A soda ban, L.A.-style

For too many years, Los Angeles city schools were purveyors of empty-calorie, health-jeopardizing, sugary soda pop, sold to captive audiences of young students who were forming the eating and drinking habits they would take with them into adulthood. The Los Angeles Unified School District boldly and wisely banned sodas from school vending machines and cafeterias in 2002. But in an era in which people are experiencing increases in obesity and diabetes, the city continues to peddle sugar-loaded drinks to Angelenos via vending machines in libraries and parks. Now Councilman Mitchell Englander wants to end such sales. It's a good idea. The ban should move forward.

Englander's proposal is nothing like the clunky, nanny-state tactics of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who is seeking to ban big cups of sugary drinks from his city's restaurants, movie theaters, stadiums and street carts. Unlike Bloomberg, Englander isn't trying to tell private companies what they can sell or private citizens how much they can buy, eat or drink. No one would be blocked from leaving the basketball court and crossing the street to the food truck to buy and guzzle 64 ounces and 700-something calories of carbonated sugar water, if that's what they really want to do. The point is that the city should be providing its people with healthier refreshment choices on site. It need not be in the junk-drink business. At a Tuesday hearing, vending machine operators complained, predictably, that a ban would cost them money and jobs. And to be sure, the city library and parks vending machine contracts are huge, and they supply drink companies with thousands of thirsty potential customers. But no one is suggesting tossing out the vending machines. They could and should be stocked with more wholesome options.

Others testified that too little fresh, clean — and free — water is available at city facilities. Drinking fountains used to be commonplace but are harder to find. Properly operated and maintained, they need not be public health hazards. Los Angeles, after all, owns and operates a water utility, and shouldn't we make its product more freely available to young (and middle-aged and old) athletes and readers? We should — and the council should make sure its study addresses how to make certain that city parks and libraries supply enough opportunities for a fresh drink of water even to those who don't want to stuff a dollar in a machine.

But we can have both free water and vending machines that dispense healthy beverages. The primary purpose of cities should not be to package their citizens and sell them to soda pop vendors. Public parks and libraries, like schools, should be refuges from the  sugar-smack frenzy of the commercial world.

Via: LA TIMES

Are Healthy Foods Really More Expensive? It Depends on How You Measure the Price

Healthy food, we’ve often heard, is pricey food. Fruits and vegetables -- they’re expensive! We can’t afford to eat that way! That’s why we don’t do it!

The U.S. Department of Agriculture wants us to understand that this isn’t the case, and held a news conference Wednesday to report the results of a study that examined the matter.

Study lead author Andrea Carlson from the USDA’s Economic Research Service presented the 50-page report, entitled “Are Healthy Foods More Expensive? It Depends On How You Measure the Price."

Carlson explained that most studies measure the prices of groceries based on price-per-calorie. And when prices are computed that way, sure enough, items like broccoli do end up being more expensive than the likes of maple-glazed donuts. What about that?

(It may just be me, but isn't it a little astounding that analyses are generally done this way? Calories are not what most Americans lack.)

Carlson and her colleague, Elizabeth Frazao, calculated food costs the price-per-calorie way and two
additional ways.

One method -- price per edible weight -- calculated price based on the weight of food once it was all
prepared (that is scaled, seeded, hulled, bones removed, cooked, etc.).

A third way was price per average amount -- meaning how much people actually eat of a food. (You could
see how broccoli would end up being a heck of a lot cheaper than maple-glazed donuts if prices were
calculated this third way.)

They used a database of more than 4,000 food items and sorted them into several groups: the five USDA
food groups -- grains, dairy, fruit, vegetables or protein foods -- as well as mixed dishes and “less healthy”
items. Less-healthy foods had too much saturated fat, sodium or added sugars or were just generally
lacking, five-food-group-wise. (Interestingly, a lot of canned soups as well as fruit-flavored yogurt fell into
that group.)

“If we use price per calorie, fruits and vegetables tend to be more expensive than less healthy food,” Carlson
wrote on the USDA blog. “If we use price per edible weight or per average amount eaten, then grains,
vegetables, fruits and dairy foods are less expensive than most protein foods and less healthy foods.”

The research “challenges the widely held belief that ‘Gee, I just can’t eat healthily affordably,’ ” commented
Kevin Concannon, USDA undersecretary for food, nutrition and consumer services.

It is still true that the USDA’s vegetable recommendation is the most expensive to meet because we’re
meant to eat a whole bunch of vegetables, Carlson notes. (The recommendation depends on your age and
level of physical activity: I just calculated mine and I should eat 1.5 cups of fruit and 2.5 cups of vegetables a
day. Try computing your own.) 

But there are always ways to eat cheaply and healthily just by choosing the right foods, Carlson said.
Cabbage, onions and beans come to mind.

Some may protest that the cheap-eating methods involve skills beyond the current ability of many Americans
because cooking is a lost art. Carlson says culinary cluelessness should be no barrier. Fresh fruit? Wash and
eat. Beans? Defrost, or open a can. “I know cooking skills are lacking but I think we can still use a can
opener,” she said.

Perhaps the bigger issue is what people actually like to eat. A burger and fries or a whole mess of cabbage
and beans? “My study doesn’t really cover what consumers value, but we do know from other studies that
taste is the first thing that people consider … taste and convenience,” Carlson said.

News conference participants noted that there are a variety of tools on the USDA website to help people
eat well on a shoestring.

And check out these thrifty-eating tips compiled by freelance writer Karen Ravn for a previous L.A. Times
article.

Via: http://www.latimes.com/health/boostershots/la-heb-healthy-cheap-food-usda-20120516,0,2551287.story

Calif. crackdown on junk food in schools paying off

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (KGO) -- There is some encouraging news about what California kids are eating. The state crackdown on junk food at school is apparently having a broader effect.

Intuitively, lawmakers knew taking junk food out of schools was a good thing. Now, new numbers back that up.

A new University of Illinois study is suggesting California's policies that ban junk food in school cafeterias is influencing teenagers' eating habits. It's been five years since the crackdown, and researchers found high school 

students are eating an average of 160 calories fewer calories a day than kids in other states, a trend that could help reverse obesity trends. They're also eating less fat and sugars.

"Studies are really showing that we sort of stopped the growth in the obesity epidemic, that it's leveling off and hopefully these kids are taking a stronger interest in nutrition and their health," said Anne Gaffney, R.D., a student nutrition specialist.

Like Elk Grove High School, California campuses don't sell sodas, unhealthy snacks and fried foods. You'll find fruits and vegetables, French fries that are baked and whole grains. Schools have even gotten rid of salt packets.

"At first, I was kind of upset because I like salt, but it is helping me eat a lot better. And that's what I actually want to do," said Diana Nagtalon, a high school senior.

High school senior Alexander Lunbang believes he'd actually be heavier today if junk food was readily available at school.

"This would be a large size, these shorts, this shirt. I do feel like I would be heavier," said Lunbang.

Now, 160 fewer calories a day may not be much, it's like a small bag of chips. But researchers say most children could avoid significant long-term weight gain by simply cutting out 100 to 200 extra calories a day.

But, students do bring junk food from home and they consume only 25 percent of their calories at school. Assm. Richard Pan, MD, D-Sacramento, who's also a pediatrician, says more needs to be done.

"We've just shown that in the school, we've created an environment where kids will take fewer calories. We can now use this as information to talk to parents about how do we create the environment at home," said Pan.

The study's author also noted the news is also encouraging for the Hispanic community, considering the high prevalence of obesity among Latino youth.

Via: http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/politics&id=8655170