eat anything that my grandmother would not have recognized as food, the nutritional value wasn’t something we worried about calculating with numbers. It just felt wholesome.

However, not everyone has the luxury of making food from scratch. Americans increasingly rely on processed foods to replace or supplement home-cooked meals. These foods are convenient and often a cheaper alternative. In some cases, they are the only option, since many Americans live in “food deserts.” A food desert is a location where grocery stores that carry fresh produce are more than a mile away and residents don’t have access to them via a car or public transportation. Neighborhoods like this tend to have grocery stores that only have processed food options. A lot of food deserts are in urban areas, but there are also some in rural communities as well, because if the nearest store where you can buy a tomato is five miles away and you lose or don’t have access to your car, you have a very long walk to purchase a tomato.

You can actually go to the U.S. Department of Agriculture website and take a look at food deserts around the country.

Since Americans are either being forced–through economic necessity or location–or choose to consume more processed foods, efforts have been made to make the labeling on these foods easier for consumers to understand. The strategy adopted by the White House, as part of Michelle Obama’s efforts to combat obesity, has been to modify our existing food labeling. But there may be other ways to label our food that better informs consumers and encourage them to make different choices.

Facts Up Front Food Labels

Our current food labeling method is called the “facts up front” system, which utilizes a black-and-white label on the back of the product, with some key facts also displayed on the front of the product. In the following video, Allison Aubrey of NPR explains some of the changes that were made to the facts up front system that will hopefully make it more user-friendly for consumers.

The two main changes to the labeling system, which are designed to promote healthier choices, are the modifications in serving size and the “added sugar” reference on the label. With the previous labeling system, it was not always clear to consumers that what they consider a “serving” and what a “serving” actually is for the purposes of calculating the calories are rarely the same thing. For example, a 24-ounce bottle of coke, which many adults would drink with their meal and think of as a “serving” because it was in one unit, might actually be 2.5 servings. So the number of calories listed was not the number calories in the bottle, which would be much higher than what people were actually consuming.

The other major modification designed to assist consumers is the “added sugar” valuation. Most people don’t realize that sugar is put into nearly all processed foods, even ones that aren’t sweet. Salad dressing, for example, often has sugar added to it. The added sugar value is designed to alert consumers to the hidden sugars in their foods, which are a huge driver for obesity and other health risks.

These changes to the food labels may, in fact, help consumers make better choices. A majority of Americans do look at food labels when they are deciding whether to purchase a food item, so making sure that they are better able to understand the number of calories and nutritional value of the food they are about to consume may help them avoid (at least most of the time) foods that are unwise to eat. If sales for a particular food decline because consumers are changing their behavior, that may even encourage manufacturers to alter the amount of sugar and fat they use to attract more health-conscious consumers.

But there is another way that we can label our food that might be even more beneficial to the consumer.

Traffic Light Labeling

This video explains some of the studies conducted that compare the facts up front food labeling system with an alternative option known as the “traffic light” system. As the name suggests, the traffic light labeling system uses red, green, and yellow/orange to indicate that a nutrient level is healthy or unhealthy. For example, a food that has low fat and low fiber would have a green circle that says low fat (which is a good thing) and a red circle that says low fiber (which would be bad). Glancing at it quickly, if you saw a string of red circles on the label you would know that this food should be eaten in moderation or avoided completely. In contrast, a food with a lot of green circles is something that you can eat more frequently.

Here is the good news: both kinds of food labels will be helpful if you are trying to decide between two different kinds of products. If your choice is between a bag of Fritos and a bag of sourdough pretzels then either the facts up front type of labeling or the traffic light labeling is going to help you know which choice is healthier. However, when you are looking at a product by itself and trying to decide if it is a good choice the traffic light system is much better at helping you make an informed decision.

The traffic light system may be of more use to people as they actually shop than facts up front food labels. It depends on how people make their purchasing decisions. If consumers are going to the store and holding two types of bread in front of them to try to figure out which one is healthier, then the facts up front label is just fine. But if they are reaching for a salad dressing on its own, not comparison shopping, a facts up front label may not alert them to the fact that it is a bad choice, whereas a traffic light label with a red warning circle that says “high sugar” may be more effective at steering consumers away from that product. In fact, there is evidence to suggest that a prevalence of red labels will lead to a reduction in purchases, which is why food manufacturers in Europe are resistant to the implementation of the traffic light label system. Its use in the U.K. is voluntary for manufacturers.

The facts up front system actually leads consumers to make the wrong estimates. It encourages people to think there are more good nutrients in a product than there actually are and fewer bad nutrients. Overall, the traffic light label was easier for consumers to understand, since it can be confusing to think about the recommended daily value of a nutrient and to make the necessary calculation. But a red warning on a package is immediately perceived as “don’t eat this!”

It’s unclear how the traffic light system might affect consumers and manufacturers but the system has been used in the U.K. to try to combat label confusion. Ideally, any labeling system that we use should tell consumers as clearly as possible which products are healthy and/or exactly how unhealthy for you a particular junk food is. And hopefully, that would reduce the amount of particularly unhealthy junk food people consume. But a good labeling system will also influence manufacturer behavior and the traffic light system may be even better at that than a facts up front label. Manufacturers may not want to put a series of red circles on their products, increasing the perception that they are unhealthy, so they might modify their product to get the label reduced from red to yellow.

Conclusion

In a perfect environment, the food labeling system could be complicated and consumers would have the time needed to analyze each product for its relative health merits. As a result, they would wisely avoid the foods they should. But we do not live in the perfect environment. Food shopping is something that many consumers engage in almost as muscle memory, relying heavily on brand loyalty and a general feeling that a product is wholesome. Even when consumers look at food labels, which most of them do, they may not understand them. They know that a bag of potato chips is bad, especially when comparing it to a rice cake, but they may not understand just how bad.

A traffic light labeling system should be explored to figure out if it does a better job accomplishing the goals of a labeling system, which are to inform consumers, modify their behavior where possible, and encourage manufacturers to make their products healthier in an attempt to capture market share. We put warning labels on dangerous products like cigarettes, but our food labeling system does not treat sugar with the same level of danger. Given the health crisis that overconsumption of these products has helped to create, perhaps we should.

Mary Kate Leahy

Mary Kate Leahy (@marykate_leahy) has a J.D. from William and Mary and a Bachelor’s in Political Science from Manhattanville College. She is also a proud graduate of Woodlands Academy of the Sacred Heart. She enjoys spending her time with her kuvasz, Finn, and tackling a never-ending list of projects. Contact Mary Kate at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Food Labels: Is the ‘Facts up Front’ System Good for Consumers? appeared first on Law Street.

About a decade ago, public health researchers started advocating for implementation of a soda tax to combat consumption of sugary drinks. Soda intake has long been linked to the exacerbation of a series of potentially avoidable health problems including: obesity, diabetes, and tooth decay. After the recent election, four more U.S. cities voted to adopt a soda tax, spreading this new “sin tax” to more areas across the country. With more than one-third of American adults currently classified as obese, soda taxes could become a go-to method for combatting obesity, while simultaneously generating revenue for state budgets to fund local programs.

What are Sin Taxes?

Sin taxes are state-sponsored taxes that are added to specific products that are generally seen as vices, such as gambling, alcohol, and tobacco. In essence, by utilizing financial means, the government attempts to discourage individuals from engaging in a specific activity or using specific products without actually making those products or services illegal. Sin taxes are often compared to Pigovian taxes, which are taxes that generate negative externalities. In tax policy, a Pigovian tax is a fee assessed against private individuals or businesses for engaging in a specific activity; a negative externality occurs when an economic actor does not fully internalize the cost of activity. A simple example of a Pigovian tax is a pollution-related tax.

