Comments on: War Against Sugar Is Growing Among Blacks and Latinos

By: Charity Dell

Charity Dell — Thu, 07 Mar 2013 16:40:55 +0000

Let’s not forget that “other culprit”–the HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP that is the major “sweetener” in all these
processed foods. Despite what the commercials babble,
there DOES seem to be a high correlation of this particular sweetener vs. plain old brown sugar. As a kid growing up in the 1950′s–1960′s,I KNOW children and youth were NOT as obese at that time as they have become in the last twenty years or so…

I believe Pepsi has experimented with re-introducing
cane sugar back to its drink formula. Although we should probably avoid sugary soft drinks altogether, a more
PRACTICAL solution would be to SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCE the
HUGE AMOUNTS of sugars found in these products. The same
regulations could go for manufactured/processed foods.
Cutting the sugar content by at least one-third to one-half would make a HUGE difference in the total amount
of sugars consumed per meal, per day.

By: DC M

DC M — Thu, 07 Mar 2013 05:45:07 +0000

A poor person can get a 99c liter of soda, but not afford milk or juice. I have heard of poor kids using soda on cereal and I have seen them to be sent off to school with a bag of chips for breakfast as the food-banks many relay on do give lots of junk.
Many people in poorer communities use small markets and liquor stores they can walk to that stock mostly junk.

I wish people would donate and ask schools and foodbanks to give out more beans, hummus, brown rice, pasta, chili plain veggies, and fruits. give individual boxes of cereals rasin bran to schools , cherrios and other cereals can be eaten by hand for snacks. etc. Lots can be done better. Teach people to get used to what is better for them not cheap junk.

encouraging those who can to bake and creating a tax for processed foods any whos fat sugar (or chemical substitutes) goes over the healthy amount per serving. BUT that tax should go directly to fund ONLY obesity, type 2 diabetes and high cholesterol and other directly realted health concerns.
IMHO

By: JR

JR — Wed, 06 Mar 2013 22:01:04 +0000

Don’t you think that if given the choice between similarly priced sugary,low nutritional value foods and healthy food choices, people would choose the better quality foods?

The issue is access to better food choices. I’ve seen kids munching on bags of barbeque-flavored chips for breakfast as they walk to school. If their parents had the money and time to give them whole wheat waffles with fruit instead of junk, they’d do it. Take a drive through a low-income neighborhood and you’ll see there are no/few grocery stores and if you find salmon, avocados, fresh seafood and veggies they’re out of the price range for most. That’s the issue. Taxing the food items that are readily available won’t help; you’ll only penalize people that already suffer from limited choices.

Bring in fresh, healthy food choices that are as accessible as a bag of Doritos –then watch the buying habits change.

By: Ryan

Ryan — Wed, 06 Mar 2013 21:28:03 +0000

I agree with you on the school lunches, Renita. Public schools are an arm of the government, so if the government wants to provide healthy lunches to schoolchildren, you’d be hard-pressed to find someone who’s against that – as long as it can be done in a cost-effective way. They’re just kids who have to eat whatever it is that the cafeteria is serving that day, whether it’s healthy or not – might as well make it healthy. This promotes eating right when children are still young & impressionable, & will hopefully instill good habits that will last a lifetime.

Educating the public on how to live a healthy lifestyle, combined with mandating that food companies fully disclose the ingredients in their products so the public knows exactly what they’re putting into their bodies, & then stepping back & realizing that Americans are intelligent enough to take care of themselves – these are the solutions. NOT over-taxing the foods the government doesn’t think we should be eating.

By: Renita Shadwick

Renita Shadwick — Wed, 06 Mar 2013 20:38:22 +0000

Has anyone considered the lunch programs at many public schools and the high amounts or sugar and salt, along with great amounts of processed foods that are given to children every day? There is no promotion of fresh foods in school lunch programs. It is all processed to a greater or lesser degree. Now there is conversation that milk manufacturers want to put a sweetener in the milk! For some families the school lunch represents the best meal their children consume – and it is full of what we don’t want them to have. If we want to go about making some changes in the health of Americans, do some things that change mindsets and habits. Do we really think a tax on candy and soda pop is gonna change a family’s eating habits and put them on the road to better health? Don’t help folks have better access to fresh fruits and vegetables and meats. Don’t do anything to lower or prevent neighborhood crime. Don’t improve transportation in areas of concentrated poverty which limits access to employment, healthcare professionals, quality childcare and education, and other necessary goods and services. Don’t put or bring people back to work. All of these issues together present significant challenges to health and the promotion of well being in all of our communities. I think we would do better to concentrate on a holistic approach to improving health by addressing (putting our money towards solving) some of the aforementioned issues and let a sugar…er..sleeping dog lay

By: Ryan

Ryan — Tue, 05 Mar 2013 15:10:56 +0000

It’s funny how you call upon religious principles to justify the actions of the government, when so many of our society’s faith-based values are under attack these days in the name of separation of church & state. I am a Christian, & I believe wholeheartedly that helping my fellow man in their time of need is the right thing to do. But doing so is a very personal choice that each individual should make for themselves, & should not be forced by the government. & I do not consider the government telling us how to live our lives to be “helping your neighbor,” & you’ll never convince me otherwise.

By: Luke Visconti

Luke Visconti — Tue, 05 Mar 2013 14:55:04 +0000

If only it worked that way—but it doesn’t. The fact is that everyone’s decisions end up impacting all of us—and there is no reason to allow a group of companies to pillage the marketplace and force all of us to pick up the pieces. The Wall Street banks did that to us in the subprime crisis, and some food companies are preying on the human tendency of stressed people to crave salt, sugar and fat.

I’m so glad for you that you have the ability to support your family. But if you make some unfortunate health choices—or just get plain old unlucky and win the cancer contest or the Parkinson’s lottery—your end-of-life expenses won’t be paid by your family and they won’t be covered by a lifetime of insurance premiums; your end-of-day comfort and care will be provided by the group of people who constitute your particular insurance pool.

Regarding your “slippery slope” of the danger in helping your neighbor, I’ve heard (but cannot source) a quote by Mark Twain: “Christianity is a great religion; someday, we should try it.” Luke Visconti, CEO, DiversityInc

By: Ryan

Ryan — Tue, 05 Mar 2013 14:25:48 +0000

To me, all of this government regulation over what we eat comes down to one simple fact: that the government feels that Americans are too ignorant to care for ourselves & don’t know how to eat healthy, so the government has to make healthy eating choices for us by heavily taxing the foods it feels we shouldn’t be eating. The fact that such regulations will admittedly impact Blacks & Latinos moreso than other groups should put them, as well as the organizers of this site, in an uproar, as the government continues to control more & more of those communities than others. Today, it’s soft drinks & candy. But where will it end? It’s quickly becoming a very slippery slope. I can understand the regulation of food stamps in this regard because if taxpayers are paying for those individuals’ food, then we’re most likely paying for their healthcare too – so we have a vested interest in them getting healthier, as it cuts down on these individuals’ long-term healthcare costs. But if I financially support myself & my family, let me do what I feel is best for us! I don’t need the government telling me how to eat – I’m intelligent enough to figure it out on my own, thank you very much.