Ban The Ban On Soda

-Putting the soda ban in effect can reduce obesity rates, the amount of sugar being consumed from drinking large sodas is not good for anyone's health. However, banning larger drinks will just make people buy smaller sized drinks allowing them to take in more sugar and calories.

The soda ban is said to be a bad idea because it excludes diet soda and fruit juice which causes obesity and

This law would have somewhat of a domino effect as it would also affect fast food chain restaurants as they wouldn’t make as much money with them losing money on the soda machines they purchase. On the contrary, the soda tax would help with “medical costs for overweight and obesity alone are estimated to be $147 billion or 9.1% of U.S. health care expenditures with half these costs paid for publicly through the Medicare and Medicaid programs”(Brownell). This quote means medical programs will invest that money into other people who have more severe conditions and not use them on some conditions that could’ve been prevented.

Their advertisement proclaimed that all they wanted to do was “protect their Freedom of Choice.” “This is New York City; no one tells us what neighborhood to live in or what team to root for,” says the narrator, as Yankees and Mets fans shout in the background. (Grynbaum, 2012). Since May 30 when Bloomberg wanted to ban the sale of soft drinks over 16 ounces in regulated food establishments such as movie theaters and sport arenas. Senator Frank R. Lautenberg, a New Jersey Democrat, recommended there be a federal study linking together sugary beverages and obesity. “The talking points are ‘Nanny State,’ that it won’t work, because people will just buy as much as they ever would, and that this disproportionately hurts the poor,” said Kelly Brownell, director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale University. (Grynbaum, 2012). People that are not middle or low class would buy as much soda as they wanted and the rest of the people would be stuck with whatever drink is leftover. The lower class minority groups seem to always get the shorter end of the stick and in most cases unless a big group of them get together their voices will not be heard. The mayor or the city council should not have the right to tell you what size soda to drink or what kind of soda to drink; We live in The United States of America and there is no law that says anything about a specific size or flavor of soda so until that day comes nobody should

The ban on larger sodas would only make people buy more than one soda to satisfy their cravings as they do not like being told what they can and can not have. In 2013, in response to the ban, The Daily Signal reported “Mayor Bloomberg and the Board of Health seek to use their power to change consumer behavior. This assumes that citizens are ignorant and must be protected from themselves.” This agrees with the above statement of the people not liking being told what they can and can not do, or have. Another thing people may argue is that the ban is for people to be able to be healthier and still have soda. CNN News reports that “One of those solutions is to control portion size and sugar consumption.” While this is true the ban would only be subjective to places such as movie theaters, sports venues, restaurants, and places that people visit every once in a blue moon. The Huffington Post reports, “It's also important to look at where people acquire such large drinks. … Such neighborhood stores selling over 50 percent food products fall under the jurisdiction of the City's Department of Health, and therefore would be limited by the ban. Those selling under 50 percent food products would be exempt from the ban.” This basically states that convenience stores, supermarkets, and gas stations would not be subjective to the ban so people could just go to one of these places to get larger sodas therefore finding a way around the ban. This subjectiveness of the ban would not only make the ban inefficient but would also cost the city by stores and other places that fall under the jurisdiction of the ban having to cut workers, which then causes the state to have to create more programs for poorer city

Coke or Pepsi? Diet or regular? These are questions that many of us hear on a regular basis when making choices about what we want to drink. But if a new law has its way this variety of drink choice could be no more, which is largely because soda and sugary beverages are contributing to the staggering increase in obesity rates in recent years in the United States. Obesity is defined as an abnormal accumulation of body fat that is usually 20% or more over an individual’s ideal body weight for their specific height, age and gender (Free Medical Dictionary 2007). Body weight and obesity risk are a result of genes, metabolism, behavior, environment, culture and socioeconomic status, wherein behavior and environment play two of the largest roles (University of Drexel 2015). People make decisions based on their environment or community which influence their health decisions and due to this it is essential to create environments that make is easier for people to engage in physical activity and eat a healthy diet (University of Drexel 2015). This is a problem that is particularly persistent in low-income populations causing them to suffer higher rates of obesity and the adverse health consequences that follow as a result of these poor diets. This is due in large part to their poor economic state but also their environment because they are surrounded by people that are in similar situations and dealing

They feel like mayor Bloomberg is trying to dictate them, or tell them what they can and can’t do. First he took away their smoking in public spaces, and now he’s trying to take the supersize soda? He isn’t taking away your right to smoke and drink. You can still buy 40oz of soda and drink it all yourself, just go across the street to the gas station for a large drink, because the gas stations won’t be affected by the ban. Only businesses that follow city regulations will be affected by the ban. Other places will still be able to sell whatever sized soda they want. This might make the ban seem ineffective, but the principal is still there. If people are educated about the normal serving size of a product, there will be less people wanting to consume more. There is no reason to have larger portions, other than to consume. Oversized portions reliably lead to overconsumption. This isn’t a hypothesis, it’s hard science. Drinking excessive amounts of high calorie, high sugar content drinks increase your chance for heart disease, diabetes and high cholesterol. Since it has been required that calories and serving sizes be posted on food packaging or in the store, obesity in children has gone down, and the rate of people developing heart disease has also gone

In New York City the mayor is trying to ban sugary sodas to decrease the amount of obesity. Two-thirds of adults in New York are overweight, 40% of elementary and middle school students fight obesity. Is this because of the intake of sugary sodas or is it the lack of self control? "Liz Berman, the coalition's chairwoman" states "We are smart enough to make our own decision about what to eat and drink."