Currently, sin taxes are employed in a variety of sectors. Typically, they are added to liquor, tobacco, gambling, and other non-luxury items. There tends to be a decent amount of public support for sin taxes, as they are indirect and only affect those who use the specific products. Sin taxes are also extremely popular when trying to close large state budget gaps. Employing sin taxes for soda and sugar-sweetened beverages can help generate revenue and encourage public health initiatives. One research economist from the Research Triangle Institute has modeling data that suggests a six-cent tax on a twelve-ounce bottle of soda would lead consumers to drink 5,800 fewer calories from sugary drinks per year.

Using Soda Taxes to Combat Obesity

In 2014, voters in Berkeley, California passed the nation’s first soda tax, which went into effect in 2015. Additionally, in 2014, Mexico passed its own soda tax. After one year, sales of soda in Mexico fell as much as 12 percent, while bottled water purchases rose four percent. The researchers also found that while decline was seen across all socioeconomic groups, it was greatest among those who were low-income, with consumption falling 17 percent.

In the U.S., Berkeley’s tax was largely successful; research showed that soda consumption dropped in the city a staggering 20 percent. Philadelphia was the next city to follow suit, passing a soda tax earlier this year–thus becoming the first major city in the U.S. to do so. The tax, which is expected to generate $91 million annually, will be spent on pre-kindergarten programs in the city, creating community schools, improving parks and recreation centers, and libraries.

The beverage industry has fought extensively to keep soda taxes from passing elsewhere in the country. Advocates from the American Beverage Association, which represents all major soda brands, responded to the Philadelphia policy by arguing that the tax was regressive and unfairly singled out “low” and “no-calorie” beverages. In an effort to combat the tax, companies in the roughly $100 billion industry have focused their efforts on reformulating existing drinks to make them more healthy for consumers. However, even “diet” sodas are experiencing a sharp decline in sales, particularly because of increased suspicion regarding artificial sweeteners.

Soda Taxes Passed in November 2016

The World Health Organization recently recommended that governments impose soda taxes in order to combat a variety of diet-related diseases exacerbated by high soda consumption. Soda taxes were on the ballot in early November of this year in  three California cities–San Francisco, Albany, and Oakland–as well as Boulder, Colorado. The soda taxes passed in all four cities with fairly large margins of support, much to the dismay of the beverage industry. The American Beverage Association spent upwards of $9.5 million on an ad campaign opposing the measures entitled “Don’t Tax Our Groceries.”

The amount of tax in each city, however, varies. In San Francisco, Albany, and Oakland, the tax is one penny per ounce of soda. In Boulder, the tax is two pennies per ounce of soda, and the soda tax that passed earlier this year in Philadelphia was set at 1.5 cents an ounce. The disparities in the amount of tax per ounce are likely to continue as more jurisdictions follow suit.

These laws are also coming into effect at a time when soda consumption is down among Americans. In a 2014 Gallup poll, nearly two-thirds (63 percent) of Americans reported avoiding soda in their diet; in 2002 that number was only 41 percent. Moreover, over the last 20 years, sales of full-calorie soda have dropped by more than 25 percent. “Big Soda” is experiencing a substantial and sustained decline, while bottled water remains on track to overtake soda as the largest beverage category. The changing soda consumption patterns are noticeable in schools, where cafeterias and vending machines have stopped carrying regular sodas, and in many workplaces and government offices that have similarly limited sales. Soda, it seems, has now become the new tobacco: an unhealthy product that should be limited, if not outright banned, and taxed significantly.

“Soda” Image Courtesy of Rex Sorgatz : License (CC BY 2.0)

Issues with Soda Taxes

Not everyone is a fan of soda taxes. While the American Health Association has touted the win as a huge victory, many argue that the taxes affect low-income populations the most. Sin taxes arguably have a disproportionate effect on poor and less educated communities. Since sin taxes are typically regressive in nature, the less money a person makes, the larger percentage of his or her income the taxes take. Essentially, if comparing two “pack-a-day” smokers–one lower-income citizen and one high-income citizen–one can see that the two are spending the same amount of money on cigarettes and taxes each year. The taxes on those same cigarettes, however, are taking up much more of the lower-income citizen’s paycheck.

Additionally, the beverage industry contends that more taxes are not ideal when pursuing public health initiatives. Susan Neely, CEO of the American Beverage Association, stated that consumers don’t want these taxes. She also added that the industry is committed to reducing the amount of calories and sugar in these beverages and combating diet-related issues in a variety of manners. This includes partnering with Alliance for a Healthier Generation in order to try to change behaviors of people who may be receiving far too many calories from beverages. Other strategies include an ad campaign called “Balance What You Eat, Drink & Do” that encourages people to think more readily about the calories they are consuming. The beverage industry is also working with retailers to put more low-calorie choices at eye-level, so consumers will be more likely to pick those choices.

Conclusion

Whether you see soda taxes as a necessary movement or not, the U.S. is certainly grappling with an obesity epidemic. Educating the public about calorie and sugar consumption is critical to combating this public health crisis, in addition to making a myriad of low-calorie, no-calorie, and low-sugar choices more readily available in a variety of communities across the country. Sometimes, the easiest way to help people make changes is by utilizing financial means, and soda taxes may be an effective way to incentivize healthier behaviors. The law of demand works in practice, not just theory: when prices go up, people buy less.

For now, soda taxes seem to be here to stay, as they find their way into more cities across the country. “Big Soda” does appear to be in serious decline, and unless the industry can find a way to keep up with the public’s changing preferences, the downward trend may continue into the future. While the amount of a given tax will continue to vary depending on the jurisdiction, the long-term effects of taxes may be even more effective if taxes are increased and become more widespread. The amount of money generated from soda taxes has the potential to be large, and using the revenue to fund desperately-needed or underfunded programs, like Philadelphia intends to do, may be an ideal solution.

Nicole Zub

Nicole is a third-year law student at the University of Kentucky College of Law. She graduated in 2011 from Northeastern University with Bachelor’s in Environmental Science. When she isn’t imbibing copious amounts of caffeine, you can find her with her nose in a book or experimenting in the kitchen. Contact Nicole at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Are Soda Taxes the New Sin Tax to Combat Obesity? appeared first on Law Street.

While perusing my Twitter feed the other day, I came across a ridiculous tweet from Cosmopolitan magazine that got me thinking about weight in the workplace:

Ashley Benson Responds to Hollywood Saying She's "Too Fat" https://t.co/eODHBO3ikX pic.twitter.com/LIDUjPdwLL

— Cosmopolitan (@Cosmopolitan) January 4, 2016

A little background—Ashley Benson is one of the four stars of the hit ABC Family show “Pretty Little Liars”—and believe me, she is nowhere near fat. In fact, she even admits that she’s a size 2 in both the short Cosmo piece and the longer article that it is based on, which appeared in Ocean Drive.

This all begs the question—since when was a size 2 too fat?

Well, Hollywood is a terrible and subjective sort of beast. Benson is not the first young woman in show business to make a comment about someone saying she is too fat. Jennifer Lawrence, for instance, has always been outspoken about her love for food, and she has said on more than one occasion that she is considered a “fat actress.” As with Benson, Lawrence is definitely not fat. She is, however, curvy in that effortless way that makes her a bombshell.

So is Hollywood saying that skinny (i.e. without curves) is perfect and curvy is fat? What about the average woman in the United States, who is 5’ 4” and weighs 166 pounds?

It caused me to take a step back and think about the fact that Ashley Benson’s and Jennifer Lawrence’s workplaces are Hollywood. Their sources of livelihood are their acting chops and their appearances. So, when thought of in that way, wouldn’t being turned down for a part because you are “too fat” be considered workplace discrimination?

Surprisingly, no. There is really only one state in the United States–Michigan–that has any sort of law about weight discrimination in the workplace, and even then, it’s really difficult to prove in a courtroom. In 2013, a large number of cocktail waitresses tried to sue a casino in Atlantic City, New Jersey for forcing them to do weigh-ins and lose weight on a regular basis, and they lost. Overweight and obese people–and those are subjective terms, since everyone who isn’t a medical doctor has a different opinion on what constitutes an obese person–are not a protected class. This means that, legally, workplaces can discriminate against obese job applicants and employees.

