On Wednesday, I had the opportunity to speak with Brent Wilkes, the Executive Director of LULAC about his organization’s relationship with the some of the junk food selling sponsors and his views about the junk food tax. I’m thankful that he availed himself to speak with me because I know that the previous post has generated quite a bit of traffic and comments. In addition, I think that it is positive for issue organizations in Washington, DC to venture outside of their bubbles and wade into the wild, wild west (aka the blogosphere).

So the upshot of the conversation is that Wilkes and LULAC oppose this tax because it is regressive, meaning that the poorer populations end up bearing the burden with a larger portion of their incomes being spent on a junk food assessment than would wealthier individuals. Furthermore, there isn’t much evidence that taxes, as proposed, would be enough to curb the bad habits. A few cents on a can of soda is not likely to be at a level where people would be discouraged from buying it. Wilkes also mentioned to me that we really haven’t had a trial somewhere to determine at what level the tax would have to be to show positive health outcomes. Perhaps, some municipality should do a trial tax on soft drinks and fast food to really test it and determine if enough money can be raised for health awareness and possibly health care.

I still maintain that we need to consume less fast food, soda and processed foods in general. I think that taxing junk food at a level where it would influence our purchases is probably a good thing. Whereas taxes on fuel, which are also regressive, typically don’t leave poor drivers with any other alternative, especially in cities without decent public transportation, we all can make better choices about what we consume and put into our mouths every day. Taxing soda so that it doubles the price would certainly give me reason to pause and to possibly never buy it again. Then again, I’m perfectly content to drink water out of my Klean Kanteen, which is BPA free, reusable, and typically filled with water from the tap. My point is that nobody needs soft drinks and/or fast food, and we Latinos who are prone to diabetes and other ailments especially don’t need these empty calories. The rising cost of health care should be in the back of our minds when it comes to our eating choices. We may not pay immediately for our choices, but a steady diet of soft drinks and convenience food will come with costs at a later point.

Additionally, Wilkes also mentioned to me that the beverage companies and companies like McDonalds also have healthier options. For instance, many soft drink manufacturers also sell water or low calorie fruit juice, and of course, McDonalds sells salads. This may be the case, and I can commend these companies for offering healthier options. However, I would imagine that the big draw for McDonalds is still the fat laden meal of a burger and fries. And Coca Cola and Pepsi are still better known for their soft drinks than any sort of healthy alternative in my view. Just because these companies offer an alternative does not necessarily make them socially responsible.

As for LULAC being bought off or tainted by corporate sponsorship, Wilkes felt that this notion was unfair because there have been times that his organization has taken a position that is contrary to their sponsors. For instance, some years ago LULAC expressed solidarity with the workers of PictSweet Mushrooms, which was a major supplier of mushrooms for Pizza Hut (Pizza Hut’s parent corporation was Pepsi). I felt that what Wilkes was trying to convey was they his organization doesn’t necessarily condone the all of the business practices of its partners, but that they do use their corporate sponsorships for program development that benefits the public. Right now, money from Pepsi and Coca Cola helps fund LULAC scholarships for college students. Perhaps companies with better track records of producing healthy products will be encouraged to partner with organizations like LULAC instead of the same large corporate entities we always see.

Wilkes and I also discussed the corn subsidies, which I think really get to the root of our problems because we have given big agriculture an incentive to produce corn that in turn is used to produce that high fructose corn syrup that is sweetening our food. Researchers are already linking the high percentage of corn in our diets to obesity. I think LULAC could really make an impact here lobbying to eliminate or reform these subsidies, but I don’t see that as an issue on its legislative platform.

To conclude, I think that we need to bring back some self determination with our diets and the choices we make as consumers. Just because LULAC may have relationships with McDonalds, Pepsi, and Coca Cola, that doesn’t mean that we need to be cultivating those relationships on our own by enriching them with our dollars. We can start to return to our agrarian roots and plant gardens. Even in urban areas, people are learning how to grow vegetables on their porches or in community gardens. Furthermore, we can start to frequent our local farmers’ markets. Most cities and rural communities have farmers’ markets, where you can buy fruits and vegetables and even organic meats and cheeses for reasonable prices. Local Harvest has a great website to find a market near you, so that you can buy locally grown produce, which is actually better for the environment because the food doesn’t have to travel as far to get to your kitchen. The food actually tastes better from these markets. I shop at one almost every week. We simply don’t have to accept that the fast food and beverage industry wants to protect their investments in our community, as we have the power to purchase, grow, and cook for ourselves. Many of us are not too far removed from the farming and ranching lifestyles of our ancestors, so we can rightfully reclaim those practices in honoring our heritage and health.

For more reading on childhood obesity and related problems, just this week some additional studies came out:

Child Obesity Risks Death at Early Age

Strong ‘Sweet Tooth’ in Kids Tied to Family’s Mental Health