Banning Soda Debate

"Nutrition Experts: Despite Ruling, Soda Ban Is Still a Great Idea - NBC News."NBC News. N.p., n.d. Web. 05 May 2014.

Imagine not being able to drink your ice cold coke, or a warm chocolate chip cookie at school. Where you consume half of your daily calories. President Obama proposed that all high calorie drinks and snacks should be banned from schools and replaced with healthier and more nutritious snacks. His thinking is to lower the percentage of kids in the U.S being obese and having diabetes. A lot of people have been debating over whether the government should get involved with what kids eat, and if these snacks should be banned or not. Soda and Candy should not be banned from schools.

Most people say that the government’s role, in our diets, is the key for a healthier life. While others may argue that it is freedom of choice to eat whatever we want. However depending on the point of view, the government’s role in shaping what we consume is either a compulsory intervention or a blatant interference on American free will. Even though we hear a good argument on the government controlling our diets, most research show that the involvement of the government on our diets has shown little to no results.

As an attempt to reduce the rising obesity and obesity-related disease rates, Mayor Bloomberg of New York City has proposed a ban on soft drinks larger than 16 oz. According to an infographic created by the Huffington Post, extra large soft drinks have accounted for an average of 301 extra calories in people’s diets across the US. Although measures need to be put into place to improve the unhealthy diets and lifestyles of many Americans, a ban on large soft drinks is not the solution. The ban on soda would be an ineffective attempt at reducing obesity and obesity-related diseases, as well as an infringement of civil liberties and an attack on businesses in New York 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

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

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 soda industry has been influential since its breakthrough such as companies like Coca-Cola “giving money to and maintaining a cozy relationship with the Global Energy Balance Network, a nonprofit that promoted exercise over diet to combat obesity, the financial relationship between soda companies and public health groups have been scrutinized” (Blackmore). The city of San Francisco is bringing back the soda tax proposition which will add 2 cents on soda per ounce. Last time around it wasn’t as successful only getting half of the votes when they needed, at least, seventy-five percent. This time around they will only need the half of votes they got the last time. San Franciscan's should pass the soda tax because it would discourage people

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."

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.

In the arguments article created by Samantha Gross, one quote states, ¨Members… have accused him of attempting to institute a ´nanny state´ with far-reaching government controls that infringe on individual choice.¨ In other words, he soda ban is an abuse of governmental power, attempting to create a perfect state, by controlling the people's decisions. They are taking away a right that the people always had the access to, which is free will. As an individual, you have the power to have control over any decisions you make, even if it does affect your health. Mayor Bloomberg is essentially taking away that right, going against what the United States is built on, freedom.

Argumentative Essays: Is Banning Soda a Bad Idea? “Bloomberg is playing nanny in the worst sort of way by interfering in a basic, private transaction involving a perfectly legal substance” (“Soda’s a Problem but…” page 288). Klein, the author of “Soda’s a Problem but…,” is saying that Bloomberg is trying to lessen health problems but in the worst way. There is a lot of controversy on if it's a good or bad idea to have the soda ban.

Other people think that it is the government’s problem to fix obesity. Although the government’s efforts have been provided, they have been lackluster and ineffective through society. The government has implemented such organizations such as the ABA to regulate beverages in schools to make for a better lunch. They try to regulate beverages in elementary schools, middle schools, high schools, and even times of day they can and can’t be sold (Source A). This is ineffective because this just causes people to bring in their own unhealthy drinks, and more likely more of them then needed because they can’t buy them in school.

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

What if tomorrow’s news headline read, “U.S. GOVERNMENT BANS THE SALE OF KRISPY KREME DOUGHNUTS?” How would the country react? According to a study released by the National Center for Health Statistics (2008), “32.7% of American adults were overweight…an additional 34.3% were obese, and that 5.9% were extremely obese” (McGuinness 43). Americans are overweight and obesity is the cause of tens of thousands of preventable deaths in the nation each year (McGuinness 42). The nation is suffering a public health crisis due to overconsumption of nutritionally void food and beverages where “unhealthy eating and sedentary living has become the societal norm” (McGuinness 46). Some believe that the government should intervene by regulating American’s diets; however, others maintain that government intervention would set a dangerous precedent by undermining individual freedoms. Allowing the government to intervene is a slippery slope and could potentially lead to more intrusive actions (“Slippery Slope” 1). Instead of abrogating personal choice the government should re-evaluate the support it gives to institutions that contribute to the obesity epidemic.