Think about that for a minute.

While “overweight” people probably can’t be fired from a job they already have–there has to be a reason for firing someone, since unlawful termination is easier to prove than other types of workplace discrimination–there have been studies that have shown that hiring managers are significantly less likely to hire an “overweight” person than a skinny person. In addition, skinny or otherwise attractive employees are more likely to get promoted and receive pay raises, whereas heavier employees are more often passed over or forced to work extra hours to get the same benefits, promotions, or compensation.

When all of this is put together, the conclusion is a dreary one. Yes, weight does matter in the workplace, even if you aren’t an actress or a model. Being considered fat or overweight may keep you from getting a job, and if you already have a job, it may keep you from advancing in your career. You’ll likely have to work harder to earn what you believe you deserve. It’s a troubling world that we live in, where people’s subjective opinions about what others should look like affect their employment opportunities, even when they aren’t famous actresses. Reality, unfortunately, isn’t known for being nice to people.

Amanda Gernentz Hanson

Amanda Gernentz Hanson is a Minnesota native living in Austin, Texas. She holds a Bachelor’s degree in Chemistry from Hope College and a Master’s degree in Technical Communication from Minnesota State University, where her final project discussed intellectual property issues in freelancing and blogging. Amanda is an instructional designer full time, a freelance writer part time, and a nerd always. Contact Amanda at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Does Weight Matter in the Workplace? appeared first on Law Street.

When I saw a book of fart sounds at a gag shop this weekend, I told my friends I needed to buy for my grandmother since her birthday is next month and she loves anything that has to do with farting. (If you read this, Grandma, please act surprised when you open your present.) I am telling you this now because it ensures the next sentence make a whole lot more sense:

This post on the legal considerations of farting is dedicated to my grandma. I hope you enjoy reading it as much as I enjoyed writing it.

The Real F Words: Farts and Firings

When I was younger, I took my kindergarten-aged cousin home on the bus in order to babysit her after school. One day, an older kid said shut up. My cousin swiftly got on to him for saying a bad word. He informed her he knew worse words than that.

“I could say the F word,” he told her.

“I know that one too,” she promptly replied. “It’s fart. But we are supposed to say booty burp.”

Now fast forward to the present, and we will see that not much has changed–farting is still very much a taboo subject. In fact, Case Pork Roll Company in New Jersey was so turned off by farting that they fired a worker who was apparently stinking up the place on a regular basis.

Ah, New Jersey. Yet again you leave yourself open to be called by your beloved nickname–the armpit of America. (You guys, don’t go by their reputation and this smelly story. New Jersey doesn’t normally smell any worse than any other state.)

Anyway, back to this case.

Richard Clem has a real digestive problem that causes him to be more flatulent than most. It, along with explosive diarrhea, were the side effects of gastric bypass surgery. The problem got to be so bad that there were complaints. Many of those complaints appear to have come from the company president himself.

For a while, Clem was asked to work from home. Eventually he was asked to just not come in at all anymore–and not because they wanted him to be a full-time telecommuter.

On the same day he was fired, his wife, who also worked for the company, quit because of the discrimination her husband faced at the hands of their employer.

The couple joined together to sue the company for wrongful termination and to start a movement toward a world in which we can all pass gas in peace and without judgment.

The Sex Appeal of Farting (Yes, I Did Just Type That)

According to the Clem’s lawyer, “farting is the sexy part of the story” (and isn’t it always? I mean talk about a sure fire way to set the mood on date night…) but it is not the real issue here.

The real concern is that the flatulence is a side effect of Clem’s obesity, and obesity is protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Therefore, the company really fired the man because he was obese, and that is discrimination.

We’ll find out what the court thinks soon, but in the meantime, what do you think?

Should farting be a reasonable accommodation in the workplace? Or do people have the right to an okay-smelling work environment?

Let me know what you think because honestly I’m not sure what my opinion is. On the one hand, I feel bad for the guy. On the other, I certainly wouldn’t want to have to work by him.

Well, now that I have spent the last hour writing about farting, I’m going to try to go find something sufficiently mentally stimulating in order to raise my maturity level above that of a 12-year-old boy. Eh…that sounds like a lot of work. Maybe I’ll just watch TV. Until next time, ya’ll.

Ashley Shaw

Ashley Shaw is an Alabama native and current New Jersey resident. A graduate of both Kennesaw State University and Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, she spends her free time reading, writing, boxing, horseback riding, playing trivia, flying helicopters, playing sports, and a whole lot else. So maybe she has too much spare time. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Fired For Farting: Is it Legal? appeared first on Law Street.

It started a few years ago: the calories and sodium that you are consuming when you sit down to eat a Big Mac or a Whopper stare at you from the side of the package. This phenomena occurred because of something called obesity lawsuits–legal claims by people who consume fast food at least a few times a week that they didn’t realize what they were putting into their bodies. Read on to learn about obesity lawsuits, their popularity, and the legal arguments behind them.

What Are Obesity Lawsuits?

The national conversation about what we eat and what is in it isn’t new, but it has exploded recently, from First Lady Michelle Obama’s initiatives to the school systems and even popular media. The food and drink community has been changing the way they make, market, and package foods, and it has all been either a direct result or a symptom of obesity lawsuits.

Most of the lawsuits that fit into this category come from people who blamed fast food restaurants for causing them to gain weight. They said that they weren’t aware of just how many calories they were consuming and that the companies used false advertising to say that they were healthier than they actually are. These lawsuits, as an overarching theme, also “claim that companies failed to warn consumers of the harmful contents of their food; that food advertising is misleading or deceptive; that food is addictive…or that defendants’ food contributed to consumers’ obesity.”

Obesity lawsuits have been around for decades. At least 26 states have banned any type of lawsuit against a fast food company, both restaurants and manufacturers. The Washington Post goes into more detail about these laws, stating they are:

‘Commonsense consumption’ laws, which prohibit people from suing food purveyors for making them fat, giving them diabetes, or adding to their high blood pressure.

LegalZoom points out that even though there isn’t a federal ban on the cases, there is a distinct bias from the system, which is why the ban proceeded with so much support.

Those who were for the ban on obesity lawsuits spoke out on Fox News:

‘The bill seeks to block lawsuits by people because they ate too much and got fat,’ says Rep. Chris Cannon, R-Utah, one of the bill’s sponsors.

‘We should not encourage lawsuits that blame others for our own choices and could bankrupt an entire industry,’ notes Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas.

In a conversation with The New York Times, the Steven C. Anderson, president of the National Restaurant Association, which represents the 858,000 small and large restaurant businesses around the country, said:

Within the industry, it has gotten everyone’s attention. While we are concerned, we think them to be frivolous.

But are these lawsuits frivolous, or are they surrounded by the stigma against the obese?

Obesity Lawsuits in Court

Negligence

Many of the plaintiffs that go up against fast food restaurants say that the food they receive is not as healthy as the restaurant would have them believe and that the quality of the food is not what was advertised in commercials. One of the most prolific cases against a fast food restaurant, Ashley Pelman et. al. v. McDonald’s Corporation, alleged that McDonald’s food items were dangerous for consumption and that McDonald’s was negligent in warning its customers. When proving this negligence, the plaintiff must prove:

1. The danger was not apparent to the average consumer;
2. The product is unreasonably dangerous for its intended use;
3. The plaintiff’s obesity was caused by the food in question; and
4. The harm would not have occurred had an adequate warning been given.

The judge who presided over this case said that:

If consumers know (or reasonably should know) the potential ill health effects of eating at McDonald’s, they cannot blame McDonald’s if they, nonetheless, choose to satiate their appetite with a surfeit of supersized McDonald’s products.

He dismissed the case.

Proving negligence can be hard, especially in situations of other unhealthy choices on the part of the consumer. This particular case did not do that, but it is held in high regard as one of the foremost cases for how to successfully sue a fast food company for negligence–those who do try to sue make sure that they can prove those four points before continuing onward.

