Maddie writes and edits stories about food, health, the environment, and culture. She oversees Mother Jones' research department and manages its Ben Bagdikian Fellowship Program. Email tips to moatman [at] motherjones [dot] com.
San Francisco comedian W. Kamau Bell remembers the night Chris Rock strutted in to his dressing room, unexpectedly, in the fall of 2010, to congratulate him on his act. For a comic still struggling to headline shows in San Francisco's small stand-up scene, it felt like a dream, though Bell's practical side kept him from reading anything into it. "I can't go to these people and be like, 'Make me famous,'" he says. So he buckled down and kept touring his solo act, The W. Kamau Bell Curve: Ending Racism in About an Hour. Based on what Bell calls "comedy investigative journalism," the show hinged on the notion that racism is a persistent negative force that he could harness to make people laugh.
A couple of months later, Rock called Bell, offering to help him land his own TV show. They produced a pilot of Totally Biased with W. Kamau Bell, and FX bought a six-episode test run, which premieres on Thursday, August 9.
The basics: On July 1, our neighbors to the south held a presidential election. In a stinging rebuke to the conservative National Action Party (PAN) and President Felipe Calderón—whose six-year term has been marked by an increasingly violent drug war and a lagging economy—Mexicans elected Enrique Peña Nieto, a former governor from the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI), which controlled Mexico from 1929 to 2000. Like Calderón in 2006, Peña Nieto received less than 40 percent of the vote but still beat Andrés Manuel López Obrador, an old-school leftist from the Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD) and former mayor of Mexico City. (Josefina Vázquez Mota, the PAN candidate, finished third.) While the result was long seen as a foregone conclusion (Peña Nieto led in the polls throughout the election), López Obrador closed the gap in the final weeks of the campaign thanks in part to a growing student movement fed up with the Televisa-TV Azteca television duopoly, which runs 95 percent of the country's stations and which a June 7 Guardian report claimed favored PRI candidates over their PRD counterparts.
What's happened since the election: In Peña Nieto's victory speech, he promised to try to meet the demands of those that voted against him and applauded the election for being an authentic democratic fiesta. López Obrador, who garnered 31 percent of the vote, was quick to write off the election as a sham, alleging that it "was plagued with irregularities before, during, and after the process." Protesters, many of them belonging to the mostly student movement YoSoy132 (see below), took to the streets in Mexico City and across the country the next day in an "anti-fraud" march. Videos of the protests flooded YouTube; in one, marchers' demands in an underpass—México votó, Peña no ganó!—translate to:"Mexico voted, Peña didn't win!"
In the days after the election, during what's now being dubbed "SorianaGate," the arrival of hundreds of shoppers with prepaid gift cards—supposedly handed out by the PRI campaign—at the Soriana grocery chain around Mexico City sparked suspicion that the PRI had bought votes, though Peña Nieto denied his party's involvement,questioning the credibility of online videos of the Soriana shoppers and claiming they were orchestrated. On July 5, Mexico's Federal Electoral Institute (IFE) announced that it planned to recount votes at more than half of the country's polling stations, citing inconsistencies. The final results, including the recount, could be in by this Sunday, but the IFE has until September 6 to declare a winner, and the recount could be long and expensive.
A student in the "Yo Soy 132" movement protests media manipulation on a Mexico City metro in mid-June.
"The fact that you can make jokes about extremely tragic subjects is something that people are experts at here in Mexico," says Greg Berger, known as "gringoyo," a contributor to the website Narco News. An expat who says he learned everything about satire from his Mexican friends, Berger spins out political parodies based on archetypes of figures spotted in the country, like "the revolutionary tourist," "the greedy businessman," and "the misinformed reporter." By making fun of foreigners, those in power, and also of himself, Berger engages viewers in conversations about democracy and culture. Reporting in a country where drug cartels are thriving and where the media are in many ways crippled, he's found an audience eager for his lampoons.
And the absurdity seems at an all-time high as Mexico nears its presidential election. Berger is just one of the figures encountered in On the Media's episode "Mexican Media: Es Muy Complicado," in which reporters Brooke Gladstone and Marianne McCune take the temperature of our southern vecino, interviewing reporters, students, and activists from Juarez to Veracruz.
