Mike Bloomberg’s war on Big Sugar

This time it’s different. Mayor Bloomberg is not proposing a tax, but a cap. And this makes it much harder for opponents to kill. As does the way he wants to introduce it. The idea has captured the imagination of many and has jump-started a national discussion on sugary drinks portion sizes, obesity and how far government should go to protect the health of its citizens from Big Sugar.

And that’s precisely Mr Bloomberg’s point. A debate is way overdue.

Cutting portion sizes to reduce food or drink consumption makes sense because research has consistently shown it works far better than education or depending on "personal responsibility." High up in this list is the 2005 study in the Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior that demonstrates that cinema patrons who were given a large, rather than a medium-sized container of stale popcorn, ate much more popcorn, than those given a medium container. Even though it was stale.

While referring to food, but easily transferable to the issue of beverages, Chair & Director of Cornell University’s Food & Brand Lab in Ithaca, NY, Brian Wansink, PhD, has suggested that the reason Americans are getting fatter is that they have been conditioned to eat more. He breaks up this insidious misinformation by industry as follows:

• Drivers of Large Portion Size – larger portions in supermarket freezers; larger servings in restaurant (which to a lay observer, like the writer, would include the nefarious “free refill” of sodas in quick service restaurants regardless of the size of the cup) and larger crockery on sale in department stores;
• Increased Perceived Portion Size – as “recommended” by the manufacturer and emblazoned on the packaging; and
• Increases in the volume of food or drink consumed in a single session - which after all, is a multiple of portion sizes, which too are increasing over time.

Echoing earlier studies, Wansink admits that educating the public to eat better and eat less is not the magic bullet. How folk are influenced to change behaviour is what makes the difference.

He cites his study of 65 highly educated graduate students indoctrinated for 90 minutes on healthy eating only to find most of them soon fail a test of healthy eating. He wanted to see if those presented with one 1 gallon container of snacks would eat more than those presented with two half gallon containers. He found that those served with larger containers ate a whopping 53% more snacks and to boot, argued that the serving container had absolutely nothing to do with their larger consumption!

Wansink strongly believes that the answer to weight control is not to pester consumers with messages about not overeating from large packages of food or drink, or from the relatively recent phenomenon of large crockery. The answer is to replace large servings, large “recommended” portions and large crockery from their lives with smaller servings, smaller “recommended” portions and smaller crockery.

Wansik contends that changing people’s environments is far, far easier than changing their thinking, And this is vital in the case of a foodstuff like sugar whose deleterious health effects are documented.

Changing environments can be done very easily by modifying serving sizes in both restaurants and quick service food sellers. As well as by focussing consumers’ attention on better foods to eat. Not by brow beating consumers, instead by slowly and methodically marketing them a new (slimmed down, healthier) reality.

It’s bound to succeed.

This type of approach has form. After all, changing our environment slowly and methodically with respect to portion sizes since the 1950s is precisely what made us obese in the first place.

Kudos Mr Mayor, kudos.