Accountability

But what accountability does the fast food restaurant have? Those who have filed lawsuits against fast food restaurants have often said that the food is “unsafe for consumption,” due to its nutritional content, which is a harder sell in the court systems as there is no legal limit. For example, this is the same argument used against firearm manufacturers as well, but in those cases the arguments have not succeeded.

Plaintiffs also try to prove the manufacturer’s intent to sell the food using advertisements, public statements, and even internal documents. Once again returning to Pelman, they claimed that the promotional materials that said things like “Big N’ Tasty Everyday” encouraged regular consumption. They also quoted one of the nutritionists that McDonald’s featured on its website:

Our wide range of choices on our menu makes it possible for people to eat there three times a day if they wanted to.

Changing Habits and Addiction

The plaintiffs must be able to convince the courts that, if they had been given the appropriate and correct warnings about the food they were consuming, they would have changed their dining habits to something healthier. In other words: if the plaintiff had known that they were consuming something that was bad for them, would they continue to eat there?

There is really no foolproof way to determine that, but the courts must ask questions to make assumptions. Questions might include their current eating habits and if they lost any weight since they ceased visiting the fast food restaurant.

Overall, these cases are very hard to prove because of the amount of guesswork that needs to go in on all sides. A McDonald’s spokesman even said:

I don’t think that any of these lawsuits will prevail unless and until there is proof that fast food companies are intentionally and maliciously putting stuff into their food in an effort to make people ill or to addict them to the product. There is no proof of that–no hint of any proof of that–and I think that missing element makes these sorts of claims very difficult for courts to take seriously.

Results of Obesity Lawsuits

We first saw nutritional labels going onto our fast food containers around 2003 when the government believed that it would help Americans make healthier choices about their meals. This movement was all part of the Menu Education and Labeling Act that was proposed to make those choices easier. While the bill seemed to stall, McDonald’s was actually one of the first companies to start listing calories on its menus, saying it was to help customers make healthy choices.

There have been some modest improvement over the last ten years in some of the offerings available at fast food restaurants. According to Margo G. Wootan, director of nutrition policy for the Center for Science in the Public Interest in Washington DC,

Given the role of fast food in Americans’ diets, restaurants are in a unique position to help improve the diet quality in the U.S. by improving the nutritional quality of menu offerings. Modest improvements in average nutritional quality of menu offerings across eight fast-food restaurant chains were observed, which is consistent with both legislative efforts (e.g., banning trans fat) and the industry’s own statements about creating healthier menu options. However, considering that fast food is ubiquitous in the U.S. diet, there is much room for improvement.

Still, there hasn’t been much improvement in the choices that people are making while they are actually in the restaurant. In fact, fewer than half of the patrons at fast food shops actually notice that their food has calories listed, and it also really didn’t have an impact on what they ordered.

Conclusion

Obesity lawsuits and litigation are a problem that we need to solve, and that might just start with better education on all fronts. The stamping of calories and nutritional content on the sides of cups and the backs of hamburger cartons is a start for the companies. Now it is up to consumers to make the right choices for themselves. The argument will likely continue onward, even as more states push toward a complete ban on the obesity lawsuits.

Resources

Primary

U.S. Congress: MEAL Act

Food and Drug Administration: Summary of Changes in the FDA Food Code 2013

Additional

Bloomberg Business: McDonald’s Obesity Case Can’t Proceed as Group Suit

CBS News: McDonald’s Wins Fat Fight

Fox News: House Votes to Ban ‘Obesity Lawsuits’ Against Fast Food Industry

Center for Science in the Public Interest: Availability of Nutrition Information From Chain Restaurants in the United States

The New York Times: Teenagers’ Suit Says McDonald’s Made Them Obese

Virginia Journal of Social Policy and the Law: Fast-Food Lawsuits and the Cheeseburger Bill: Critiquing Congress’s Response to the Obesity Epidemic

Sun Sentinel: Fending Off the Big Mac Attack

Washington Post: These 26 states Won’t Let You Sue McDonald’s For Making You Fat

ABC News: Obese Man Sues Fast-Food Chains

Bloomberg Law: Where’s the Beef? The Challenges of Obesity Lawsuits

Huffington Post: Calorie Labels at Fast Food Restaurants Don’t Make a Difference

LA Times: Liability, Guns and the Law

Legal Zoom: Can You Sue a Restaurant For Making You Obese?

The New York Times: McDonald’s to Start Posting Calorie Counts

NPR: Nutrition Labels For Fast Foods

Organic Consumers Association: Junk Food/Obesity Lawsuits Alarm U.S. Food Giants

Politico: The Plot to Make Big Food Pay

Time: Can You be Fat and Fit — or Thin and Unhealthy?

Noel Diem

Law Street contributor Noel Diem is an editor and aspiring author based in Reading, Pennsylvania. She is an alum of Albright College where she studied English and Secondary Education. In her spare time she enjoys traveling, theater, fashion, and literature. Contact Noel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Obesity Lawsuits: Who’s to Blame When Fast Food Makes You Fat? appeared first on Law Street.

It’s no secret that obesity is weighing down our country. Lawmakers have tried everything to get Americans to lose weight from soda warning labels and “fat taxes” to exercise initiatives, but when it comes to getting kids fit it has been anything but easy. However Puerto Rico has a new approach–make it illegal for parents to have obese children.

According to The Guardian, a controversial new bill introduced by Senator Gilbert Rodriguez Valle would label parents of obese children in Puerto Rico “child abusers” and force them to pay some hefty fines. Valle’s bill would make schools responsible for identifying obese children and reporting cases to counselors or social workers. Health Department officials would then investigate the parents to determine the cause of the child’s obesity, and then create a diet and exercise program that’s combined with mandatory monthly check-ins to monitor the child’s progress.

According to The Guardian:

If social workers believed there had been no progress after six months, they would have the authority to open a child neglect case and impose a fine of $500; if after a year they believed things were the same, another fine of $800 could be levied.

Puerto Rico does have a slightly greater child obesity problem, with more than 28 percent of its children considered obese, compared with some 18 percent on the U.S. mainland according to Al Jazeera. Dr. Ricardo Fontanet, president of the Puerto Rico chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, told the Guardian that encouraging parents to get their children to exercise more is also a challenge. According to him the Puerto Rico government is battling a $70 billion public debt crisis, and has little money available for maintaining parks and open spaces. He said:

You see high grass, parks unsuitable for walking or playing, or for soccer, baseball, whatever the children want to play.

The bill is considered to be a radical proposal to curb child obesity, with many doubting that it will ever come into effect or make its way to the states. Valle denied an interview with The Guardian, but Dr.  Fontanet said that the politician did not expect it to become law but rather just wanted “to shake the tree.” Even so many are still offering up their critiques in response. Nutritionist Milly Garcia discussed the bill with Fox News Latina saying:

The fact that these childhood obesity cases are rooted in lifestyle does not give one the right to step into people’s private spaces. This is not abuse, it’s a disease. It would mean entering into a private area where the government does not belong. Obesity is the result of many factors and what we need to do is find solutions

This bill is perhaps the definition of government overreach. Yes it’s true that obesity has been linked to lifestyle choices, but other factors such as genetics and economic restrictions can also play a role. Overall having a child that is overweight is hardly the definition of abuse, and targeting these parents is a misappropriation of time and funds that could be spent looking into actual cases of neglect and abuse.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Proposed Puerto Rico Law Aims to Punish Parents of Obese Children appeared first on Law Street.

There’s long been a debate in this country over soft drinks. Health advocates see soft drinks as liquid fuel for our national obesity epidemic, but many freedom loving Americans don’t like being told what chemically engineered beverages they can or can’t pour into their bodies. Hell, we as a country can’t even decide what to call it. Is it pop, soda, or coke? The answer to that question depends on what part of the country you’re from. But don’t expect the battle over sugary soft drinks to fizz out anytime soon. There’s now a new battleground for that fight in California.