Berger's political theater seems paralleled in the country's actual electoral politics. Gladstone spoke to Benito Nacif, general counsel to Mexico's Federal Electoral Institute (the Mexican version of the FEC), who referenced a recent law that bans candidates from directly buying ads, mandating that the FEI pay for the ads and regulate them instead. The lengthy vetting process the institute requires has in turn opened a space for TV commentators, often paid off by rival candidates in the editorial "black market," to jump in and characterize politicians before they have the chance to respond. "You're making these TV channels more powerful than they were in the past," Nacif says. "It's completely the opposite" of what the FEI intended.
"Mexican Media" also explores mural-painting as rebellion, traces the steps of las mujeres desaparecidas, and zooms in on the student political protests (including the "Yo Soy 132" movement, pictured above) now buzzing in Mexico City. You can listen to the full episode below.
Not five minutes after I sit down with Jad Abumrad for chorizo eggs and a cappuccino at a hotel near the University of California-Berkeley campus, he's helping me to digest what his molecular biologist mom does for a living. "She figured out," he says, "this protein CD36 has a shape so that it can grab fat and put it into a canoe and propel it across the river, so to speak, into a cell."
Radiolab's Top 5 Aha! Moments
1. A musical analogy of a brain creating a thought, "Emergence," Season 1
2. Discovering sperm, "Sperm," Season 5
3. Seeing in ultra-violet, "Colors," Season 10
4. A bullet in orbit, "Escape!," Season 10
5. Why does Furby seem real?, "Talking to Machines," Season 10
Breaking down complex ideas for the rest of us has turned into a glorious, if accidental, career for Abumrad, the 39-year-old creator and cohost of Radiolab, which originated a decade ago at New York public radio station WNYC. The show explores sprawling questions (How does symmetry shape our existence? What goes on inside our gut?) using a distinctive patchwork of memories, sounds, music, and humorous banter. It is now syndicated on some 300 stations, and its insanely popular podcast reaches 2 million listeners monthly. Early in the show's evolution, Abumrad befriended 64-year-old National Public Radio trailblazer Robert Krulwich, who became his cohost in 2005.
But 2011 was one for the books. That March, Radiolab won a George Foster Peabody Award, the medium's highest honor. In September, Abumrad landed a MacArthur "genius" grant—half a million bucks with no strings attached—for his reimagining of the medium. (To the MacArthur caller, he says, "I was like, 'Shut up! Are you kidding me?'") Finally, one of his personal heroes, This American Life host Ira Glass, published an online essay in which he admitted to being a bit jealous of Abumrad's talents. Glass credited Radiolab with creating a "new aesthetic" and Abumrad with spinning out segments "calibrated and machined like an expensive handmade watch."
Despite the accolades, Abumrad is a tad nervous this morning, and not on account of the caffeine. Tonight, for the first time, he and Krulwich will be performing Radiolab Live: In the Dark—a lightly rehearsed live spinoff—in a packed hall before a crowd of thousands. "There's all kinds of crazy shit happening on it that could either be amazing or embarrassing," he says, running one hand briskly through his wiry curls, black with a sprinkling of gray.
In today's Econundrum, Maddie Oatman argues in favor of taxing soda. She points out the scary amounts of calories that people consume in the form of sweetened beverages—and the mounting evidence that sugar, like alcohol and tobacco, is addictive. Oatman speaks to an economist who has crunched the numbers and believes that a penny-per-ounce soda tax (like the one proposed in Richmond, California) could actually be enough to persuade consumers to quit their Big Gulp habits. The revenue from such a tax could also be used to pay for health care and education.
But as Oatman also points out, the idea of a soda tax is nothing if not divisive. Which means it should make for a fun debate. We're lucky to have two experts to facilitate a conversation on the subject and answer reader questions: nutritionist and author Marion Nestle, whose new book is called Why Calories Count: From Science to Politics, and MoJo food and ag blogger Tom Philpott. Got a question for Nestle and Philpott? Leave it in the comments section, tweet it at @Econundrums, or email it to firstname.lastname@example.org. We'll be updating this post with more questions and answers as they come in.
