Each day we are inundated by conflicting information surrounding our health care. Mixed messages send us into a confusion spiral in which we are forced to dump it all, proceeding with the status quo. As if that isn't difficult enough, we're also flooded with information from those who don't have a stake in our health, but have a lot to gain financially and politically for the positions they take. It simply drives us to the point of exhaustion. This morning I happened to catch Howard Schultz, Chairman and CEO of Starbucks, in an interview commenting on the soda ban proposed by New York City Mayor, Michael Bloomberg. If you are not familiar, Mayor Bloomberg, in his attempt to make his contribution to fight the war on fat has proposed a soda ban. The proposed ban targets 16oz and larger size sodas.
I found Schultz's response to Charlie Rose's question regarding the ban quite intriguing. Schultz exclaims, "I applaud the approach, and obviously the objective", and later comments, "I am not sure it's the right approach, but we are obviously going to follow suit and respond to him because he is doing something that is quite important." I am curious how Starbucks intends to "respond" to Mayor Bloomberg. Let me be clear, I am for free enterprise and capitalism, as well as allowing grown adults to make their own health choices and parents to make the choices for their children. What I find questionable is the stance Starbucks takes regarding their responsibility and potential contribution to the obesity problem in this country. From Schultz's comments one might infer they are supportive of this ban.
Let's take a look at the data here. A 20oz bottle of Coke has 65 grams of sugar.
Ironically, Starbucks does not give specific sugar information in their nutritional data listed on their website. Based on information given at Livestrong.com, which I consider an excellent source, lists a grande (16 oz) vanilla Frappacino with regular whole milk contains 64 grams of sugar. Interesting.
Is Schultz not recognizing the irony here? A Frappacino holds a cute name, in a fancy cup, but call a spade a spade, it's junk food, and every bit as much as soda. I have no problem with soda, Frappacino's, any other candy or junk food in moderation. We all want a treat from time to time, and when eaten responsibly, I see no legitimate concern. I do take issue with Schultz promulgating support to fighting obesity where food is the primary contributing factor. Personally, my stance doesn't promote banning specific foods to change the root problem of the obesity epidemic. But, perhaps Schultz should consider holding up a mirror. It's the overall hypocrisy I found somewhat amusing, the elephant in the room nobody wanted to address. I had hoped Charlie Rose would challenge him, but sadly, he did not. I, on the other hand, almost fell off the treadmill in laughter by the overall ridiculousness of it all.
What I hope you will take, is the proverbial grain of salt from all the information being blasted at you. Do your best to keep you and your family healthy and safe! Be well, and take care of all of your pieces.
No comments:
Post a Comment