It’s been a long time coming. First, ex-New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg tried to limit the size of sodas sold in NYC establishments to no more than 16 oz. Beverage buffs nipped that mandate in the bud, and it was declared unconstitutional in court. Next, in an effort to curb unhealthy diets while funding the city, 75 percent of Berkeley, California voters approved the country’s first soda tax last fall. That tax took effect at the beginning of the new year. It imposed a tax of one cent per ounce on distributors of specified sugar-sweetened beverages such as soda, sports drinks, energy drinks, and sweetened iced teas.

Now the California legislature is on the offensive. California Senate Majority Leader Bill Monning introduced a proposal Wednesday to put warning labels (similar to those already on alcohol and cigarettes) on any beverages containing added sweeteners with at least 75 calories per 12 ounces. According to the Huffington Post, the labels would read:

STATE OF CALIFORNIA SAFETY WARNING: Drinking beverages with added sugar(s) contributes to obesity, diabetes, and tooth decay.

Tooth decay. Obesity. Diabetes. Yeah, seeing that every time I look at a can of coke might make me pick up a bottle of H2O instead. This isn’t the first time Monning has tried guilt his constituents into making healthier choices. Last year, his warning label bill narrowly passed the Senate but died in the Assembly Committee on Health after a strong lobbying effort from the soda industry. However, this time his bill may see fruition.

In a press release Monning states:

Given the rock solid scientific evidence showing the dangers of sugary beverages, the State of California has a responsibility to inform consumers about products proven to be harmful to the public’s health. This bill will give Californians the at-a-glance information they need to make more healthful choices every day.

Some opponents don’t see the necessity of the warning labels when ultimately the decision to drink or not drink is up to the individual. CalBev, the California arm of the American Beverage Association, said in a statement:

Putting government warning labels on more than 500 beverages will do nothing to change personal behaviors or teach people about healthy lifestyles. The last thing California needs is more warning labels.

Soda companies will likely try to block the bill once more rather than face any potential loss in sales, but stopping it yet again may prove harder with the added momentum garnered from Berkeley. I’m putting my bets on California adding these labels to sugary drinks eventually.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post California Bill Aims to Put Warning Labels on Sugary Drinks appeared first on Law Street.

Every Thanksgiving, you might put down your fork for few seconds to ponder some puzzling mysteries. How did I eat this much? Why can’t I stop thinking about pie? Why should I bother laboring with fresh cranberries when cranberry sauce comes in an easy-to-open can?

We know you’d rather keep eating than answer these questions, so we’ve answered them for you. Here are some of Thanksgiving’s greatest mysteries explained by science.

 What makes turkey skin turn that luscious golden brown?

Home chefs across the nation aim to achieve that perfect golden turkey. They may not realize the same reaction that makes turkey’s skin golden also makes your skin golden when you apply self tanner: the Maillard reaction.

The Maillard reaction describes the interaction of sugars and amino acids that makes meat turn brown and tasty. When cooking a turkey, the heat catalyzes a reaction between simple sugars and amino acids and produces melanoidins. These chemical compounds give the turkey that beautiful golden skin. When applying a self tanner, the dihydroxyacetone (DHA) replaces the heat to catalyze the process. DHA reacts with the amino acids found in your dead skills cells to create a glowing (and sunless) tan.

This infographic from Compound Interest explains the chemistry of a fake tan:

Why does anyone bother making cranberry sauce from scratch?

It turns out that fresh cranberries are incredibly good for you. Keep these points in mind the next time you’re tempted to turn to a can.

But before we make the other Thanksgiving dishes jealous by praising cranberries too much,  let me ask just one question:

Have you ever eaten an unsweetened cranberry?

If not, suffice to say they rely on sugar as much as your neighborhood donut shop. But they have a wealth of other remarkable qualities that make their bitterness easy to forgive and explain why many people take the time to make cranberry sauce from scratch.

• They have antibacterial properties: A study from the Worcester Polytechnic Institute found that a compound in cranberries can render E.coli’s infectious powers useless. Tannins in cranberries were shown to interact with the bacteria cells molecularly and stop them from clinging to healthy cells. For example, cranberry juice compressed E.coli’s fimbriae (kind of like fingers) so they couldn’t get a grip on cells. Furthermore, E.coli grown in cranberry juice couldn’t form the biofilms (groups of concentrated bacteria) that lead to infection.
• They protect your brain: A Chinese study observed that the ursolic acid in cranberries could protect brain cells. First they injected mice with domoic acid, a toxin in shellfish that causes learning and memory problems. Then, the same mice were given ursolic acid and it helped reverse the cognitive damage.
• They might fight cancer: In addition to reversing cognitive damage, the ursolic acid in cranberries might also help fight cancer. One study found that ursolic acid has both preventative and therapeutic potential for cancer.

How did you eat so much?

You thought you were taking just a little bit of everything, but when you look at your plate, you realize the sum of its parts equals far more than a typical dinner. There’s no way you’ll eat it all.

Less than an hour later you’re staring at an empty plate. How did this happen?

It happened because of sensory specific satiety, the idea that your stomach (or really your brain) makes selective room for new flavors.

Humans evolved to eat a variety of foods, ensuring a full range of nutrients. You think you’re stuffed after eating a bowl full of spaghetti but when someone plops a piece of chocolate cake on your plate, you tuck in without hesitation. Your fullness caves to cravings for something new.

The Guardian quotes Laurent Brondel from the European Centre for Taste Sciences, asserting that even something as simple as a condiment can create the flavor variety that keeps you eating.

“I gave subjects some french fries and when they didn’t want them any more, I put some ketchup near the french fries and then the subjects started eating them again.”

The more variety, the more you can eat. And the typical abundance of choices on a Thanksgiving table exemplifies dining variety at its finest. That’s how you miraculously manage to clean your plate.

Did somebody say pie?

On that note, why do you always want more pie?

Pie. The grand finale of Thanksgiving dinner that you inevitably always have room for (thanks sensory specific satiety!). How many times have you heard or said, “I’ll just take a sliver…?” But that sliver tastes so good, why don’t you have just one more sliver? Half a pie later, you can’t believe you could have been so weak. Don’t worry, it’s not your fault.

No matter what type of pie you prefer, you can bet it has sugar in it. Maybe more than you thought. And this sugar content plays a huge role in why eating just a sliver of pie makes you crave even more.

Here’s the per-slice sugar content of America’s favorite pies, based on the highest rated Allrecipes.com iterations:

• Apple Pie: 40.3 grams of sugar (about 10 teaspoons)
• Strawberry Pie: 50.6 grams of sugar (about 12 1/2 teaspoons)
• Pumpkin Pie: 25.8 grams of sugar (about 6 teaspoons)
• Cherry Pie: 32 grams of sugar (about 8 teaspoons)
• Blueberry Pie: 14 grams of sugar (about 3 1/2 teaspoons)
• Pecan Pie: 37.8 grams of sugar (about 9 1/2 teaspoons)
• Lemon Meringue: 35.2 grams of sugar (about 9 teaspoons)
• Chocolate Pie: 25.5 grams of sugar (about 6 teaspoons)
• Chess Pie: 38 grams of sugar (about 9 teaspoons)

Current United States dietary guidelines don’t weigh in on recommended sugar intake. To give you some perspective, the World Health Organization recommends that adults consume no more than 25 grams of sugar a day. That’s about 6 teaspoons. Most of these pies cover that, and then some.

Even if you’re not particularly worried about your weight, this sugar surplus could have some interesting effects on your brain. Sugar activates your brain’s reward system in similar ways to alcohol, drugs, and hanging out with friends. The chemical dopamine underlies this elated feeling. If you’ve never eaten sugar before, an ice cream cone will cause a spike in dopamine and you will feel amazing. The more you eat ice cream, the more you need to get that amazing feeling back. It’s the same process that makes people addicted to alcohol and drugs, except far less extreme. Trying to eat just a sliver of pie? You better have some amazing willpower.