Marion Nestle: Excess calories are what make people fat. Consuming more calories than are expended in body functions and activity. The calories can come from anywhere, but the calories from sugar sweetened beverages differ in two ways from food calories: They have no nutrients to accompany their sugars (the calories are "empty"), and they are in liquid form. We are seeing increasing evidence that the body does not regulate liquid calories as well as it regulates calories that are absorbed more slowly from foods. That's why the Center for Science in the Public Interest calls sugary drinks "liquid candy," and why advice saying "don't drink your calories" makes such good sense.
Tom Philpott: I agree with Marion, with a possible caveat. First, there's strong circumstantial evidence that added sweeteners play a big role in the obesity problem. US obesity rates were pretty stable until about 1980, when they began to rise rapidly. The CDC tells us (PDF) they doubled between 1980 and 2000. Perhaps not coincidentally, per capita sweetener consumption began to rise dramatically over that same period—USDA figures tell us that we took in about 120 pounds of sweeteners per person per year in 1980, and by 1999 we were ingesting 151 pounds. That's a 25 percent jump.
Driving this surge was the rise of cheap high-fructose corn syrup, used heavily by the beverage industry beginning in the early 1980s, the consumption of which went from 19 pounds annually per capita in 1980 to more than 60 pounds by 1999. Since then, under pressure from health worries, sweetener consumption has come down; the latest figures, from 2010, indicate that we're taking in 131 pounds of total sweetener (of which 49 pounds are HFCS). Still, that's 8 percent more total sweeteners than we consumed in 1980 (which I remember as a pretty sugar-soaked time).
And USDA figures are averages—some people avoid added sweeteners, while others are still swilling sugary soft drinks like it's 1999. As for Marion's empty-calories analysis, The New York Times Magazine journalist Gary Taubes has marshaled considerable evidence that isolated sweeteners—conventional sugar and HFCS alike—are not just empty calories, but are downright toxic. According to Taubes and the science he cites, these substances are metabolized in a way that gives rise to excess fat and insulin resistance. I certainly don't have the scientific chops to evaluate Taubes, but his analysis is compelling.
What are the geopolitics associated with US corn and the beverage industry? Assuming a soda tax were passed here and people lessened their consumption, would it be more likely that the excess be shifted to overseas markets or would it, over time, help reduce demand for cheap corn inputs? -Madison W.
Tom Philpott: Ok, a wonky question deserves a wonky answer—with a chart and number crunching! Excellent question, Madison. Short answer: some of the drop in US high-fructose corn syrup demand caused by a soda tax might be shifted overseas, but the effect will likely be limited. Here's why.
As I wrote in my last post, US consumers are already consuming less HFCS—from about 60 pounds annually per capita in 1999 to 49 pounds in 2010. That's an 18 percent drop. But according to the National Corn Growers Association's 2012 annual corn-market report (PDF), the amount of US corn going into HFCS went from 542 million bushels in 2001 to 520 million bushels in 2010. That's a less than 4 percent drop. So US HFCS producers are clearly churning out more product than US consumers are consuming. Where's the excess going? This USDA document has answers.
US high-fructose corn syrup exports rose from 145,308 metric tons in 2004 to 1.28 million metric tons in 2011. In other words, HFCS exports have risen by a factor of nearly nine since 2004—a period over which our own domestic consumption of the swwet stuff was falling. The great bulk of that explosive growth can be accounted for by Mexico, whose protective tariffs against HFCS imports were dismantled in 2008 as part of NAFTA negotiations. Mexico's imports of US HFCS went from 6,591 metric tons in 2004 to 837,845 metric tons last year—a 127-fold leap. Mexico now accounts for 65 percent of our HFCS exports. So, yes, the HFCS industry has shown it can respond to falling domestic demand by muscling into foreign markets.
However, despite its ubiquity and export power, high-fructose corn syrup only takes up 4.1 percent of the US corn crop, according to the National Corn Growers Association:
The real action for corn lies in livestock feed and ethanol. The chart tells us that 27.3 percent of corn goes to ethanol and 36.3 percent goes to feed. Then there's the 12.2 percent that "reenters the feed market as DDGS." That refers to dried distillers grains, which are a byproduct of ethanol production and used as livestock feed. All told, three-quarters of US corn is going to feed and ethanol. That's a lot of corn, especially when you consider that the US corn crop accounts for 36 percent of the corn grown on planet Earth.
