Banning Soda Research Paper

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

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

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

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.

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.

When a person is deciding what to eat and drink, they must always look at how it will affect them, regardless of how good it tastes. Every food is filled with things that are good and bad. Soft drinks are the most consumed beverage in the world today. Unfortunately, soft drinks are extremely toxic. Whether soft drinks satisfy thirst and taste good, this should not be a good enough reason to drink it. We should all do our bodies a favor and stop drinking soda.

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

According to livestrong.com in 2015, “Drinking large amounts of soda may affect your brain health and alter your risk of certain diseases. Naturopathic physician Scott Olson says that several scientific studies suggest that a high sugar diet may increase your risk of schizophrenia, depression and anxiety,” (Adams, “Can Food Cause Chemical Imbalance in the Brain”). Sugar in soda can advance to permanent long-term damage to the brain. Additionally, the sugar in a person’s body can increase blood pressure and dilate pupils. While, this evidence had been scientifically proven precisely there are still people who don’t see the ethics in the soda ban. That’s why a state judge ruled against it. According to BusinessInsider.com in 2010, “A New York state judge struck down Mayor Bloomberg's controversial ban on large sodas on Monday, arguing that the restrictions on sugary sweetened drinks did not make sense, partly because the ban wasn't evenly enforced.” (Spector, “New Yorkers Will Be Significantly Fatter Because Of The Soda Ban Repeal”). Although the judge thinks the ban is inefficient he is inaccurate, the restrictions on the ban are based on scientific evidence. The ban will still make sense, even though it does not include diet sodas and fruit juices. Everybody knows fruit juice and diet sodas are better for people

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

There are few who might censure Chairman Bloomberg for working towards the objective of a more advantageous New York. Lamentably, there are numerous who might condemn Leader Bloomberg for trying to accomplish that objective the wrong way. Indeed, most New Yorkers think the supposed "pop boycott"— which would restrict the offer of sugar-sweetened drinks more than 16 ounces by most sustenance foundations — is an awful thought.