What happens in your body when you overeat?

According to Dr. Sasha Stiles, a physician at Tufts Medical Center, icy beverages cause your stomach to contract. The contractions massage the food in your stomach and push it along the gastrointestinal tract more quickly than usual. With an empty stomach, your body will think it’s hungry again. And that’s just the tip of the overeating iceberg.

Don’t get too scared. Thanksgiving only comes once a year. If you had Thanksgiving dinner every day though, it could wreak havoc on your body. NPR has the full story:

Overeating can easily spiral out of control until your body can’t adjust. For example, when you eat too much sugar, your pancreas produces extra insulin to get it out of the blood stream. When the brain senses a return to safe blood sugar levels, insulin production stops. Often too much sugar was taken away however, and cravings for even more sugar return with a vengeance.

Chronic overeating can even stop the receptors in your stomach from recognizing it’s full. Tissue at the top of the stomach sends a signal to the brain when the stomach fills up. Overeating frequently disrupts the messaging system and your brain doesn’t get the full stomach red flag.

 Why are you so sleepy after Thanksgiving dinner?

We thought we had this one figured out with tryptophan in turkey. It turns out that’s a myth. What makes you sleepy is actually the tryptophan in carbohydrates.

The tryptophan in turkey doesn’t actually get to your brain

It turns out, talking MORE about tryptophan in turkey might make you more sleepy than the actual tryptophan in turkey.

When you consume the amino acid tryptophan, your body metabolizes it to make niacin and serotonin. Serotonin produces a lovely relaxed feeling and helps create melatonin, a hormone that controls sleep cycles. Thus where the sleepy-turkey myth probably comes from.

Eating turkey is not equivalent to taking an IV of concentrated tryptophan. Turkey contains many other amino acids that compete with it to get into the bloodstream. So when you eat turkey, you don’t absorb enough tryptophan to even produce serotonin.

WebMD quotes Elizabeth Somer, MA, RD:

“Tryptophan, which is a bulky amino acid, would have to stand in line to get through the blood-brain barrier with a whole bunch of amino acids. It would be like standing in line when the Harry Potter movie comes out and you didn’t get in line early enough. The chances of getting in [to see the movie] are pretty slim. That’s what happens when you eat a protein-rich food. Tryptophan has to compete with all these other amino acids. It waits in line to get through the blood-brain barrier and very little of it makes it across.”

Furthermore, many other foods like chicken, pork, cheese, eggs, fish, and tofu pack the same tryptophan punch as turkey. Soybeans actually contain twice the tryptophan as turkey. So you can’t blame the turkey for your Thanksgiving sluggishness.

You do absorb tryptophan from carbohydrate-laden sides

Mashed potatoes, multiple stuffings, crescent rolls…

An assortment of delectable carbohydrates usually round out our Thanksgiving plates. It turns out they don’t just taste good, they make us feel good too.

Remember how we don’t really absorb the tryptophan in turkey? Well, you can absorb it from carbohydrates–absorb it and use it to make serotonin. A study by Richard Wurtman confirmed that consuming carbohydrates stimulates serotonin production. This happens thanks to the hormone insulin.

Carbohydrates convert to glucose in the intestines and then glucose enters the bloodstream, triggering the release of insulin. Insulin decreases the blood plasma levels of other amino acids–AKA tryptophan’s competitors. Without the competition of other aminos, tryptophan can cross the blood brain barrier and convert to serotonin. Serotonin has been linked to relaxed moods and sleep, among other things.

So it’s your stuffing, and not the turkey itself, that causes that elated, post-dinner sleepiness.

Bon Appetit!

That should be enough conversation starters to keep everyone from falling asleep in their mashed potatoes. Don’t forget to steer clear of icy beverages and double up on the cranberries. If you’re getting bored of turkey leftovers, just buy more condiments. But mostly, enjoy your Thanksgiving dinner!

Resources

Primary

NIH: Tryptophan

NIH: Ursolic Acid in Cancer Prevention and Treatment: Molecular Targets, Pharmacokinetics and Clinical Studies

Additional

About: Does Eating Turkey Make You Sleepy

WebMD: The Truth About Tryptophan

CompoundChem: How Do Tanning Lotions Work? The Chemistry of a Fake Tan

Guardian: The Science Behind Stuffing Your Face at Christmas

Psychology Today: Cranberries are a Smart Choice for Your Brain

Psychology Today: Serotonin: What It is and Why It’s Important for Weight Loss

LSUAG Center: Nutraceutical Compounds and Antioxidant Content of Sweet Potatoes

Rodale News: Your Recommended Sugar Intake: Less Than a Soda Per Day

Medical Daily: How Does Sugar Affect Your Brain? Turns Out in a Very Similar Way to Drugs and Alcohol

NPR: Gut Reaction: Overeating Can Impair Body Function

Ashley Bell

Ashley Bell communicates about health and wellness every day as a non-profit Program Manager. She has a Bachelor’s degree in Business and Economics from the College of William and Mary, and loves to investigate what changes in healthy policy and research might mean for the future. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post This is Why You’re Sleepy at Thanksgiving (Hint: It’s Not the Turkey) appeared first on Law Street.

This question might conjure chilling images of flavorless fixed rations, compulsory exercise regimes, and the foreboding scales of a totalitarian weight monitoring mechanism.

Take a deep breath. Mandatory weigh-ins have no place in your near future. However, the government already influences your weight in indirect ways using methods more subtle than scales. It’s not because they’re nosy or superficial, it’s because weight, specifically being overweight, is a burgeoning public health plight in the United States.

What’s the big problem with obesity?

In the not-too-distant past, being overweight was a harmless stigma — a matter of aesthetics and not health. Today we know that obesity comes along with a load of serious health complications like heart disease, high blood pressure, Type 2 Diabetes, and some types of cancer. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimate that 112,000 deaths a year are associated with obesity. Related medical expenses burden the United States with more than $100 billion annually. Ouch.

What’s even scarier? Obesity prevalence is overwhelming the United States population. According to the CDC, more than one third of American adults are obese. That’s more than double the rate of the last decade.

Before you brush it off as an unfortunate fact of life, here’s some visual perspective from the CDC on this explosive growth:

Obesity prevalence in 1990. The darkest blue represents a rate of 10%-14% population obesity.

Obesity prevalence in 2009. Note all of the completely new colors. Obesity rates of all states have surpassed those seen in 1990.

Previous efforts to confront obesity have focused on individual interventions like nutrition education. The climbing rate of obesity despite these efforts revealed some missing pieces in the strategy. Experts realized obesity wasn’t just a matter of willpower. Recognizing the multi-faceted approach needed to combat obesity, officials fixed their attention on underlying causes that escape an individual’s control.

How is obesity out of individual control?

Obesity isn’t just about individual choices, it’s about individual options. The fight against obesity is futile for those without the right options. For example, poor access to supermarkets because of zoning complications may make smart food choices a hopeless pursuit. A simple jog isn’t an option for those with nowhere to do it safely.

Furthermore, we have a hard time helping ourselves. One study found that concern over weight isn’t a sufficient catalyst for behavioral change. Concerned people who lack access to healthy foods are stripped of the power for change. The pervasiveness of fast food establishments peddling calorie-dense foods present an invincible double threat.

Government regulations can interfere when individual resolve falls short. Large-scale policies to create healthier communities could help those who can’t help themselves.

What can the government do?

The Standard Toolkit

The Commerce Clause of the Constitution bestows the federal government with the right to regulate state commerce. This translates practically to weight-related regulations like food labeling mandates and subsidies on foods. On a more local level, the Constitution grants states the power to regulate the health, safety, and welfare of their populations. This broad power translates to a variety of possible actions.

Here are some examples of perfectly legal government actions that affect what we eat and consequently what we weigh:

Taxes and Subsidies

Some cities and states already have taxes on sugary drinks. Opinions are split on extending taxes on junk food. James Carville thinks it might be a good idea to tax “Twinkies more than apples.”

