An opinion article about childhood obesity and activism recently appeared in the The Daily Camera, the daily newspaper for Boulder, Colorado.
The article was written by J. Justin Wilson, who is the Senior Research Analyst at the Center for Consumer Freedom, (CCF) a nonprofit coalition supported by restaurants, food companies and consumers to promote personal responsibility and protect consumer choices. Hmmm . . . could this organization be considered an activist organization themselves? Well, certainly if they are representing the interests of a particular business sector. Although, what I like in that description of the CCF is the promotion of “personal responsibility” as their stated primary goal. More of that sort of “PR” would do us all well.
In the article Justin refers to selected activist initiatives aimed at getting some state legislators to tax certain sugary foods, soft drinks in particular. Many of the usual arguments are made in Justin’s article. Such as this one, which for me personally is a bit hard to swallow. (pun intended) He cites no scientific link between soft drinks and childhood obesity. From his article:
There is no scientific consensus that sugary drinks are a unique cause of obesity. A scientific review published last year in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition evaluated the evidence of 12 major studies and found virtually no association between the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages and children`s weight. And an October study found no association between soda consumption and youth weight gain over a 5-year period.
I suppose the key term in that quote is “unique cause.” And you can argue from here to Sunday about whether or not there is a scientific cause underlying this particular issue. Perhaps the children studied don’t drink soda, although that idea seems almost as far-fetched as the idea that there is no association between sugar-sweetened soda and weight gain. (If that indeed is true, I going to drink myself silly with Coca-Cola.)
But that’s where I think Justin went wrong in his argument. He chose the scientific path as the main basis to support his argument. Science doesn’t always a good argument make, and I believe that is especially so when one is representing an activist group, er uh . . . excuse me, a non-profit coalition of businesses that supports personal responsibility. I feel that Justin’s argument would have been better made by hammering home as the central thrust of his article the principle of personal responsibility, because after all that’s the declared objective of his organization. Although in the article he did turn briefly to the idea of personal responsibility, his discussion of this form of “PR” was too late in the article and the point was not made nearly powerfully enough. I think he missed his chance here.
Well, hold on, now. Perhaps he didn’t make personal responsibility the central theme of the article because that is something kids have very little of. No kid is going to eschew soda for milk if given any opportunity. Or how about some parental responsibility and asking mom and dad to “just say no” when it comes to serving the kiddy bubbly? How about “pounding on” that personal responsibility point a lot more and asking for some shut mouths when it comes to soda consumption?
Oh, just a second. That’s right. There’s no “unique cause” between weight gain and soft drinks, even though if you “pound down” about five cans of the average soda you will have taken in enough calories for about a third of a pound of fat. (again, puns intended)
Could this be a case of activist vs. activist? With each of them bringing their own scientists into the battle? (You bring your test tube and I’ll bring mine.) A case of dueling DIYS (do-it-yourself-science)? Or is this simply an example of a lost opportunity to argue hardily that personal responsibility and keeping your mouth shut in the presence of soda is the best argument made against a trend of activism bent on taxing everything that moves?
You decide.