He earnestly states “ The soda producers and distributors, as well as the Teamsters members who deliver the product, argue that the tax is a job killer…” Bittman uses this strategy as a vessel to communicate his enthymeme that the soda producers and distributors only care about the profit they make as they “..may spend as much as 10 million dollars to make that case.” however, Bittman believes that the health of the impoverished is more important than the tax being referred to as a “job killer”. This strategy is effective towards his audience because they now have a clear understanding of what Bittman is arguing. He states “ The logic of taxing sugar-sweetened beverages has been clear for a decade…” here in this quote he explicitly states that the tax is a logical concept in which if it is applied then it will yield great results. Such as, decreasing the percent of children with a threat of diabetes and other

Sugary drinks and fast foods are constantly being consumed by Americans, causing an increase in health problems. Government regulation of what we eat and drink is fair because it will increase awareness of what individuals eat and can prevent higher rates of obesity. The article by Ryan Jaslow, "Sugary drinks over 16-ounces banned in New York City, Board of Health Votes" clearly supports the banning. However, “Should the Government Regulate What We Eat?" argues that the ban puts the American values of freedom at risk. Such regulations are necessary in order to maintain a healthy environment.

Question 1 - In her article Nadia Arumugam acknowledges some of the counter arguments to her own claim. She admits that the ban does not prevent customers from buying two cans of soda if they wanted, it only forbids “food services establishments regulated by the city” to sell sugary drinks exceeding 16 ounces. Through his art, the creator of the cartoon Dave Granlund demonstrates his position on the soda ban by questioning its effectiveness. He would likely disagree with the Nadia Aruguman because if someone wants to drink more than 16 ounces, he can and he will most probably do so.

Soda companies “dramatically announced that they would aim to cut the number of sugary drinks calories by twenty percent over the next ten years by reducing the portion size and trying to sell more zero-calorie and low calorie options.” By reducing the portion size, Americans could be drinking more cans, and possibly drinking more ounces than they were originally. As for the zero-calorie and low calorie options, the drinks are considered by doctors to be worst than the original because they contain artificial sweeteners that are not ‘natural sugars’, but chemically made sugars that puts an individual at greater risk of being morbidly obese by slowing their metabolisms, and is also known to elevate their blood pressure. Mexico’s soda consumption and obesity rate was once worst than the United States a few years ago, Mexico then established “a significant tax on soda and junk food.. Soda consumption in Mexico fell by a couple of percent points almost immediately.. there was almost as large increase in the sale of bottled water (not taxed).” Mexico had went ahead with its initiative to stop their nation’s problem, as for the United States, soda has become a major part of our diets. I believe that is restricting us from progressing from this aggravated problem.

Many store owners might argue that if they ban super-sized soda drinks they will be receiving less money because the bigger the drink the more it costs; however, the health of the U.S citizens is much more important because the more they consume those sugary foods and

Soda banning is one of the uttermost debatable and controversial topics in the country. One of the questions that people are asking is should soda be banned? The soda ban is the best way to go to eradicate obesity in the country. It will lower the risks for diabetes, cancer, and death. If we banned it, we will save people from the ramifications of their health. More importantly, the economy could increase and create numerous jobs for out of work people. However, if the ban does happen diet soda won’t be a part of the ban even though it consists of a dangerous chemical, aspartame. Furthermore, if we banned it, we might be taking away a citizen's right to drink whatever they crave whenever they please. That being the case, the biggest

The first question in Kass’s formulaic approach to the ethics of public health is “What are the public health goals of this program?” (Kass, 1777) By nature, the public health goal of any program is to essentially promote the overall health of a population through an organized and communal effort. In the case of the soda tax, the ultimate public health goal is simply to reduce the amount of morbidity & mortality and improve the well being of society. This begins by tackling the obesity problem, which is directly linked to morbidity & mortality. According to Brownell, “for each extra can or glass of sugared beverage consumed per day, the likelihood of a child’s becoming obese increases by 60%” (Brownell et al., 1599). It can be inferred that drinking soda is linked to obesity rates, but why should obesity rates matter? According to Sturm, “a higher BMI…is associated with increased mortality and increased risk for coronary heart disease, osteoarthritis, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and certain types of cancer. Even modest weight reductions can have substantial lifetime health benefits” (Sturm, 245). Obviously if someone is morbidly obese, he or she is at extreme risk for a myriad of