So say a soda tax made our HFCS consumption drop by half. I think that would be a considered a great success by the tax's proponents. What would happen to the corn market? The HFCS industry would no doubt try to maintain production levels and send more sweetener to Mexico and other foreign markets. But I think there's a larger force at play drawing excess US corn in another direction: east to China. There, appetite for meat is rising (PDF), policymakers are pushing a transition to industrial-scale US-style livestock production, and demand for feed corn imports is booming. The US currently exports 13 percent of its corn, and I expect that number to rise as long as China maintains growth in meat demand.
So, to answer your question, Madison, there will likely be some ongoing moderate shift in excess HFCS going to foreign markets, tempered by a growing flow of corn to China. And there is no stopping ongoing demand for cheap corn inputs.
There's a lot of evidence that all calories are not alike when it comes to obesity and diabetes. Carbohydrates (not just sugars, but also grain-based foods such as bread, potatoes, pasta, etc.) cause our body to release insulin when they are digested. The insulin cycle triggers our body to store carbs in fat cells. When we eat meat and most other vegetables, we don't trigger the insulin cycle, and are less likely to store fat. Soda and chips are particularly bad for us, as concerns obesity and diabetes. We need to find a way to signal this to Americans, and counter-balance the advertising of food processors. A tax is one good way to do that. -JR
Marion Nestle: I couldn't agree more that most people would be a lot healthier if they ate less sugar, and my co-author and I discuss the reasons for that, and why we think that the role of insulin is only part of the story of weight gain, in our book, Why Calories Count. Most studies of the effects of diets of varying composition on weight gain and loss do not control for or measure calorie intake. Instead, they rely on self-reports of calorie intake, which usually underestimate the true values. In the one study we were able to find in which investigators actually measured the calories given to hospitalized obese patients, they found no difference in the rate of weight loss when patients were given diets of widely varying protein, fat, and carbohydrate composition. We were unable to find controlled studies of the effects of varying diet composition on weight gain that measured—as opposed to estimating—calories consumed.
In diets that do not contain excess calories, the effects of sugars or rapidly absorbable carbohydrate on insulin levels are attenuated. Robert Lustig, for example, explains that diets that contain less than 50 grams of fructose-containing sugars a day are well tolerated by the body and do not induce excessive insulin. For people who consume 2000 calories a day, 50 grams of sugars represents about 10 percent of calorie intake (50 grams x 4 calorie per gram)—a level that public health authorities have recommended as an upper limit for decades. People gain weight because they take in more calories than they expend in basal metabolism and activity. Not overeating sugars is an excellent way to manage calorie intake. We discuss these issues and more, and explain our understanding of the science, in Why Calories Count.
Why not tax/ban OJ? Lots of "addictive sugar." -Anthony F.
Marion Nestle: Soft drinks are an easy target for "eat less" strategies because they contain sugars and, therefore, calories, but nothing else of nutritional value. In contrast, fruit juices contain vitamins, minerals, antioxidants, and, sometimes, fiber. Once you get past soft drinks as a target for tax strategies, you are on a nutritional slippery slope. With that said, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends limits on juices for kids to, if I remember correctly, 12 ounces per day maximum. When I was a kid, we had special glasses for juice that contained 6 ounces. Then, Coca-Cola advertised a 16-ounce soft drink as big enough to serve 3. With all sugary drinks, the issue is portion size. No nutritionist worries about 6 or 8 ounces of any sugary drink. The bigger the drink, the more sugars it contains—and the more calories.