The government subsidizes certain crops, often increasing their prevalence in our diets. Corn is a popular example of the power of subsidies. In Michael Pollan’s The Omnivore’s Dilemma, one researcher likens Americans to corn chips with legs.

Bans: New York City made history when it took measures to strike trans-fats from restaurant menus.  After the rule survived backlash, other states and cities followed suit. In the next few years, the FDA will undertake a national trans-fat phase out.

Labeling: New York City again led the way by requiring restaurants to disclose nutrition information on their menus. The federally-mandated nutrition label is probably the best known example of enforced food labeling.

Zoning and Land Planning: In some areas, large supermarkets and farmers markets are zoned out, making healthy food hard to come by. Developing parks and sidewalks is a proven way to get people moving without the conscious choice to exercise more.

Transportation: Some studies have shown that people who use public transportation weigh less than those who commute in cars. Unfortunately, more money is invested in highways than in public transportation.

Health Care and Benefits: Tennessee and West Virginia have reimbursement programs for Weight Watchers and 42 states provide gastric bypass surgery for the morbidly obese.

Alternative Approaches

Not all approaches that aim to reduce obesity target diet and exercise. Some of them appear unrelated to obesity at first glance. For example, a breastfeeding facility law requires employers to provide proper accommodations to encourage breastfeeding. While the law helps new mothers in many ways, it’s also a CDC priority strategy to prevent obesity as breastfeeding has been tied to reduced early childhood obesity.

Numerous policies and campaigns aspire to shrink obesity rates. They focus on a broad range of factors from diet specifically to overall health and wellness. CDC’s Division of Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Obesity database lists state-by-state activities if you want to get an idea of what’s in place.

What are lawmakers suggesting?

What does the future hold for the fight against obesity? Check out these examples of what policymakers have been cooking up:

Healthy Lifestyles and Prevention America (HELP) Act: Proposes a multi-pronged intervention strategy to enhance overall wellness of the American people. Children would enjoy enhanced nutrition and physical activity programs in schools and in childcare settings. Adults would benefit from workplace wellness programs. Everyone would benefit from proposed attacks on both salt and tobacco.

FIT Kids Act: Would fund grants for physical education programs that are based on scientific research. States would be required to analyze and identify specific student needs and develop their programs accordingly. The act would also require states to develop indicators of progress.

Reduce Obesity Act of 2013:  Suggests an amendment to title XVIII of the Social Security Act that would require the Medicare and You handbook to include information on behavioral therapy for obesity. It would allow physicians and other experts on Diabetes prevention to provide behavioral therapy outside of the primary care setting.

Stop Childhood Obesity Act of 2014: Seeks to deny financial benefits for companies to advertise and market certain food products to children. Tax deductions granted under the Internal Revenue Code would be barred for advertising to children that promotes consuming foods of poor nutritional quality. The Secretary of the Treasury and the Institute of Medicine would determine what constitutes foods of poor nutritional quality.

Beyond regulations and policies…

Some suggest that legal approaches may fill in the gaps left after regulations. The paper Innovative Legal Approaches to Address Obesity presents techniques that leverage law to  tackle obesity:

Regulating conduct: The Massachusetts decision to ban self-service displays of tobacco was upheld in the case of Lorillard Tobacco v. Reilly. Perhaps courts would uphold similar decisions to remove processed foods from checkout aisles.

Ingredient caps: The government can limit the alcohol content of beer. They might do something similar with sugar if it’s proven to be harmful and addictive.

Limits on food marketing: Advertising messages are protected under First Amendment rights. As early as 1978, the FTC attempted a rule to limit advertising of sugary products to children. The rule was struck down after massive industry opposition. Many hope to revisit similar rules as obesity-related health consequences surface.

Compelling industry speech: A near opposite to limiting advertising would be to compel industry speech and require companies to disclose information that might affect consumption. The United Kingdom’s traffic light system provides an extreme example.

Increasing government speech: Government speech could be leveraged to counteract the prevalence of advertising messages by encouraging the consumption of healthy foods. The “5 a Day” fruit and vegetable campaign in the United States is one such example.

Purchase limits: The Supreme Court has allowed individual purchase limits on items like prescription drugs. Perhaps a limit on the amount of sugary beverages a minor can purchase could also be enacted.

Penalties for causing addiction: The government has a right to restrict sales of certain products to minors that it finds harmful or addictive — like alcohol and cigarettes. Some studies have suggested certain food additives are addictive. Companies could be vulnerable to litigation if they have been knowingly manipulating ingredients to encourage overconsumption.

Nuisance law: Pollution is considered a public nuisance. Likewise, the creation of obesogenic foods proven to be harmful to health could be deemed a public nuisance, punishable by fines or criminal sentences.

Performance-based regulation: Performance-based regulations would put responsibility in the hands of industry. A company might be given a measurable goal related to reducing obesity rates. Businesses that fail to meet assigned outcome goals would be financially penalized.

Where do we go from here?

Let’s be honest, the obesity issue has been confounding us for years. Explosions of diet fads that vilify certain ingredients don’t help matters. Fat? Sugar? Gluten? Carbs? Most people just don’t know what to eat even though they’re being showered with ample advice.

Obesity lacks a simple cause, making it a convoluted case to crack. An array of dimensions in behavior, lifestyle, and environment contribute to it. Policy makers have their work cut out for them in innovating a range of initiatives that might control it. Consumers have their work cut out for them in sorting through all of the advice thrust at them to make sound decisions. Neither can stand alone. Consumers need all the help they can get from carefully designed government regulations that don’t infringe on privacy.

Should the government do more to help the population control their weight? Should they do less? Comment to tell us what you think.

Resources

Primary

CDC: State Legislative and Regulatory Action to Prevent Obesity and Improve Nutrition and Physical Activity

Yale University: Innovative Legal Approaches to Address Obesity

Additional

Millbank Quarterly: Public Health Law and the Prevention and Control of Obesity

Yale University: Improving Laws and Legal Authorities for Obesity Prevention and Control

CDC: Adult Obesity Facts

CDC: Overweight and Obesity Policy Resources

George Washington University: Review of Obesity Related Legislation & Federal Programs

Washington Post: U.S. Sugar Subsidies Need to be Rolled Back

The New York Times: Proposed Tax on Sugary Beverages Debated

Coalition for Sugar Reform: Reform Legislation

Intelligence Squared: Obesity is the Government’s Business

NIH: Evidence for Sugar Addiction: Behavioral and Neurochemical Effects of Intermittent, Excessive Sugar Intake

SAGE: The Role of Self-Efficacy in Achieving Health Behavior Change

Georgetown University Law Center: Assessing Laws and Legal Authorities for Obesity Prevention and Control

Ashley Bell

Ashley Bell communicates about health and wellness every day as a non-profit Program Manager. She has a Bachelor’s degree in Business and Economics from the College of William and Mary, and loves to investigate what changes in healthy policy and research might mean for the future. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How the Government Regulates Obesity appeared first on Law Street.

It is no secret that the United States has a deep love for sugar. In cereals, donuts, candy bars, and icy Coca-Cola, Americans cannot seem to get enough. When ex-New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg tried to limit the sizes of soda, many were outraged. Critics of the law got their wish when the New York City limit was officially declared dead on June 26, 2014. Soda limits and sugar taxes are consistently struck down. Would a higher tax on soda be a smart move to treat the American sweet tooth and ever-growing obesity epidemic?

What is America’s problem with excess sugar?

