AND Done

Photo Courtesy of EatRight.org

Photo Courtesy of Coca-Cola.com

This time of year creates some angst in my life. It around this time of year that I get my renewal notice for my membership to the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (AND). For the past few years I have really struggled with whether or not I should renew my membership. I have written about my issues with AND here but to put it succinctly, I do not like the fact that AND partners with organizations like Coca-Cola, Hershey's, Mars Inc., General Mills and Kellogg's. I think that it sends the wrong message about our organization as a whole--whose primary goal is to promote good nutrition--while taking money from companies whose products are mostly thought of as not healthy.

 This year I have decided I will no longer be a member of the Academy. What happened this year to change my mind? Two things.

First, I found out that the Academy's new President, Ethan Bergman will be carrying the Olympic torch in England this year. That seems innocent, right? Then I found out that Mr. Bergman received the honor of being a torch bearer because he was selected by Coca-Cola (a major Olympic sponsor). What message does it send when our professional organization President does something as public as carrying the Olympic torch because Coke sponsored him? To me, it paints a picture that the two organizations have a pretty close relationship.

The second thing that finally tipped me over the edge was the Academy's press release after Mayor Bloomberg's proposal to ban the sale of large sugary beverages (soda) in New York City. In case you don't know the original story you can read it here. The proposed ban has sparked a lot of debate on the role of government in regulating our diet and the impact if sugary beverages on obesity. The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics released a statement on the ban. In brief they said,

"The Academy supports strategies designed to encourage people to make healthful food choices," said registered dietitian and Academy President Sylvia Escott-Stump. "To date, most bans and taxations like the New York proposal are based on theoretical models. There is conflicting research on whether these programs actually result in behavior change that leads to positive health outcomes." Escott-Stump added: "As a science-based organization, the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics believes there must be an evaluation component to these programs. We need to measure behavior changes across the population as a result of the program. Then, we can determine if the changes are long-term and whether they contribute to a reduction of chronic diseases like obesity and diabetes." 

 This release is so "blah" and without opinion that I was blown away! Why not take a stand on the topic either way instead of such a wishy-washy, wait-and-see attitude?  At least join the debate! Did AND hold back because their major corporate sponsor is Coca-Cola? Is AND holding their tongue because they don't want to bite the hand that feeds them? It sure seems that way to me.

There are a number of dietitians that feel like I do and according to this article,  61% of dietitians who are members of the Hunger and Environmental Nutrition (HEN) dietetic practice group (DPG) opposed AND's corporate sponsorship.

After much thought and discussion with colleagues whose opinion I value, I decided to vote with my pocket book.  I am not renewing my membership because I do not support the Academy's position on corporate sponsorship.  AND has many things to offer RDs but I choose to not participate until they change their stance on this issue.

I know that some of you will disagree with this opinion and I welcome your comments.  It is discussion and debate that is needed on this topic.  I am taking a stand...will you?

NYC Steps Up AGAIN to Fight Obesity

In Thursday's New York Times, there was an article detailing how Mayor Bloomberg has asked the USDA for permission to ban the use of food stamps for the purchase of sodas in New York City.   The ban would apply to all sodas or other sugary drinks.  If approved, the ban would last for two years while its effectiveness would be studied. 

Why would Mayor Bloomberg and his office propose such a ban?  According to the Times article, there are 1.7 million people in New York City who receive food stamps.  It goes on to say:

City statistics released last month showed that nearly 40 percent of public-school children in kindergarten through eighth grade were overweight or obese, and that obesity rates were substantially higher in poor neighborhoods. City studies show that consumption of sugared beverages is consistently higher in those neighborhoods.

It is statistics like this that have public health officials so concerned about the health of our country. 

What's my take on this issue?  Well, as soon as I heard about this in the news, I was very supportive.  I think that because obesity is such an epidemic in this country (especially in low income neighborhoods), we should explore any possible solution to the issue.  I've said before in other blog posts here, here and here, we need a food revolution in this country.   I've also talked about liquid calories here and how they contribute to obesity.  We need to change how we think about food and I think that in this instance, government can have help us change.

I really don't have a problem with a limit on what can be purchased with food stamps.  Food stamps should be used for food, not for soda which provides absolutely no nutritional value.  Other federal grant programs like WIC limit types of food that can be purchased in the hopes of providing the most nutrtitous food possible.  So there is a precedent within our government that already exists.  No, I don't want to stigmatize low income families but I also don't want them to use my tax dollars to buy sodas.

If you read this blog you know that I'm a fan of Marion Nestle.  I value her opinion and she has already weighed in on this issue.  Read her full thoughts here but to quote one part of her post she says, "...if I were in charge of Food Stamps, I would much prefer incentives: make the benefit worth twice as much when spent for fresh (or single-ingredient frozen) fruits and vegetables."  A valid point and a more of a positive approach.

Another opinion offered in the Times article was from George Hacker, a senior policy advisor from Center for Science in the Public Interest.  He says, “The world would be better, I think, if people limited their purchases of sugared beverages.  However, there are a great many ethical reasons to consider why one would not want to stigmatize people on food stamps.”

A good friend expressed these thoughts to me about the proposed ban, "Paternalistic. . but no more than having to wear helmets when you right a motorcycle . . . or use a seat belt in a car. ."  Well put.  We don't like government getting involved in our rights but sometimes it is needed.  I think this is one of those times.  I'm sure this isn't the last time we'll hear about this and I will be interested to hear more about the debate. 

What do you think?