I think it would make better sense to tax sugar across the board. ALL sugar, not just what's in the many brands of soda. -Rennyrij
Tom Philpott: Rennyrij raises a good point. Why not an added-sweetener tax at the wholesale level, instead of a retail soda tax? There's an adage in economics that "if you want less of something, tax it." Oatman shows that a huge portion of sweetener consumption is tied to beverages. But sweeteners are in everything—Hellman's mayo, Skippy peanut butter, Kraft Ranch dressing, all have added sugar. In this doc (PDF) available in its web site, McDonald's lists ingredients on dozens of menu items. The phrase "high fructose corn syrup" appears 51 times—it's in just about every bread and sauce item the company sells, from Big Mac bun to the muffin in the Egg McMuffin to Big Mac sauce. It's the first ingredient listed in Chipotle BBQ Sauce. Meanwhile, the word "sugar" appears in the document 226 times. Some items, including the pickle relish that goes into Big Mac sauce, has sugar and HFCS. Some have even more sweeteners. Check out the ingredients for "cilantro lime glaze," three of the first four of which are sweeteners—in addition to the sweet blast from orange juice concentrate:
Why are companies tarting up everything from peanut butter to burger buns with caloric sweetener? Because processed sugars are a cheap way for corporations to create appealing flavors. An across-the-board added-sweetener tax would force companies to reconsider that strategy. If high enough, it could end the plague sugary-sweet items that are meant to be savory, like hamburger buns. And it would be a de facto soda tax, because soda companies would see higher costs for their soda production, which they would then pass on to consumers.
Of course, just as a sweetener tax would broader than a soda tax, opposition to it would be broader, too. It would likely include the processed food industry, sweetener-addicted fast-food companies like McDonald's, in addition to the soda giants, the corn-refining industry, Big Sugar, etc. Those are powerful industries with plenty of cash to spend on lobbying—meaning that at the national level, the idea has zero chance of passing. But that doesn't mean it's a bad idea.
Could one of the authors please address the amount of tax dollars that the corn/ag industry receives in tax breaks or 'handouts' and how that stimulates the amount of cheaply available HFCS and other processed corn products or sweeteners? -arc64
Marion Nestle: The Environmental Working Group has a nice summary of the amount of taxpayer dollars invested in corn subsidies. It was $3.5 billion in 2010. Subsidies make it cheaper to grow corn, encourage overproduction of corn, and permit corn to be sold more cheaply than other commodities. Overproduction stimulates development of uses for corn in feed and corn products like HFCS.
Tom Philpott: Arc64, a lot of people argue that crop subsidies are the root cause of the obesity problem. Take away the subsidies, the argument goes, and high-fructose corn syrup will become expensive, and people will consume much less of it. It's easy to see why people think this way. Until 2007, the global market was flooded with corn, prices were dirt cheap, and US farmers sold it at below the cost of production. The government paid them subsidies to make up the difference. Thus tax payers were essentially underwriting the overproduction of corn. The real winners in this game were the corn buyers, including high-fructose corn syrup makers like Archer Daniels Midland. According to Tufts researchers Tim Wise and Alice Harvie in this 2009 paper, the HFCS industry pocketed $2.2 billion in savings from access to below-cost corn between 1997 and 2005. Soda bottlers, too, benefited—to the tune of $873 million between 1997 and 2005—from access to HFCS made from corn sold at below the cost of production. Those are major taxpayer-funded windfalls to powerful industries.
But then in 2006, the price of corn began to surge. The driver was another government program—the federal ethanol mandate, signed into law by George W. Bush. New rules required gasoline mixers to add ever-increasing amounts of corn ethanol into the US gas supply. Corn prices surged, and corn subsidies fell (because some of the subsidy programs are tied to price, kicking in when prices drop below production costs). Pricier corn, lower subsidies—that should have made Big Gulps and other sweet stuff significantly more expensive, right? Trouble is, it didn't affect prices much. Why? Wise and Harvie have an answer:
For sweetener-intensive sectors like soft drinks or baked goods, the share of sweeteners in the unit price of retail food is small, and it has fallen dramatically since 1975 as retail foods have become more highly processed. Today, HFCS represents just 3.5 percent of the total cost of soft drink manufacturing as measured by the value of shipments. Meanwhile, the corn content of HFCS represents only 1.6% of this value.
In other words, fluctuations in the price of corn just don't have a huge impact on the final price of a Big Gulp. Companies like Coca-Cola can pay more for HFCS without having to raise consumer prices more very much.
So how do we get thee corporations to use less HFCS and other sweeteners—or make consumers think twice about buying highly sweetened products? This is where the soda tax proponents have a powerful argument. Higher corn prices don't change the retail price of Coke much, but a soda tax can.
I should add that federal farm policy is an extremely complicated beast. Subsidies are the symptom of a policy gone bad, not the main problem in and of themselves. I teased these issues out in some length in a three-part series on farm policy back in 2007.