Sugar is not necessarily a bad thing. The problem many Americans have is consumption of sugar in levels of extreme excess. High levels of sugar consumption contribute to obesity and diabetes. Often foods with high amounts of sugar are also high in empty calories and contribute to weight gain. More than two-thirds of American adults and nearly one-third of children and adolescents between ages six and 19 are overweight or obese. According to the San Mateo Health System, a child’s risk for obesity increases 60 percent with each additional daily serving of soda. Data from the New York City Health Board shows that sugary drinks make up 43 percent of added sugar in Americans’ diets. Further, the average American consumes 50 gallons of soda and sweetened beverages each year. The increase in portion sizes plays a role in this increased sugar intake. In 1974, the largest drink offered at McDonald’s was 21 ounces. This was long before the days of the SuperSize menu, which features a 42-ounce beverage. People are encouraged to get larger drink sizes because the per ounce cost of larger drinks is much cheaper than the smaller counterpart. Watch below for a clip from “Parks and Recreation” discussing ridiculous increases in soda size. Although it’s obviously fictional, it’s not far from the truth:

So what happened with soda in New York?

Popularly termed the “soda ban,” Bloomberg’s plan for New York was not actually a ban on soda, but a portion-cap rule. The law was initially passed by the city’s health board on September 13, 2012 to promote health and prevent obesity. The proposed rule banned the sale of sodas larger than 16 ounces in restaurants, delis, movie theaters, stadiums, and street carts. However, on June 26, 2014 the New York Court of Appeals struck down New York City’s cap. The Court stated that the the city’s health department had overstepped its bounds by making policy rather than simply dealing with health regulations. Watch a discussion of the law below:

What were the problems with the soda limit?

Exemptions

Critics claim that the New York City law treated restaurants and small businesses unfairly, especially since grocery and convenience stores would be exempt from the 16-ounce limit. 7-Eleven’s Big Gulp would be completely unaffected by the law. Many local small-restaurant owners felt their businesses would be harmed by selling smaller beverages when consumers could go to convenience stores to get much larger sodas if they so desired.

Debatable Effect

Because many stores would be exempt from the size-limit, some wondered if the limit would have any effect at all. Further, the ban would be easy to circumvent since people could still buy two 16-ounce sodas if they really wanted more soda. However, when faced with the choice, many consumers would simply go for the default option rather than buy two individual sodas. Limiting the size of soda also reverses the typical incentive of buying a larger soda to get more bang for the buck. Without a limit, larger soda is cheaper per ounce. With a size limit in place, buying two sodas to get the same quantity as before becomes more expensive.

Soda Marketing

The American Beverage Association and National Restaurant Association led the fight against the New York City restriction. The lobbying groups spent millions on their campaign and even created the New Yorkers for Beverage Choice coalition to coordinate public relation efforts. The American Beverage Association spent $12.8 million in 2010 alone on lobbying at the New York state level to protect soda from restrictions. The bad publicity for sugar and soda itself has led to a decline in soda sales over the last decade. Soda marketers still spend $500 million each year to reach children and adolescents with messages about sugary products — more than is spent marketing any other product. Given the amount of money spent, soda marketers were obviously unhappy with the proposed ban. Obesity has many contributing factors, so soda companies feel they are constantly unfairly singled out for sugar content.

Individual Liberty

Many take issue with the soda limit simply on a basis of individual liberty and the city acting too paternalistic toward consumers. People should be given the freedom to make decisions on their own. The argument is made that the city should instead be focused on health education to allow consumers to make educated decisions when eating. The desire to have a healthy society should not outweigh individual freedom. Once a city starts to regulate soda quantities for health reasons, some worry regulation will spread to other foods or sectors.

Would more tax of soda be effective?

It is hard to say. Twenty-three states currently tax soda at the normal sales tax rate. Only four states (Arkansas, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia) levy an excise tax on soda at the wholesale level. However, the revenue generated is not used for obesity prevention, and Arkansas and West Virginia still have some of the highest obesity rates in the country. In recent years some states, like Illinois and California, have proposed an excise tax on sodas. For example, Illinois proposed a tax of a penny per ounce on all bottled sugar-sweetened beverages. This would mean consumers pay an additional $2.88 per case of soda. Such proposals have been met with swift defeat by heavy lobbying by the beverage industry.

Tax stigmatizes sugary beverages and increases their expense. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that a 3-cent tax on sugary drinks would generate $24 billion over four years. A 2009 “Perspective” piece in the New England Journal of Medicine says that a one-cent excise tax on soda would reduce consumption by 10 percent. A study by the academic journal Health Affairs showed that a one-cent tax per ounce of soda could prevent 2.4 million cases of diabetes and 8,000 strokes over 10 years. Some European countries have taxes on sugar as part of austerity measures. In January 2012, France instituted a tax on soda of about six Euro cents per liter on sugary drinks, which is expected to raise $156 million a year in government revenue. Listen for discussion of soda tax below:

Another proposal is to ban or tax the use of food stamps to buy soda. Currently a sales tax is not levied on food, including soda, bought with the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). A study by Health Affairs showed that a ban on the use of food stamps to buy soda could prevent 130,000 kids from becoming obese and 240,000 adults from developing Type-Two Diabetes. The money generated by these taxes could then be used to fund healthcare initiatives, including childhood nutrition and obesity prevention.

Many economists say that taxing soda, as is done with cigarettes or alcohol, would be more effective than the New York City-style limit. However, the effectiveness of a tax largely depends on consumer behavior and on finding the specific price point at which a tax is effective. When faced with a relatively small tax, consumers may not change their buying patterns at all. Alternately, consumers could shift their behavior to drink other sugary beverages that are not taxed. Or consumers may start drinking diet beverages and then get a sugar fix from other foods. Other studies show that a tax would have little impact on the actual weight of consumers.

What else is being done?

Aside from taxing or limiting the size of sodas sold, few initiatives garner public support. In California, a measure to slap warning labels on sodas regarding the effects of over-consumption of sugar was defeated in committee. Other advocates urge the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to take action rather than allow states to make their own laws. They say the FDA should place a federal limit on the amount of sugar allowed in drinks on the market. However, it is difficult to push for sugar limits in sodas if similar limits do not exist for other sugar-laden products like cereal or baked goods. Some states banned sodas in public schools in an effort to combat childhood obesity. However, studies show that these students then replaced soda with other sugary drinks and drank them at the same frequency as their peers who were allowed to buy soda. More recently, Coke and Pepsi are trying to bring consumers back by creating smaller drinks. The beverage companies rolled out 7.5-ounce mini-cans in an effort to meet consumer-demand for portion control. While the government seeks to improve public health through limiting sugary drinks, many consumers simply want to be able to make choices on their own.

Resources

Primary

CDC: Obesity Facts

OLR Research Report: Taxes on Soft Drinks or Candy

County of San Mateo: A Soda Tax Could Stop Us from Pouring on the Pounds

Additional 

ABC: Drink Up, NYC: Ban on Big Sodas Canned

New Yorker: Downsizing Supersize

THV 11: Food Stamp Soda Ban

WFMZ: Food Stamp Soda Ban Could Help Prevent Obesity

Time: Goodbye, Big Soda: New York Becomes First City to Ban Large-Sized Soft Drinks

Verdict: The Soda Ban or the Portion Cap Rule?

Time: Soda Wars Bubble Up Across the Country

University of Pennsylvania: Taxing Caloric Sweetened Beverages

Time: Sugary Drinks in California Could Come with Warning Label

Illinois Policy: Does Illinois Need Soda Taxes and Soda Permits?

Illinois Policy: Does Illinois Need Soda Taxes and Soda Permits?

Center for Science in the Public Interest: Soda Industry Ups Political Spending

BNA: Extras on Excise: Debate over Soft Drink Tax

Atlantic: Should Food Stamps Buy Soda?

—

Alexandra Stembaugh is a senior at the University of Notre Dame studying Economics and English. She plans to go on to law school in the future. Her interests include economic policy, criminal justice, and political dramas. Contact Alexandra at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Vox Efx via Flickr]

Alexandra Stembaugh

Alexandra Stembaugh graduated from the University of Notre Dame studying Economics and English. She plans to go on to law school in the future. Her interests include economic policy, criminal justice, and political dramas. Contact Alexandra at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why Are Limits on Soda Fizzing Out? appeared first on Law Street.