Sign up for action alerts
News & Events
May /09/2012
May /02/2012
Apr /10/2012
The Boston Globe- City may curb sales of sugary beverages
September 20, 2010
By Stephen Smith
First, it was smoking in restaurants and bars. Then, artery-clogging trans fat in fast food joints and bakeries. Now, Boston health regulators have their crosshairs fixed on soft drinks and other sugar-sweetened beverages sold in city buildings.
Concerned about the girth of employees and visitors to government agencies, Boston officials are weighing — gingerly — whether to restrict or even prohibit the sale of calorie-laden refreshments on city-owned property.
The city has convened influential health, education, and housing leaders to develop a policy that aims to reduce consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages. While discussions are ongoing, Bill Walczak, head of a community health center and a member of the city’s panel, said, “Somebody has to take a stand, and if it isn’t the government and health care institutions leading the way to a healthier lifestyle, who’s going to do it?’’
There are precedents: San Francisco’s mayor earlier this year issued an executive order banning sale of sugary drinks, and New York has imposed rules governing the mix of beverages in city vending machines to favor water.
In both cases, politicians and health authorities cited the link between soft drinks and the nation’s bulging waistline: From the mid-1970s to 2000, the average American’s daily calorie load attributed to sugary drinks rose from 70 to 190, one study reported. And Harvard researchers found that women who consume more than two of the beverages a day have an almost 40 percent higher risk of heart disease than women who largely forgo them.
Boston’s earlier prohibitions on workplace smoking and trans fat arrived at a time when public sentiment had already shifted. But Mayor Thomas M. Menino’s top health official acknowledged in an interview that restricting the availability of sodas, which are already banned from the city’s school, could engender greater resistance than previous public health causes.
“I think we’re going to run into a big issue of people saying, ‘Why would you take away our sodas, why are you interfering with what we’re eating and drinking?’ ’’ said Barbara Ferrer, executive director of the Boston Public Health Commission. “Unlike tobacco that is always harmful and if a person is smoking in the workplace it harms other people, I think people will look at sugar-sweetened beverages differently.’’
Ferrer said no policy has been drafted, but it appears inevitable that some measure will be adopted. The city promised when it received a $12.5 million federal stimulus grant to combat obesity and tobacco that it would “decrease consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages through counter-advertising and policy change,’’ according to a city document.
Unions representing city workers either said they were unaware of the discussions or did not return phone calls seeking comment. Firefighters declined to comment at a South End firehouse where a hulking blue Pepsi machine offers a dozen options, most containing sugar. Revenue from the machines is used by firefighters to help pay for coffee, utensils, and other dining supplies, said Fire Department spokesman Steve MacDonald.
Employees at City Hall were similarly reticent. The City Hall Deli on the eighth floor stocks a variety of soft drinks, as does the City Hall Coffee Stop in the bowels of the building.
“I think everything has its place,’’ said the manager of the Coffee Stop, John Moreira. “We’ve got healthy and we’ve got junk.’’
The coolers there offer bureaucrats an array of choices: V8 and Diet Coke, Nesquik and apple juice, full-sugar sodas and designer iced tea. Water is the biggest seller, and diet sodas outsell the full-sugar varieties.
Banning the sale of unhealthy drinks would not necessarily stop workers from indulging, Moreira said. “They won’t get mad,’’ he said. “They’ll just bring it from home, or run across the street to CVS.’’
The trade group representing the biggest producers and distributors of soft drinks, including Coca-Cola and Pepsi, argues that it is unfair to demonize sodas when attempting to address a health condition as complex as obesity.
“The American Beverage Association and its member companies completely agree that obesity is a very serious public health challenge that we need to face,’’ association spokesman Chris Gindlesperger said. “Outright bans, they do nothing to teach people about balance and moderation. It’s overly simplistic and inaccurate to target one product or one ingredient when it comes to obesity.’’
But Walczak has already embraced a soft-drink prohibition at the Codman Square Health Center, where he is chief executive.
The nutrition club at the charter school located in the clinic demanded that the drinks be banished, as well as junk food once peddled in vending machines.
Walczak recalled that, in the 1980s, social workers at the health center smoked while counseling patients. “It would be considered bizarre to see someone smoking in a health care institution today,’’ he said. “We see this as the beginning of the food revolution.’’
Similar restrictions are being considered by other medical centers, as well. A tiny hospital in the Berkshires earlier this year banned sugary soft drinks and sports drinks. Now, one of the state’s biggest hospitals, Brigham and Women’s, is creating a task force to evaluate what strategies it should adopt to discourage soda drinking.
In an experiment at the hospital reported in a medical journal in June, researchers found that boosting the price of sugary soft drinks while keeping the cost of a diet soda steady yielded lower sales of the high-calorie drinks.
“With smoking, we’re talking about yea or nay, yes or no, there’s no median in there,’’ said Kathy McManus, the Brigham’s nutrition director. “When you’re talking about sugar-sweetened beverages, there is more of a continuum, so how to best reduce and then eliminate — there’s all sorts of potential strategies to be discussed.’’
To read "City may curb sales of sugary beverages" click here.
FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is available without profit for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Give
Corporate Accountability -give, action, about Resources - media center, store, publications Campaigns - water, food, tobacco, hall of shame Network - news, blog
, Sign Up!
Tweet
Tweet
